KAILASH POTLIA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) 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 neighborhood of the sense of offence; (2) injury on the finger of the appellant; (3) extra-judicial confession said to have been 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 py PW-22, the mediator.

(3.) We have carefully seen the evidence of PW-13 to whom the appellant is alleged to have made extra-judicial confession. He admitted that the appellant had fro 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 the 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.