GOPINATHAN PILLAI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Out of the five accused persons, tried by the Sessions Judge of Quilon in Sessions Case No. 2 of 1960, the appellant was sentenced to undergo three years' rigorous imprisonment under S.489D, I. P. C. and the other accused (accused 2 to 4) were acquitted.

(2.) P. W. 1 the Circle Inspector of Police, knowing of the design of the accused to commit counterfeiting of two-rupee currency note, arrested the 1st accused on 18-10-1959, searched his house in the presence of P. Ws. 3 and 5 and recovered M. Os. 1 to 12. Incriminating articles, and letters suggesting the existence of a concerted attempt to counterfeiting, were recovered from the house of some of the other accused and after completing the investigation, the police charged accused 1, 3 and 5 under S.489D and 489A, I. P. C., accused 2 under S.489 A, C and D and accused 4 under S.489D read with S.34 and S.489A, I. P. C. As the learned Sessions Judge acquitted all but the 1st accused and as the State has preferred no appeal against the acquittal, I have to confine myself in this appeal by the 1st accused to the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 3 and 5 alone so far as their evidence relates to him.

(3.) P. W. 1 the Circle Inspector speaks about the search of accused 1's house and the recovery of M. Os. 1 to 12 from his house. A good deal of adverse criticism was made about the legality of the search and P. W. 1's investigation. The arrest of the appellant on the 18th and the search of his house on that date, are also hotly disputed. It is the case of the 1st accused that he was arrested on the 17th and after the police planting the incriminating articles M. Os. 1 to 12 in his house, the alleged search was conducted only on the 19th. A village Assistant P. W. 3 is an attestor of the search mahazar. By a very cleverly concealed and subtle method, he tried to sabotage the prosecution case. In chief examination he gave evidence that the search was conducted in his presence, that the accused opened the room himself in the house where all the incriminating articles were kept with his key and he also identified the articles, but in cross examination he tried to shatter the very foundation of the case. He stated that he attested the search mahazar on his way to the Taluk Cutcherry to remit the collections of the week and added that he so remitted the money on 18-10-1959 which is a Sunday. The story of his going to the Taluk Cutcherry on a public holiday and remitting the money there is palpably false. Evidently this is a conscious attempt to support the accused's case that the search was actually conducted on the 19th and not on the 18th. With the same purpose, the witness stated that the accused was arrested on the 17th, and police men were deputed to guard his house on the 18th. However when cornered in re-examination, he became confused and had to admit that his information about the arrest of the accused on the 17th and the posting of police men to guard his house on the 18th are all hearsay and he has no direct knowledge about it. The learned Sessions Judge then took the witness into his hands and asked some pertinent questions which compelled the Village Assistant to admit that what he stated about his remitting the money on Sunday is false. The learned advocate for the defence Sri. Velayudhan Nair characterised the learned Judge's treatment of the witness under examination of the court improper. When witnesses are prevaricating and deliberately perjuring in cross examination after supporting the prosecution in chief examination and that in a very clever manner, there is nothing improper in the Judge refusing to be imposed upon by such perjuring witnesses. A Village Assistant should be the last person to indulge in such reprehensible tactics. The Public Prosecutor could have handled the witness in re-examination. He could have cross examined the witness in re-examination, declaring him hostile, instead of making it necessary for the court to handle the witness and put the court questions to expose the witnesses duplicity. This conduct of the witness I am sure will be taken note of by the Department, so that such tricks may not be repeated by others. P. W. 5 the other attestor also gave evidence that M. Os. 1 to 12 were recovered from the house of the accused in the accused's presence and identified them, but he added that he was not there when the search was begun. He too made a decided attempt to help the accused by adding that the search was conducted on the 19th and not on the 18th.