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.