INTRODUCTION
This case evolves from one of armed robbery, where evidence collection, hearings of witnesses, and adherence to procedures to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The appeals had been preferred by appellants, who were convicted by the Trial Court and whose convictions were upheld by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, against judgment among other things, because their convictions had been based solely upon the disclosure statements of co-accused without any corroborative evidence.
FACTS
This particular case involves the offence of robbery, which was committed on 14th April 2010. Wherein, four armed individuals entered the residence of the complaint in force/coercion, upon which they tied up the complaint and her servant and ended up robbing jewellery, cash, and other valuables.
During the course of the investigation, among the four accused, the complaint identified three, and one was determined to be minor. Also, it was found that Manoj Kumar Soni purchased the robbed jewellery, which was later recovered from his possession. The key part of the case was revealed to have been a conspiracy by the complaint’s former driver, Kallu who stated significant pieces of information on the valuables and the complaint’s living habits.
Therefore, both Manoj and the driver were convicted by the trial court, wherein the former was sentenced under Section 411 of the IPC and the latter under Section 120B of the IPC. The above-mentioned conviction was based on the evidence and statement by the co-accused, wherein the complaint identified the stolen jewellery that was recovered from Manoj, so Section 114 of the IEA was invoked. On the other hand, the driver Kallu’s conviction was based on the statements disclosed by the co-accused of the robbery, also, Rs. 3,000 was recovered from his house. The same when appealed in the Hich Court was upheld, due to which they have appealed before the Supreme Court.
ISSUES
- Whether the conviction of Manoj Kumar Soni is valid, given the lack of corroborative evidence and procedural lapses during the seizure and recovery of the stolen property?
- Whether the conviction of Kallu is valid on the ground of criminal conspiracy, where evidence has not been established beyond reasonable doubt?
- Whether relying on statements disclosed under Section 27 of the IEA without credible testimony and evidence reasonable?
ARGUMENTS
Appellant’s Arguments
The submission made by the appellant side is that, the “independent seizure witnesses”, who were present during the preparation of the list of items that were recovered, all such four witnesses failed to accept the complaint’s side of recovery from Manoj. They instead stated that their signature was made under coercion by the police. Therefore, they argued that this factor undermines the credibility of the seizure memos and claims made by the complaint.
The statements disclosed that are considered to be evidence against Manoj, cannot be considered standalone evidence without any sort of corroboration to it, so it certainly isn’t sufficient for convicting him.
including contradictions between the Investigating Officer’s testimony of recovered notes and the complainant’s clear denial of their theft.
Therefore, the conviction was mainly based on police testimonies, which did not have any corroboration of independent witnesses, an imperative in case of search and seizure.
Respondent Argument
The respondent’s side of the argument was merely based on the fact that both the trial and high court considered the evidence thoroughly that was sufficient enough for conviction.
Wherein, they pointed out that the Trial Court had made efforts to analyze the case presented by the prosecution, including the statements of witnesses, and that it found no material contradiction or discrepancy in their testimonies. This, according to the Respondent, was further confirmed by the High Court, during the independent review of the evidence.
The counsel for the Respondent further argued that the investigation and trial were conducted in strict compliance with the procedural requirements of the law. At no point was procedural defect or irregularity committed that would affect the legality or the fairness of the proceedings.
Therefore, they argued that the conclusions arrived at by the trial and high courts were well thought out. This argument sought to uphold the convictions of the appellants and reinforce the credibility and that there is no requirement for the Supreme Court to interfere.
