Evidence – Disclosure statements relied upon, without any supporting evidence, to convict u/s.411 and s.120-B, IPC – If adequate: Held : No – Although disclosure statements hold significance as a contributing factor in unriddling a case, they are not so strong a piece of evidence sufficient on its own and without anything more to bring home the charges beyond reasonable doubt – Sole connecting evidence against both the appellants-accused (‘M’ and ‘K’) was the recovery based on their disclosure statements, along with those of the other co-accused but this evidence is not sufficient to qualify as “fact … discovered” within the meaning of s.27, Evidence Act, 1872 and thus, untrustworthy – Appellants’ conviction respectively for offence punishable u/s.411 and s.120-B, IPC set aside, acquitted. [Paras 21, 30 and 44]
Evidence Act, 1872 – s.27 – Disclosure statements u/s.27 made by the accused – Evidentiary value:
Held : The provided information must be directly relevant to the discovered fact, including details about the physical object, its place of origin, and the accused person’s awareness of these aspects – Further, as regards the disclosure statements of co-accused, Courts have hesitated to place reliance solely on them and used them merely to support the conviction. [Paras 22 and 23]
Evidence – Property seizure memos – Reliability:
Held : Could have been a reliable piece of evidence but the seizure witnesses turned hostile – No scope to rely on a part of their depositions – Thus, the seizure lost credibility.[Para 26]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Examination u/s.313 – Duty of Trial Courts:
Held : Trial courts have been cautioned against recording statements in a casual and cursory manner – Mere quantity of questions posed to the accused is not important but rather the content and manner in which they are framed – In the present case, irrelevant and abstract questions about the main incident of robbery were asked to the appellant-accused ‘M’, even though his alleged involvement occurred much later when the robbed items were allegedly sold to him by the co-accused – Prosecution’s entire case is premised on the disclosure statements made by the co-accused, but ‘M’ was never given the opportunity to explain the circumstances. [Paras 31 and 32] Evidence Act, 1872 – s.114(a) – Presumption – Appellants were not present at the complainant’s house during the incident and were apprehended later when it was discovered that ‘M’ had purchased the stolen articles and ‘K’ was involved in hatching the conspiracy: Held : A presumption of fact u/s.114(a) must be drawn considering other evidence on record and without corroboration from other cogent evidence, it must not be drawn in isolation – Trial Court convicted one of the appellant-accused (‘M’) based on a presumption u/s.114(a) asserting that his possession of stolen articles shortly after the theft, with knowledge of its stolen nature, was adequate enough to hold him guilty u/s.411, IPC – It erred in drawing such a presumption of fact without considering other factors. [Paras 34-36]
Penal Code, 1860 – s.120-B – Among all five accused persons, only one of the accused-appellant (‘K’) was convicted for criminal conspiracy u/s.120-B – Legality:
Held : One person alone can never be held guilty of criminal conspiracy because one cannot conspire with oneself – Conviction of ‘K’ u/s.120-B vitiated. [Paras 38 and 41]
Words and phrases – “Conspiracy” – Meaning – Discussed – Penal Code, 1860 – s.120-A. [Para 38]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Haricharan Kurmi vs. State of Bihar AIR 1964 SC 1184 : [1964] SCR 623 – followed.
Topandas vs. State of Bombay (1955) 2 SCR 881; Shiv Kumar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022) 9 SCC 676; Sanjeet Kumar Singh vs. State of Chhattisgarh 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1117; A Devendran vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1997) 11 SCC 720 : [1997] 4 Suppl. SCR 591 – relied on. Suresh Chandra Bahri vs. State of Bihar (1995) Supp (1) SCC 80 : [1994] 1 Suppl. SCR 483; Ram Sharan Chaturvedi vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1080 – referred to.
Pulukuri Kotayya and others vs. King-Emperor 1946 SCC OnLine PC 47; AIR 1947 PC 67; Emperor vs. Lalit Mohan Chuckerburty (1911) ILR 38 Cal 559; The King vs. Plummer (1902) 2 KB 339; I.G. Singleton v. King-Emperor (1924-25) 29 CWN 260 : AIR 1925 Cal 501 – referred to. OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.