Varghese vs State Of Kerala
- CitationAIRONLINE 1998 SC 18
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where evidence of discovery of an incriminating article (knife and gloves) is based solely on a statement alleged to have been made by the accused while in police custody, and that statement is denied by the police witness who was allegedly present, and the mahazar recording the discovery does not indicate concealment by the accused but only shows the articles were found lying open in a paddy field, conviction cannot rest on such discovery evidence in the absence of other corroborating evidence connecting the accused to the crime.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
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 this appeal, set aside his conviction and a acquit him.
His bail bonds are ordered to be cancelled.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free