Kailash
Potlia Vs. The State of Andhra
Pradesh [1995] INSC
389 (14 August 1995)
Ramaswamy,
K. Ramaswamy, K. Hansaria B.L. (J)
CITATION:
1996 AIR 66 1995 SCALE (4)724
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
O R D
E R
Heard
the counsel on both sides. The entire prosecution case rests on circumstantial
evidence. According to the prosecution, the appellant was acquainted with
deceased Smt. Shanti Devi. On the intervening night of May 1/2, 1986, the
appellant had gone to the hut of the deceased when she was alone and murdered
for gain.
The
circumstances to connect the appellant with the crime are that
(1) PW
18,a hotel clerk, had seen the appellant at mid-night on May 1, 1986 in the neighbourhood of the scene of offence;
(2) injury
on the finger of the appellant;
(3) extra-judicial
confession said to have been a made to PW 13 on May 2, 1986; and
(4)
statement made under s.27 of the Evidence Act (Ext. P-8) leading to recovery of
gold ornaments of the deceased from the shop of the father of the appellant
spoken to by PW 22, the mediator.
We
have carefully seen the evidence of PW 13 to whom the appellant is alleged to
have made extrajudicial confession. He admitted that the appellant had for the
first time taken him in a scooter. He did not know the names of the father and
the relation of the appellant and had gone with the appellant to the Tankbund,
where the appellant is claimed to have made extra-judicial confession. The
evidence does not inspire confidence as, according to PW. 13, though he had
gone near the dead body and found some person there he did not disclose the
alleged confession to anyone at that time. Police too was seen near the dead
body, but he did not tell them about it, nor about the availability of the
appellant at that time. No ostensible reason was given to take PW.13 into
confidence to confess the crime. judicial confession under s.164 was not
recorded.
PW.22,
the recovery witness practically admitted in the cross-examination that he had
been taken to the appellant's father's shop. His shop was opposite to the
police station.
He
volunteered, at the instance of the Sub-Inspector, to go to the place for
recovery. From the tenor of cross- examination and the answers given by him, it
would be clear that he did not know the place of recovery. The other panch
witness was not examined to corroborate his evidence. It is hard to accept the
uncorroborated sole testimony of PW.22 to believe the recoveries said to have
been made.
If
these two pieces of evidence are excluded from evidence, no other unimpeachable
evidence is there to connect the appellant with the crime punishable under
s.302 I.P.C. inasmuch as the circumstances of the presence of the appellant
near the scene of occurrence, at the mid-night, and an injury on his finger are
too weak to form a chain strong enough to tie the appellant with so serious an
offence as murder. So, we hold that the prosecution has failed to establish the
case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt.
Even
with regard to offence under s.380, if the evidence of PW.22 is excluded, which
has to be done for reason already alluded, it would be difficult to sustain
this conviction and it is accordingly set aside. The recovered ornaments of the
deceased shall be returned to her son.
The
appeal is accordingly allowed. The appellant will be set at liberty and shall
be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
Back
