Voluntariness of Section 108 statements limits their evidentiary value when detention circumstances suggest coercion.

Statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 can be treated as substantive evidence only if the prosecution proves they were voluntary and free from coercion or undue influence. Where surrounding circumstances show overnight detention in the Customs office, uncertainty about when the statements were completed, and arrest shown only the next morning, voluntariness is negatived. In the absence of independent corroborative evidence, such statements cannot safely sustain the prosecution case. The acquittal was therefore upheld and the appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 were voluntary and could be relied upon as substantive evidence to sustain the prosecution case.

Analysis: Statements recorded under Section 108 may constitute substantive evidence, but only if they are shown to be voluntary and free from coercion or undue influence. On the evidence, the accused were detained in the Customs office through the night, their statements were recorded without clarity as to the time of completion, and they were shown arrested only on the next morning. In these circumstances, the surrounding facts negatived the prosecution claim of voluntariness. With no independent evidence apart from those statements, the prosecution could not safely rely on them.

Conclusion: The statements under Section 108 were not voluntary and were of no assistance to the prosecution. The acquittal was therefore upheld and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 can be acted upon only when the prosecution establishes that it was made voluntarily; where the surrounding circumstances show detention or coercive influence, such statement cannot be treated as reliable substantive evidence.

---