1997 (2) TMI 97 - SC - Customs

Confessional statement under Section 108 Customs Act upheld despite retraction, conviction confirmed but imprisonment replaced with fines

KI. PAVUNNY Versus ASSTT. COLLR. (HQ.), C. EX. COLLECTORATE, COCHIN

The SC upheld the HC's acceptance of a confessional statement made under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, despite its later retraction. The court ... Whether the confessional statement of the appellant given to the Customs officers under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 though retracted at a later stage, is admissible in evidence and could form basis for conviction? Whether retracted confessional statement requires corroboration on material particulars from independent evidence? Held that:- On scanning the evidence and going through the reasoning of the learned Single Judge we find that the learned Judge was right in accepting the confessional statement of the appellant, Ex. P-4 to be a voluntary one and that it could form the basis for conviction. The Magistrate had dwelt upon the controversy, no doubt on appreciation of the evidence but not in proper or right perspective. Therefore, it is not necessary for the learned Judge of the High Court to wade through every reasoning and give his reasons for his disagreement with the conclusion reached by the Magistrate. On relevant aspects, the learned Judge has dwelt upon in detail and recorded the disagreement with the Magistrate and reached his conclusions. Therefore, there is no illegality in the approach adopted by the learned Judge. We hold that the learned Judge was right in his findings that the prosecution has proved the case based upon the confession of the appellant given in Ex. P-4 under Section 108 of the Evidence Act and the evidence of PWs 2, 3 and 5. The prosecution proved the case beyond doubt and the High Court has committed no error of law. .Having reached the finding that the appellant has committed the offences under Section 135 (1)(i) of the Act and Sections 85(1)(a) and 86 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 we think that instead of being committed to jail, the appellant should be sentenced to pay fine of ₹ 10,000/- and ₹ 5,000/- respectively for the two aforementioned offences, within 4 months from today. In default, he shall undergo imprisonment for a period of 2 months and 1 month respectively which are directed to run consecutively. Appeal is accordingly allowed to the above extent of modification. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered by the Court were:Whether the confessional statement made by the appellant to Customs officers under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, though later retracted, is admissible in evidence and can form the basis for conviction.Whether a retracted confessional statement requires corroboration on material particulars from independent evidence.Whether the appellant was a 'person accused of an offence' within the meaning of Section 24 of the Evidence Act at the time the confession was recorded.Whether the confessional statement was voluntary or obtained by inducement, threat, or coercion, thereby rendering it inadmissible under Section 24 of the Evidence Act.The scope and effect of the powers of Customs officers under the Customs Act in relation to recording confessions and their status as 'persons in authority' under the Evidence Act.Whether the confessional statement alone can form the sole basis for conviction, or if corroboration is necessary.The correctness of the High Court's reversal of the Magistrate's acquittal and the evaluation of evidence on record.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISAdmissibility of the Retracted Confessional Statement under Section 24 of the Evidence ActThe Court examined Section 24 of the Evidence Act, which excludes confessions caused by inducement, threat, or promise from persons in authority if such inducement or threat is sufficient to give the accused reasonable grounds to suppose that by confessing, he would gain advantage or avoid evil in the proceedings. The Court identified six essential ingredients for Section 24 to apply, including that the confession must be made to a person in authority, and that any inducement, threat or promise must relate to the charge against the accused.The Court analyzed whether the appellant was a 'person accused of an offence' at the time of recording the confession. It relied on precedents including Romesh Chandra Mehta v. State of West Bengal and Directorate of Enforcement v. Deepak Mahajan, which clarified that a person becomes an accused only when a complaint is filed and cognizance is taken by a competent court or magistrate. The appellant had not yet been formally accused at the time of giving the statement under Section 108 of the Act.The Court further considered whether Customs officers are 'persons in authority' under Section 24. It held that Customs officers are persons in authority for the purpose of Section 24, as established in Vallabhdas Liladhar v. Assistant Collector of Customs, but their powers are distinct from police officers. They conduct inquiries primarily for confiscation and penalty proceedings, not criminal investigations under the Code of Criminal Procedure.Regarding voluntariness, the Court examined the claim that the confession was obtained by coercion or threat of implicating the appellant's wife. It rejected this contention as an afterthought, noting the appellant did not raise this before the Magistrate when produced after the confession. The Court relied on Percy Rustomji Basta v. State of Maharashtra, which held that statutory compulsion to speak truth under Section 108 does not amount to threat or inducement from the officer recording the statement. The threat emanates from the statute, not the officer, and thus Section 24 does not apply.Whether the Confessional Statement Can Form the Sole Basis for Conviction and Requirement of CorroborationThe Court reviewed the principles regarding reliance on confessions in criminal trials. It recognized that a voluntary confession, even if retracted, can form the sole basis for conviction if found truthful and voluntary. However, prudence and judicial practice require corroboration from other evidence, though not necessarily on every detail.The Court referred to Kashmira Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Chandrakant Chimanlal Desai v. State of Gujarat, which emphasize that courts must first consider whether independent evidence de hors the confession proves the guilt. If so, the confession may be used to corroborate and strengthen the prosecution's case. The Court also cited Hem Raj v. State of Ajmer and Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar to support the principle that corroboration can come from evidence already in possession of the police or from accomplice/co-accused statements.Applying these principles, the Court found that the confessional statement (Ex. P-4) contained detailed admissions known only to the appellant, including the concealment of 200 gold biscuits. The recovery panchnama and testimony of Customs officers and panch witnesses corroborated the confession. The Court rejected the suggestion that the panch witness was involved in smuggling or planted the contraband, noting the location of concealment was visible from the appellant's bedroom window, making secretive access unlikely without his knowledge.Evaluation of the High Court's Reversal of the Magistrate's AcquittalThe Court considered the approach of the High Court in setting aside the Magistrate's acquittal. It observed that the High Court independently evaluated the evidence and found the confession voluntary and corroborated by other evidence, while the Magistrate had given reasons for acquittal based on doubts about the recovery and confession. The Court held that the High Court's approach was legally correct, as appellate courts are entitled to reappraise evidence and draw their own conclusions.The Court emphasized that benefit of doubt is not a license for acquittal on fanciful or imaginary grounds but must be based on objective evaluation. It found no error in the High Court's conclusion that the prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.Legal Status of Customs Officers and Scope of Section 108 of the Customs ActThe Court analyzed the powers of Customs officers under Section 108 of the Customs Act, which permits them to summon persons to give evidence or produce documents in inquiries related to smuggling. The Court noted that such inquiries are deemed judicial proceedings for the purpose of Sections 193 and 228 of the IPC.It reiterated that Customs officers are not police officers and do not conduct criminal investigations under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Their role is primarily to collect evidence for confiscation and penalty proceedings. This distinction was important in determining the applicability of protections under Article 20(3) of the Constitution and Sections 24 and 25 of the Evidence Act.Application of Precedents on Confessions and Custodial StatementsThe Court extensively relied on precedents including Romesh Chandra Mehta, Illias v. Collector of Customs, Vallabhdas Liladhar, Percy Rustomji Basta, and Poolpandi v. Superintendent, Central Excise to clarify that confessions recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act are admissible unless proved to be obtained by inducement or threat from the officer.It distinguished cases such as Deoman Upadhyaya and Sevantilal Karsondas Modi where confessions were held inadmissible due to custodial coercion or police involvement. The Court found those cases factually inapplicable here as the appellant was not in police custody and the confession was recorded during statutory inquiry by Customs officers.Mens Rea and Statutory Offences under the Customs Act and Gold Control ActThe Court noted that mens rea (criminal intent) is not an essential ingredient for proving offences under certain statutory provisions, including the Customs Act and Gold Control Act. It observed that the offences charged were statutory and the prosecution was not required to prove mens rea. This was not contested by the appellant.Sentencing and Modification of PunishmentHaving found the appellant guilty under Section 135(1)(i) of the Customs Act and Sections 85(1)(a) and 86 of the Gold (Control) Act, the Court modified the sentence imposed by the High Court. Instead of imprisonment, the appellant was directed to pay fines with default imprisonment for specified periods to run consecutively.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS'A confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding, if the making of the confession appears to the Court to have been caused by any inducement, threat or promise, having reference to the charge against the accused person, proceeding from a person in authority and sufficient, in the opinion of the Court, to give the accused person grounds, which would appear to him reasonable, for supposing that by making it he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceedings against him.' (Section 24, Evidence Act)'The appellant was not a person accused of the offence under the Act when he gave his statement under Section 108 of the Act. He becomes accused only when a complaint is laid and cognizance taken by a competent Court or Magistrate.''Customs Officers are persons in authority within the meaning of Section 24 of the Evidence Act but are not police officers. Their powers are primarily for collection of evidence for confiscation and penalty proceedings and not for criminal investigation.''A confession, though retracted, if voluntary and true, may form the sole basis for conviction, but prudence and judicial practice require corroboration from other evidence, which need not be on every detail but sufficient to assure the Court.''The threat or compulsion to speak the truth under Section 108 of the Customs Act emanates from the statute itself and not from the Customs officers recording the statement. Therefore, the confession is not inadmissible under Section 24 of the Evidence Act on the ground of threat or inducement.''The High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal by the Magistrate after independently evaluating the evidence and finding the confession voluntary and corroborated.''Mens rea is not an essential ingredient for offences under the Customs Act and Gold Control Act as charged in this case.''The confessional statement of the appellant, detailed and in his own handwriting, coupled with the recovery panchnama and credible witness testimony, sufficiently corroborated the confession to uphold conviction.'