Back
2020 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 28055
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.149 to 156 of 2016
Velusamy .. Petitioner
Vs.
The State rep. by its,
The Sub-Inspector of Police,
Velliyanai Police Station,
Karur District.
(Cr.No.559 of 2010) .. Respondent
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ravi
for Mr.M.Ramesh
For Respondent : Mr.A.Robinson,
Government Advocate (Crl. side)
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
DATED: 25.09.2020
Joint or simultaneous disclosure statements made by multiple accused persons, leading to the discovery of incriminating physical evidence, are not per se inadmissible; their weight as evidence remains a matter for judicial evaluation based on the nexus between the statement and the discovery made.
Headnote:(A) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 27 and 114(a) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 379 - Criminal revision against conviction for theft - Joint disclosure statements - Admissibility and evidentiary value - Whether joint disclosure by multiple accused persons leading to discovery of stolen property is admissible under Section 27. (Paras 4, 5, 8, 10).
(B) Criminal Law - Evidence - Section 27 of Evidence Act - "A person accused" does not necessarily mean a single person, it could refer to a plurality of accused - Joint or simultaneous disclosures are not per se inadmissible - Admissibility and credibility are distinct aspects; joint disclosure is a matter of evaluation of evidence - Recovery of material objects pursuant to such information acts as a strong incriminating circumstance. (Paras 5(i), 10).
Facts of the case:
The revision petitioner was convicted for the theft of multiple pump set motors. During the investigation, the petitioner and an accomplice were intercepted while travelling together. A confession was recorded from the accomplice, leading to the immediate recovery of stolen property from the vehicle they were riding, and subsequent recovery of additional stolen items from the petitioner's residence. The petitioner challenged the conviction, contending that in the absence of a separate confession statement from him, the recovery could not be used to justify his culpability under the relevant evidentiary provisions.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the petitioner was found in the company of the co-accused at the time of arrest and recovery, and the stolen items were recovered from his own premises. The court affirmed that joint or simultaneous disclosures, while requiring careful judicial evaluation, are not inadmissible per se. The concurrent findings of the lower courts were deemed robustly supported by evidence, including the testimony of an independent witness to the arrest and recovery process.
Issues: Whether a joint disclosure statement made by multiple accused persons, leading to the discovery of stolen property, is admissible as evidence against all parties involved under the law of evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the relevant statutory provision does not preclude the admissibility of joint or simultaneous disclosures merely because they involve multiple accused persons. Once a statement leads to the discovery of a material fact, the evidence becomes relevant, and the court must perform a factual evaluation to determine if the provided information sufficiently connects the accused individuals to the crime.
Result: Revision cases dismissed; conviction and sentence confirmed.
COMMON ORDER
The revision petitioner herein is the accused No.2. He was tried along with one Perumal/accused No.1 for the offence under Section 379 IPC.
2. One Rajendran and seven others lodged separate complaint before the respondent Police alleging that in their agricultural land, a Pump Set Motor (5 H.P.) was stolen. Based on their complaints, the respondent Police registered eight cases in Cr.Nos.559/2010, 174 to 179 of 2011 and 181 of 2011 for the offence under Section 379 IPC.
3. During the course of investigation, P.W.4-Sub Inspector of Police arrested this petitioner along with accused No.1 on 29.06.2011 at 12.00 noon on Palayarenganpalayam-Uppidam Road, in the presence of P.W.3-Karalan and recorded the confession statement of accused No.1 and pursuant to his confession statement, Pump Set Motors (5 H.P.) [M.O.1 in all cases] were recovered. Based on the recovery, final reports were filed as against the accused. The same were taken on file in C.C.Nos.91 to 98 of 2012 respectively. In conclusion of trial, the trial Court, vide its separate Judgment dated 05.10.2015, found the revision petitioner/A2 and A1 guilty for the offence under Section 397 IPC, convicted and sentenced them to undergo two years Rigorous Imprisonment in all the cases. As against the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court, the revision petitioner alone had preferred appeals in C.A.Nos.65 to 72 of 2015 respectively, before the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Fast Track Court, Karur. The Appellate Court, by its separate Judgment dated 25.01.2016, though confirmed the findings on the conviction of the trial Court, however, modified the sentence from two years Rigorous Imprisonment to one year Rigorous Imprisonment. Aggrieved over same, the present Criminal Revision Cases are filed by the revision petitioner.
4. Mr.S.Ravi, learned counsel representing Mr.M.Ramesh, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, mainly relied on the recovery of material object and submitted that the entire case of the prosecution rests on the recovery of a Pump Set Motor (5 H.P.) [M.O.1 in all cases] from the accused, but, no separate confession statement was recovered from the revision petitioner/accused No.2 and the recovery was made pursuant to the confession statement of the accused No.1 and in the absence of any confession statement from the revision petitioner, he cannot be held responsible for the recovery and therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed on the revision petitioner cannot be sustained. It is further submitted that the accused No.1-Perumal is no more. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner has also relied upon the following Judgments:
(i) This Court, in the case of Emperor vs. Sheik Mahaboob , reported in AIR 1942 Mad 532, held as follows:
“The only evidence against the accused persons was a confession which is said to have been made by them and which led to the discovery of the stolen article. All the four accused could not, of course, have been questioned together, nor is it to be believed that they simultaneously made a confession of their guilt. If the police officer and the other panchayatdars had discovered the whereabouts of the stolen article from the statement of one accused, then the statements of the other accused would not be admissible, because they did not lead to any discovery. There is no evidence on record which leads one to conclude that it was the fourth accused who made the crucial statement, or that it was the fourth accused who led the panchayatdars to the place where the stolen articles were found. I think therefore that he should be given the benefit of the doubt and acquitted.”
(ii) In the case of Lachhman Singh and two others vs. State , reported in AIR 1952 SC 167, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
“11. The learned Counsel for the appellants cited a number of rulings in which Section 27 has been construed to mean that it is only the information which is
