31 January 2025 - Legal Updates

1.  Section 27 Evidence Act | Disclosure Statements Alone Are Sufficient For Conviction Without Supporting Evidence

Case- Vinodbhai vs. State of Kerela

Date of Order- January 29, 2025

Bench- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

The Supreme Court recently ruled that a disclosure statement made under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, without accompanying supporting evidence, is insufficient to establish the guilt of an accused beyond a reasonable doubt. This decision was articulated by a bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, who acquitted an appellant previously convicted for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

Case Background

• Incident Date: December 31, 2010
• Victim: Ramakrishnan
• Accusation: The appellant allegedly stabbed Ramakrishnan with a knife, leading to his death due to grievous injuries.
• Motive: Previous enmity stemming from the appellant's involvement in the murder of his elder brother.

Key Arguments

Appellant's Defense:

• Highlighted discrepancies in prosecution witness testimonies, including omissions regarding the number of stab wounds and their proximity to the crime.
• Noted that other potential eyewitnesses were not examined and that witnesses delayed reporting the incident to police, which undermined their credibility.

Prosecution's Position:

• Argued that minor omissions did not affect witness credibility.
• Emphasized consistent identification of the appellant as the perpetrator and the recovery of the murder weapon as supporting evidence.

Court's Findings

• The Court expressed skepticism about the reliability of witness testimonies due to significant omissions and inconsistencies. It emphasized that:
• A disclosure statement leading to the recovery of evidence (the knife) cannot alone substantiate a conviction without further corroborative evidence.
• Citing Manoj Kumar Soni v. State of M.P (2023), the Court reiterated that disclosure statements are weak pieces of evidence when unaccompanied by supporting facts.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant, reinforcing that convictions must be based on robust evidence rather than solely on disclosure statements lacking corroboration.

2. Benefit of First Proviso to Section 479 BNSS Cannot Be Applied Retrospectively to Convicted Prisoners

• Case- Arunkumar vs. State of Kerela
• Date of Order- January 14, 2025
• Bench- Justice C.S. Sudha

The Kerala High Court recently ruled that the benefit of Section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), specifically the first proviso, cannot be applied retrospectively to convicted prisoners. Here are the key facts surrounding this ruling:

Case Background

• Legal Provision: Section 479 BNSS pertains to the maximum detention period for undertrial prisoners, allowing first-time offenders to be released on bond after serving one-third of the maximum prison term for their offense.
• Conviction: The applicant was convicted under Section 20(b)(ii)C of the NDPS Act and sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment. He had served approximately four and a half years and sought suspension of his sentence based on the first proviso of Section 479.

Court Proceedings

• Application: The applicant argued that he was a first-time offender and requested suspension of his sentence under Section 479.
• Opposition: The Public Prosecutor contended that this provision is applicable only to undertrial prisoners and does not extend to convicted individuals.

Court's Findings

• Timing of Alleged Crime: The court noted that the crime occurred before the BNSS came into effect.
• Supreme Court Precedent: Justice C. S. Sudha referenced a Supreme Court order in Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, which made Section 479 applicable retrospectively only to undertrial prisoners, not convicted ones.
• Conclusion: The Kerala High Court concluded it could not extend the benefit of Section 479 to convicted prisoners, as the Supreme Court had not provided such a benefit.

Outcome

The application for suspension of sentence was dismissed, reinforcing that the retrospective application of Section 479 BNSS does not extend to convicted individuals.

3. Foreign Nationals Coming to India Not Required to Declare Personal Gold Jewellery to Customs

Case- Anjali Pandey vs. Union of India

Date of Order- January 22, 2025

Bench- Justice Pratibha M. Singh and Justice Dharmesh Sharma

The Delhi High Court recently ruled that foreign nationals arriving in India are not required to declare gold jewellery intended for personal use to the Customs Department. Here are the key facts from the case:

Case Overview

Context: The ruling pertains to the interpretation of the Baggage Rules, 2016, under the Customs Act, 1962.

Incident Details

• Petitioner: A foreign national from Thailand who arrived in India on March 13, 2024.
• Items Seized: Three gold bangles worn by the petitioner were confiscated by Customs upon her arrival.
• Legal Argument: The petitioner argued that her gold bangles were personal effects and should not have been subject to seizure.

Customs Department's Position

• The Customs Department contended that all jewellery must be declared by foreign tourists and argued that jewellery does not fall under 'personal effects' exempt from duty under the Baggage Rules.

Court's Findings

• The Court emphasized the need for a distinction between 'jewellery' and 'personal jewellery' when enforcing the Baggage Rules.
• Citing previous judgments, including Nathan Narayansamy v. Commissioner of Customs (2024) and Saba Simran v. Union of India (2024), the Court noted that personal jewellery is included in the definition of 'personal effects.'
• The Court highlighted that the Baggage Rules should not impose unnecessary burdens on tourists.

Conclusion

• The Court ruled that personal jewellery worn by foreign nationals is exempt from declaration and seizure.
• It directed the Central Board of Indirect Taxes to reconsider the Baggage Rules in light of its findings.

Directions Issued by the Court

1.     Detention receipts must include contact details of tourists (email address and mobile number).

2.     Coloured images of detained jewellery should be attached to detention receipts.

3.     Copies of these images should be provided to tourists and retained by the Customs Department.

This ruling clarifies that personal jewellery carried by foreign nationals for bona fide use cannot be subjected to customs duties or seizure under current regulations.