The Kerala High Court has set aside the conviction of a man accused in a 2016 motorcycle theft case, holding that the prosecution relied solely on an inadmissible police confession. Justice M.B. Snehalatha ruled that there was no legal evidence connecting the accused to the crime and ordered his acquittal.
The judgment was delivered on January 14, 2026, in a criminal revision petition filed by the second accused in the case.
Read Also:- Custody Battles Can’t Be Won by Exclusion: Delhi High Court Upholds Father’s Rights
Background of the Case
The case dates back to September 3, 2016, when a motorcycle bearing registration number KL-50-5087 was stolen from the residence of its owner, Babu, in Mannarkkad, Palakkad district.
Based on his complaint, police registered an FIR at the Nattukal Police Station. A few days later, police personnel in Malappuram district intercepted the motorcycle during night patrol. The vehicle was being ridden by the first accused, while another person allegedly fled from the spot.
The police later claimed that the absconding person was the second accused, and that the first accused had confessed to committing the theft along with him.
Both were chargesheeted under Section 379 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for theft with common intention.
Read Also:- Remarried Childless Widow Can Continue Family Pension, Parents Have No Right: Delhi High Court
Trial and Appeal History
The Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Mannarkkad, convicted both accused in 2017 and sentenced them to three years’ rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of ₹5,000 each.
The Sessions Court, Palakkad, upheld the conviction in appeal.
Challenging this, the second accused approached the Kerala High Court in revision, arguing that there was no legal evidence linking him to the crime.
Key Issue Before the Court
The main question before the High Court was whether the conviction of the second accused could be sustained solely on the basis of a confession allegedly made by the first accused to the police.
The defence argued that:
- The alleged confession was made while in police custody.
- Such a confession is barred under law.
- There was no independent evidence proving the involvement of the second accused.
Court’s Observation
Justice M.B. Snehalatha examined the evidence in detail and referred extensively to provisions of the Indian Evidence Act and past Supreme Court rulings.
The Court noted that:
- A confession made to a police officer is inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act.
- Even under Section 30, a confession of a co-accused can only be considered if it is legally admissible and supported by other evidence.
- In this case, the alleged confession was made while the accused was in police custody and was not recorded before a magistrate.
“The confession allegedly given by the first accused while in police custody is hit by the absolute bar under Section 25 of the Evidence Act,” the Court observed.
The judge further held that there was no independent material connecting the second accused to the theft.
“The prosecution has failed to establish the involvement of the revision petitioner in the commission of the crime,” the Court noted.
Read Also:- Delhi High Court Refuses to Reject Trakru Family Partition Suit, Says Will Dispute Needs Full Trial
Final Decision
Allowing the revision petition, the High Court:
- Set aside the conviction and sentence of the second accused
- Acquitted him of all charges under Section 379 read with Section 34 IPC
- Ordered refund of the fine amount, if already paid
- Discharged his bail bond
The Court concluded that a conviction cannot rest on a police confession alone and reaffirmed that such statements have no evidentiary value unless supported by independent proof.
Case Title: Shyjal C. v. State of Kerala
Case Number: Criminal Revision Petition No. 448 of 2018
Decision Date: January 14, 2026
