Confession By Accused Implicating Other Co-Accused Can Be Taken As 'Lead' In Investigation, Admissible U/S 30 Of Evidence Act: AP High Court
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that confessional statements made by the accused during interrogation can be considered or looked into to connect the other co-accused and such a disclosure statement can be taken into consideration to provide a lead in the investigation.
Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao further held that such a statement is admissible under Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act. Section 30 provides for consideration of proved confession affecting the person making it and others jointly under trial for the same offence. It states,
“When more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence, and a confession made by one of such persons affecting himself and some other of such persons is proved, the Court may take into consideration such confession as against such other person as well as against the person who makes such confession.”
Background
The ruling came in a case where the High Court was dealing with a Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita seeking anticipatory bail in a case where the petitioner was charged under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”).
It was the case of the prosecution that the petitioner (A6), with the intention of engaging in illegal trade, provided A1 and A2 with Rs. 36000/- to procure 12 Kilograms of Ganja (“the contraband”) to further sell it at a higher price. The petitioner had instructed A1 and A2 to deliver 2 kilograms of the contraband each to A3, A4, and A5. However, during the execution of these instructions, A1, A2, A3, A4, and A5 were apprehended by the police. While a total of 13.288 kilograms of the contraband was seized, A6 managed to abscond and subsequently evade arrest.
The petitioner contended that he was falsely arrayed as accused (A6) in the crime only on the basis of the confession administered by the other accused and there was no proof regarding the payment of Rs.36,000/-. Additionally, it was argued that the quantity of the contraband seized from the other accused was 13.288 kilograms which fell within the definition of non-commercial quantity.
Findings
The Court noted that, “the co-accused have been arrested and they have made specific allegations against the petitioner in their confessional statements. It is relevant to note that the statements of the co-accused are to be tested at the time of trial. No reason has also been pleaded as to why the co-accused would try to falsely implicate the petitioner.”
In such a case, it was erroneous to say that confessional statements made by the accused during interrogation could not be considered or looked into to connect the other co-accused. The Court relied on Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act to hold that the disclosure statement of co-accused in the present case is admissible and can be taken into consideration to provide a lead in the investigation.
The Court further noted that while the contraband seized was not a commercial quantity, it was still several times greater than what could be considered small quantity. The petitioner had also not denied acquaintance with A1 and A2. Additionally, the investigation was still incomplete and the investigating agency needed to gather evidence concerning the petitioner's involvement in the alleged offence.
Dismissing the Criminal Petition, the Court held,
“Considering the grave nature of the offence and the allegations levelled against the petitioner, this Court views that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner/A6 is required in this case for proper and just investigation of this case. However, the offence alleged to be committed is against the society, and thus, considering all the attending facts and circumstances of the case as well as the gravity of the offence, as also the settled principle of law that power of grant of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., is to be sparingly exercised in extraordinary circumstances, thus, the implication of the petitioner prima facie cannot be said to be without justification. Thus, no such circumstances have been made out in this case, and this Court does not find it a proper case for granting the relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner/A.6.”
Case Details:
Case Number: CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1807 of 2025
Case Name: Kamma Aravind Kishore @ Kamma Aravind v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh
Date: 27.03.2025