Recently, the Kerala High Court observed that a conviction based exclusively on recovery evidence cannot be sustained in law. The Court while allowing a criminal revision petition filed by an accused convicted for housebreaking and theft, held that the recovery made on the basis of a joint confession could not be relied upon without corroborative evidence. Further noted that it was “impossible to believe that all accused could have made a joint statement in one voice,” and emphasized that such evidence, without proper proof, lacked evidentiary value.
Brief Facts:
The case arose from an incident where a group of accused allegedly broke into a Beverages Corporation outlet at Menonpara during the night and stole several bottles of Indian Made Foreign Liquor. The next morning, the shop manager discovered the locks broken and liquor bottles missing, following which a police complaint was lodged. After investigation, three individuals, including the petitioner, were charged with offences under Sections 457 and 380 read with 34 of the IPC.
The trial court convicted the petitioner and another co-accused, sentencing them to three years of simple imprisonment with fines. The appellate court later dismissed the petitioner’s appeal, affirming the conviction. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court in revision.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The counsel for the petitioner contended that the entire conviction rested solely upon the alleged recovery of liquor bottles based on the petitioner’s confession, without any independent evidence linking him to the crime. It was argued that the prosecution failed to prove the exact information allegedly provided by the accused that led to the recovery, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The petitioner maintained that such recovery evidence, unsupported by corroboration, could not justify his conviction.
Observations of the Court:
Justice P. V. Balakrishnan of the Court examined the prosecution’s reliance on the recovery and found that the investigation and evidence failed to meet the legal threshold required under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
The Court observed, “It is a settled law as held by the Apex Court in Bodh Raj v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, that in order to rely upon a recovery effected under Section 27, the prosecution is duty-bound to prove the exact information received from the accused while in custody which led to the recovery.”
The Court further remarked on the improbability of the prosecution’s version, “It is quite impossible to believe that all the accused have spoken simultaneously and in one voice. When there are multiple accused, the investigating officer must record who gave what information and when, so that the recovery may be connected to the specific person giving it.”
Referring to recent judicial precedents, including Manoj Kumar Soni v. State of MP and Abdul Jabbar v. State of Kerala, the Court reiterated that recovery evidence is not substantive and cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless supported by independent corroboration.
The decision of the Court:
Holding that the conviction was based exclusively on recovery evidence without any supporting material, the High Court set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner by both the trial and appellate courts. The Court allowed the criminal revision petition and directed that the petitioner be set at liberty.
Case Title: Selvan vs. State of Kerala
Case No.: Crl.Rev.Pet No. 1438 of 2017
Coram: Justice P. V. Balakrishnan
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Saijo Hassan, Benoj C. Augustin, U.M.hassan, P. Parvathy, Rafeek. V.K., Vishnu Bhuvanendran
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. U.Jayakrishnan
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kerala_New_High_Court.jpg
