The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that an accused cannot be prosecuted based solely on statements made to police officers, even if those statements purport to lead to discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Where no independent evidence connects the accused to the offence, and the only basis for implication is inadmissible custodial disclosures, the court invoked its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
A Swift Desire vehicle carrying 180 liters of illicit country-made liquor was intercepted at a police check-post near Aabpura, Ratlam, on 11 September 2023. The driver, Praveen Singh, and passenger, Mitthu Singh, were arrested. They disclosed that they had procured the liquor at the direction of Nahar Singh Panwar, who was subsequently apprehended on 14 December 2023. Nahar Singh’s statement was recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, wherein he admitted to instructing the two drivers to obtain the liquor from a local shop. No liquor, money trail, or call records were recovered from Nahar Singh’s possession or control.
Procedural History
- 11 September 2023: Illicit liquor seized from vehicle; FIR registered at Police Station Taal under Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act against Praveen Singh and Mitthu Singh.
- 14 December 2023: Nahar Singh Panwar arrested and questioned; his statement recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
- 2023: Final report submitted; Nahar Singh named as accused based solely on the statements of co-accused and his own custodial disclosure.
- 2023: Petition filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of FIR against Nahar Singh.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings against him, arguing that the case against him rests entirely on inadmissible police statements and lacks any corroborative evidence.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a person can be prosecuted under Section 34(2) of the M.P. Excise Act based solely on a statement recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and disclosures by co-accused in police custody, when no independent evidence links the accused to the offence.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel contended that the statement of Nahar Singh, recorded under Section 27, did not result in the discovery of any incriminating object from his possession or control. The liquor was recovered from the vehicle, not from him. Further, the disclosures by Praveen and Mitthu Singh were made while in police custody and are inadmissible as substantive evidence under Section 162 CrPC. Relying on Surinder Kumar Khanna v. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat, counsel argued that Section 30 of the Evidence Act permits a co-accused’s confession to be used only to lend assurance to independently admissible evidence - not as the sole basis for framing charges. No such independent evidence existed.
For the Respondent
The State contended that the chain of events - directions given by Nahar Singh, procurement by the drivers, and recovery of liquor - established a prima facie case. The statement under Section 27 was sufficient to implicate him, and the court should not interfere at the FIR stage. The prosecution argued that the totality of circumstances, including the admission, justified continuation of proceedings.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a rigorous analysis of the admissibility of custodial statements and the limits of Section 30 and Section 27 of the Evidence Act. It emphasized that Section 27 permits use of a statement only if it leads to the discovery of a fact in the accused’s possession. Here, the liquor was recovered from the vehicle, not from Nahar Singh. Thus, the statement could not be treated as a valid discovery under Section 27.
"The provision goes no further than this - where there is evidence against the co-accused sufficient, if believed, to support his conviction, then the kind of confession described in Section 30 may be thrown into the scale as an additional reason for believing that evidence."
The Court cited Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel to hold that a co-accused’s confession cannot be the sole basis for framing a charge. Even if the statement under Section 27 were admissible, it would still require corroboration by independent evidence. No such evidence existed - no call records, no financial trail, no recovery from his person or premises.
The Court further held that Section 162 CrPC bars the use of any statement made to a police officer during investigation, even if it contains an admission. Such statements are not admissible as substantive evidence, and cannot be used to fill evidentiary gaps. The prosecution’s case rested entirely on inadmissible material.
The Court concluded that continuing prosecution under these circumstances would constitute an abuse of process under Section 482 CrPC, as the chances of conviction were negligible and judicial resources would be wasted.
The Verdict
The petitioner won. The Court held that a person cannot be prosecuted based solely on inadmissible custodial statements under Section 27 and disclosures by co-accused, absent independent corroborative evidence. The FIR and all proceedings against Nahar Singh Panwar were quashed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Confessions to Police Cannot Substitute for Independent Evidence
- Practitioners must challenge charges framed solely on police-recorded statements under Section 27 unless the object discovered is in the accused’s direct possession.
- In excise, narcotics, or theft cases, if recovery is from a vehicle or third party, the accused’s custodial admission alone is insufficient to sustain prosecution.
Section 30 Confessions Are Only Corroborative, Not Foundational
- In multi-accused cases, courts must first assess whether the non-confessional evidence, standing alone, is sufficient to support conviction.
- If the court is not inclined to believe the other evidence, the confession cannot be used to create belief where none exists.
Section 162 CrPC Bars All Police Statements, Even Admissions
-
Even if a statement to police contains an admission short of confession, it remains inadmissible under Section 162 CrPC.
-
Practitioners should move to exclude such statements at the charge-framing stage, not wait for trial.
-
Always demand independent corroboration before accepting custodial disclosures as basis for charges.
-
File Section 482 petitions early where the case rests on inadmissible statements and no physical or digital evidence links the accused.
