Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, DIPANKAR DATTA, JJ.
Manoj Kumar Soni - Appellant
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1030 of 2023
With
Kallu @ Habib - Appellant
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1458 of 2023
Decided On : 11-08-2023
(A) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 27 – Disclosure statement – Courts have hesitated to place reliance solely on disclosure statements of co-accused and used them merely to support conviction or lend assurance to other evidence against co-accused – Although disclosure statements hold significance as a contributing factor in unriddling a case, they are not so strong a piece of evidence sufficient on its own and without anything more to bring home charges beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 21 and 23)
(B) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 114 – Presumption – 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. (Para 36)
(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 313 – Examination of accused – Courts have been cautioned against recording statements in a casual and cursory manner – What holds importance is not mere quantity of questions posed to accused but rather content and manner in which they are framed. (Para 31)
(D) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 411 and 120-B – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 374(2) – Possession of stolen money and criminal conspiracy – Conviction and sentence – Quality of evidence led by prosecution in present case to nail appellants was wholly untrustworthy for convicting them and Trial Court as well as High Court erred in not acquitting them – Seizure witness having turned hostile and not support prosecution case, standalone evidence of I.O. on seizure cannot be deemed either conclusive or convincing – One person alone can never be held guilty of criminal conspiracy because one cannot conspire with oneself – Conviction of appellants cannot be justified solely on the basis of illusory knowledge regarding their involvement in crime – Conviction of appellants as recorded by Trial Court and sentence imposed upon them set aside. (Paras 19, 28, 30, 38, 43 and 44)
Facts of the case:
These criminal appeals, by special leave, assail common judgment and order dated 12th October, 2022 of 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, respectively, were dismissed. While Manoj assailed his conviction for the offence punishable under Section 411 of 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.
Findings of Court:
Manoj and Kallu are acquitted and set free. Consequently, conviction of Manoj and Kallu as recorded by Trial Court and the sentence imposed upon them, since affirmed by the High Court, stand set aside. Manoj and Kallu, reportedly, have been enlarged on bail pending decision on their respective appeals; hence, they shall stand discharged of their bail bonds.
Result : Appeals allowed. Appellants acquitted.
Understood. Please provide the legal document content (inside
JUDGMENT :
Dipankar Datta, J.
1. These 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 (“High Court”, hereafter) whereby Criminal Appeal No. 10474 of 2019 and Criminal Appeal No. 10549 of 2019 [appeals under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (“Cr. PC”, hereafter)] carried by Manoj Kumar Soni (“Manoj”, hereafter) and Kallu @ Habib (“Kallu”, hereafter), respectively, were dismissed. While Manoj assailed his conviction for the offence punishable under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”, hereafter) 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.
2. In all, five accused persons were convicted and sentenced for different offences punishable under the IPC vide the common judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge (“Trial Court”, hereafter) dated 28th November, 2019. The aforesaid judgment having been confirmed by the High Court, all the accused persons preferred Special Leave Petitions (“SLPs”, hereafter) before this Court challenging the common judgment dated 12th October, 2022. The SLPs of the three accused, namely, Suleman, Arif and Jaihind, were dismissed and the judgment and order of the High Court affirming their conviction and sentence left undisturbed. However, notice was issued on the SLPs preferred by the remaining two accused, Manoj and Kallu, on 06th April, 2023 and 11th April, 2023, respectively.
3. These two appeals were heard on different dates. However, a common judgment being under assail, this Court proposes to dispose of both these appeals vide this common judgment.
4. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that a complaint was registered by PW-18 (“complainant”, hereafter) to the effect that on 14th April, 2010, at around 1:30 pm, while the complainant was in her house, four persons rang the doorbell. When her servant, PW-8, answered the door, all four persons armed with a pistol forcefully entered the house. They tied up the hands and legs of the complainant and her servant, threatened to kill them, and proceeded to rob the complainant of silver and gold jewellery, cash, and other valuables by taking the keys to the locker. The accused persons remained at the complainant's residence till 2:30 pm before fleeing. Based on the complaint, an F.I.R. was registered at around 4:30 pm against four unknown persons under Section 394, IPC and all of them were subsequently arrested.
5. Investigation of the F.I.R. was carried out by the Investigating Officer (“I.O.”, hereafter). The specific allegations against Manoj are that the stolen jewellery (“articles”, hereafter) had allegedly been sold to him and, despite being aware that the co-accused had sold him stolen goods, he still chose to receive and possess the same dishonestly. Consequently, he was arrested on 9th May, 2010. Thereafter, these articles were recovered by the I.O. on two different days — 9th May, 2010 and 21st May, 2010. While the Seizure Memo dated 9th May, 2010 bears the signature of seizure witnesses PW-16 and PW-5, the Seizure Memo dated 21st May, 2010 bears the signature of seizure witnesses PW-11 and PW-6. The process of identification was conducted by PW-19, the Tehsildar, on 15th July, 2010. The specific allegations against Kallu, former driver of the complainant, pertain to his involvement in a conspiracy with other co-accused persons. The allegation against him is that he shared information with them, disclosing that the complainant had a substantial amount of money and valuable jewellery in her residence, coupled with the knowledge that she lived a
(1) Disclosure statement – Although disclosure statements hold significance as a contributing factor in unriddling a case, they are not so strong a piece of evidence sufficient on its own and without....
(1) Although Apex Court is bestowed with capacious powers under Article 136 of Constitution, yet, while beseeching such powers in a criminal appeal by special leave, Apex Court would by and large abs....
Possession of stolen articles – Key ingredient for a crime is mens rea – To establish that a person is dealing with stolen property, "believe" factor of the person is of stellar import.
Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires credible proof and a complete chain of circumstances; failure to establish these leads to acquittal.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the accused's knowledge or strong belief of knowing the articles to have been stolen in the offence of dishonestly rece....
Mere recovery based on disclosure statements is inadequate to establish guilt; additional evidence linking recovered items to the crime is necessary.
The court emphasized that disclosure statements must be corroborated by credible evidence to establish guilt, and acquittals were upheld due to insufficient evidence against several accused.
The court upheld the conviction based on corroborative evidence despite non-compliance with Section 65-B of the Evidence Act regarding electronic records.
(1) Where case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, chain of evidence must be so far complete, such that every hypothesis is excluded but one proposed to be proved and such circumstances must s....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
