Kerala High Court
Prasad (C.No.9050) vs State Of Kerala on 9 February, 2024
Author: P.B.Suresh Kumar
Bench: P.B.Suresh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON JOHN
FRIDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 20TH MAGHA, 1945
CRL.A NO. 1499 OF 2023
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & SENTENCE IN SC 382/2014 DATED
27.05.2020 OF THE COURT OF SESSIONS, PALAKKAD DIVISION
APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
PRASAD,
AGED 39 YEARS, S/O KRISHNAN, C NO.9050 CENTRAL
PRISON & CORRECTIONAL HOME, POOJAPPURA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695012 AND RESIDED AT
PARAKKODU VEEDU, ELANAD, PAZHAYANNUR, THRISSUR
THROUGH THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON &
CORRECTIONAL HOME, POOJAPPURA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695012
ADV.R.ANJALI STATE BRIEF
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682031
SRI.ALEX.M.THOMBRA SR. PP
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD ON
31.01.2024, THE COURT ON 19.02.2024 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl.A. No.1499 of 2023 2
P.B.SURESH KUMAR & JOHNSON JOHN, JJ.
-----------------------------------------------
Criminal Appeal No.1499 of 2023
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of February, 2024
JUDGMENT
P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.
The first accused in S.C.No.382 of 2014 on the files
of the Sessions Court, Palakkad who stands convicted and
sentenced for the offences punishable under Sections 120B,
201, 302 and 397 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code,
1860 (IPC) is the appellant in this appeal.
2. One Raghu @ Kannan was a taxi driver
operating from Chelakkara. The dead body of Raghu was
found in a mutilated state in Thirunellayi River on the
morning of 07.12.2012. A crime was registered by Palakkad
Town South Police on receiving the said information and it
was revealed from the investigation that ensued that Raghu
was murdered in furtherance of a conspiracy. A final report
was consequently filed in the case against nine accused who
were found responsible for the murder and incidental
offences.
3. The accusation against the accused in the final
report is that accused 1 to 8 hatched a conspiracy to rob a
luxury car and then rob persons transporting smuggled gold
making use of the robbed luxury car; that in furtherance to
the said conspiracy, accused 1 to 4 managed to obtain, on
hire basis, the Tavera Car owned and driven by Raghu and
boarded the same in the pretext of going on a trip to Ooty;
that en-route, at about 11.50 p.m., the first accused
attempted to inject cyanide into Raghu and when the said
attempt failed, the first accused with the help of accused 2, 3
and 4 stabbed on the neck of Raghu with a knife causing a
fatal injury and that later, the second accused slashed the
neck of Raghu and accused 3 and 4 hit him using a stone to
ensure his death. It is also the accusation in the case that
after ensuring the death of Raghu, the accused disposed the
body in Thirunellayi River. The accusation against accused 5
to 8 is that they having knowledge about the plot to commit
such a criminal act, facilitated the act by concealing the
same. The accusation against the ninth accused is that he
harboured the first accused despite having the knowledge
about the offence he had committed.
4. On committal of the case by the Jurisdictional
Magistrate, the Sessions Court took cognizance of the
offences and framed charges against the accused. The
accused denied the charges. At the consequent trial, PWs 1
to 61 were examined and Exts.P1 to P94 were marked on the
side of the prosecution. MOs 1 to 44 were identified. Exts.X1
to X3 were also received in evidence.
5. During the trial, an application was filed by
the fourth accused seeking pardon. The Sessions Court
allowed the said application and the pardon tendered by the
Court was accepted by the fourth accused. PW59 examined
on the side of the prosecution, in the circumstances, is the
fourth accused himself.
6. On a close reading of the prosecution evidence,
the accused were questioned in terms of Section 313(1)(b) of
the Code Of Criminal Procedure (the Code). The accused denied
the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence. The
stand taken by the first accused at that stage was that he has
been falsely implicated in the case. As the Court of Session
did not find the case to be one fit for acquittal of accused 1 to
8 under Section 232 of the Code, they were called upon to
enter on their defence, after acquitting the ninth accused. Two
witnesses Dws.1 and 2 were examined and Exts.D1 to D9 were
marked by the accused at that stage. Thereupon, on a
consideration of the materials on record, the Court of Session
found accused 1 to 8 guilty and convicted them. It is aggrieved
by the said decision of the Court of Session that the first
accused has come up with this appeal.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as
also the learned Public Prosecutor.
8. The point that falls for consideration is whether
the conviction of the first accused and the sentence imposed on
him, is sustainable in law.
9. Let us now examine the evidence on record. It
is seen that the attempt of the prosecution initially was to prove
the charge against the accused with the aid of circumstantial
evidence. However, since the fourth accused could be
examined as a witness in the course of the trial and since the
evidence tendered by him supported the prosecution case, the
case no longer rests on circumstantial evidence. But since the
fourth accused being an accomplice to the crime and the only
direct evidence available in the case is that of the fourth
accused, in the light of the provisions contained in Sections
114(b) and 133 of the Indian Evidence Act read together, it is
only prudent on the part of the Court to ensure that the
evidence tendered by the fourth accused as a witness, is
corroborated in material particulars by other independent
evidence. Of course, it is trite that the nature and extent of
corroboration required depends upon the facts and
circumstances of each case [See Francis Stanly v. Intelligence
Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, (2006) 13 SCC 210]. It is also
necessary to clarify at this stage that corroboration does not
mean that every detail of the evidence needs to be confirmed
by independent evidence. Corroboration, in the context, means
that there has to be additional evidence rendering the evidence
of the approver probable [See Mrinal Das v. State of Tripura,
(2011) 9 SCC 479, Thadiyantevida Nazeer v. State of Kerala,
2022 SCC OnLine Ker 357].
10. The fourth accused as PW59, gave in his
evidence a complete narration of the events that took place on
the date of occurrence and on the day following the same, right
from the time at which the fourth accused joined the company
of accused 1 to 3, till he left their company. PW59 deposed that
at about 7.30 a.m. on 06.12.2012, while he was on his way
home, he saw accused 1 to 3 sitting in an Alto Car near his
house; that even though the fourth accused had not joined
them then, he joined their company after a short while and all
of them proceeded thereupon to Chelakkara taxi stand. PW59
deposed that at the Chelakkara taxi stand, the second accused
got out of the car alone and came back after sometime with a
visiting card and thereafter, they proceeded to Vadakkencherry
and that the fifth accused joined their company in the
meanwhile. PW59 deposed that they thereupon went to
Mattuvazhi, from where the second accused made a call from a
telephone booth and informed others that the taxi is ready and
then the second accused proceeded in a bus to fetch the taxi
and after sometime, the second accused informed over the
mobile phone of PW4 to the first accused that he secured the
taxi. PW59 deposed that thereafter, they proceeded to Elanad
in the Alto Car and at Elanad, they met the second accused in a
Tavera Car driven by Raghu, the deceased. PW59 deposed that
from there, he along with accused 1 and 3 proceeded in the
Alto Car and the second accused proceeded in the Tavera Car
and when they reached near the house of the first accused, all
of them boarded the Tavera Car and proceeded further. PW59
deposed that at Thennilapuram, they stopped the car for the
second accused to meet someone and after a short while, the
second accused came back and informed them that the person
he wanted to meet is not available and therefore, the trip to
Ooty has to be dropped. PW59 deposed that at that time,
Raghu informed his house over telephone that the Ooty trip is
cancelled and that he is returning. PW59 deposed that while
returning, at about 11.00 p.m, as required by them, Raghu
stopped the car for them to consume liquor and at that time,
the first accused who was sitting in the seat behind the driver's
seat, tried to inject into the deceased, cyanide which the first
accused carried using a syringe and when the said attempt
failed, the second accused reached near the driver's seat and
with the help of the first accused, pushed the deceased down.
PW59 deposed that a knife was then handed over by the
second accused to the first accused and using the same, the
first accused tried to stab Raghu, which Raghu had grabbed.
PW59 deposed that immediately, the third accused obtained
the knife and gave it to the first accused. PW59 deposed that
immediately, the first accused stabbed Raghu, causing a
piercing injury on his neck. PW59 deposed that the first accused
then handed over the knife to the second accused and using
the stone given by the second accused, the first accused hit on
the head of Raghu. PW59 deposed that the second accused
then slashed the neck of Raghu to ensure his death. PW59
deposed that thereafter on satisfying that Raghu had died, they
took the body of the deceased to the back seat of the car and
since blood oozed out and spilled on the road, they had
collected waste to cover the blood and set fire to the same
using alcohol. PW59 deposed that they proceeded thereupon to
Choolipadam along Kunnupuram in the car and on reaching
Puthukkode, the mobile phone and sim of the deceased were
thrown into a public well there and proceeded to Thirunellayi.
PW59 deposed that at Thirunellayi, they disposed the corpse in
the river by placing it on a bed sheet and before doing so, the
second accused tore open the abdomen of the body to ensure
that the body is immersed in the river. PW59 deposed that they
thereafter proceeded in the said car to Coimbatore and on
reaching Pollachi road, they slept inside the vehicle until
morning. PW59 deposed that on the way, they abandoned a
bed-sheet, flex and plastic sheet into the bed of a river where
there is no flow of water. PW59 deposed that at about 6.00 a.m,
they went to Puthanamkulam, where they refreshed themselves
from the public comfort station and at that place, they cleaned
the vehicle, and the towels used to clean the vehicle were left
in the comfort station. PW59 deposed that the knife they had
used to kill the deceased was also abandoned near a pond
there. PW59 deposed that thereupon they proceeded to a place
called Ganapathy, before which they abandoned their used
clothes in different places. PW59 deposed that after drinking
tea from a shop, the first accused contacted a few persons, in
his attempt to sell out the Tavera car and since the attempt
failed, they abandoned the car at Ganapathy and went to
Coimbatore. PW59 deposed that he left the company of others
at the Coimbatore Railway Station and returned to his native,
after collecting the money due to him from his previous
employer at Coimbatore.
11. PW59 was cross-examined at length. It was
attributed by the accused that it is due to some previous
enmity that PW59 tried to implicate them. During the cross-
examination of accused persons, every aspect deposed by
PW59 was challenged. However, no serious contradictions or
inconsistencies could be brought out. The reason highlighted in
support of the plea to reject the evidence of PW59 is that he did
not disclose the whole truth. Going by the case of the
prosecution, PW59 also hit the deceased using the stone on his
head. The version of PW59, however, was that he only gave the
stone to the first accused and it was the first accused who hit
the deceased using the stone. From the narration of the matters
that had transpired from the point of time PW59 joined accused
1 to 3, and till he left the group, the version of PW59 is coherent
and appears natural. Of course, the prosecution had initially an
allegation that PW59 hit on the head of the deceased using the
stone, which PW59 did not state in his evidence. Inasmuch as
there is no eye-witness to the occurrence, such a case must
have been framed by the prosecution on the basis of the
information gathered during the investigation, and merely for
the reason that the said part of the prosecution case was not
endorsed by PW59, having regard to the peculiar facts of this
case, it cannot be held that the evidence of PW59 is unreliable.
12. PW40 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy
on the body of the deceased and issued Ext.P29 autopsy
certificate. PW40 deposed that the death was due to the incised
penetrating wound sustained to the neck of the deceased as
the same penetrated the chest cavity and left lung and that the
said injury could be inflicted using MO8 knife.
13. PW5 is the wife of the deceased. PW5 deposed
that at about 7.00 p.m. on 06.12.2012, while at home, the
deceased received a call requiring his car for a trip to Ooty; that
he agreed to undertake the trip and left home at 8.00 p.m. in his
Tavera Car for that trip to Ooty; that at about 10.00 p.m., the
deceased informed his father that the party is not good and that
he is therefore returning by cancelling the trip. PW43, the father
of the deceased also gave evidence on the same lines on which
PW5 gave evidence.
14. PWs 2 and 4 are two taxi drivers at Chelakkara.
The version of PW4 was that on 06.12.2012 at about 7.30 p.m.,
the second accused reached the taxi stand in search of a
vehicle to go to Karipur Airport and as the vehicle of PW4 did
not suit the requirement stated by the second accused, PW4
contacted PW2 and enquired with him whether he is willing to
go for the trip. PW4 deposed that PW2 refused to undertake the
trip as the party was a stranger. PW4 also deposed that soon,
the second accused went to the bakery of PW6 in the vicinity
and made a call using the coin telephone kept there. PW2
affirmed the said version of PW4 in his evidence. PW6, the
owner of the bakery also affirmed in his evidence that the
second accused came to his bakery at about 7.30 p.m. on
6.12.2012 and made a call using the coin box kept there. PW9
runs an electric shop at Chelakkara. PW9 deposed that at about
8 p.m., while his shop was to be closed, the second accused
came there and required his mobile phone to make a call. The
excuse stated by the second accused for the same was that
there was no balance in his mobile phone. PW9 did not find
anything unusual in the conduct of the second accused and
gave his phone to him to make a call, and after making the call,
the second accused returned the phone to PW9. PW9 added
that on the next morning, he came to know of the death of
Raghu who was known to him.
15. PW7 is an employee in a Petrol Pump operating
at Chelakkara. PW7 deposed that he had acquaintance with the
deceased as a taxi driver operating from Chelakkara Taxi
Stand. PW7 deposed that at about 9.00 p.m. on 06.12.2012,
the deceased came to the petrol pump and filled full tank fuel in
his Tavera Car, and the second accused was there in the car at
the time and that the deceased told PW7 that he is on a trip to
Ooty. PW7 admitted that he had no previous acquaintance with
the second accused, but he was categoric that for about 15
minutes the car was at the petrol pump and PW7 could identify
the second accused.
16. Now let us see the evidence other than the oral
evidence. PW59 was arrested on 07.12.2012 itself. PW61, the
Circle Inspector of Police deposed that on the basis of the
information furnished by PW59 that the car of the deceased
was abandoned at Ganapathy, PW59 was taken to that place,
where they reached at 3.45 a.m. on 08.12.2012. The vehicle
was found parked on the road side and it was seized under
Ext.P6 mahazar. Ext.P68 is the information given by PW59 to
PW61 that lead to the recovery of the Tavera car.
17. The second accused was arrested on
12.12.2012 at 12.00 noon from Govinda Estate at Kollur in
Karnataka. The second accused was soon produced before the
Jurisdictional Magistrate, and on 17.12.2012, after getting him
in police custody, his statement was recorded. It was disclosed
in the statement of the second accused that the knife which
was allegedly used to cause the death of the victim namely,
MO8 was thrown away near the pond at Muthannamkulam,
Coimbatore. In the light of the said statement, PW61 took the
second accused to that place, discovered and seized the knife
in terms of Ext.P10 seizure mahazar. PW28 is a witness to
Ext.P10. The recovery was effected at about 12.30 p.m. on
17.12.2012. MO8 was identified by PW59 before the court as
the knife that was used to inflict injuries on the body of the
deceased.
18. PW61 deposed that during interrogation, PW59
disclosed that the mobile phone of the deceased was dropped
in a well at Thekkegramam near Kannambra and PW59, in the
circumstances, was taken to that place. After they reached
there, the well water was pumped out by the fire force
personnel. PW35 is an official from the Fire Force Department.
PW35 confirmed that, MO4 mobile phone was recovered from
the above said well. The statement of PW59 leading to the
recovery of the said mobile phone is stated in Ext.P59, the
mahazar for the recovery. Besides PW61, PW53 also is a
signatory to that mahazar. MO4 was duly identified as the
phone in the possession of the deceased by PWs 5 and 43, his
wife and his father.
19. At the time of arrest of the second accused, he
was in possession of the registration certificate of the car
belonged to the deceased and a few other belongings of the
deceased. The photocopy of the R.C.Book as well as other
articles in his possession were seized under Ext.P57 mahazar.
On the basis of the statement of the second accused, the
syringe said to have been used to inject cyanide into the body
of the deceased was also recovered. PW61 stated that upon
questioning, the second accused gave a statement that the
syringe was thrown away at Kokkottupadom, Elanad. Based on
the said statement, PW61 took the second accused to that
place and recovered the syringe as traced out by the second
accused. Ext.P8 is the mahazar and the same is attested by
PW27, an independent witness from the locality. MO7 is the
syringe. It was subjected to chemical examination. Ext.P90 is
the report of chemical analysis. The report reveals that the pale
yellowish liquid contained in the syringe was sodium cyanide,
which is a highly toxic substance.
20. PW61 deposed that on the basis of the
statement of the second accused, MO2 bed-sheet, MO3 flex sheet
and MO18 plastic sheet removed from the car of the deceased
were recovered from near Nadupuni Road near Pollachi. Ext.P11
is the seizure mahazar to which PW29 subscribed as a witness.
On the basis of the further statement of the second accused,
PW61 recovered MO1 thorthu at 12.00 noon on 17.12.2012. The
statement of the second accused was that the thorthu found in
the vehicle was abandoned near the comfort station near Gandhi
Park at Muthannamkulm. The said statement led to the recovery
of MO1. Ext.P9 is the mahazar for the recovery to which PW28 is a
witness. MO1 thorthu and MO2 bed-sheet were identified by PW5,
wife of the deceased, as the objects with the deceased while
leaving home for Ooty.
21. PW61 deposed that on 01.04.2013, he had
arrested the first accused, and while in custody, the first accused
informed PW61 that he kept a few movables in a cover on the top
of the wall of the bedroom of his house and that he can get the
same if he is taken to that place, and on the basis of the said
information, certain belongings of the deceased held by the first
accused were discovered and seized. Ext.P83 is the relevant
portion of the information, on the basis of which the above
movables were discovered and seized. The movables of the
deceased which were discovered are MO19 purse, MO20 Voters
ID, MO21 conductors license, MO22 ID Card, MO23 series visiting
cards, MO44 black dhothi and MO35 photograph of the deceased.
All the aforesaid movables were identified as that of the deceased
by PW5, the wife of the deceased and PW43, the father of the
deceased.
22. The fact that the evidence tendered by PW59
discloses the complicity of the first accused in the crime is not in
dispute. In this context, it is relevant to mention that the accused
who were convicted in the case, other than the first accused,
challenged the decision of the Court of Session before this Court
in Criminal Appeal Nos.507 of 2020 and connected cases and in
terms of the judgment rendered on 20.10.2023, a bench
consisting of one of us, affirmed the conviction of accused 2, 3
and 5 placing reliance on the evidence tendered by PW59,
holding that the same has been sufficiently corroborated by the
other evidence let in by the prosecution, insofar as the said
accused are concerned.
23. Be that as it may, let us now consider the
question whether the evidence let in by PW59 is sufficiently
corroborated by other evidence, insofar as it relates to the first
accused. Even though the fact that the death was a homicide has
not been seriously challenged by the first accused, the evidence
tendered by PW40, the doctor who conducted the autopsy on the
body of the deceased that the death was due to the incised
penetrating wound sustained to the neck of the deceased and
that the said injury could be inflicted by MO8 knife, corroborates
the evidence tendered by PW59. Similarly, the evidence tendered
by PW5, the wife of the deceased and PW43, the father of the
deceased that the deceased received a call requiring his car for a
trip to Ooty at about 7 p.m. on the date of occurrence and that
the deceased had undertaken the said trip in the evening hours of
06.12.2012 and further that he informed them that he cancelled
the trip midway, also corroborates the evidence tendered by
PW59. Similarly, the evidence tendered by PWs 2, 4, 6 and 9 that
the second accused was in and around Chelakkara during the
evening hours of the date of occurrence and made a call to
someone from the coin phone kept in the shop of PW6 and from
the mobile phone of PW9, corroborates the evidence tendered by
PW59. Similarly, the evidence tendered by PW7 that the second
accused was found in the Tavera car of the deceased at about 9
p.m. on 06.12.2012 corroborates the version in the evidence
given by PW59 that the second accused fetched the Taxi Car of
the deceased and came to Elanad. Likewise, the evidence
tendered by PW61 that the Tavera car of the deceased was
discovered based on the information furnished by PW59; that
MO8 knife was discovered based on the information furnished by
the second accused; that MO4 mobile phone of the deceased was
discovered based on the information furnished by PW59; that the
photocopy of the R.C.Book and other articles of the Tavera car
belonging to the deceased were discovered based on the
information furnished by the second accused; that MO7 Syringe
containing Sodium Cyanide was discovered based on the
information furnished by the second accused; that MO2 bed-
sheet, MO3 flex sheet and MO18 plastic sheet held by the
deceased were discovered based on the information furnished by
the second accused and that MO1 thorthu of the deceased was
discovered based on the information furnished by the second
accused corroborate the evidence tendered by PW59. Inasmuch
as the independent evidence let in by the prosecution
corroborates, substantially, the evidence tendered by PW59 as
against accused 2, 3 and 5 who are found to be guilty not only by
the Court of Session but also by this Court in the appeal preferred
by them, we do not find any reason at all, to reject the evidence
tendered by PW59, insofar as it relates to the complicity of the
first accused in the crime and as such, the same could be
certainly relied on to hold that the guilt of the first accused is also
established beyond reasonable doubt. The said conclusion of ours
is reinforced by the evidence tendered by PW61 that it is based
on the information furnished by the first accused, MOs 19, 20, 21,
22, 23, 44 and 35 were discovered and seized from a place where
the first accused concealed the same in his house. There is no
satisfactory explanation from the first accused as to how the said
movables of the deceased happened to be in the house of the
first accused. The conclusion aforesaid is also fortified by the fact
that the first accused had absconded from the locality for a
considerably long time, and the said conduct of the first accused
is relevant under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act.
24. Let us now consider the arguments advanced
by the learned counsel for the first accused. One of the main
arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the first
accused was that the case of the prosecution that the first
accused had with him a mobile phone at the time of his arrest
and the same was seized in terms of Ext.P21 mahazar, is
utterly false. According to the learned counsel, had the first
accused possessed any mobile phone at the time of his arrest,
the same would have certainly reflected in Ext.D8 inspection
memo prepared at the time of the arrest. It was pointed out
that PW61, the investigating officer also admitted in cross-
examination that the fact that a mobile phone was carried by
the first accused is not shown in the inspection memo. It was
also argued by the learned counsel that even though call
records of the mobile phone number 8606304606 were
produced to prove the calls allegedly made by the first accused,
it was not established that the above phone number was one
used by the first accused. On the other hand, it was argued by
the learned counsel that the evidence let in by the prosecution
itself will show that the said mobile phone number does not
belong to the first accused and it belongs to the witness
examined on the side of the prosecution as PW55. It was
argued by the learned counsel that the various calls made from
the said phone number to the other accused in the case is one
of the circumstances relied on by the trial court to establish the
complicity of the first accused in the crime and therefore, the
fact that no mobile phone was seized from him at the time of
his arrest and that he has no connection, whatsoever, with the
phone number 8606304606, creates a serious doubt as to the
involvement of the first accused in the crime and that the first
accused, in the circumstances, is to be extended the benefit of
that doubt. It is unnecessary, according to us, to consider the
said argument, as it is found that the evidence tendered by
PW59 as regards the involvement of the first accused, is
sufficiently corroborated by other evidence let in by the
prosecution, and even if it is found that the first accused has
not made any calls to other accused and even if it is found that
the first accused has not received any call from the other
accused on the date of occurrence, we do not think that the
reliability of the evidence already available on record will be
diluted in any manner whatsoever.
25. Another argument advanced by the learned
counsel for the first accused is that the evidence tendered by
PW61 as regards the discovery of MOs 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 44 and
35 is not admissible in evidence as the records indicate that the
said movables have been seized on a search conducted in the
residential house of the first accused and the said search,
evidently, is not one conducted in compliance of the provisions
contained in Section 100 of the Code. We do not find any force in
this argument as well. True, what is produced in court in the
place of a mahazar, which is usually prepared while effecting
seizure of any movables discovered based on disclosures made
by the accused, is a search list. Ext.P61 is the search list. The
learned Public Prosecutor is unable to explain as to why a search
list was prepared instead of a mahazar as a contemporaneous
document, evidencing discovery and seizure of movables based
on the information furnished by the investigating officer. Be that
as it may, as indicated in paragraph 21 above, as the movables
aforesaid have been discovered and seized based on information,
according to us, even if a contemporaneous document in the form
of a seizure mahazar is not available, evidence tendered by the
investigating officer in this regard cannot be rejected, if the same
is found acceptable and believable, for what is substantive
evidence is the disclosure statement deposed to by the
investigating officer, namely PW61 in court and not what he had
extracted in the seizure mahazar.
26. Another argument advanced by the learned
counsel for the first accused is that there is no scientific evidence
to connect the first accused with the crime. Merely for the reason
that there is no scientific evidence to connect the first accused
with the crime, it cannot be said that the first accused is not
involved, especially when satisfactory evidence has been let in
by the prosecution to prove his complicity in the crime.
In the light of the discussion aforesaid, we do not find
any merit in the appeal and the same is therefore, dismissed.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.
Sd/-
JOHNSON JOHN, JUDGE.
YKB
