Introduction

The case of Thadiyantevida Nazeer v. State Of Kerala, adjudicated by the Kerala High Court on January 27, 2022, revolves around the conviction and subsequent appeals related to the twin bomb blasts that shook Kozhikode city on March 3, 2006. The principal issues at hand pertain to the admissibility and credibility of evidence, particularly focusing on the testimony of an approver (PW1) and the application of Sections 27 and 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Summary of the Judgment

In this case, accused individuals A1 and A4 were convicted under various sections of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) and the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for their alleged roles in orchestrating the twin blasts. The prosecution's case heavily relied on the testimony of PW1, an approver who confessed to involvement and identified other accused individuals. However, the defense challenged the reliability of PW1's testimony, citing lack of corroboration and procedural deficiencies in admitting confession-based evidence.

Upon meticulous examination, the Kerala High Court found that the prosecution failed to establish the credibility and reliability of PW1's testimony. Furthermore, the court highlighted significant lapses in corroborating the evidence presented. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeals filed by A1 and A4, leading to their immediate release, while upholding the acquittal of A3 and A9.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced several precedents that shape the approach to evidence, especially concerning approvers:

• State Of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad (1962): Emphasized that while confessions may hold some truth, they must be corroborated by reliable evidence to convince the court beyond reasonable doubt.
• Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab (1957): Established that statements of accomplices must be corroborated with 'legal, reliable, and unimpeachable evidence'.
• Vylali Gireesan v. State of Kerala (2016): Highlighted the necessity for accurate identification of accused individuals, especially when multiple persons are charged simultaneously.
• Shanoj v. State of Kerala (2019): Reinforced the principle that information supplied by accused individuals should not be based on coerced or unreliable statements.
• Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru (Supra): Clarified the application of Sections 27 and 8 of the Evidence Act, stressing that only information leading to the discovery of material facts is admissible.

Legal Reasoning

The Kerala High Court meticulously dissected the prosecution's reliance on PW1's testimony. The court underscored the following points:

• Credibility of the Approver: PW1, being a casual acquaintance of A1 and not a close associate, lacked the inherent reliability required for his testimony to be deemed credible without corroboration.
• Corroboration of Evidence: The court found that the prosecution did not provide sufficient independent evidence to corroborate PW1's statements. The identification of accused individuals by PW1 occurred after being shown photographs by the National Investigation Agency (NIA), raising doubts about the authenticity of the identification.
• Admissibility under Section 27: The disclosures by the accused (A1, A3, A4, and PW1) were primarily confessional in nature, directly relating to the crime, thereby violating Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, which render such confessions inadmissible unless they lead to the discovery of distinct material facts.
• Procedure in Handling Objections: The court criticized the lower court for deferring objections regarding the admissibility of disclosure memos without adequately addressing them in the final judgment.
• Sanction under The Explosive Substances Act: The court held that prosecution under this act requires consent from the District Magistrate, which was not appropriately obtained, rendering the charges invalid.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the stringent standards required for admitting and relying upon confessional and approver-based evidence. It serves as a cautionary tale for law enforcement and judicial officers to ensure that:

• Evidence, especially from accomplices or approvers, must be independently corroborated to uphold the sanctity of the judicial process.
• Procedural safeguards, such as addressing objections to evidence admissibility, must be diligently followed to ensure fair trials.
• Authorities must strictly adhere to statutory requirements, such as obtaining necessary sanctions, to maintain the legality of prosecution under specific laws.

Future cases involving similar circumstances will likely reference this judgment to emphasize the importance of reliable and corroborated evidence, especially when relying on testimonies from individuals with questionable credibility.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Role and Scrutiny of an Approver

An approver is an individual who, having committed an offense, agrees to cooperate with law enforcement agencies by providing evidence against co-conspirators in exchange for leniency. Due to their vested interest in securing a favorable outcome, their testimonies are viewed with skepticism and require thorough scrutiny.

Sections 27 and 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

• Section 27: Allows evidence of a fact discovered as a result of information provided by a person accused of an offense in police custody. However, only the information directly relating to the discovered fact is admissible, ensuring that confessions do not become the sole basis for convictions.
• Section 8: Pertains to the relevance of an individual's conduct that either influences or is influenced by a fact in issue. For instance, if an accused’s actions are directly tied to the execution of a crime, such conduct can be admitted as evidence.

Importance of Corroboration in Convictions Based on Accomplice Evidence

Convictions relying on testimonies from accomplices or approvers are precarious due to potential bias or unreliability. Corroboration involves supporting such testimonies with independent evidence—be it forensic, documentary, or witness-based—that substantiates the claims made. This process ensures that the judiciary remains unimpeachable in its verdicts and that wrongful convictions are minimized.

Conclusion

The Kerala High Court's decision in Thadiyantevida Nazeer v. State Of Kerala underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding the principles of fair trial and evidence-based conviction. By meticulously evaluating the reliability of approver testimonies and enforcing strict adherence to evidentiary laws, the court ensures that miscarriages of justice are averted. This judgment serves as a pivotal reference point for future litigations, emphasizing that the mere presence of confessional statements without robust corroboration is insufficient for a conviction. It reiterates the foundational legal ethos that the burden of proof rests heavily on the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt through credible and corroborated evidence.