|
Wrongly Convicted Database Record
|
Charge: |
Drug Related (Possession or sale) |
Sentence: |
"15 years & Rs. 1, 50, 000 fine" |
Years Imprisoned: |
|
Year Crime: |
2003 |
Year Convicted: |
2005 |
Year Cleared: |
2019 |
U.S. State or Country of Crime: |
India |
County or Region of Crime: |
|
City of Crime: |
Madras |
Result: |
Judicially Exonerated |
Summary of Case: |
"Mohammed Fasrin was wrongly convicted on December 16, 2005 of drug offenses in Madras (Chennai), India that occurred on January 4, 2003. Fasrin was prosecuted for violating two sections of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 based on a confession by himself and a co-accused that after a man identified as Mohammed in Bombay handed over a vehicle to him with 7.4 kgs of heroin hidden in it, he was to hand the heroin over to to another man, Nalliapan, who would then hand the heroin to Fasrin. The confessions regarding Fasrin's involvment were uncorroboration because the authorities had no evidence of Fasrin's involvement other than the confessions. The two sections Fasrin was accused of violating was section 8(c) that prohibits the: "produce, manufacture, possess, sell, purchase, transport, warehouse, use, consume, import inter-State, export inter-State, import into India, export from India or tranship any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance." , production, manufacture, possession, selling, purchase, transport After his conviction in the District and Sessions Court Fasrin was sentenced to 15 years in prison and payment of a Rs. 1, 50, 000 fine, or in lieu of payment of the fine an additional year in prison. Fasrin appealed. On February 19, 2008 the Madras High Court affirmed his conviction and sentence. The Supreme Court accepted review of his case. He was released on bail. On September 4,2019 a three-judge panel of the Supreme Court unanimously acquitted Fasrin on the basis the prosecution introduced insufficient evidence to prove his guilt of his convicted crimes. The Court ruled the uncorroborated confessions were weak evidence that did not establish the purported exchange of illegal narcotics to him even occurred. The Court's ruling stated: "The confession of a co-accused gives a clue to the investigating authorities as to how to investigate the matter and against whom to investigate the matter. Thereafter, it is for the investigating officers to collect evidence against the said person who has been named by the co-accused. In the present case no such corroborative evidence has been led. ... It is also well settled that a confession, especially a confession recorded when the accused is in custody, is a weak piece of evidence and there must be some corroborative evidence." The Court further stated that the confession of Fasrin's co-accused was "of no material value" as corroborating evidence -- because it was likewise uncorroborated by independent evidence that Fasrin was involved in the drug transaction. The Court also noted that there were questions about the voluntariness of Fasrin's police statement and that he was apprised of his rights prior to being interrogated: "...[T]he Court has to be satisfied that it is a voluntary statement, free from any pressure and also that the accused was apprised of his rights before recording the confession. No such material has been brought on the record of this case." The Court's ruling stated: "We hold that both the Trial Court and the High Court wrongly convicted the accused. We set aside the judgment of both the Courts below. ... The accused is already on bail. His bail bonds are discharged." (Mohammed Fasrin v State Rep. By The Intelligence Officer, Crim. App. No. 296 of 2014 (Supreme Ct. of India, 9-4-2019))" |
Conviction Caused By: |
Uncorroborated confession by Fasrin and his co-accused. |
Innocence Proved By: |
|
Defendant Aided By: |
|
Compensation Awarded: |
|
Was Perpetrator Identified? |
|
Age When Imprisoned: |
|
Age When Released: |
|
Sex: |
Male |
Skin/Ethnicity: |
Indian |
Information Source 1: |
"Mohammed Fasrin v State Rep. By The Intelligence Officer, Crim. App. No. 296 of 2014 (Supreme Ct. of India, 9-4-2019) (Setting aside conviction based on insufficient evidence.)" |
Information Location 1: |
https://mk0barandbenchgqge2s.kinstacdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Mohammad-Fasrin-vs-State-through-Intelligence-officer.pdf |
Information Source 2: |
"Confession recorded in custody is weak evidence, requires corroboration: Supreme Court, By Shruti Mahajan, Bar and Bench Legal News (New Delhi), September 23 2019" |
Information Location 2: |
https://barandbench.com/confession-recorded-in-custody-is-weak-evidence-requires-corroboration-supreme-court/ |
Information Source 3: |
|
Information Location 3: |
|
Information Source 4: |
|
Information Location 4: |
|
Information Source 5: |
|
Information Location 5: |
|
Book About Case: |
|
Book Information: |
|
Book About Case (2): |
|
Book Information (2): |
|
Movie About Case: |
|
Comments About Case: |
Innocents Database Created and Maintained by Hans Sherrer innocents@forejustice.org