Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 32870
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Jobin Sebastian, J
Abdul Salam – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
CRL.REV.PET NO. 2069 OF 2008 | Crl.A NO.206 OF 2006 | CC NO.193 OF 2004
For the Appellants/Petitioners: T.K.Saidalikutty, Lal K.Joseph, Sheena Samuel
For the Respondents: Anima M.
A conviction for theft based on discovery evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is unsustainable if the prosecution fails to establish through the de facto complainant that the recovered items are the exact stolen property, creating reasonable doubt.
Headnote:The case involves a challenge to a conviction under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code regarding a theft at a government institution. The lower courts relied heavily on recovery evidence pursuant to a disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The High Court determined that the prosecution’s failure to have the recovered articles identified by the de facto complainant created a critical evidentiary gap, failing to establish that the recovered items were indeed the stolen property. The core issue is whether a conviction for theft can be sustained on the basis of recovery evidence alone when the identity of the stolen property is not established by the complainant. The court reasoned that in theft cases substantiated by recovery, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove the identity of the recovered articles as those stolen. Since this link was absent, the evidence lacked the reliability required to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The criminal revision petition is allowed, the judgments of the lower courts are set aside, and the accused is acquitted of all charges.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history and prosecution's initial burden of proof. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. assessment of evidence regarding recovery of stolen property. (Para 5 , 6) |
ORDER
Dated this the 03rd day of June, 2026 This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the judgment dated 25.01.2008 in Crl.A. No. 206 of 2006 of the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc-II), Manjeri, arising out of the judgment dated 31.03.2006 in C.C. No. 193 of 2004 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri.
The revision petitioner herein is the first accused in the said case.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is as follows:
On 21.05.2004 at about 9.00 a.m., the first accused along with the other co-accused, entered the store room of the Government ITI at Areacode by breaking open the lock and committed theft of aluminium cables, copper wires, and other articles, totally worth ₹19,000/-. Thus, the accused are alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. During the trial, from the side of the prosecution, six witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW6 and marked Exts.P1 to P4. MO1 to MO9 were also marked. Finally, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate found the first accused guilty of the offences punishable under Section 457 and 380 of the IPC and convicted him. The first accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 IPC. The substantive sentences were ordered to be run concurrently, and set off was also allowed.
4. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No. 206/2006 before the Sessions Court, Manjeri. The learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-II), Manjeri, who heard the appeal, dismissed the same. Aggrieved thereby, the accused have preferred the present revision petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. The records were also perused.
6. As already noted, the accused stands convicted for offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the prosecution, the incident that led to the registration of the case occurred on 21.05.2004 at about 9.00 a.m. It is alleged that, on the said day, the accused persons, acting in furtherance of their common intention, broke open the lock of the store room of the Government ITI, Areacode, and committed theft of various articles, including aluminium cable rolls, copper wire rolls, copper fuse sockets, and burnt copper wires.
7. A perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that there is no direct evidence connecting the accused with the alleged occurrence. Both the trial court and the appellate court mainly relied upon the recovery of the stolen articles, allegedly effected pursuant to the disclosure statement made by the accused, to arrive at a finding of guilt. The evidence of the Investigating Officer (PW6) discloses that the accused was taken into custody a few days after the incident when he was found standing near the place of occurrence under suspicious circumstances.
8. According to PW6, during interrogation, the accused confessed to the commission of the offence and made a disclosure statement. PW6 deposed to the relevant portion of the disclosure statement, which allegedly led to the recovery of the said articles. PW6 further stated that, acting upon the information furnished by the accused and being led by him, he proceeded to the shop of PW3, from where the articles were recovered.
9. PW3, when examined before the Court, supported the prosecution's case by stating that the articles handed over by him to the police had been sold to him by the accused. He also identified the accused in Court. It was primarily on the strength of this recovery evidence that the trial court recorded the conviction of the accused.
10. However, it is signific
