In Brief
The appellant was convicted of robbery under Sections 392 and 397 IPC based primarily on disclosure statements leading to recovery of Rs. 5,000, a cloth, and a passbook from his residence. The Supreme Court acquitted him, holding that conviction based solely on disclosure statements without corroborative eyewitness evidence cannot sustain when the recovery is shrouded with doubt. The eyewitnesses (the robbery victims themselves) denied the alleged recovery and the appellant's involvement. The recovered items were commonplace objects easily available in the market, and the recovery occurred nearly a month after the alleged offence. The Court held the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and extended the benefit of doubt to the appellant.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.