| CITATION | AIR2008SC 1044 |
| DATE OF JUDGMENT | 9th January, 2008 |
| COURT | The Supreme Court of India |
| APPELLANT | Kanhaiyalal |
| RESPONDENT | Union of India |
| BENCH | Altamas Kabir and B. Sudershan Reddy, JJ. |
INTRODUCTION
The case of Kanhaiyalal vs. Union of India involved a legal dispute regarding the admissibility and reliability of confessional statements made under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The appellant, Kanhaiyalal, challenged his conviction based on a confessional statement, arguing that it should not have been considered as a confession without corroborative evidence.
The central issue in the case revolved around whether statements made under Section 67 of the NDPS Act could be treated as confessional statements and whether such statements alone were sufficient for conviction. The appellant contended that his statement was not voluntary and should not have been the sole basis for his conviction.
The Union of India, on the other hand, supported the appellant’s conviction, citing previous court decisions where similar confessional statements were upheld as admissible evidence leading to conviction.
The Supreme Court’s judgment in this case clarified the legal principles surrounding confessional statements under the NDPS Act and provided guidance on the admissibility and reliability of such statements in criminal proceedings.
FACTS
In the case of Kanhaiyalal vs. Union of India, the prosecution alleged that on 22.2.1997, information was received that the accused Phoolchand and Ram Prasad were involved in illegal dealing of opium. It was further alleged that they had entered into an agreement to buy 25 kgs of opium from the appellant Kanhaiyalal. A raiding party was constituted based on this information, and they proceeded to the identified site where the contraband was supposed to be delivered. The raiding party, led by Inspector Lala Ram Dinkar, reached the well belonging to Ram Prasad’s father, where the opium was expected to be delivered. The prosecution claimed that the opium was seized from the possession of accused Phool Chand, who did not have a valid license for it.
The case revolved around the statements made under Section 67 of the NDPS Act by the accused, particularly Kanhaiyalal. The Trial Judge found that the opium was indeed seized from the possession of accused Phool Chand without a valid license. The Special Judge acquitted Ram Prasad and Kanhaiyalal based on the lack of corroborative evidence linking them to the smuggling operation, despite their confessions. However, the High Court overturned the acquittal of Ram Prasad and Kanhaiyalal, holding that their statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act did not require corroboration and were sufficient for conviction.
ISSUES RAISED
The main issue raised in the case of Kanhaiyalal vs. Union of India was whether the statements made by the accused under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) could be treated as confessional statements.
CONTENTIONS BY THE APPELLANT
The appellant, Kanhaiyalal, argued that the High Court incorrectly interpreted the law regarding statements made under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. He contended that his statement should not be treated as a confessional statement and that his conviction solely based on this statement without corroborative evidence was erroneous.
CONTENTIONS BY THE UNION OF INDIA
The Union of India argued that the appellant had been rightly convicted based on his confessional statement made under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. They relied on previous decisions of the Supreme Court where similar confessional statements were considered sufficient for conviction. The Union of India emphasized that the appellant’s statement was made voluntarily and that there was no cross-examination challenging the statement’s authenticity.
JUDGEMENT
In the case of Kanhaiyalal vs. Union of India, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant based on his confessional statement made under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. The Court considered the previous decisions where such confessional statements were deemed admissible and sufficient for conviction if made voluntarily and without coercion.
The Court emphasized that even if a person is in custody at the time of making a confessional statement, the bar under Article 20(3) of the Constitution would not apply if the statement was voluntary. The Court also noted that the retraction of a confession does not automatically render it inadmissible, but the Court must assess the reasons for the confession and its retraction to determine its reliability.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court found that the appellant’s confessional statement was made voluntarily and without coercion, and there was no evidence to suggest otherwise. Therefore, the Court upheld the appellant’s conviction based on his confessional statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act.
This judgment reaffirmed the admissibility and evidentiary value of confessional statements made under the NDPS Act, provided they are voluntary and supported by corroborating evidence when necessary.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the case of Kanhaiyalal vs. Union of India centered around the admissibility and reliability of confessional statements made under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant based on his confessional statement, emphasizing that such statements can be considered sufficient for conviction if made voluntarily and without coercion.
The Court reiterated that the retraction of a confession does not automatically render it inadmissible, and each case must be assessed based on the circumstances surrounding the confession and its retraction. In this case, the Court found that the appellant’s confession was voluntary and upheld his conviction based on this statement.
Overall, the judgment reaffirmed the legal principles regarding confessional statements under the NDPS Act and highlighted the importance of assessing the voluntariness of such statements in criminal proceedings.
REFERENCE
- Manupatra
- https://indiankanoon.org
This Article is written by Akanksha Mishra student of CPJ CHS & SoL, GGSIPU; Intern at Legal Vidhiya.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
0 Comments