Firdoskhan Khurshidkhan vs. State of Gujarat (Supreme Court, 30 April 2024)
Background
Firdoskhan Khurshidkhan (A-2) and Anwarkhan Jahilkhan Pathan (A-1) were prosecuted under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) for alleged involvement in a narcotics case. The prosecution claimed that both accused were part of a group involved in the possession and trafficking of narcotic substances. A-1 was arrested at the scene, while A-2 was allegedly identified later as having escaped from the spot.
Trial and Appeals
The trial court convicted both accused based on evidence including witness testimony and confessional statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. The Gujarat High Court upheld their convictions. Both accused appealed to the Supreme Court.
Key Legal Issues
The admissibility of confessional statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act after the Supreme Court’s decision in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, which held such statements inadmissible as evidence.
The reliability of identification evidence, especially where no Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted and identification occurred for the first time in court.
Whether there was any direct recovery of contraband from A-2 (Firdoskhan).
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court, led by Justices Sandeep Mehta and Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale, re-examined the evidence in light of the Tofan Singh precedent. The Court found:
The main evidence against Firdoskhan (A-2) was a confessional statement by co-accused A-1 and the in-court identification by a prosecution witness (PW-3) more than two years after the incident, without any prior TIP. The Court held such identification unreliable and lacking corroboration.
No contraband was recovered from A-2, and his name was not mentioned in the initial seizure memo.
The prosecution failed to produce documentary evidence regarding A-2’s apprehension or detention, further weakening the case.
The statements under Section 67 NDPS Act, heavily relied upon by the trial court, were inadmissible in light of Tofan Singh.
Judgment and Outcome
The Supreme Court acquitted Firdoskhan Khurshidkhan (A-2), setting aside his conviction and ordering that his bail bonds be discharged. The conviction of A-1 (Anwarkhan) was upheld, and he was directed to surrender to serve the remaining sentence. The Court emphasized the importance of reliable identification procedures and the inadmissibility of confessions under Section 67 NDPS Act.
Significance
This judgment reinforces the binding nature of Tofan Singh regarding confessional statements under the NDPS Act and highlights the need for robust and corroborated evidence, especially in serious criminal cases involving stringent statutes like the NDPS Act. The ruling also underscores the necessity for proper identification procedures and direct evidence for conviction.
Citation: Firdoskhan Khurshidkhan vs. State of Gujarat, [2024] INSC 351, Supreme Court of India, Criminal Appeal No. 2044 of 2010, Judgment dated 30 April 2024.
RELATED Blog
0 comments