MANOJ KUMAR SONI   (APPELLANT) Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH   (RESPONDENTS)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1030/2023

(2JB, S. RAVINDRA BHAT and DIPANKAR DATTA JJ., delivered by DIPANKAR DATTA, J.)

Facts: The present criminal appeals, by special leave, assail the common judgment and order dated 12th October, 2022 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Jabalpur whereby Criminal Appeal No. 10474 of 2019 and Criminal Appeal No. 10549 of 2019 [appeals under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code] carried by Manoj Kumar Soni and Kallu @ Habib, respectively, were dismissed. While Manoj assailed his conviction for the offence punishable under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentence of rigorous imprisonment of three years with a fine of Rs. 5,000.00 and a default sentence of three months, Kallu assailed his conviction for the offence punishable under Section 120-B, IPC and sentence of rigorous imprisonment of ten years with a fine of Rs. 5,000.00 and a default sentence of three months.

Issue: Whether disclosure statements per se, unaccompanied by any supporting evidence, be deemed adequate to secure a conviction?

Arguments on behalf of counsel for appellant:

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Manoj submitted that the courts below erred in recording the conviction under Section 411, IPC. The main submissions advanced by him to have the conviction reversed are as follows:

1. a) All four independent witnesses (PW-5, PW-6, PW-11, and PW-16) who were shown to be present during the seizure/recovery of the articles from Manoj’s house turned hostile and failed to support the prosecution’s case of seizure.
2. b) There were serious procedural lapses in conducting the identification process in respect of the articles and the presumption under Section 114, Evidence Act was erroneously drawn as the very identification process suffers from serious lapses.
3. c) The Trial Court recorded the statement of Manoj under Section 313, Cr. PC in a very casual manner, as if it were completing a formality in law.
4. d) Manoj has been framed in the case due to the animosity between him and the police as the police used to “often harass [Manoj] for going here and there and getting the jewellery weighed, identification etc.”
5. e) Significant contradictions exist between the testimonies of police witnesses and seizure witnesses.

Arguments on behalf of counsel for respondents:

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State submitted that both the courts below delved deep into the materials on record and, upon meticulous consideration of evidence, did not find any material contradiction in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. The procedural flaws pointed out by his adversary did not result in any failure of justice and, therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court, which has since been affirmed by the High Court. Supporting the conviction and sentence of Manoj, the learned counsel urged this Court to dismiss the appeal.

Held: The court allowed the present appeal and acquitted the appellants while setting aside their conviction by the trial court, as upheld by the high court. The court held that, “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.”

Further, it was observed by the court that, “Coming to the case at hand, there is not a single iota of evidence except the disclosure statements of Manoj and the co-accused, which supposedly led the I.O. to the recovery of the stolen articles from Manoj and Rs.3,000.00 from Kallu. At this stage, we must hold that admissibility and credibility are two distinct aspects and the latter is really a matter of evaluation of other available evidence. The statements of police witnesses would have been acceptable, had they supported the prosecution case, and if any other credible evidence were brought on record. While the recoveries made by the I.O. under Section 27, Evidence Act upon the disclosure statements by Manoj, Kallu and the other co-accused could be held to have led to discovery of facts and may be admissible, the same cannot be held to be credible in view of the other evidence available on record.”