S 27 Evidence Act | Disclosure Statements Cannot Be Sole Basis For Conviction : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that disclosure statements cannot be the sole basis for conviction in a criminal case.

"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.", the bench of Justice S Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta observed.

Manoj and Kallu and three others were convicted by the Trial Court under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Their appeals were dismissed by the High Court.

In appeal, the Apex Court noted that the conviction of Kallu is based upon the disclosure statement made by Kallu himself as well as co-accused Jaihind, who confessed to giving Rs.3,000.00 to Kallu from the stolen money and storing a country-made pistol along with three cartridges at his house/tapra. In this regard, the court observed:

"A doubt looms: can disclosure statements per se, unaccompanied by any supporting evidence, be deemed adequate to secure a conviction? We find it implausible. 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."

The court thus observed that the sole connecting evidence against Manoj and Kallu was the recovery based on their disclosure statements, along with those of the other co-accused. But this evidence, in our opinion, is not sufficient to qualify as "fact … discovered" within the meaning of Section 27, it said.

The court also noted the questions posed to Manoj under Section 313, Cr.PC, and observed that the Trial Court treated this process as an empty formality.

"On Section 313, Cr.PC, wherein trial courts have been cautioned against recording statements in a casual and cursory manner. What holds importance is not the mere quantity of questions posed to the accused but rather the content and manner in which they are framed.", it said.

The court also observed that 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. Regarding Kallu's conviction under Section 120A IPC, the bench observed:

"Can a single individual conspire with oneself? We cannot but disagree. It logically follows that one person alone can never be held guilty of criminal conspiracy because one cannot conspire with oneself. As per Black’s Law Dictionary (8th Edn), ‘conspiracy’ is an “agreement by two or more persons to commit an unlawful act, coupled with an intent to achieve the agreement's objective, and action or conduct that furthers the agreement.. The wordings of Section 120-A, IPC make it abundantly clear—the offence of criminal conspiracy is committed only when two or more persons agree to do or cause to be done an illegal act or legal act by illegal means.", the court said while allowing appeal.

Manoj Kumar Soni vs State of Andhra Pradesh | 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 629 | 2023 INSC 705 

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ; Section 27-  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.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ; Section 313 - Trial courts cautioned against recording statements in a casual and cursory manner. What holds importance is not the mere quantity of questions posed to the accused but rather the content and manner in which they are framed. (Para 31)

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ; Section 114(a)- A presumption of fact must be drawn considering other evidence on record and without corroboration from other cogent evidence, it must not be drawn in isolation. (Para 36)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 ; Section 120A -  One person alone can never be held guilty of criminal conspiracy because one cannot conspire with oneself- The offence of criminal conspiracy is committed only when two or more persons agree to do or cause to be done an illegal act or legal act by illegal means. (Para 38)

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment