In the case of Manoj Kumar Soni V. The state of Madhya Pradesh with Kallu@Habib V. The state of Madhya Pradesh, there were six accused persons namely Suleman, Arif, Jaihind, Manoj Kamar Soni, Kallu@Habib and a minor. Except minor remaining accused persons were convicted and sentenced for five different offences under Indian Penal Code,1860 by the Additional Sessions Judge [‘Trail Court’, hereafter] dated 28/11/2022. The judgement given by the Trail Court was the accused person that is Manoj Kumar Soni was assailed for the offence punishable under section 411 of Indian Penal Code ,1860 and other accused that is Kallu @Habib was assailed for the offence punishable under section120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860.The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Jabalpur affirmed the judgement given by the Trail Court.

Therefore, the five accused preferred Special Leave Petition before the High Of Madhya Pradesh. However the Special Leave Petitions of Suleman, Asif, Jaihind were dismissed and Manoj Kumar Soni’s and Kallu @Habib petitions were accepted. However judgement given by the Trail Court was overturned by the Supreme Court  and said that a judgement cannot be passed by considerering  only the  disclosure statements given by the co-accused.                                          


Judgement Cause TitleManoj Kumar Soni V. The State Of Madhya Pradesh with  Kallu@Habib V. The State Of Madhya Pradesh
Case NumberCriminal Appeal Number.1030/2023 Criminal Appeal Number.1458/2023
Judgement DateAugust 11,2023
CourtThe Supreme Court Of India
AuthorDipankar Datta
Citation2023 SCC Online SC 1227
Legal Provisions InvolvedSection 392, 394 ,411,120B of IPC,1860 and Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act,1872.


In this case, there were five accused persons but the entire case revolves around the conviction of Manoj Kumar Soni and Kallu @Habib for the offence of Robbery under section 392 of IPC,1860. The Judgement given by the Trail Court was challenged by the appellants in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and in the Supreme Court of India through criminal appeals.

According to the complainant, four members were entered into their house and committed the offence of Robbery, By the process of investigation, it was revealed that Kallu was the complainant’s former driver and Manoj Kumar Soni allegedly purchased stolen articles from the other accused.

However, the complainant identified the three of the accused persons namely Suleman, Arif and Jaihind and fourth person was unidentified but in the investigation it was revealed that, the fourth person was a minor. Manoj Kumar Soni and Kallu were arrested only on the basis of disclosure statements given by the co-accused persons.


In this case, the complainant and servant were in the house and while they were doing their works, four persons rang the doorbell. When the servant opened the door, the four persons armed with a pistol forcefully entered into the house.

The four persons tied up the hands and legs of complainant and servant and they threatened to kill them and they started to rob the silver and gold jewellery, cash and other valuables by taking the keys to the locker. The four persons remained at the complainant’s house till 2:30pm before escaping. Therefore an FIR has been filed at around 4:30pm against four unknown persons under section 394 of IPC,1860 and they were subsequently arrested.


  1. Whether the disclosure statements were sole basis of conviction?
  2. Whether the judgement given by the Trail Court and affirmed by the High Court Of Madhya Pradesh was justified based on the evidence presented?
  3. Whether the appellants involvement in the robbery and conspiracy were proven beyond reasonable doubt?


  1. The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that the four independent witnesses who were present at the Manoj’s house turned hostile and failed to support the prosecution case of seizure.
  2. The prescribed procedure was not followed in respect of seizure of property.
  3. There was a procedural flaw in the statement of the complainant and PW19[Tahsildar].
  4. There was no proper evidence regarding the ornaments which were recovered from the possession of Manoj, whether the recovered ornaments belong to the complainant. Therefore, the presumptions made under section 114 of Indian Evidence Act,1872 was erroneously drawn. There was a serious lapse in the identification process.
  5. The Trail Court did not consider the statement recorded under section 313 of CrPC.
  6. The Trail Court completely relied on the statements of the police witnesses without additional statements pf independent seizure witnesses, who were subsequently turned hostile.
  7. No proper evidence was presented regarding the offence under section 120A of IPC,1860, punishable under section 12B of IPC,1860.
  8. Kallu was arrested based on two reasons only. They were:
    1. Firstly, that Rs3000 was recovered from him during the investigation based on information provided by the accused namely, Jaihind.
    1. Secondly, Kallu used to be the complainant’s driver one year ago.


  1. The counsels for Respondent submitted that The Trail Court and The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh deeply look into the materials on record and the both courts did not find and any contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witness while considering the evidence.
    1. There were no procedural flaws, so there was no reason to interfere with the judgement and order passed by the Trail Court and affirmed by The High Court.


  1. Section 411,392,394,120B of IPC,1860
  2. Section 313 of Crpc,1973
  3. Section 27,114 of IEA,1872


The Supreme Court overturned the appellants convictions and said that disclosure statements of co-accused lacked credibility and supporting evidence.


Honourable Supreme Court of India has held that the evidenciary value of disclosure statements under section 27 of IEA,1872 made by the accused himself has to be established. However, no judgement should be given solely relied on disclosure statements.


Important Cases Referred

Suresh Kumar Bahri V. State of Bihar

Pulukuri Kottaya V. Emperor

Shiv Kumar V. State of Madhya Pradesh

Tapondas V. State of Bombay

Haricharan Kurmi Jogia Hajam V. State of Bihar

Important Statutes Referred

Indian Penal Code,1860

Code of Criminal Procedure code ,1973

Indian Evidence Act,1872

Leave a Reply