Selvan v. State of Kerala, 2025
The ruling highlights procedural precision required in criminal investigations: any lapse in documenting the source and content of information can nullify the evidentiary chain.
Judgement Details
Court
High Court of Kerala
Date of Decision
26 October 2025
Judges
Justice P.V. Balakrishnan
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Facts of the Case
-
The petitioner (second accused), along with two others, was accused of breaking into a Beverages Corporation outlet and stealing 50 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor.
-
The prosecution relied heavily on Exhibit P7(a) – a purported joint confession statement of all accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, leading to recovery of stolen property.
-
The trial court convicted the petitioner and the third accused; the conviction was affirmed on appeal.
-
The petitioner then filed a criminal revision before the Kerala High Court, arguing that the discovery evidence was improperly recorded and inadmissible.
Issues
-
Whether the joint information allegedly given by all accused persons could be treated as a valid disclosure under Section 27 of the Evidence Act?
-
Whether conviction based solely on recovery without corroboration could be sustained?
-
Whether the failure of the investigating officer to separately record the information from each accused vitiated the discovery evidence?
Judgement
-
The Kerala High Court allowed the revision petition, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the petitioner.
-
The Court found that Exhibit P7(a) could not be relied upon since the exact information provided by each accused was not individually recorded.
-
It was “impossible to believe,” the Court said, “that all accused spoke simultaneously and in one voice.”
-
The investigating officer’s failure to specify which accused gave what information made it impossible to connect the discovery with any particular person, thereby invalidating the evidentiary value of the recovery.
-
As there was no eyewitness and the finding of guilt rested solely on the recovery, the conviction was deemed unsustainable.
Held
-
The information leading to discovery given by one accused cannot be used against co-accused persons.
-
Under Section 27, the prosecution must establish:
-
Who gave the information,
-
What the exact words were, and
-
That the discovery was pursuant to that specific information.
-
-
Where multiple accused are involved, the information must be separately recorded to avoid collective attribution.
-
Reliance on a composite disclosure statement is impermissible and inadmissible in law.
-
Conviction cannot rest solely on recovery without independent corroborative evidence.
-
Mohd. Abdul Hafeez v. State of A.P. (1983 KHC 413) “When there is more than one accused, the investigating officer must record who gave the information and what words were used, so that the recovery can be connected to the person giving the information.”
-
The conviction and sentence of the petitioner were set aside.
-
The petitioner was set at liberty, and any bail bond executed stood discharged.
-
In cases involving multiple accused, discovery evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act must be based on specific, separately recorded information from each accused. A composite disclosure statement cannot be used to implicate all accused persons, and conviction cannot rest solely on uncorroborated recovery evidence.
Analysis
-
Justice P.V. Balakrishnan reaffirmed the limited scope and conditional admissibility of discovery statements under Section 27.
-
The Court reinforced the individualistic nature of discovery evidence it cannot be treated as collective confessional material binding all accused.
-
The ruling highlights procedural precision required in criminal investigations: any lapse in documenting the source and content of information can nullify the evidentiary chain.
-
The decision also emphasizes that convictions based purely on recovery absent corroborative testimony or forensic evidence fail to satisfy the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
-
The judgment strengthens accused persons’ protections against arbitrary use of confessional statements and underscores the investigator’s duty to ensure admissibility through accurate and separate recording.