DATE: 13/08/2025
COURT: High Court of Kerala
BENCH: Justice Kauser Edappagath
FACTS:
The petitioner, accused No. 1, faced trial
alongside accused No. 2 in C.C. No. 172/2002 before the Judicial First-Class
Magistrate Court-I, Vadakara, for offences under Section 379 read with Section
34 of the IPC. The case arose from an incident on 11.11.2001, when the de-facto
complainant and his wife were returning home after watching a movie. They
alleged that two men in an autorickshaw snatched gold ornaments (MO1 and MO2)
worn by the wife. While accused No. 2 absconded during the trial, the case
against the petitioner was refiled as C.C. No. 913/2004.
During the trial, witnesses PW1 and PW2
confirmed the theft but could not identify the petitioner or the other accused.
The prosecution relied on recoveries of the stolen gold ornaments based on the
petitioner’s statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and presumptions
under Section 114(a) of the Evidence Act. MO1, MO2, and MO2(a) were recovered
from jewellery shops following the petitioner’s disclosure statements. The
trial court convicted the petitioner under Section 379 read with Section 34 of
the IPC and sentenced him to two years of rigorous imprisonment. The appellate
court dismissed his appeal, leading to the filing of this revision petition
challenging both courts’ decisions.
ISSUES:
The main issue before the court was whether
the petitioner’s conviction could be sustained solely on the basis of the
recovery of stolen articles under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and
presumptions drawn under Section 114(a) of the Evidence Act, in the absence of
direct evidence connecting him to the theft.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
The court allowed the criminal revision
petition, set aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner, and
acquitted him of the charges. The petitioner was held not guilty of the offence
under Section 379 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
The court observed that the testimony of
PW1 and PW2, the victims, did not identify the petitioner as the perpetrator,
and no test identification parade was conducted. The trial and appellate courts
had relied on the petitioner’s statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act
and presumptions under Section 114(a) of the Evidence Act to convict him.
However, recovery under Section 27 is considered a piece of corroborative
evidence and not substantive proof of guilt on its own. Without additional
direct evidence linking the petitioner to the theft, conviction based solely on
such recoveries cannot meet the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
The court also referred to the Supreme
Court’s ruling in Manoj Kumar Soni v. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 2023 SC
3857), which held that disclosure statements alone, without corroboration,
cannot sustain a conviction. Similarly, presumptions under Section 114(a) must
be drawn in the context of other credible evidence. In this case, there was no
corroborative evidence connecting the petitioner to the theft. Consequently,
relying solely on the recovery of the stolen articles and the petitioner’s
disclosure statements was insufficient for conviction. Therefore, the court
acquitted the petitioner and set aside the sentences imposed by the lower
courts.
ANALYSIS:
This case underscores the critical
principle that convictions cannot be based solely on secondary or corroborative
evidence without direct proof linking the accused to the crime. While the
petitioner’s statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and the subsequent
recovery of stolen gold ornaments were considered by the lower courts, these
alone were insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The
victims could not identify the petitioner, no identification parade was
conducted, and there was no independent evidence directly connecting him to the
theft. The reliance on Section 27 recoveries and presumptions under Section
114(a) of the Evidence Act, without corroborative evidence, violated the
fundamental standard of proof required in criminal trials.
The judgment also emphasizes the
judiciary’s cautious approach to disclosure statements and presumptions.
Referring to Manoj Kumar Soni v. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 2023 SC 3857),
the court clarified that while such statements and presumptions can aid in unravelling
a case, they cannot serve as the sole basis for conviction. The ruling
reinforces that the prosecution must present credible, corroborative evidence
linking the accused to the crime to sustain a conviction. This case serves as a
reminder that the rights of the accused, including the presumption of
innocence, must be protected, and convictions based on incomplete or
uncorroborated evidence undermine the principles of criminal jurisprudence.
info@adhwaitha.com