LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Surinder Kumar Khanna v. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence

Criminal Appeal · 2018 INSC 658Decided 31 Jul 2018
Criminal Appeal No. 949 of 2018
Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre · Justice Uday Umesh Lalit

Background

Officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence intercepted a car near Hoshiarpur and recovered about 4 kg of heroin concealed in its door, leading to the arrest of two occupants, Raj Kumar and Surinder Pal Singh. During investigation, statements recorded from these two co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act named the appellant, Surinder Kumar Khanna, as having supplied the drugs for onward delivery, and he was arrested and tried along with them. The trial court convicted all three, and the Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld Khanna's conviction (reducing his sentence to 10 years), relying essentially on the co-accused's statements naming him, since no independent evidence directly linked him to the recovered heroin.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that even assuming the co-accused's statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act were admissible, settled law (going back to Kashmira Singh and the Constitution Bench ruling in Hari Charan Kurmi) establishes that a co-accused's confession/statement is a weak type of evidence that can only be used to lend assurance to other substantive evidence against an accused: it cannot itself form the sole basis of conviction. Since the prosecution admitted there was no other material (not even call records) independently linking Khanna to the crime, and the only "evidence" against him was the co-accused's statements, the Court found his conviction could not stand on that basis alone. It allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and ordered Khanna's acquittal and immediate release (unless wanted in another case).

Lesson Learnt

A person cannot be convicted of a crime solely on the strength of what a co-accused says about them: such statements can only support other independent evidence, never substitute for it; prosecutors must produce direct or corroborative evidence tying each accused to the offence.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Criminal Law

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Charming Rupon v. State of Meghalaya

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution's case riddled with serious doubt. Both the victim and her cousin (a key witness) admitted in cross-examination that they could not identify the accused and that his name had been supplied to them by the victim's mother, raising a strong suspicion of tutoring, especially since the victim admitted she had been coached by the public prosecutor before testifying. The mother's own conduct (not reacting urgently despite being told of the assault, and material facts missing from the belated FIR) was found "unnatural." A crucial witness, the school teacher whose disclosure triggered the FIR, was never examined, without explanation, warranting an adverse inference against the prosecution. The Court also noted that two medical witnesses were never meaningfully cross-examined because the defence counsel was absent on the relevant dates, and that the trial court had wrongly brushed aside credible alibi evidence led by the accused.

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Ramkrushna Prahllad Dongardive v. The State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court restored the trial court's acquittal. It found that the prosecution never produced the original cashbooks, daily registers, or audit reports that would have actually proven the appellant was entrusted with and misappropriated the money: the investigating officer himself admitted these documents were never shown to him despite being asked for. The department also failed to produce records the appellant had specifically sought in his own defence. Separately, the search and seizure of documents from the appellant's house was legally doubtful, since both independent witnesses to the seizure turned hostile and denied knowing its contents, and the mandatory procedural safeguards for such a seizure were not followed. The Court also flagged that the High Court convicted the appellant for the very first time on appeal without ever hearing him on the question of sentence, which the law required it to do.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Gurpreet Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

The Court accepted that the order recalling the proclaimed offender status be placed on record. Noting that the complainant was untraceable and the prosecution itself raised no serious objection to anticipatory bail, the Court found no reason to deny the applicant liberty. It granted anticipatory bail, directing release on a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety in the event of arrest.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Mukesh Rani vs. Narcotics Control Bureau

The Court noted the investigation was complete, the chargesheet was filed, the co-accused had already been granted bail, and the combined quantity recovered (1.976 kg) still fell short of the "commercial quantity" threshold under the NDPS Act. With ten witnesses yet to be examined and no indication the trial would conclude quickly, the Court found continued detention unnecessary and granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Aakash vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

The Court noted that all prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and the guest house manager, had already been examined, and that a co-accused in the same FIR had already been granted bail. Given the complainant's own testimony about voluntary association with the petitioner and the completed trial evidence, the Court found the overall facts favoured bail. It granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions (reporting to police weekly, not influencing witnesses, providing address/mobile details).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Kundan Kumar vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

The Court relied on earlier Delhi High Court rulings holding that whether a broken promise of marriage was "false" from the outset (criminal) or a mere "breach" (not criminal) is a question for trial, not something requiring custodial interrogation. Noting the investigation was complete and the applicant had no prior criminal record, the Court granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with conditions, clarifying the order was not an opinion on the merits.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case