RAVI @ RAVICHANDRAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are the accused 1 to 3, who have been convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment in respect of the charge under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC.

(2.) The Trial Court relied upon the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Puran Singh vs. State of Punjab, (1995) Supp3 SCC 665, where-under it has been held that the recovery of blood stained Kirpan on the basis of the disclosure statement made by the accused can be used to corroborate the prosecution evidence against the accused.

(3.) With regard to legal proposition, there cannot be any dispute. But, the problem is whether the recovery of material objects have been proved in this case. The Trial Court relied upon Ex.Ps.30 to 32, which are the admissible portions in the confession statement of each of the accused, which is claimed to have resulted in recovery of the material objects, namely, M.Os.9 to 11 respectively. But, none of the witnesses have supported the theory of confession and consequent recovery. Those witnesses have been treated as hostile and only the signature in the confession statement of the accused persons and signature in the recovery mahazar alone has been marked in this case. Therefore, the existence of material objects available in this case did not have the value of linking the evidence with the accused.