The Confession Obtained at the Checkpost
Police at a highway checkpost in Chhukha stop a bolero at 11 p.m. and find 12 kg of suspected cannabis in a jute sack. The driver, Karma, and a passenger, Sonam, are detained. At the checkpost, without informing either of them of any right to counsel, officers question Karma for 90 minutes. He signs a Dzongkha statement saying the drugs belong to him and that Sonam knew nothing. At 3 a.m. he is taken to the police station and produced before a court 60 hours later. At trial Karma retakes his statement before the judge and pleads guilty. Sonam is charged as an accomplice solely on the basis of Karma's checkpost statement. Karma later moves to retract, saying he was slapped twice and told Sonam would be released if he confessed. The prosecution relies on the checkpost statement, the seizure list signed by one officer only, and Karma's judicial statement.
1. Assess the admissibility of Karma's checkpost statement and his judicial statement.
Read the worked answer
The checkpost statement is inadmissible. It was obtained during custodial questioning without informing Karma of his right to counsel and without production before a magistrate. Bhutanese criminal procedure requires that a detained person be informed of the grounds of arrest and produced before a court within 24 hours; 60 hours is unlawful. A confession made to police in these circumstances is not voluntary in law and cannot be proved against the maker. The two slaps and the inducement concerning Sonam reinforce the involuntariness finding.
The judicial statement stands on a different footing. A confession recorded by a judge after the accused is produced, after ascertaining that it is voluntary and after warning that it may be used against him, is substantive evidence. Retraction does not automatically destroy it; the court must test voluntariness. But the 60-hour illegal detention preceding production taints the record. The court should examine Karma on oath, look for corroboration, and if satisfied the judicial confession was voluntary, convict on it. If doubt remains, it must acquit.
2. Can Sonam be convicted as an accomplice? Analyse the evidentiary position.
Read the worked answer
No. The only material implicating Sonam is Karma's checkpost statement, which is inadmissible against Karma and, a fortiori, cannot be used against a co-accused. A confession is personal to its maker and is not evidence against others. Karma's judicial statement expressly exonerates Sonam, so it provides no support either.
The seizure list is signed by only one officer and was not attested; its evidentiary weight is therefore diminished, and in any event it proves possession of the vehicle's contents, not Sonam's knowledge. Mere presence in a vehicle carrying contraband does not establish common intention or abetment. The prosecution must prove knowledge and shared intent by independent evidence - statements of independent witnesses, fingerprints, communication records, or recovery from Sonam's person. None exists. Sonam must be acquitted, and the court should record that the charge failed for want of legally admissible evidence, not merely for want of proof beyond reasonable doubt on the merits.