Credible police testimony can prove recovery despite independent witnesses turning hostile.

On 10 April 2013, police searched a pick-up van owned by the petitioner and allegedly recovered about two tonnes of iron ore concealed beneath 500 kg of iron scrap.

The petitioner and the van’s driver were charged under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 4/21 of the MMDR Act; the trial court convicted the petitioner under Section 414 IPC but acquitted the driver.

The Sessions Judge dismissed the petitioner’s appeal and affirmed his conviction and sentence of two years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000.

In revision, the petitioner challenged the recovery evidence, arguing that the seizure witnesses did not support the alleged seizure and that the conviction rested on police testimony alone.

The State relied on the limited scope of revisional review and the concurrent findings below.

1. Whether the concurrent conviction under Section 414 IPC warranted interference in revision where the seizure witnesses did not support the alleged seizure, but police witnesses testified to it.

2. Whether the substantive sentence should be modified in light of the time elapsed since the occurrence and the petitioner’s period in custody.

Section 414 IPC criminalises voluntarily assisting in concealing, disposing of, or making away with property known or reasonably believed to be stolen; conviction does not require the principal thief to be identified or convicted, provided the prosecution establishes that the property was stolen and that the accused assisted in its concealment or disposal (Ajendranath v. State of M.P., 1963 SCC OnLine SC 69).

Under State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri, (1999) 2 SCC 452, revisional jurisdiction is supervisory, not a second appeal, and ordinarily does not permit reappreciation of evidence absent a glaring feature resulting in gross miscarriage of justice.

Police testimony is not inherently unreliable merely because it lacks independent corroboration and may be relied upon if credible (Kripal Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2019) 5 SCC 646).

The Court found that the seizure witnesses proved their signatures on the seizure list but did not support the prosecution account of the search and seizure; the police witnesses, however, consistently testified to the recovery and preparation of the seizure list.

Applying Kripal Singh, the Court held that the police evidence could not be rejected solely because independent witnesses turned hostile.

It also noted that the petitioner’s ownership of the vehicle was admitted, the recovery was not specifically denied in cross-examination, and no evidence supporting his plea of alibi had been produced.

Finding no basis for revisional interference with the concurrent findings, the Court nevertheless considered the 2013 occurrence, the more than 13 years of litigation, and the petitioner’s custody when determining sentence.

The fine of Rs. 1,000 and the default sentence remained unchanged; the petitioner was directed to pay the fine within ten weeks if unpaid, and, being on bail, was discharged from his bail bonds.