Chain Snatching | Recovery Of Stolen Items Not Sufficient For Conviction Without Identification Of Person Who Committed Theft: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has recently held that a person cannot be convicted merely on the basis of recovery of stolen items when the same is not corroborated with evidence to show that it was, in fact, he who stole them.Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Manoj Kumar Soni v. State of Madhya Pradesh, wherein it was held that disclosure statements cannot...
The Kerala High Court has recently held that a person cannot be convicted merely on the basis of recovery of stolen items when the same is not corroborated with evidence to show that it was, in fact, he who stole them.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Manoj Kumar Soni v. State of Madhya Pradesh, wherein it was held that disclosure statements cannot be the sole basis for conviction when unaccompanied by supporting evidence.
The Court was considering a revision petition challenging the trial court's order convicting the accused for theft under Section 379 IPC which was also upheld by the appellate court.
A complaint was filed by the de facto complainant alleging that the petitioner along with the second accused came in an autorickshaw and snatched the gold ornaments of the complainant's wife.
Before the trial court, none of the witnesses identified the persons who came in the auto and the number of the auto was also not shown. Test identification was also not conducted. The gold ornaments were recovered as per Section 27 Evidence Act from two separate shops on the basis of the confession statement given by the petitioner in police custody. The trial court based its conviction on the aforesaid recovery, drawing presumption under Section 114(a) of the Evidence Act.
For context, as per Section 114(a), the Court may presume that a man, who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession.
As per Section 27, when any fact is discovered or any item is recovered on the basis of the confessional statement of the accused person, the same would be admissible as evidence.
The high court noted that the trial court had found that the prosecution witnesses did not identify the petitioner or the accused No.2 at all. The petitioner or the accused No.2 were not shown to PW1 and PW2 during the investigation.
The high court thus questioned whether the said evidence of recovery of stolen goods and the alleged confessional statement is alone sufficient to connect the petitioner with the crime.
Reversing the finding of guilt, the Court observed, “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...However, the Supreme Court in Manoj Kumar Soni (supra) has also held 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. It was further held that solely relying on the disclosure statement made by the accused, conviction under Section 411 of IPC is also not permissible.”
Thus, the Court allowed the revision petition.
Case No: Crl.Rev.Pet. No. 1604 of 2006
Case Title: Abdul Jabbar v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 542
Counsel for the petitioner: Sunny Mathew
Counsel for the respondent: E.C. Bineesh – Sr. PP