LI Network
Published on: January 31, 2024 at 16:22 IST
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has underscored that confessions made by co-accused individuals are not considered substantive evidence against another co-accused and can only be employed to lend assurance to other evidence.
In a recent case before Justice Rakesh Kainthla, the Court referred to the precedent in Surinder Kumar Khanna v. Intelligence Officer Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, emphasizing that the prosecution cannot derive advantage from the co-accused’s confessional statement to implicate another individual.
The case involved the registration of an FIR against the petitioner under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, based on information regarding heroin-related activities.
Subsequent police searches led to the discovery of 7.34 grams of heroin in the petitioner’s room, resulting in arrests. While the petitioner claimed innocence and asserted false implication, arguing insufficient evidence tying him to the crime, the prosecution opposed bail, highlighting the seriousness of the offense and its impact on the younger generation.
The Court observed that there was insufficient material connecting the petitioner to the commission of the crime. Despite the recovery of a small quantity of heroin, slightly exceeding 7 grams, the petitioner, being a first-time offender with no criminal antecedents, was deemed deserving of a chance for reformation.
The Court expressed concerns about continued detention adversely affecting the petitioner’s chances of rehabilitation, given potential exposure to hardened criminals.
Consequently, the Court granted bail to the petitioner, emphasizing the limited weight assigned to confessions made by co-accused individuals in the overall evaluation of evidence.
Case Title: Narender Singh vs State of Himachal Pradesh