Customs statement evidence requires proven voluntariness and corroboration; unproved retraction and weak admissions could not upset acquittal.

A statement under section 108 of the Customs Act can support conviction only when its voluntariness and truth are proved by reliable evidence; here, inconsistencies, lack of independent corroboration, and suspicious surrounding circumstances meant the prosecution did not discharge that burden, so the statement was not relied on. The alleged retraction in Ext. D1 was also not proved, because mere production of the document did not establish its contents. The section 313 CrPC statement contained no clear admission and could not, by itself, sustain the case. As the trial court's view was not perverse and the evidence showed material contradictions, the acquittal was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the accused retracted the statement recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act through Ext. D1; (ii) Whether the statements recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act could be relied upon; (iii) Whether any admission in the statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could sustain the prosecution case; (iv) Whether the acquittal required interference in appeal.

Issue (i): Whether the accused retracted the statement recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act through Ext. D1.

Analysis: Ext. D1 was produced from official custody pursuant to summons, but its contents were not proved through any witness. Mere marking of a document does not establish its contents, and the requirements for dispensing with formal proof under section 294(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were not shown to have been satisfied. Since the retraction itself was not proved in evidence, the document could not be treated as a proved retraction.

Conclusion: The accused did not succeed in proving a valid retraction through Ext. D1.

Issue (ii): Whether the statements recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act could be relied upon.

Analysis: A statement under section 108 is admissible only if it is voluntary and trustworthy. The surrounding circumstances, the form and content of the statements, and the inconsistencies noticed in the prosecution evidence created doubt about voluntariness and reliability. In the absence of independent corroboration and in view of the suspicious features in the statements, the burden of proving voluntariness was not discharged to the required standard.

Conclusion: The statements under section 108 of the Customs Act could not be relied upon as voluntary and trustworthy evidence.

Issue (iii): Whether any admission in the statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could sustain the prosecution case.

Analysis: The statement under section 313 did not contain any clear admission of the offence. Even assuming some admission, such a statement is not substantive evidence and cannot by itself fill gaps in the prosecution case. It can only be used to corroborate otherwise proved prosecution evidence.

Conclusion: No conviction could be founded on the statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Issue (iv): Whether the acquittal required interference in appeal.

Analysis: Interference with an acquittal is warranted only when the trial court's view is perverse or impossible. The prosecution evidence contained material contradictions regarding the place of interception and the manner of seizure, while the best available evidence was not produced. The declaration form and the other surrounding circumstances also supported the trial court's view, and the record did not justify reversal of the acquittal.

Conclusion: The acquittal did not call for interference.

Final Conclusion: The prosecution failed to establish a reliable and voluntary confession or any substantive basis to upset the acquittal, and the appellate court declined to disturb the trial court's finding.

Ratio Decidendi: A confession under section 108 of the Customs Act can be acted upon only if its voluntariness and truth are established by reliable evidence, and an acquittal cannot be reversed unless the trial court's view is perverse.

---