Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
VARGHESE
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/03/1998
BENCH:
G.T. NANAVATI, V.N. KHARE
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
NANAVATI, J.
The appellant was tried along with two others for the
offence punishable under Sections 394 and 397 IPC. The trial
court acquitted all the three accused. Their acquittal was
challenged by the State before the High Court. The appeal
was partly allowed by setting aside the acquittal of A.1 and
A.2 and convicting them for the offence punishable under
Section 394 IPC. Acquittal of the third accused was
confirmed.
Both the convicted accused applied for leave of this
Court to file an appeal. Leave was grated to petitioner No.2
( A.2 - Varghese @ Lali) only.
What is contended by the learned counsel for the
appellant is that only evidence on the basis of which the
appellant is that only evidence on the basis of which the
appellant has been convicted is that of discovery of knife
and gloves by him. It appears that three persons committed
robbery and at that time they had concealed their faces by
putting on masks and, therefore, they could not be
recognised by PW1 - Gouri or PW2 - Bindu. The appellant has
been connected with the crime on the basis of recovery of
knife and gloves made pursuant to the statement made by him
in presence of PW 8, while he was in police Custody.. PW8
has denied that the appellant had made such a statement and
that pursuant to any information given by him any knife or
gloves were recovered. Though he has admitted his signatures
on Ex. P.6 - Mahazar, the contents have been denied > No
doubt, PW 18 - the Investigating Officer has proved that
Mahazar but it clearly appears from the mahazar that the
knife and gloves were founded lying in open in a paddy
field. In absence of any statement indicating concealment by
him of any weapon or other incriminating articles, the
statement of A.2 cannot be regarded as sufficient for his
conviction. What the evidence of PW. 18 and the Mahazar
prove is that a knife and gloves were recovered in presence
of A.2 with the commission of crime. In absence of any other
evidence A. 2 with the commission of crime. In absence of
any other evidence A.2 ought not to have been convicted by
the High Court under Section 394 IPC. We, therefore, allow
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
this appeal, set aside his conviction and a acquit him.
His bail bonds are ordered to be cancelled.