Corroborative Evidence Necessary To Prove Guilt Of Accused, Mere Recovery Statement Insufficient: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently held that merely recovering the object does not establish guilt unless there are other materials connecting the accused to the commission of the offence. 

Observing so, Justice Ziyad Rahman A held that the trial court's reliance on the disclosure statements without sufficient corroborative evidence was unjustifiable.

"...apart from the aforesaid disclosure statement, there is nothing to connect the accused persons with the commission of the offences, and since I have found that the disclosure statements are inadequate for holding the appellants guilty, the only irresistible conclusion possible is that the prosecution miserably failed in establishing the guilt of the accused."

The case arose from a complaint filed by the defacto complainant alleging theft of gold ornaments and money. The police submitted a charge sheet implicating six persons for the offences. After the trial, the appellants were found guilty, while others were acquitted.

The appellants were thus convicted of offences under Sections 380 (theft), 454 (trespass), and 461 (dishonestly breaking open receptacle containing property) read with section 34 (common intention) of IPC. Aggrieved by this, they approached the High Court challenging the validity of the conviction and sentence. 

Since the appellants' counsel relinquished the vakalath, Advocate Pooja Pankaj was appointed as amicus curiae. The Amicus Curiae submitted that the prosecution relied on disclosure statements for recovery, but the conviction lacked substantial evidence linking the recovered articles to the crime. The appellants contended that recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act should be supported by additional evidence connecting the recovered articles to the crime.

However, Senior Public Prosecutor Ranjit George argued that the disclosure statements clearly indicate the culpability of the appellants and were sufficient to establish their guilt.

The Single Judge went through the records and noticed that the trial court had found the appellants guilty merely relying on the recovery statements. It was also noted that the evidence of the de facto complainant only revealed the act of burglary but nothing about its connection to the appellants. 

The Court also noted that the recovery statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act can only be admissible if they are related distinctly to the fact discovered, and the fact discovered must encompass both the place from which the object is produced and the knowledge of the accused about it. However, in the present case, the recovery of gold ingots occurred almost a year after the theft, and there was no substantial evidence connecting these gold ingots to the stolen gold ornaments.

Reliance was placed on Rajeesh v. State of Kerala [ILR 2022(1) Kerala 569] to observe that recovery statements alone cannot form the basis for conviction without further evidence linking the recovered articles to the crime. As such, the prosecution failed to establish a close link between the recovered gold ingots and the commission of the offence, resulting in doubt about the guilt of the appellants.

Based on these observations, the Court concluded that the conviction of the appellants was not legally sustainable. Thus, the Single Judge set aside the judgment of the Sessions Court and acquitted the appellants of all charges. 

As such, the appeal was allowed. 

Case Title: Kochu Mani & Anr v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 352

Click Here To Read/Download The Order