MANOJ KUMAR SONI versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [2023] 11 S.C.R. 246 · Decided: 11-08-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAVINDRA BHAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 11 S.C.R. 246 : 2023 INSC 705 
246
CASE DETAILS
MANOJ KUMAR SONI
v.
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
(Criminal Appeal No.1030 of 2023)
AUGUST 11, 2023
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND DIPANKAR DATTA, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration : Conviction of both the appellants-accused 
respectively u/s.411 and s.120-B, IPC was based largely upon disclosure 
statements made by them and the co-accused, unaccompanied by supporting 
evidence, if justifi ed
Evidence – Disclosure statements relied upon, without any 
supporting evidence, to convict u/s.411 and s.120-B, IPC – If adequate: 
Held : No – Although disclosure statements hold signifi cance as a 
contributing factor in unriddling a case, they are not so strong a piece of 
evidence suffi  cient on its own and without anything more to bring home 
the charges beyond reasonable doubt – Sole connecting evidence against 
both the appellants-accused (‘M’ and ‘K’) was the recovery based on their 
disclosure statements, along with those of the other co-accused but this 
evidence is not suffi  cient to qualify as “fact … discovered” within the 
meaning of s.27, Evidence Act, 1872 and thus, untrustworthy – Appellants’ 
conviction respectively for off ence punishable u/s.411 and s.120-B, IPC set 
aside, acquitted. [Paras 21, 30 and 44]
Evidence Act, 1872 – s.27 – Disclosure statements u/s.27 made by 
the accused – Evidentiary value:
Held : The provided information must be directly relevant to the 
discovered fact, including details about the physical object, its place of 
origin, and the accused person’s awareness of these aspects – Further, as 
regards the disclosure statements of co-accused, Courts have hesitated to 
place reliance solely on them and used them merely to support the conviction. 
[Paras 22 and 23]
247
MANOJ KUMAR SONI v. 
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Evidence – Property seizure memos – Reliability:
Held : Could have been a reliable piece of evidence but the seizure 
witnesses turned hostile – No scope to rely on a part of their depositions – 
Thus, the seizure lost credibility.[Para 26]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Examination u/s.313 – Duty 
of Trial Courts:
Held : Trial courts have been cautioned against recording statements 
in a casual and cursory manner – Mere quantity of questions posed to the 
accused is not important but rather the content and manner in which they 
are framed – In the present case, irrelevant and abstract questions about the 
main incident of robbery were asked to the appellant-accused ‘M’, even 
though his alleged involvement occurred much later when the robbed items 
were allegedly sold to him by the co-accused – Prosecution’s entire case is 
premised on the disclosure statements made by the co-accused, but ‘M’ was 
never given the opportunity to explain the circumstances. [Paras 31 and 32]
Evidence Act, 1872 – s.114(a) – Presumption – Appellants were 
not present at the complainant’s house during the incident and were 
apprehended later when it was discovered that ‘M’ had purchased the 
stolen articles and ‘K’ was involved in hatching the conspiracy:
Held : A presumption of fact u/s.114(a) must be drawn considering 
other evidence on record and without corroboration from other cogent 
evidence, it must not be drawn in isolation – Trial Court convicted one of 
the appellant-accused (‘M’) based on a presumption u/s.114(a) asserting 
that his possession of stolen articles shortly after the theft, with knowledge 
of its stolen nature, was adequate enough to hold him guilty u/s.411, IPC 
– It erred in drawing such a presumption of fact without considering other 
factors. [Paras 34-36]
Penal Code, 1860 – s.120-B – Among all fi ve accused persons, only 
one of the accused-appellant (‘K’) was convicted for criminal conspiracy 
u/s.120-B – Legality:
Held : One person alone can never be held guilty of criminal 
conspiracy because one cannot conspire with oneself – Conviction of ‘K’ 
u/s.120-B vitiated. [Paras 38 and 41]
248
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 11 S.C.R.
Words and phrases – “Conspiracy” – Meaning – Discussed – Penal 
Code, 1860 – s.120-A. [Para 38]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Haricharan Kurmi vs. State of Bihar AIR 1964 SC 1184 : [1964] 
SCR 623 – followed.
Topandas vs. State of Bombay (1955) 2 SCR 881;  Shiv Kumar vs. 
State of Madhya Pradesh (2022) 9 SCC 676; Sanjeet Kumar Singh vs. State 
of Chhattisgarh 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1117; A Devendran vs. State of Tamil 
Nadu (1997) 11 SCC 720 : [1997] 4 Suppl. SCR 591 – relied on.
Suresh Chandr

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.