Court evidence disappears in theft

Police have registered a theft case after 124 items of judicial evidence, including an expensive Rado watch, disappeared from the strong room of the Ernakulam District Court complex.

The missing property was held under the custody of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, prompting an investigation into how material evidence entrusted to the judiciary could disappear from a secured storage facility.

Ernakulam Central Police registered the First Information Report following a complaint by Mery Lini K L, junior superintendent of the court. The complaint was forwarded to the police on the court’s directions after the disappearance came to official attention.

The FIR invokes Section 306 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which deals with theft of property by a clerk or servant from the possession of an employer. The provision makes the circumstances of access to the property room particularly significant to investigators.

Police have identified the suspected period of disappearance as extending from January 1, 2016, to September 21, 2026. The unusually long interval has complicated the immediate task of establishing when individual articles went missing and who had custody of them.

Among the missing articles is a Rado wristwatch registered as property item T-653/16. The watch is believed to be valuable, although its precise assessed worth has not been officially established.

Investigators are examining the disappearance of material objects, commonly described in court proceedings as thondimuthal, which are seized articles produced before judicial authorities in connection with criminal cases.

There are conflicting indications about whether the 124 missing articles belong to separate proceedings or include multiple objects from individual cases. Police have not established a definitive breakdown of the affected cases.

The distinction is important because the disappearance of physical evidence could affect criminal proceedings differently depending on the nature of the articles, their evidentiary significance and whether their examination has already been completed.

The investigation is expected to establish whether the property disappeared through individual acts of theft, irregular handling or a prolonged failure to maintain proper custody. No particular explanation has yet been confirmed.

Police have not publicly identified any suspect or disclosed whether court employees, outside personnel or other individuals with authorised access are under investigation.

The registration of a case under Section 306 does not, by itself, establish the involvement of any particular employee. Responsibility would have to be determined through evidence gathered during the investigation.

The disappearance has drawn attention to the procedures governing storage, documentation and movement of seized property within court premises. Such articles are ordinarily retained under judicial custody until their disposal is authorised through the appropriate legal process.

An accurate inventory is essential for determining whether objects have been misplaced, transferred under proper authority or removed without permission. Investigators will need to reconcile the missing-property details with available judicial records.

The case also raises questions about the continuity of evidence custody, particularly where physical objects are required for identification, forensic examination or production during trial.

Any effect on pending prosecutions would depend on the particular evidence involved and the stage reached in each proceeding. There has been no official determination that any trial has been compromised by the disappearance.

The Ernakulam court complex has previously faced controversy over missing judicial records. Documents connected with the murder case of Maharaja’s College student Abhimanyu had disappeared from court custody.

That episode involved 11 important documents, including the chargesheet. The Kerala High Court subsequently directed reconstruction of the missing records using copies available with the prosecution and police.

The earlier incident concerned documentary records, whereas the present investigation centres on physical case property. The circumstances and potential consequences therefore differ, although both involve material entrusted to judicial institutions.

Another evidence-related controversy arose in the Fasal murder case at Thalassery, where a bloodstained handkerchief was reported missing from court custody. Court personnel subsequently maintained that the article had been located within the premises.

For the Ernakulam investigation, the immediate focus remains the property held by Magistrate Court-II and the circumstances surrounding its disappearance.

The magistrate court operates within the District Court complex on Park Avenue Road in central Kochi. The police complaint originated from its junior superintendent following the discovery of the missing articles.

The FIR’s September 21, 2026, endpoint marks the conclusion of the suspected period specified in the complaint, rather than an established date on which the missing property was removed.