Police Confession Of One Accused Cannot Convict Co-Accused Without Independent Evidence; Kerala High Court Acquits Man In Theft Case
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice M B Snehalatha set aside the theft conviction of a second accused, holding that a co-accused cannot be convicted solely on the basis of another accused’s confession to the police unless there is independent incriminating material against the co-accused. The court allowed a criminal revision filed by the second accused, who had been found guilty of stealing a motorcycle from the complainant’s residential premises along with the first accused. Finding no evidence linking the revision petitioner to the alleged theft apart from the police-recorded confession attributed to the first accused, the court acquitted the second accused, discharged his bail bond, and directed refund of any fine paid.
The criminal revision petition concerned allegations of theft of a motorcycle from a residential premises during the intervening night of 2nd and 3rd September 2016. The prosecution alleged that two accused persons acted in furtherance of their common intention and removed the motorcycle belonging to the defacto complainant. A first information statement was lodged after the complainant found the vehicle missing, leading to registration of a crime at the concerned police station.
During night patrol on 8th September 2016, police officials intercepted a motorcycle ridden by one accused with another person as pillion rider. On noticing the police, the pillion rider allegedly fled. The rider failed to produce any document or satisfactory explanation regarding possession of the vehicle. The motorcycle was seized, and a separate crime was registered. Upon interrogation, the rider allegedly disclosed that the vehicle was stolen and implicated the co-accused.
After verification of ownership and transfer of records between police stations, investigation was completed and a final report was laid alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 379 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court convicted both accused and imposed sentence of imprisonment and fine. The appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentence against the revision petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the accused filed the criminal revision petition contending that there was no legally admissible evidence connecting him with the alleged offence.
The Court observed that “except for the statement given by PWs 3 and 4 that while in custody, A1 made a confession statement to the police that he, along with A2, stolen the motorcycle … there is absolutely no evidence to connect A2 with the crime.”
While analysing the law relating to confessions, the Court recorded that “The expression “confession proved” in Section 30 of the Evidence Act necessarily means a confession that is legally admissible. Since Section 25 of the Evidence Act imposes an absolute bar on confession made to a police officer, such a confession cannot be proved at all. Consequently, it cannot be looked into even for the limited purpose contemplated under Section 30 of the Evidence Act.”
On the scope of Section 30 of the Evidence Act, the Court observed that “The basis on which this provision is founded is that if a person makes confession implicating himself, that any suggest that the maker of the confession is speaking the truth. Normally, if a statement made by an accused person is found to be voluntary and it amounts to a confession in the sense that it implicates the maker, it is not likely that the maker would implicate himself untruly, and so, Section 30 provides that such a confession may be taken into consideration even against a co-accused who is being tried along with the maker of the confession”
The Court noted that “a confession of a co-accused which is inadmissible in view of the bar under Section 25 of the Evidence Act is non-existent in the eye of law.” It further observed that “such confession cannot be looked into even for the limited purpose contemplated under Section 30 of the Evidence Act.”
On the evidentiary deficiency, the Court stated that “the prosecution failed to establish the involvement of the revision petitioner in the commission of the crime alleged.” It recorded that the courts below had relied upon material which was legally inadmissible to sustain the conviction of the revision petitioner.
The Court directed that “the revision petition is allowed. The conviction and sentence against the revision petitioner for the offence under Section 379 read with Section 34 IPC stands set aside. The revision petitioner is acquitted. His bail bond stands discharged. Fine amount, if remitted, shall be returned to the revision petitioner.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Shri T.A. Shain, Advocate; Shri R. Harikrishnan, Advocate (Amicus Curiae)
For the Respondent: Smt. Maya M.N., Government Pleader
Case Title: Shyjal C. v. State of Kerala
Neutral Citation: 2026: KER:4463
Case Number: Criminal Revision Petition No. 448 of 2018
Bench: Justice M.B. Snehalatha
