Brief Facts
- The prosecution’s case revolves around a complaint filed by the complainant, alleging a robbery at her residence on 14.04.2010. Four armed individuals forcefully entered her house, tied her and her servant, and stole jewellery, cash, and other valuables. An FIR was registered, and subsequent investigation led to the arrest of several individuals, including Manoj and Kallu.
- Manoj was accused of purchasing stolen jewellery and possessing it knowingly. He was arrested on 09.05.2010, and the stolen articles were recovered from him on two separate occasions. Kallu, the former driver of the complainant, was accused of conspiring with the other co-accused by providing information about the complainant’s valuables, which allegedly led to the planning and execution of the robbery. Pursuant to trial, Manoj was convicted under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for dishonestly receiving stolen property, while Kallu was convicted under Section 120-B of the IPC for criminal conspiracy.
- The Trial Court relied on evidence including seizure memos and identification memos. Manoj’s conviction was based on the recovery of stolen articles from his possession and his failure to provide a satisfactory explanation for their presence. Kallu’s conviction was based on statements made by co-accused during interrogation, as well as admissions made by Kallu himself.
- Upon appeal, the High Court upheld the Trial Court’s findings, leading to the dismissal of Manoj and Kallu’s appeals.
Issues
- Can disclosure statements per se, unaccompanied by any supporting evidence, be deemed adequate to secure a conviction?
- What is the evidentiary value of disclosure statements?
- Whether presumption of fact under Section 114(a) of the Evidence Act can be considered in isolation from other evidences?
- Whether mere receiving or retaining of stolen articles would be sufficient to attract the offence under section 411 of IPC without the proof of continued retention with a dishonest intent and knowledge of the articles being stolen?
- Whether the conviction of one of the accused for the offence under Section 120B IBC sustains where the other accused persons have not been found guilty under Section 120B IPC?
Held
- Supreme Court ordered for acquittal of accused persons by reversing the concurrent findings of the Subordinate Courts.
Disclosure statement cannot be the sole basis of conviction - A doubt looms: can disclosure statements per se, unaccompanied by any supporting evidence, be deemed adequate to secure a conviction? We find it implausible. Although disclosure statements hold significance as a contributing factor in unriddling a case, in our opinion, they are not so strong a piece of evidence sufficient on its own and without anything more to bring home the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
- The law on the evidentiary value of disclosure statements under Section 27, Evidence Act made by the accused himself seems to be well established. The decision of the Privy Council in Pulukuri Kotayya and others vs. King-Emperor, 1946 SCC OnLine PC 47 holds the field even today wherein it was held that the provided information must be directly relevant to the discovered fact, including details about the physical object, its place of origin, and the accused person’s awareness of these aspects.
- The law on the evidentiary value of disclosure statements of coaccused too is settled; the courts have hesitated to place reliance solely on disclosure statements of co-accused and used them merely to support the conviction or, as Sir Lawrence Jenkins observed in Emperor vs. Lalit Mohan Chuckerburty, (1911) ILR 38 Cal 559 to “lend assurance to other evidence against a coaccused”.
- It is clear as crystal that the sole connecting evidence against Manoj and Kallu was the recovery based on their disclosure statements, along with those of the other co-accused but this evidence, in our opinion, is not sufficient to qualify as “fact … discovered” within the meaning of Section 27. Having regard to such nature of evidence, we view the same as wholly untrustworthy.
Presumption under section 114(a) - A presumption of fact under Section 114(a), 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 present case serves as a perfect example of why such a presumption should have been avoided by the Trial Court. Manoj’s conviction, solely relying on the disclosure statements made by himself and the other co-accused, does not suffice to warrant a presumption under Section 411, IPC. It would not be unreasonable to presume that a goldsmith, who has to deal in ornaments and jewelleries on a day-to-day basis, would obviously be in possession of a significant quantity of ornaments at his shop. Given the circumstances, such a presumption drawn under Section 114(a) stands vitiated.
Ingredients of section 411 not met out - Even if it was assumed that the veracity of the claim that the items sold to Manoj were indeed stolen articles, it would not be sufficient to attract Section 411, IPC; what was further necessary to be proved is continued retention of such articles with a dishonest intent and knowledge or belief that the items were stolen.
Section 120-B cannot be applied on single accused. - It is intriguing that among all five accused persons, only Kallu has been convicted for criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B, IPC. At this stage, we cannot help but wonder: can a single individual conspire with oneself? We cannot but disagree. It logically follows that one person alone can never be held guilty of criminal conspiracy because one cannot conspire with oneself.
- The wordings of Section 120-A, IPC make it abundantly clear—the offence of criminal conspiracy is committed only when two or more persons agree to do or cause to be done an illegal act or legal act by illegal means.
- Having regard to the position of law as aforesaid, the conviction of Kallu under Section 120-B, IPC stands completely vitiated because of the simple reason that one cannot alone conspire. There is no evidence to even remotely suggest that there existed any agreement between Kallu and the co-accused while none of the others, except Kallu, has been convicted for criminal conspiracy.
Relevant Para No.
- 21,22, 23, 30, 36, 37, 38, 41