The Kerala High Court recently set aside the conviction of a man sentenced to two years’ rigorous imprisonment in a late-night gold snatching incident, ruling that recovery evidence alone cannot sustain guilt without substantive proof.
The case arose when two men allegedly snatched ornaments from a woman returning home with her husband and fled in an autorickshaw. During trial, one accused absconded and the case against him was separated, while the petitioner was convicted under Section 379 read with Section 34 IPC. His conviction was upheld by the Sessions Court, Kozhikode.
Challenging the verdict, the petitioner argued that neither the complainant nor his wife had ever identified him as the assailant, with the FIR itself recording that the culprits were unknown. No test identification parade was conducted, and the prosecution’s case rested solely on the recovery of ornaments based on his alleged disclosure under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and presumption under Section 114(a).
The prosecution maintained that the recovery and tracing of ornaments to jewellery shops was sufficient to uphold the conviction. However, the High Court, relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Manoj Kumar Soni v. State of Madhya Pradesh, held that recovery, though admissible, cannot by itself prove guilt in the absence of other substantive evidence.
Finding a crucial gap in linking the accused to the crime, the Court acquitted him and allowed the criminal revision petition, clarifying that legal presumptions and recovery alone cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Picture Source :
