PUSHPANGADHAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORIGINALLY there were four accused in this case. The first accused became approver and he was examined in the case as PW 13. The prosecution case as correctly summarised by the Sessions Judge is as follows:

(2.) THE accused were convicted and sentenced only on the basis of the evidence of the approver, PW 13. PW 1 registered Ext. P1 FIR on the basis of Ext. P2 report, on 24 -06 -1988. In that report, suspicion against the accused is not mentioned. PW 2 is the wife of A2, PW 3 is the mother of A2 and PW 4 is the wife of A3. PW 5 is the mother of PW 6, who is alleged to be a keep of the deceased. PW 2 to PW 6 were declared hostile and their evidence are of no way helpful to the prosecution. All other material witnesses, other than the official witnesses, were declared hostile in this case.

(3.) THERE was also considerable delay in getting his statement. When PW 13 was examined in Court he stated that he was arrested on 11 -5 -1988. The arrest was recorded by the police on 7 -7 -1988. He also deposed that his statement under S.164 was taken after about two months of his arrest. On 12 -7 -1988 only S.164 statement of the approver was taken before the Magistrate Court. Only on 2 -9 -1995 he was declared as approver and final report was filed only on 28 -2 -1996. A1 was examined only on 13 -4 -1999 before the Magistrate Court under S.306(4) and the case was committed to the Sessions Court only in 1999. PW 13 gave evidence before Court on 2 -5 -2003. From the contradictions and omissions proved and marked in this case, it is seen that every time there is improvement of the evidence of the accomplice from 161 statement, 164 statement, 306 deposition and deposition at trial and the undue delay in getting the statement of approver years after the occurrence and much after itself is very fatal and cause doubts in the evidence of the approver. Minute details disclosed were disputed by the approver only when he was examined in Court after about one and a half decades of the incident. In Rampal Pithwa Rahidas and others v. State of Maharashtra (1994 Supp. (2) SCC 73) in Para.31 of the judgment the Supreme Court observed as follows :