Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
KAILASH POTLIA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
DATE OF JUDGMENT14/08/1995
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
HANSARIA B.L. (J)
CITATION:
1996 AIR 66 1995 SCALE (4)724
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
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-
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
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.