Recovery Of Stolen Property Led By Accused Confession Is Admissible Under Section 27 Evidence Act Even If Receiver Is Not Examined: Madras High Court

"The basic idea embedded in Section 27 of the Evidence Act is the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events. The doctrine is founded on the principle that if any fact is discovered as a search made on the strength of any information obtained from a prisoner, such a discovery is a guarantee that the information supplied by the prisoner is true." Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, in a significant ruling, held that the disclosure statement of an accused leading to the recovery of robbed jewellery from a third party is fully admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, while dismissing a criminal revision case arising from a robbery conviction.

A bench of Justice Mohammed Shaffiq observed that the recovery of stolen articles based on confessional knowledge satisfies the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events, rendering the evidence reliable despite lapses in the investigation such as the non-examination of the person who received the pledged property.

The case arose from an incident on October 11, 2009, where a newly married couple was waylaid by two individuals who threatened them with a knife and robbed the wife of ten sovereigns of gold chains. The husband resisted the attack and sustained injuries, prompting an FIR under Section 397 of the IPC, which later led to trial and conviction under Section 394 of the IPC by the Assistant Sessions Court, a decision subsequently confirmed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge.

The primary questions before the court were whether the confessional disclosure leading to the recovery of stolen jewellery from an unexamined third party satisfies the requirements of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, and whether defects in the investigation vitiate the conviction of the accused.

Section 27 Evidence Act And Scope Of Discovery

The court examined the statutory prerequisites of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, emphasizing that the provision acts as an exception to the general bar against police custody confessions. The bench noted that for the section to apply, there must be a discovery of a relevant fact in consequence of information received from a person in police custody, and only so much of the information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered is admissible.

Doctrine Of Confirmation By Subsequent Events

Explaining the rationale behind the provision, the court observed that Section 27 is founded on the principle of confirmation by subsequent events. Citing precedents such as Boby v. State of Kerala and Aftab Ahmad Anasari v. State of Uttaranchal, the bench reiterated that the discovery of a material fact guarantees the truth of the information supplied by a prisoner.

"The statement which is admissible under Section 27 is the one which is the information leading to discovery. It is now well settled that recovery of an object is not discovery of a fact envisaged in the section."

Knowledge Of Place And Stolen Articles

Applying these principles to the facts, the court held that while the mere recovery of an object does not constitute discovery, the disclosure statement established the knowledge of the accused regarding the place where the stolen jewellery was kept and the fact that it was handed over to one Manikandan. The petitioners had identified Manikandan, from whom the stolen thali chain and godhumai cutting chain were successfully recovered.

Evidentiary Value Of Injured Witnesses

Addressing the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, the court underscored that the testimony of an injured witness commands high evidentiary value. Referring to rulings like State of M.P. v. Mansingh and Vijay Shankar Shinde v. State of Maharashtra, the bench reiterated that an injured victim would normally not falsely implicate an innocent person while shielding the actual assailant.

"The evidence of injured witnesses has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly."

Defective Investigation Not Fatal

Addressing the contention regarding the failure to examine Manikandan and the absence of bloodstains on the recovered weapon, the court held that investigative lapses do not automatically prove fatal. Relying on Supreme Court dictums in Ram Bali v. State of U.P. and Paras Yadav v. State of Bihar, the bench ruled that courts must evaluate evidence dehors such omissions to find the truth, ensuring that defective investigations do not defeat justice.

Concluding that the lower courts committed no error in appreciating the evidence and sustaining the charges under Section 394 of the IPC, the high court dismissed the criminal revision petition and upheld the concurrent convictions and sentences imposed upon the petitioners.

Date of Decision: 23 July 2026