Retracted confession remains admissible when coercion is unproven and surrounding evidence supports voluntariness

A retracted confession was treated as admissible because the accused failed to prove inducement, threat, coercion, or other improper means in obtaining the statement. Voluntariness was assessed as a question of fact, and the retraction was found vague, unsupported by particulars, and not backed by a prompt complaint before the Magistrate. The statement was also corroborated by surrounding evidence and internal details showing knowledge of matters within the accused's special knowledge. On that basis, the conviction under the NDPS Act was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the accused's retracted statement was voluntary and admissible, and whether the conviction under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act could be sustained on that basis.

Analysis: The statement recorded under the Customs Act and the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act was challenged as involuntary on the ground of alleged detention, coercion, and threat. The Court held that voluntariness is a question of fact and that a retracted confession is not inadmissible merely because it is retracted. The burden remained on the accused to establish inducement, threat, coercion, or improper means. The retraction was found to be vague and unsupported by particulars, and no prompt complaint was made before the Magistrate when the accused was produced. The statement was also supported by surrounding evidence and internal details showing knowledge of facts within the accused's special knowledge.

Conclusion: The statement was held to be voluntary and admissible, and the conviction was upheld against the accused.

Ratio Decidendi: A retracted confession remains admissible unless the accused shows that it was obtained by inducement, threat, coercion, or other improper means, and the Court may act on it when supported by surrounding evidence and when the retraction is vague or unsubstantiated.

---