Co-accused statements under NDPS Section 67 cannot sustain conviction without independent evidence of conscious possession.

A conviction under the NDPS Act cannot rest solely on co-accused statements recorded under Section 67 where no independent evidence links the accused to the contraband. The HC noted that no recovery was made from the appellant, his house search yielded nothing incriminating, and the prosecution failed to prove ownership, control, or conscious possession of the truck or seized goods. It applied the principle that a co-accused's confession is a weak piece of evidence and cannot, by itself, constitute substantive proof against another accused, especially without cross-examination or corroboration. On that basis, the conviction and sentence were set aside and the appellant was acquitted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant's conviction under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 could be sustained solely on the basis of statements recorded under Section 67 of the Act from co-accused persons, in the absence of independent connecting evidence showing conscious possession or involvement of the appellant.

Analysis: The prosecution case rested essentially on the statements of the co-accused recorded under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. No recovery was made from the appellant, his house search yielded nothing incriminating, and the prosecution did not establish ownership, control, or any other independent link connecting him with the truck or the contraband. The Court applied the settled principle that a co-accused's confession is a weak piece of evidence and cannot, by itself, constitute substantive proof against another accused; at best, it may lend assurance where other reliable evidence already exists. The Court further found that the prosecution failed to prove conscious possession or any constructive control by the appellant, and reliance on such statements without an opportunity for cross-examination was unsafe.

Conclusion: The conviction was not sustainable, as the appellant could not be convicted only on the basis of the co-accused statements under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Final Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were set aside and the appellant was acquitted of all charges.

Ratio Decidendi: A conviction cannot be founded solely on a co-accused's statement under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 unless there is independent substantive evidence establishing the accused's conscious involvement.

---