Conscious possession and retracted confession need independent corroboration before conviction for contraband possession can be sustained.

In an appeal against acquittal involving alleged possession of seized gold, the prosecution failed to prove conscious possession and guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court noted that the case depended mainly on departmental officers, while independent panch or neutral witnesses to the search and seizure were not examined, and the evidence did not establish that the accused was the sole occupant of the premises. It also held that a retracted confession, without reliable corroboration and in the face of alleged coercion and language difficulty, was insufficient to sustain conviction. The acquittal was therefore left undisturbed, and the accused retained the benefit of doubt.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the prosecution established conscious possession of the seized gold and the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt so as to warrant interference with the acquittal; (ii) Whether the retracted confession and the testimony of departmental officers, without independent panch witnesses or corroboration, were sufficient to sustain conviction.

Issue (i): Whether the prosecution established conscious possession of the seized gold and the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt so as to warrant interference with the acquittal.

Analysis: The prosecution case rested mainly on the evidence of two DRI officers, with no independent panch or neutral witness examined despite the search and seizure being witnessed by others. The trial court found that the prosecution did not satisfactorily prove that the accused was the sole occupant of the premises, that the premises were shown to belong to her brother, and that there was no cogent corroboration from neighbours or other occupants. In an appeal against acquittal, interference is justified only where the lower court's view is shown to be legally unsustainable. On the record, the prosecution evidence fell short of proving conscious possession and guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Conclusion: The acquittal was not liable to be interfered with and the finding on absence of proof of conscious possession stands.

Issue (ii): Whether the retracted confession and the testimony of departmental officers, without independent panch witnesses or corroboration, were sufficient to sustain conviction.

Analysis: A retracted confession may form part of the prosecution case, but prudence requires corroboration from other evidence, especially on voluntariness and truthfulness. Here, the confession was retracted and the defence version suggested coercion and language difficulty. The only supporting evidence came from departmental officers, while the independent witnesses to the raid and seizure were not examined. In these circumstances, the confession and official testimony did not provide the necessary assurance for conviction.

Conclusion: The retracted confession, without independent corroboration, was insufficient to sustain conviction.

Final Conclusion: The prosecution failed to dislodge the acquittal, and the accused remained entitled to the benefit of doubt on the evidence on record.

Ratio Decidendi: In an appeal against acquittal, conviction for possession of contraband cannot rest solely on a retracted confession and departmental witnesses when independent corroboration is absent and the prosecution has not proved conscious possession beyond reasonable doubt.

---