Co-accused statements under NDPS law cannot alone sustain conviction without independent substantive evidence.

A co-accused's statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is not substantive evidence against another accused and can at most corroborate independent material. Where no other evidence links the accused to the contraband or offence, such a statement alone cannot sustain conviction. The Supreme Court therefore held that, absent independent substantive evidence, the appellant's conviction could not stand and acquittal followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant's conviction could be sustained solely on the basis of the statements of co-accused recorded under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, in the absence of any independent evidence linking him to the offence.

Analysis: The Court proceeded on the footing that the co-accused statements were recorded under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. It noted that the general rule governing a co-accused's confession is that such a statement is not substantive evidence against another accused and can only be used to lend assurance to other independent evidence. The Court found that, apart from the co-accused statements, there was no material connecting the appellant with the contraband or the offence. In the absence of substantive evidence, the confession of one accused could not, by itself, support conviction of another accused.

Conclusion: The conviction of the appellant could not be sustained on the co-accused statements alone and the appellant was entitled to acquittal.

Ratio Decidendi: A confession or incriminating statement of a co-accused, absent independent substantive evidence, cannot by itself form the basis of conviction and may at best be used only to corroborate or lend assurance to other evidence.

---