Conscious possession and Section 108 statements: concealed gold recovery and voluntariness of confession evidence upheld.

Concealed contraband gold recovered from an accused's courtyard can establish conscious possession where the surrounding circumstances-location, depth, accessibility and the improbability of outsider access-support an inference of knowing concealment, and the prosecution is not relieved of proving possession merely by statutory presumption of culpable mental state. A statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act remains admissible unless coercion, inducement or promise of advantage meets the bar in Section 24 of the Evidence Act; mere exhortation to speak truthfully is insufficient. Delayed retraction and the statement's detailed contents may reinforce voluntariness and reliability.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether recovery of concealed contraband gold from the accused's courtyard, on the facts found, established conscious possession and the requisite knowledge for offences under the Customs Act and the Gold (Control) Act; (ii) Whether the statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act was inadmissible or unsafe to rely upon on the ground of coercion, inducement or the bar under Section 24 of the Evidence Act.

Issue (i): Whether recovery of concealed contraband gold from the accused's courtyard, on the facts found, established conscious possession and the requisite knowledge for offences under the Customs Act and the Gold (Control) Act.

Analysis: The statutory presumption relating to culpable mental state does not dispense with the need to establish conscious possession where possession itself is an ingredient of the offence. The Court held that the prosecution had to prove conscious possession from the surrounding circumstances, and that the very location, depth, accessibility and improbability of an outsider selecting such a spot without the occupant's consent supported the inference that the accused knowingly possessed and concealed the gold. The possibility of another person's involvement did not displace the broader inference arising from the recovery and surrounding facts.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the accused and in favour of the Revenue; conscious possession and the requisite knowledge were held proved.

Issue (ii): Whether the statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act was inadmissible or unsafe to rely upon on the ground of coercion, inducement or the bar under Section 24 of the Evidence Act.

Analysis: A statement under Section 108 is not excluded merely because the maker was not formally an accused at the time of recording. Section 24 applies only where the inducement, threat or promise is of such a nature that the maker may suppose that by making the statement he would gain an advantage or avoid an evil in relation to the proceedings. Mere advice to speak the truth and warning of consequences for falsehood do not by themselves attract the bar. The Court also held that the delayed retraction and the detailed contents of the statement supported its reliability and voluntariness.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the accused and in favour of the Revenue; the statement was treated as admissible and reliable.

Final Conclusion: The acquittal was set aside, the accused was convicted for the proved customs and gold-control offences, and the prosecution appeal succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Where possession is an essential ingredient of a contraband offence, conscious possession must be independently inferred from the proved circumstances, and a statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act is not excluded by Section 24 of the Evidence Act unless the inducement, threat or promise is of such a character as to make the maker suppose that he would gain an advantage or avoid an evil in the proceedings.

---