Section 108 customs confessions, voluntariness and corroboration rules govern admissibility of retracted statements under evidence law
A statement recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act is treated as evidence collected during customs inquiry, and the person summoned does not become an accused merely by being questioned. Section 24 of the Evidence Act applies only where the confession is shown to have been induced by threat, promise, or inducement from a person in authority and linked to the charge. A retracted confession, if voluntary and true, may be acted upon as substantive evidence, while prudence generally calls for general corroboration rather than proof of every detail. Surrounding circumstances and recovery evidence are relevant to assess voluntariness and support the confession.
Issues: (i) Whether a retracted confession recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 was inadmissible under section 24 of the Evidence Act because the maker was an accused person or because it was obtained by inducement, threat or promise; and (ii) whether such retracted confession could form the basis of conviction and what level of corroboration, if any, was required.
Issue (i): Whether a retracted confession recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 was inadmissible under section 24 of the Evidence Act because the maker was an accused person or because it was obtained by inducement, threat or promise.
Analysis: A statement recorded during an inquiry under section 108 is taken for collection of evidence in customs proceedings and the person summoned does not become an accused merely by being questioned or summoned. The Customs officer is a person in authority, but the bar under section 24 applies only where the confession is shown to have been caused by inducement, threat or promise referable to the charge and emanating from such authority. The confession here was found to have been made before any formal complaint was lodged, and the allegation of coercion was rejected as an afterthought.
Conclusion: The confession was not hit by section 24 and was admissible in evidence.
Issue (ii): Whether such retracted confession could form the basis of conviction and what level of corroboration, if any, was required.
Analysis: A retracted confession, if found to be voluntary and true, can be acted upon and may sustain a conviction. As a matter of prudence, corroboration is ordinarily sought, but every detail need not be independently proved; general corroboration is sufficient. On the facts, the recovery of contraband, the surrounding circumstances, and the oral evidence of the Customs officials and panch witness supported the confession and showed conscious possession of the gold biscuits by the appellant. The High Court was therefore justified in reversing the acquittal.
Conclusion: The retracted confession could be used as substantive evidence and was sufficiently corroborated to sustain conviction.
Final Conclusion: The conviction for the customs and gold control offences was upheld, but the custodial sentence imposed by the High Court was modified by substituting fines with default imprisonment.
Ratio Decidendi: A confession recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 is admissible against a person who is not yet an accused, and a voluntary retracted confession may by itself sustain conviction if the surrounding evidence affords general corroboration.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
