Latest JudgementIndian Evidence Act, 1872

Amad Noormamad Bakali v. State of Gujarat & Ors., 2026

The decision balances strict enforcement of economic offences with humanitarian considerations in sentencing.

Supreme Court of India·24 February 2026

Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date of Decision

24 February 2026

Judges

Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta

Citation

Acts / Provisions

Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Facts of the Case

The case arose from a 1985 smuggling incident in Mandvi, Gujarat.
The appellants were accused of smuggling 777 foreign-made wrist watches and 879 wrist watch straps, valued at approximately ₹2 lakhs.
Though conscious possession of the smuggled goods was not directly attributed to the appellants, they were convicted.
Their conviction was primarily based on confessional statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act.
The High Court upheld the conviction relying substantially on these statements.
The appellants challenged the conviction before the Supreme Court, arguing that the statements were obtained under coercion and custodial torture.
They contended that convictions should not rest solely on such confessional statements without independent corroboration.

Whether a conviction under the Customs Act can be sustained solely on the basis of voluntary confessional statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962?
Whether statements recorded by Customs officers under Section 108 are hit by Sections 24, 30, or 34 of the Indian Evidence Act?
Whether allegations of coercion and absence of corroboration render such confessional statements inadmissible or unreliable?

Voluntary confessional statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act are substantive evidence.
Such statements are not hit by Sections 24, 30, or 34 of the Evidence Act, unless coercion is proved.
Conviction was upheld.
Sentence reduced to the period already undergone considering mitigating circumstances.

The ruling strengthens the evidentiary value of Section 108 Customs Act statements, aligning with established precedent.
It clarifies that Customs officers are not considered “police officers” for the limited purpose of confessional admissibility under the Evidence Act.
The judgment reinforces the principle that voluntariness is the key test for admissibility.
By placing the burden on the accused to prove coercion, the Court maintains investigative authority while safeguarding procedural fairness.
The decision balances strict enforcement of economic offences with humanitarian considerations in sentencing.
The reduction of sentence reflects judicial sensitivity toward delay, age, and long lapse of time, without disturbing the conviction.