Supreme Court Acquits Accused After Holding Recovery and Identification Evidence Legally Unreliable

In Hansraj v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2024 Latest Caselaw 255 SC), the Supreme Court set aside the conviction of the accused for robbery after finding that the prosecution had failed to legally prove the disclosure statement, recovery of stolen ornaments and their identification. The Court reiterated that recovery evidence under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act must be strictly proved before it can be relied upon to sustain a conviction. 

The complainant was attacked while proceeding to her field, during which her silver ornaments were allegedly snatched. In the FIR, she stated that she was unable to identify the assailant. Two days after the incident, the appellant was arrested on suspicion. The prosecution alleged that he made a disclosure statement leading to the recovery of the stolen silver ornaments. The complainant later identified the recovered ornaments during a test identification proceeding. The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 394 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code solely on the basis of the alleged recovery of the stolen articles. The High Court affirmed the conviction, following which the appellant approached the Supreme Court. 

The principal issue was whether the alleged disclosure statement, recovery of the ornaments and their identification were proved in accordance with law so as to sustain the appellant's conviction. 

The Supreme Court found serious defects in the prosecution's evidence. The Court observed that:

•Although the complainant attempted to identify the accused during trial, both the Trial Court and the High Court had not relied upon this identification and had based the conviction entirely on the alleged recovery. 

•During cross-examination, the complainant admitted that the police officials had pointed out her ornaments during the identification proceedings, thereby rendering the identification unreliable. 

•The Investigating Officer failed to prove the disclosure statement in the manner required under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, as he did not state the exact words spoken by the accused leading to the discovery. 

•The Investigating Officer also failed to establish that the accused himself led the police to the place where the articles were concealed. 

•The prosecution did not produce evidence showing that the recovered ornaments were sealed and safely preserved before the identification proceedings. 

•The Executive Magistrate who conducted the identification proceedings was not examined as a witness. Relying upon its earlier decision in Ramanand alias Nandlal Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court reiterated that unless the disclosure statement is properly proved, the alleged discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act cannot be relied upon. 

The Supreme Court: •Allowed the appeal. •Set aside the judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court. •Acquitted the appellant of all charges. •Directed his immediate release from custody, if not required in any other case. 

The judgment reinforces the strict evidentiary requirements governing discoveries under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. It emphasises that disclosure statements, recoveries and test identification proceedings must be proved in accordance with law before they can form the basis of a conviction. The decision also reiterates that where recovery evidence is unreliable and unsupported by other independent evidence, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.