Retracted customs statements in custody need independent corroboration before they can support interference with an acquittal.

Retracted statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, made while the accused remained in customs custody, were treated as unsafe evidence where they lacked independent corroboration and the seizure panchnamas were not proved through panch witnesses. The Court noted that such statements could not be relied on as voluntary or truthful in the circumstances, and the absence of reliable corroboration deprived them of evidentiary value. Applying the settled rule that appellate interference with an acquittal must be cautious, the Court held that the reinforced presumption of innocence was not displaced and the acquittal was not disturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal was liable to be interfered with where the prosecution case rested primarily on statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, which were retracted, lacked independent corroboration, and were recorded while the accused were in the custody of customs authorities.

Analysis: The prosecution failed to prove the seizure panchnamas through the panch witnesses, and the case depended substantially on statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. Those statements were retracted at the earliest opportunity, and the surrounding circumstances showed that the accused remained in the custody of customs authorities until produced before the Magistrate. In those facts, the statements could not safely be treated as voluntary or truthful. The absence of independent and reliable corroboration deprived the statements of evidentiary value. The Court also applied the settled rule that an appellate court should be slow to interfere with an acquittal, particularly where the accused enjoy the reinforced presumption of innocence arising from the acquittal.

Conclusion: The acquittal was not liable to be disturbed, and the appeal failed.

---