(1.) THE appellant has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of Parur of two offences of murder and four offences of attempt to murder. For each offence of murder he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. With respect to the attempts to commit murder, as regards the attempts made on the lives of Pws. 1 and 7 he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years in each case. As for the remaining two attempts, namely those on the lives of P. W. 3 and Ulahannan, a brother of the appellant, the sentence awarded is two months' rigorous imprisonment for each offence. The appellant has hence been awarded two sentences of life imprisonment (rigorous) and fourteen years' rigorous imprisonment in addition. These sentences are directed to run concurrently. The appeal is against the above convictions and sentences.
(2.) IN the view we take that the interests of justice demand the convictions and sentences passed upon the appellant by the lower court should be set aside and a retrial ordered we do not propose to set out the facts of the case in any detail or submit the evidence to any great scrutiny. We shall content ourselves by setting out the reasons which induce us to quash the convictions and sentences and direct a retrial. It may however be stated that the prosecution case is that the accused poisoned the toddy which he knew his father (one of the deceased persons) would be consuming. He is said to have adulterated it with a decoction made out of the tubers of Gloriosa Superba. The toddy so adulterated was consumed by Kuruvilla, the father of the accused, Pylee, a confidant of Kuruvilla, who also died and the four prosecution witnesses referred to in the preceding paragraph of this judgment whom the accused is alleged to nave attempted to murder. There is no direct evidence in the case that the accused poisoned the toddy which the six victims mentioned above consumed. To bring home the guilt to the accused the prosecution relied upon (i) an alleged confession of the accused to the Police which is said to have led to the discovery of incriminating materials such as the remnants of the poisonous decoction said to have been used to adulterate the toddy and a hammer used to crush the roots of Gloriosa Superba, (ii) certain circumstances which the learned Judge refers to as 'attendant circumstances', (iii) subsequent conduct of the accused and (iv) motive. Of these items of evidence the learned Judge brushed aside the attendant circumstances, some as inconclusive and others as unworthy of credit. The item of evidence of which most use has been made is the alleged confession and it is the illegal and improper use of that confession which mainly induces us to quash the convictions and sentences the learned Judge passed in the case.
(3.) WE regret to notice the learned Judge has ignored the limitations imposed by rules of evidence as to the extent of information received from a person accused of any offence in the custody of a Police Officer which leads to the discovery of incriminating materials can be admitted in evidence or made use of at the trial. The prosecution case is that pursuant to a confessional statement the Accused made to P. W. 23, the investigating Police Officer M. Os. 3 to 5 were recovered. M. O. 3 is an old cigarette tin with remnants of the poisonous decoction in it, M. O. 4 a hammer said to have been used to crush the poisonous tubers and M. O. 5 a wooden toy gun. If so much of the statement which lead to the discovery of these articles alone was made use of no exception could have been raised. That however is not what the learned trial Judge did. The following extracts from his judgment would show how far he has transgressed the provisions of Sections 25 to 27, Evidence Act and Section 162, Criminal Procedure Code, In paragraph 2 of the judgment it is seen stated: