Confession under Customs Act is not substantive evidence against a co-accused, so acquittal stands without corroboration.

A confession or inculpatory statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 is not substantive evidence against a co-accused and can at most lend assurance to otherwise admissible evidence. The Delhi HC noted that the witness who recorded the statement was not shown to be unavailable or otherwise covered by Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and the complainant failed to establish admissibility through Section 32(2) read with Sections 47 and 67. Without independent corroboration, the earlier recorded testimony could not be used to sustain guilt, and the remaining material was insufficient to disturb the acquittal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal of the respondent under the Customs Act could be interfered with on the basis of the statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the inculpatory statements of the co-accused, despite the non-production of the recording witness for post-charge cross-examination and the absence of independent corroboration.

Analysis: The statement of a co-accused under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot be treated as substantive evidence against another accused. Such a confession can, at the highest, lend assurance to other admissible evidence, but it cannot by itself found a conviction. The Court held that the witness who recorded the statement of the respondent was not shown to be unavailable, incapable of giving evidence, or otherwise covered by Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The complainant also did not establish admissibility through Section 32(2) read with Sections 47 and 67 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In the absence of such proof, the testimony recorded at the earlier stage could not be used against the respondent to sustain guilt. The remaining material, after excluding the confessional statements, was insufficient to dislodge the acquittal.

Conclusion: The respondent was rightly acquitted, and the appeal did not justify interference.

Ratio Decidendi: A confession or inculpatory statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 is not substantive evidence against a co-accused and can be used only to lend assurance to otherwise admissible evidence; where the recording witness is not proved unavailable, earlier testimony cannot be relied upon under Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

---