The Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled that confessions and recoveries made during police custody on the basis of disclosed statements of the accused require meticulous scrutiny to ensure that they are reliable evidence in criminal cases.

A bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma said evidence should be given due weight, especially in cases where no direct evidence is available, unless the accused can prove defects in such confessions or the items recovered on the basis of them,

The Court also emphasized the essential principles that must guide such control. It held that the defense must establish, inter alia, that the disclosure statement and resulting recoveries were fabricated, that the fact “discovered” did not stem solely from the accused’s custodial confession, or that the recovered item was readily available on the market. or planted on site. Importantly, he added that the integrity of the recovery could be challenged if the recovered object was not sealed or sent for forensic analysis.

The court also stated that in cases based on eyewitness accounts, the retraction of a witness from the initial statement could diminish the probative value of the recoveries. If the court were to be convinced that the retraction was credible and exposed investigative deficiencies, the recoveries and disclosure statements would lose their probative value.

However, the court cautioned against blanket rejection of disclosure statements and recoveries. He said:

“The immediate rejection of disclosure statements and convincingly proven recoveries would result in an injustice to the victim or the family of the deceased. Each case must be carefully evaluated to determine whether the disclosure statement and recovery withstand the principles outlined.”

The judgment also explored the interplay between medical evidence and recoveries. He observed that the recoveries that did not line up with medical findings on the injuries sustained by the victim weakened the prosecution’s case. Conversely, when recoveries and circumstantial evidence perfectly aligned, they formed an essential incriminating link, especially in cases lacking direct evidence.

Citing sections 25 and 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, the court reaffirmed that confessions made during police custody are inadmissible unless they lead to the discovery of a fact within the exclusive knowledge of the accused.

The court also made it clear that the prosecution has a dual burden: to prove the validity of disclosure statements and recoveries, while establishing other incriminating links to support the charges. It concluded by admonishing courts to exercise “astute comparative analysis” when weighing the credibility of recanted eyewitness accounts against the probative value of recoveries.