In a sharp rebuke to investigative lapses, the Kerala High Court on Wednesday set aside the conviction of a Pollachi native accused in a 2011 liquor theft case. Justice P.V. Balakrishnan held that the prosecution had “failed to produce any credible evidence” beyond a questionable recovery statement, stressing that recovery alone cannot sustain a conviction.
The revision petition was filed by Selvan, the second accused in the case, challenging the orders of both the trial and appellate courts which had sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment.
Background
The case dates back to the night of March 14, 2011, when a Kerala Beverages Corporation outlet at Menonpara, Palakkad, was broken into. According to the prosecution, Selvan and two others had conspired to steal over 52 litres of Indian Made Foreign Liquor valued at ₹24,515.
The Judicial First Class Magistrate Court in Chittur convicted Selvan and another accused under Sections 457 (house-breaking by night) and 380 (theft) of the Indian Penal Code. The Additional Sessions Court, Palakkad, later upheld the sentence in 2017.
Selvan then approached the High Court in revision, arguing that there was no direct evidence linking him to the burglary and that the conviction was based solely on a disputed recovery.
Court’s Observations
Justice Balakrishnan noted several critical gaps in the prosecution’s case. “The investigating officer has not deposed the exact information allegedly received from the accused which led to the recovery,” the court pointed out.
The bench referred to multiple precedents, including Bodh Raj v. State of Jammu & Kashmir and Mohd. Abdul Hafeez v. State of A.P., emphasizing that Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act requires precise proof of what information was given by each accused. “It is impossible to believe that all accused gave the same confession in one voice,” the court remarked wryly.
The judge also cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Manoj Kumar Soni v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023), observing that “a disclosure statement by itself cannot prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.”
Adding weight to the reasoning, Justice Balakrishnan said:
“While recovery under Section 27 can be a crucial piece of evidence, it cannot be the sole basis for conviction since it is not substantive evidence and needs corroboration.”
Decision
Finding the conviction unsustainable, the High Court quashed the orders of both lower courts. The bench declared that the entire prosecution case “stood only on the shaky ground of recovery,” and since no witness had seen the accused committing the crime, the benefit of doubt must go to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence under Sections 457 and 380 IPC, and ordered that Selvan be set at liberty forthwith.
With that, a case that had lingered for over 14 years finally came to a close not with a declaration of guilt, but with a strong judicial reminder that suspicion, however grave, cannot replace proof.
Case: Selvan v. State of Kerala
Court: High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
Case Number: Crl. Revision Petition No. 1438 of 2017
Date of Judgment: 8 October 2025
