Retracted customs confession needs independent corroboration before it can sustain conviction and override acquittal.

A statement recorded by Customs under Section 108 of the Customs Act is admissible and is not barred by Section 25 of the Evidence Act because a Customs Officer is not a police officer. However, where that statement is retracted and coercion is alleged, the court must scrutinise whether it is voluntary, true and trustworthy. In the absence of any recovery from the accused and with no independent corroboration of the retracted confession, the statement by itself was insufficient to sustain conviction. The acquittal was therefore upheld and the challenge based solely on the retracted statement failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal of the accused could be reversed on the basis of a retracted statement recorded by Customs, and whether such statement, without independent corroboration, was sufficient to sustain conviction.

Analysis: A statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 is admissible and is not excluded by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, since a Customs Officer is not a police officer. However, where the statement is retracted and the accused alleges coercion, the Court must examine whether it is voluntary, true and trustworthy. In the absence of any recovery from the accused, and in the absence of independent material corroborating the retracted confession, the statement by itself could not justify conviction.

Conclusion: The acquittal was rightly sustained, and the challenge based only on the retracted confession failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal did not disclose any legal infirmity in the acquittal and was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A retracted confession recorded by Customs cannot sustain a conviction unless it is shown to be voluntary and is supported by independent corroboration.

---