Severable inculpatory statements may be relied on while rejecting improbable exculpatory parts; voluntary admissions sustained the conviction.

Where an accused's statement contains distinct and severable inculpatory and exculpatory parts, the court may rely on the inculpatory admission while rejecting the improbable exculpatory version. The police evidence accepted by the trial court and High Court was found reliable, and the statement was treated as voluntary because nothing showed compulsion. On that basis, the conviction under the Sea Customs Act was sustained and the challenge to reliance on Article 20 failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction under Section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act could be sustained on the evidence and on the accused's statement, and whether the inculpatory portion of that statement could be relied upon while rejecting the exculpatory portion.

Analysis: The evidence of the police witness, as accepted by the trial court and the High Court, was found reliable despite a later inconsistent version. The accused's statement contained two distinct parts: one exculpating him by attributing the bag to another person, and another admitting that the bag containing gold bars was taken to a rented room occupied by him and was found there. The exculpatory version was found inherently improbable, while the inculpatory portion was separate and severable. In such a situation, the statement could be accepted to the extent it implicated the accused. The objection based on Article 20 also failed because there was nothing to show that the statement was made under compulsion.

Conclusion: The conviction was rightly sustained and the accused was held to be in possession of the gold bars with foreign markings. The challenge to the conviction failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal did not succeed, and the conviction and sentence were affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an accused's statement contains distinct and severable inculpatory and exculpatory parts, the court may accept the inculpatory part and reject the improbable exculpatory part; a voluntary statement not shown to be compelled does not attract Article 20 protection.

---