Co-Accused Confession Alone Cannot Justify Conviction: Supreme Court
In Surinder Kumar Khanna v. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, the Supreme Court held that a confession made by a co-accused cannot, without independent substantive evidence, form the sole basis for convicting another accused. The Court allowed the appeal and acquitted Surinder Kumar Khanna.
Case details and bench
The decision was delivered by Justices Abhay Manohar Sapre and Uday Umesh Lalit on 31 July 2018 in Criminal Appeal No. 949 of 2018 (arising from SLP (Criminal) No. 9816 of 2017). It is reported at (2018) 8 SCC 271 and [2018] 9 SCR 338.
Background: heroin recovered from a car
Acting on information about transportation of narcotic drugs from Jammu towards Chandigarh, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) officers intercepted a white Indica car bearing registration number PB-02AJ-7288 on the Hoshiarpur-Garhshankar road. Raj Kumar alias Raju was driving and Surinder Pal Singh was accompanying him.
After notices under Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), officers conducted personal searches and searched the vehicle. No incriminating material was found in the personal searches. Four packets concealed in the car were recovered; the prosecution recorded gross packet weight of 4.300 kg and heroin weight of 3.990 kg, valued at approximately Rs. 19,95,000. Samples were drawn and the car was seized.
The statements of the two occupants indicated that the packets had allegedly been obtained from a person known as Goldy of Vijaypur, Jammu, and were to be delivered near PGI Chandigarh. A complaint initially invoked Sections 21, 22, 23, 28, 29 and 60 of the NDPS Act. The appellant was subsequently implicated and a supplementary complaint was filed.
Trial court and High Court proceedings
Charges were framed against the two vehicle occupants and Surinder Kumar Khanna under the relevant NDPS provisions. The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 21(c) read with Section 29 and sentenced him to 12 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh, with a default sentence. The other two accused were also convicted.
On appeal, the High Court upheld the appellant's conviction but reduced the substantive sentence to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment, retaining the fine of Rs. 1 lakh and modifying the default sentence. Crucially, the High Court acknowledged that, apart from the statements of the two co-accused, there was no other material connecting the appellant with the offence.
What legal question did the Supreme Court decide?
The central issue was whether the statements of co-accused, without independent evidence connecting Surinder Kumar Khanna to the alleged narcotics offence, were legally sufficient to sustain his conviction.
The Supreme Court considered the evidentiary value of co-accused confessions and the distinction between evidence that independently establishes guilt and a confession used only to support an otherwise sustainable inference.
Supreme Court's findings
- No independent link: The prosecution conceded that there was no material beyond the statements of the co-accused linking the appellant to the crime. The call data records did not show relevant contact at the time the others were apprehended.
- Confession is not substantive proof against another accused: The Court applied established principles under Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
- NDPS Act does not create a general exception: Unlike certain special statutes expressly addressing co-accused confessions, the NDPS Act did not contain an equivalent provision allowing such a confession to serve as the foundation of another accused's conviction.
- Outcome: The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence of Surinder Kumar Khanna were set aside, and his release was directed unless he was required in another case.
Relevant statutory provisions explained
Section 30, Indian Evidence Act, 1872
In a joint trial, where a proved confession by one accused affects both its maker and another accused, the court could take it into consideration against the other accused. The Supreme Court explained that this does not make the confession independent substantive evidence capable, on its own, of proving guilt.
Section 24, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
Effective from 1 July 2024, Section 24 is the corresponding provision governing consideration of a proved confession affecting its maker and other persons jointly tried for the same offence. Its application is subject to the statutory conditions and transitional provisions. The 2018 judgment itself was decided under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Sections 23 and 24 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam
Section 23 addresses confessions to police officers and confessions made in police custody, including the limited discovery-related proviso. Section 24 concerns consideration of a proved confession of a jointly tried accused. These are different legal questions, and neither permits a conviction founded solely on an uncorroborated co-accused confession.
NDPS Act Sections 21, 29, 50 and 67
Section 21 penalises specified contraventions involving manufactured drugs and preparations, with punishment dependent on the quantity involved. Section 29 addresses abetment and criminal conspiracy. Section 50 provides safeguards for personal searches in the circumstances covered by that section. Section 67 authorises specified officers to call for information, require documents and examine persons acquainted with facts relevant to an inquiry.
Important later development: Tofan Singh ruling
In Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2020), a larger Supreme Court bench held that officers empowered under Section 53 of the NDPS Act are police officers for purposes of Section 25 of the Evidence Act and that confessional statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as confessions in the trial of an offence under that Act. This subsequent ruling should be considered separately from the narrower co-accused-evidence issue decided in Surinder Kumar Khanna.
Practical significance for criminal trials
The decision reinforces the need for legally admissible, independent material linking each accused to an alleged offence. Mere implication by a co-accused does not dispense with proof of the ingredients of the charged offence. The admissibility and weight of any statement depend on the governing statute, the circumstances in which it was made, and the applicable evidence rules.
The case does not establish that every statement by a co-accused is irrelevant. Rather, it limits the use of such material and prevents a conviction resting entirely on it where independent substantive evidence is absent.