Issue for consideration : Conviction of both the appellants-accusedrespectively u/s.411 and s.120-B, IPC was based largely upon disclosurestatements made by them and the co-accused, unaccompanied by supportingevidence, if justifi edEvidence – Disclosure statements relied upon, without anysupporting evidence, to convict u/s.411 and s.120-B, IPC – If adequate:Held : No – Although disclosure statements hold signifi cance as acontributing factor in unriddling a case, they are not so strong a piece ofevidence suffi cient on its own and without anything more to bring homethe charges beyond reasonable doubt – Sole connecting evidence againstboth the appellants-accused (‘M’ and ‘K’) was the recovery based on theirdisclosure statements, along with those of the other co-accused but thisevidence is not suffi cient to qualify as “fact … discovered” within themeaning of s.27, Evidence Act, 1872 and thus, untrustworthy – Appellants’conviction respectively for off ence punishable u/s.411 and s.120-B, IPC setaside, acquitted. [Paras 21, 30 and 44]Evidence Act, 1872 – s.27 – Disclosure statements u/s.27 made bythe accused – Evidentiary value:Held : The provided information must be directly relevant to thediscovered fact, including details about the physical object, its place oforigin, and the accused person’s awareness of these aspects – Further, asregards the disclosure statements of co-accused, Courts have hesitated toplace reliance solely on them and used them merely to support the conviction.[Paras 22 and 23] Evidence – Property seizure memos – Reliability:Held : Could have been a reliable piece of evidence but the seizurewitnesses 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 – Dutyof Trial Courts:Held : Trial courts have been cautioned against recording statementsin a casual and cursory manner – Mere quantity of questions posed to theaccused is not important but rather the content and manner in which theyare framed – In the present case, irrelevant and abstract questions about themain incident of robbery were asked to the appellant-accused ‘M’, eventhough his alleged involvement occurred much later when the robbed itemswere allegedly sold to him by the co-accused – Prosecution’s entire case ispremised on the disclosure statements made by the co-accused, but ‘M’ wasnever given the opportunity to explain the circumstances. [Paras 31 and 32]Evidence Act, 1872 – s.114(a) – Presumption – Appellants werenot present at the complainant’s house during the incident and wereapprehended later when it was discovered that ‘M’ had purchased thestolen articles and ‘K’ was involved in hatching the conspiracy:Held : A presumption of fact u/s.114(a) must be drawn consideringother evidence on record and without corroboration from other cogentevidence, it must not be drawn in isolation – Trial Court convicted one ofthe appellant-accused (‘M’) based on a presumption u/s.114(a) assertingthat his possession of stolen articles shortly after the theft, with knowledgeof 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 otherfactors. [Paras 34-36]Penal Code, 1860 – s.120-B – Among all fi ve accused persons, onlyone of the accused-appellant (‘K’) was convicted for criminal conspiracyu/s.120-B – Legality:Held : One person alone can never be held guilty of criminalconspiracy because one cannot conspire with oneself – Conviction of ‘K’u/s.120-B vitiated. [Paras 38 and 41]