Case Citation
Court: Supreme Court of India
Case Title: Karan Talwar v. The State of Tamil Nadu
Case No.: Criminal Appeal (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 10736 of 2022)
Date of Judgment: December 19, 2024
Judges: Hon’ble Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Hon’ble Justice Rajesh Bindal
Facts of the Case
This case pertains to a music festival held on May 3, 2019, at a resort named “Agrinest” in Tamil Nadu, which was owned by accused No.1. The event was organized without government approval. The prosecution alleged that narcotic substances were consumed during the event, and the accused, including the appellant Karan Talwar (Accused No.13), were charged under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). FIR No. 129/2019 was registered against 15 accused persons. After investigation, a chargesheet was filed against all the accused, and Karan Talwar was charged under Section 27(b) of the NDPS Act for the alleged consumption of narcotic substances.
The appellant filed an application under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) for discharge before the Additional District Judge-Special Court under the Essential Commodities Act, Coimbatore. The application was dismissed on July 26, 2022. Aggrieved by this, the appellant approached the High Court of Madras, which also dismissed his revision petition on September 14, 2022. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court by way of this Special Leave Petition.
Contentions of the Appellant
The appellant contended that he was falsely implicated in the case and that there was no material evidence against him to support the charges under Section 27(b) of the NDPS Act. It was argued that his implication was solely based on the confession of a co-accused, which is inadmissible in evidence as per Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The appellant further argued that he was not subjected to any medical examination to prove that he had consumed narcotic substances, nor was any contraband recovered from him. The appellant contended that forcing him to stand trial would amount to a miscarriage of justice as there was no material that could be converted into evidence against him during the trial.
Contentions of the Respondent
The State of Tamil Nadu opposed the plea for discharge and argued that sufficient material existed to frame charges against the appellant. It contended that the appellant’s involvement in the consumption of narcotic substances was evidenced by the statements of the co-accused and the investigating officer. The State argued that at the stage of framing charges, a prima facie case was sufficient to justify a trial and that detailed examination of evidence could be conducted only during the trial. The State urged that the dismissal of the discharge application by the Trial Court and the High Court was justified and did not warrant interference by the Supreme Court.
Issues in the Judgment
- Whether the confession of a co-accused alone is sufficient to frame charges against the appellant under Section 27(b) of the NDPS Act.
- Whether the absence of medical examination or recovery of contraband from the appellant negates the prima facie case against him.
- Whether the Trial Court and the High Court were correct in dismissing the discharge application under Section 227 of the CrPC.
- Whether forcing the appellant to stand trial in the absence of admissible evidence would result in a miscarriage of justice.
Observations/Findings of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court emphasized that the confession of a co-accused, by itself, is inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and cannot be relied upon to frame charges against another accused. The Court referred to its previous rulings in Suresh Budharmal Kalani v. State of Maharashtra (1998) 7 SCC 337 and Ram Singh v. Central Bureau of Narcotics (2011) 11 SCC 347, wherein it was held that a confession by a co-accused cannot be the sole basis for framing a charge. The Court also relied on the precedent set in Dipakbhai Jagadishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat (2019) 16 SCC 547, which held that at the stage of framing charges, the court should evaluate the material to see if there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
The Supreme Court noted that no narcotic substances were recovered from the appellant, and no medical examination was conducted to establish that he had consumed such substances. The investigating officer had only stated that he “smelled the accused,” which the Court held was insufficient and lacked evidentiary value. The Court remarked that standing trial itself is an ordeal, and it would be a miscarriage of justice to force an accused to stand trial in the absence of any legally admissible evidence against him.
The Court concluded that the Trial Court and the High Court had failed to appreciate the evidence properly and that there was no material on record to justify the framing of charges against the appellant. The Court held that the mere confession of a co-accused could not translate into admissible evidence to charge the appellant.
Principles Laid Down by the Court
- Inadmissibility of Co-Accused’s Confession: A confession made by a co-accused is inadmissible in evidence under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and cannot be the sole basis for framing charges against an accused.
- Scope of Section 227 of CrPC: While considering an application for discharge under Section 227, CrPC, the judge must sift through the material on record to ascertain whether sufficient grounds exist to proceed against the accused. If the only material on record is the confession of a co-accused, it does not satisfy the threshold required to frame charges.
- Role of Courts at the Stage of Framing Charges: Courts must ensure that a strong suspicion, supported by material evidence that can be converted into admissible evidence during the trial, exists before framing charges. Purely subjective satisfaction or moral suspicion of the judge is insufficient to frame charges.
- Protection Against Miscarriage of Justice: The Court reaffirmed that subjecting an accused to a trial without legally sufficient evidence is a miscarriage of justice. A trial must not be used as a tool to harass an accused or force them to endure the hardships of litigation without sufficient material on record.
Final Order
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the orders of the Trial Court and the High Court. It discharged Karan Talwar from all charges under Section 27(b) of the NDPS Act in connection with CC No. 43 of 2020. The Court held that there was no sufficient ground to proceed against the appellant and quashed the criminal proceedings against him. Any pending applications in the case were disposed of accordingly.
Importance of the Judgment to Society
This judgment reaffirms the protection of individual liberty and the rights of the accused against unwarranted prosecution. The Court emphasized that the criminal justice system must not be misused to subject individuals to unjustified trials, which can result in a grave miscarriage of justice. The judgment also serves as a critical reminder that the confession of a co-accused is inadmissible against other accused persons under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The judgment strengthens the principles of fair trial and due process, especially in cases under the NDPS Act, which carries stringent punishments. It underscores that courts must exercise caution while framing charges and must not rely on inadmissible evidence. The decision also highlights the duty of courts to protect the accused from undue harassment by ensuring that only cases supported by legally admissible evidence proceed to trial.
