Kerala High Court | Chain Snatching Case | Recovery of Stolen Articles Under Section 27 Evidence Act Not Sufficient for Conviction Without Identification of Accused
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice Dr. Kauser Edappagath held that a conviction based solely on recovery evidence under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and presumption under Section 114(a) of the same Act cannot be sustained in law. The Court set aside the concurrent findings of the trial court and the appellate court, ultimately acquitting the accused of the charges. In its final directive, the Court declared that the accused was not guilty of the offence charged against him and ordered his acquittal, thereby allowing the criminal revision petition.
The matter arose from allegations that on 11 November 2001 at approximately 9:45 p.m., while the de facto complainant and his wife were returning home after watching a movie along the Vadakara-Villyapalli public road, two individuals arrived in an autorickshaw. One among them, in furtherance of their common intention, allegedly snatched gold ornaments (MO1 and MO2 series) worn by the wife of the de facto complainant and fled in the same autorickshaw. Based on this, a criminal case was registered.
The accused, Abdul Jabbar, was arraigned as accused No.1. He, along with another accused, faced charges under Section 379 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. However, during trial proceedings, accused No.2 absconded when the case was posted for questioning under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Consequently, the case against accused No.2 was split up and refiled as C.C. No. 913/2004.
During the trial, the prosecution examined witnesses PW1 to PW11 and marked exhibits P1 to P5. Material objects MO1, MO2, and MO2(a) were also produced. The defence marked Ext. D1 series. The trial court, after appreciating the evidence, held the accused guilty under Section 379 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced him to two years of rigorous imprisonment. On appeal, the Sessions Court, Kozhikode, confirmed both the conviction and sentence.
The petitioner, challenging these findings, filed the present criminal revision petition before the High Court. The petitioner contended that there was no substantive legal evidence linking him to the alleged offence. It was argued that the conviction was based solely on the recovery of gold ornaments allegedly pursuant to his disclosure statement, which was impermissible without corroborative substantive evidence.
It was pointed out that PW1, the wife of the de facto complainant, and PW2, the de facto complainant, failed to identify the accused as one of the perpetrators. Ext. P1, the First Information Statement, also revealed that PW2 had categorically stated his inability to identify any person in the autorickshaw, nor did he notice its number. The absence of a test identification parade further weakened the prosecution’s case. The petitioner’s counsel stated that the accused was never shown to the witnesses during investigation, which stated out proper identification.
The trial court had found that the evidence of PW1 and PW2 was insufficient to prove the identity of the accused as the offender. However, relying on recovery of MO1, MO2, and MO2(a) allegedly pursuant to a disclosure statement made in police custody and applying the presumption under Section 114(a) of the Evidence Act, the trial court and the appellate court convicted the petitioner.
The prosecution case on recovery was twofold. First, regarding MO1 (a thali chain), it was alleged that the accused disclosed that he had sold it at the jewellery shop of PW4. Based on his confession, police seized MO1 from PW4’s shop, with Ext. P3 seizure mahazar prepared in presence of witnesses PW5 and PW6. PW4, the shop owner, testified that the accused sold the chain at his shop. Second, regarding MO2 and MO2(a), it was alleged that the accused disclosed having sold them at PW7’s shop. Ext. P4 seizure mahazar was prepared following their seizure. Though PW8, an attestor, turned hostile, the recovery was supported by PW7 and PW10.
The defence argued that recoveries under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, while admissible, could not alone establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt without corroboration. It was stated that the absence of identification and the sole reliance on recovery evidence rendered the conviction unsustainable. The petitioner sought acquittal, arguing that no substantive evidence existed to link him to the crime.
Justice Dr. Kauser Edappagath recorded that both the trial court and the appellate court had accepted that PW1 and PW2 did not identify the accused during investigation or trial. The Court stated: “In Ext.P1 FI statement, PW2 categorically stated that he could not identify any of the persons in the autorickshaw. He could not notice the number of the autorickshaw. No test identification was also conducted.” The Court further noted: “The petitioner or the accused No.2 was not shown to PW1 and PW2 during the investigation.” Thus, the Court found that there was no substantive identification evidence against the petitioner.
Regarding recovery, the Court acknowledged the testimonies of PW4, PW5, PW6, and PW10 in relation to MO1 and of PW7 and PW10 in relation to MO2 and MO2(a). The Court observed: “The recovery of MO1, MO2 and MO2(a) pursuant to the confession statement given by the petitioner while in police custody is admissible under Section 27 of the Act, as rightly held by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court.” However, the Court clarified the legal position, stating: “While recovery under Section 27 of the Act can be a crucial piece of evidence, it cannot be the sole basis for conviction. It is not substantive evidence. It needs to be corroborated by other evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Manoj Kumar Soni v. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 2023 SC 3857), observing: “Although disclosure statements hold significance as a contributing factor in unriddling a case, they are not so strong a piece of evidence sufficient on their own and without anything more to bring home the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.”
The Senior Public Prosecutor had argued that, at the least, conviction under Section 411 IPC could be sustained since PW4 and PW7 confirmed that the petitioner sold the ornaments, which indicated possession of stolen property soon after the theft. Reliance was placed on Nazir v. State (2002 KHC 2840), where it was held that conviction under Section 411 IPC was permissible when recovery of stolen articles was effected consequent to a confession statement.
However, the Court rejected this contention, noting that the Supreme Court in Manoj Kumar Soni had clarified that: “A presumption of fact under Section 114(a) of the Evidence Act must be drawn considering other evidence on record and without corroboration from other cogent evidence, it must not be drawn in isolation.” The Court added: “Solely relying on the disclosure statement made by the accused, conviction under Section 411 of IPC is also not permissible.”
The Court ultimately concluded: “For these reasons, I hold that the conviction of the petitioner based on the evidence regarding recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and drawing presumption under Section 114(a) of the Evidence Act alone cannot be sustained.”
On the basis of its findings, the High Court issued the following directive: “Accordingly, the impugned conviction and sentence are hereby set aside. The petitioner/accused No.1 is found not guilty for the offence charged against him and he is acquitted.” The Court categorically allowed the criminal revision petition.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Shri. Sunny Mathew, Advocate
For the Respondents: Shri. E.C. Bineesh, Senior Public Prosecutor
Case Title: Abdul Jabbar v. State of Kerala
Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:61858
Case Number: Crl.R.P. No.1604 of 2006
Bench: Justice Dr. Kauser Edappagath
