II.

I CONFESSION TAKEN IN CUSTODY, THUS NON-VOLUNTARY

A. That it is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble bench that the confessional statement of the
appellant (Zico) was taken in custody, and through which it can be clearly interpreted that the
statement cannot was made involuntarily. Even if it is admissible, the Court has to be
satisfied that it is a voluntary statement; free from any pressure and also that the
accused was informed of his rights before recording the confession.1
B. That a confession, especially a confession repetative
C. recorded when the accused is in custody,which kind of custody
D. is a weak piece of evidence and there must be some corroborative evidence. Only
corroboration can work
2
E. It is true any confession made to a police officer is inadmissible under S. 25 of the Act and
that ban is further stretched through S. 26 to the confession made to any other person also if
the confessor was then in police custody.3 
F. It is further stressed that if a person in custody is subjected to interrogation, he must be
informed in clear and unequivocal terms as to his right to silence. A conviction should not be
based merely on the basis of a statement under section 67 of the NDPS Act without any
independent corroboration.4 If the maker of such a statement is interrogated while in the
custody, it cannot be said that the statement was voluntary.5
G. That the disclosure statement made by the accused in the form
of confession before a police officer, is totally unreliable and not admissible in evidence. 6
The Hon’ble High Court has erred in rejecting the bail application of the appellant solely
relying upon the so-called confessional statement recorded under section 67 of NDPS Act.
H. That if we go by the bare reading of S. 24 of Evidence act which states that
I. , a confession made by an accused is rendered irrelevant in criminal proceeding if the making
of the confession

1
Mohammed Fasrin vs. State: 2014 SCC Online SC 88.
2
Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu Crl. A. No. 152 of 2013.
3
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Gangula Satya Murthy, 1997 SCC (Crl.) 325.
4
UOI v. Bal Mukund CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1397 OF 2007; D.K Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC
416
5
Supra
6
David v. State of Haryana reported in 1997(1) RCR page 713.
J. appears to the court to have been caused by any inducement, threat or promise with
reference to the charge against the accused. 7 A confession made to a police officer while in
custody, it is not provable in any proceedings in which he is charged to the commission of an
offence.  The privilege of right against self incrimination forms the roots of this section.8

That in the present case, the counsels on behalf of the appellant humbly submits that the
confession was taken in police custody and was made involuntarily and is a weak piece of
evidence, as it does not have some

corroborative evidence. Thus the confessional statement made by the appellant is inadmissible
as evidence and cannot be used as a sole piece of evidence.

II.II CONFESSION A SOLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE WITH NO CORROBORATION

A. That it is humbly submitted that the sum and substance, the only so called solitary evidence
is confessional statement of the accused and the rejection of bail cannot be solely based on
such statement. The statement is not corroborated by any circumstantial evidence. 9 The
confessional statement of the accused cannot be said to be voluntary statement inspiring
confidence in it for the purpose of rejecting the bail and therefore, the High Court has erred
in arriving at the conclusion of rejection of bail on the basis of the so-called confessional
statement.
B. That court shall not base a conviction on such a confession without corroboration. It is not a
rule of law, but is only rule of Prudence. If cannot even be laid down as an inflexible rule of
practice of prudence that under no circumstances can such a conviction be made without
corroboration, for a court may, in a particular case, be convinced of the absolute truth of a
confession and prepared to act upon it without corroboration; but it may be laid down as a
general rule of practice that it is unsafe to rely upon a confession.10
C. That before acting upon a confession, the Court has to satisfy itself that it was freely and
voluntarily made, having regard to the language of Section 24 of the Evidence Act. 11 It has
7
Ram Singh v. Central Bureau of Narcotics
8
R v. Gaganseeha, 1968 73 (CNLR) 154 at 180.
9
Rajkumar Hariram Gameti v. State of Gujarat 2009 (1) GLR 143.
10
Pyare Lal Bhargava vs. State of Rajasthan (1963 Suppl.1 SCR 689).
11
Rajkumar Hariram Gameti v. State of Gujarat 2009 (1) GLR 143.
 been clearly stated in the case at hand that the confession was taken in custody and therefore
it can be interpreted that the so-called confessional statement is involuntary in nature.
D. That the confessional statement made by the appellant before the authorities are not only
inadmissible in evidence but also not voluntary and further not corroborated by any other
evidence and, therefore, the order of rejection of bail is fit to be set aside.12
E. However, before solely acting on confession, as a rule of prudence, the Court requires some
corroboration but as an abstract proposition of law it cannot be said that a conviction cannot
be maintained solely on the basis of the confession made under Section 67 of the Act.13

That it is humbly submitted that the bail has been rejected only on the basis of the so-called
confessional statement having no corroboration and also the confessional statement was taken
in custody thus a weak piece of evidence. Confession cannot be regarded as the sole basis for a
conviction as prudence and justice dictates that such evidence may be used as corroborative
piece of evidence.14 Therefore, it is submitted that the SLP be allowed and the appellant be
acquitted.

12
Ram Singh v/s Central Bureau Of Narcotics CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.451-452 OF 2005.
13
Ibid
14
Sahoo v. State of Uttar Pradesh, A.I.R 1966 SC 40.