1951 (10) TMI 31

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mal (P. W. 1) who he thought was corroborated by certain other evidence and based his conviction on that. He also convicted another accused Pongiannan, with whom we are not concerned, on the same evidence and sentenced them both to death. 2. The High Court considered that P. W. 1, was as unreliable as the other two eye-witnesses and so refused to believe him. But they thought the confession had been wrongly rejected and, believing it to be voluntary, they upheld the conviction relying on the confession alone. They acquitted the other accused Pongiannan because once the eye-witnesses were discarded the only evidence implicating him was this uncorroborated confession of a co-accused. The question is raised whether a conviction can be based o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ce witness Ratnasami, P. W. 24, believed the former. The High Court give no reasons for preferring the latter despite the fact that they did not have the advantage of observing their demeanour. All they say is that they see no reason to disbelieve him. But that, in our opinion, is not sufficient to displace the conclusion of the Judge who actually saw the witnesses in the box. We would require more convincing reasons in a case of this kind and would want to be shown how and where the learned Additional Sessions Judge went wrong; also, in any case, the fact remains that the appellant and his co-accused were not arrested till nearly two and a half months after the murder and the High Court considers that the investigation was perfunctory. 5. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d by him to mind their own business. That is somewhat unnatural conduct but this witness would have been an important witness to corroborate the truth of their story at any rate to that extent. He has not been called. So also the man who first saw the occurrence, namely Ghani, has not been called. 8. The only reason the High Court give for accepting the confession is because the learned Judges considered there was intrinsic material to indicate its genuineness. But the only feature the learned Judges specify is that it contains a wealth of detail which could not have been invented. But the point overlooked is that none of this detail has been tested. The confession is a long and rambling one which could have been invented by an agile mind .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X