Disclosure statements hold full evidentiary value unless proven fabricated: HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that full evidentiary value is required to be accorded to disclosure statements made by the accused during custodial interrogation and ensuing recoveries, unless the defence successfully proves that the same are fabricated or manipulated. The Bench asserted that such statements and recoveries form a crucial corroborative link in the chain of evidence and must be treated as credible unless effectively challenged by the defence.

The Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma also laid out the conditions under which the defence could attempt to discredit disclosure statements and related recoveries. The court explained that the defence was required to establish that real incriminating evidence was not actually discovered as a result of the signed disclosure statement; the incriminating item was planted; or was easily available.

The defence could also challenge the recovery by showing that the seized items were not discovered from a secluded place known exclusively to the accused, or that the evidence could have been fabricated. The Bench further pointed out that improper handling of recovered items could undermine their evidentiary value.

This included failing to properly seal the recovered items in a cloth parcel, neglecting to send them for forensic analysis, or failing to show the items to a medical expert if they were linked to injuries caused during the crime. The defence could argue that the evidence was unreliable, if the prosecution failed in adhering to these procedural aspects.

The Bench added witnesses, who attested to the disclosure statement and subsequent recoveries, were required to be credible. The defence could impeach the credibility of the witnesses by demonstrating that they were not actually present during the recovery process or that they were coerced, tutored, or influenced by the investigating officer.

The defence could contest the timing and circumstances of the recovery by pointing to significant gaps between the making of the disclosure statement and the actual recovery, which could indicate the planting of the items later by the police.

“Unless the defence is well raised and also ably proven, the making of a disclosure statement by the accused and the consequent recovery are to be assigned credence,” the Bench observed. It added that the recoveries act as a crucial corroborative link in the prosecution’s case, where the disclosure statements by the accused lead to recoveries that were not effectively challenged.