Kerala High Court Sets Aside Conviction Based Solely on Recovery Evidence

The court emphasizes the need for corroborative evidence beyond Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act in criminal convictions.

In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court has set aside the conviction and sentence of Selvan, the 2nd accused in a theft case, underscoring the insufficiency of convictions based solely on recovery evidence under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The judgment, delivered by Justice P.V. Balakrishnan, highlights the necessity for corroborative evidence to substantiate criminal charges beyond reasonable doubt.

The case dates back to an incident on March 14, 2011, when theft was reported at a Beverages Corporation outlet in Menonpara. The prosecution alleged that Selvan, along with others, committed theft of Indian Made Foreign Liquor valued at Rs. 24,515/-. The trial court initially found Selvan guilty based on evidence including a confession leading to recovery of the stolen items, sentencing him to three years of imprisonment along with a fine.

However, upon revision, the High Court scrutinized the reliability of the recovery evidence, pointing out the lack of corroboration. Justice Balakrishnan referenced established precedents, including judgments from the Supreme Court, which assert that recovery under Section 27 must be supported by additional substantive evidence to be deemed reliable for conviction. The judgment cited the need for specific recorded information from the accused that leads to recovery, which was absent in this case.

The court noted the impossibility of multiple accused providing identical confessions and emphasized the necessity for distinct information from each accused to establish individual culpability. The decision draws attention to the fundamental legal principle that disclosure statements alone cannot form the basis for conviction without corroborative evidence, as reiterated in previous Supreme Court rulings.

The Kerala High Court's verdict aligns with broader judicial perspectives on the limitations of recovery evidence, reinforcing the judiciary's commitment to upholding fair trial principles. The ruling sets a precedent for future cases, ensuring that convictions are grounded in comprehensive and corroborative evidence, safeguarding against potential miscarriages of justice.

Bottom Line:

Conviction based solely on recovery evidence under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act without corroboration by other substantive evidence cannot be sustained.

Statutory provision(s): Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 27; Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 457, 380, read with Section 34

Selvan v. State of Kerala, (Kerala) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2798389