Confession of Co-Accused Cannot Be the Sole Basis for Framing Charges Under NDPS Act: Supreme Court Discharges Accused

Supreme Court of India allowed an appeal challenging the dismissal of a discharge application under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The Court held that the confession of a co-accused is inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and cannot alone form the basis for framing charges under Section 27(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).

"Subjecting an Individual to Trial Without Admissible Evidence Is a Grave Miscarriage of Justice"
The Court observed that compelling the accused to face trial in the absence of corroborative material or sufficient evidence violates the principles of justice. Charges framed solely on inadmissible evidence, such as the confession of a co-accused, fail to meet the required threshold under Section 227 CrPC.

Supreme Court of India, consisting of Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal, delivered a significant judgment in Karan Talwar v. State of Tamil Nadu. The appellant, Karan Talwar (Accused No. 13), was charged under Section 27(b) of the NDPS Act for allegedly consuming narcotics during a music festival held at a private resort.
The Court discharged the appellant on the ground that there was no prima facie evidence to link him to the offense, apart from the confession of a co-accused, which is inadmissible under the law. This decision reinforces the importance of requiring substantive and corroborative evidence for framing charges, especially in cases involving the stringent penalties of the NDPS Act.

The case originated from an incident on May 3, 2019, at a music festival held at a private resort in Tamil Nadu, owned and managed by Accused Nos. 1 and 2. According to the prosecution, narcotic substances were supplied to participants during the festival, including the appellant. A First Information Report (FIR No. 129/2019) was registered on May 4, 2019, under various provisions of the NDPS Act.
The appellant, Karan Talwar, was implicated as Accused No. 13, and charged under Section 27(b) of the NDPS Act for allegedly consuming narcotics. The only evidence against the appellant was the confession of Accused No. 1. No medical examination was conducted on the appellant, and no contraband was recovered from him.
The appellant filed an application for discharge under Section 227 CrPC before the Additional District Judge-Special Court (NDPS Act Cases), Coimbatore. The application was dismissed, and the High Court of Madras upheld this dismissal. Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

Legal Issues
1.    Whether the confession of a co-accused is sufficient to frame charges under Section 27(b) of the NDPS Act?
2.    What is the scope of judicial discretion under Section 227 CrPC for discharging an accused in the absence of prima facie evidence?

Confession of a Co-Accused Is Inadmissible
The Supreme Court emphasized that under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, a confession made to police by one accused is inadmissible against another accused. Citing the decision in Suresh Budharmal Kalani v. State of Maharashtra (1998), the Court noted:
“A co-accused’s confession containing incriminating matter against a person would not by itself suffice to frame charges against them.”
The Court also relied on the principles laid down in Ram Singh v. Central Bureau of Narcotics (2011), where it was held that a co-accused’s confession alone cannot form the basis for prosecution or conviction.

Failure of the Prosecution to Produce Corroborative Evidence
The Court observed that apart from the confession of Accused No. 1, there was no material evidence linking the appellant to the alleged offense:
1.    No Medical Examination: The appellant was not subjected to a medical test to confirm drug consumption.
2.    No Recovery of Contraband: No narcotic substances were recovered from the appellant’s possession.
3.    Unreliable Witness Testimony: A witness claimed to have "smelt" the accused but failed to provide credible or admissible evidence.
The Court criticized the lack of corroborative material and held that the confession alone could not sustain the charge.

Scope of Section 227 CrPC: Discharge in Absence of Grave Suspicion
The Court reiterated the principles governing discharge under Section 227 CrPC, as laid down in Dipakbhai Jagadishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat (2019):
“At the stage of framing charges, the Court must sift the evidence to determine whether a prima facie case exists. A strong suspicion must be founded on material evidence that can be translated into admissible proof during trial.”
The Court further stated:
“Mere suspicion, unsupported by admissible evidence, does not justify subjecting an accused to the ordeal of a trial.”
The stringent penalties under the NDPS Act require the prosecution to present strong, corroborated evidence. The absence of such evidence against the appellant warranted his discharge.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, overturning the decisions of the Trial Court and the High Court. The Court held:
“The sole material against the appellant is the confession of the co-accused, which is inadmissible in evidence. In the absence of corroborative evidence, no prima facie case exists to proceed against the appellant under Section 27(b) of the NDPS Act.”
The appellant was discharged from CC No. 43 of 2020, pending before the Additional District Judge-Special Court, Coimbatore.

This judgment serves as a significant precedent in NDPS cases, emphasizing the inadmissibility of a co-accused’s confession as sole evidence. The ruling highlights the importance of corroborative material for framing charges and protects individuals from unwarranted trials in the absence of sufficient evidence.

Date of Decision: December 19, 2024