Practice area

Conspiracy, abetment and co-accused statements

Defence in cases built on conspiracy, abetment and statements of co-accused under the NDPS Act.

Section 29 of the NDPS Act makes abetment and criminal conspiracy offences, even if the person did not handle the substance. Prosecutions often rely on statements of co-accused, phone records and money trails, rather than on a recovery from the accused.

What this work involves

• Testing whether the prosecution has evidence of an agreement or involvement, rather than a suspicion
• Co-accused statements: their legal value, and the need for independent corroboration
• Call detail records, location data and messages: admissibility, authenticity and the certificate requirements for electronic evidence
• Money trails and bank transactions
• Cases where the accused is named by someone else without any recovery from them
• Bail for persons alleged to be peripheral, and parity with others
• Trial defence and cross-examination of investigating officers

Frequently asked questions

Can I be convicted on the statement of a co-accused?

Courts are cautious about relying on a co-accused's statement. Independent corroboration is generally needed, and the Supreme Court's decision in Tofan Singh limits the use of statements recorded under Section 67.

What is needed to prove conspiracy?

Evidence of an agreement and of involvement in it. Mere association or suspicion is not enough.

Related reading