KAILASH POTTIA 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 app ellant 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 neighbourhood of the scene 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 by PW 22, the mediator.

(3.) PW 22, the recovery witness practically admitted in the cross examination that he had been taken to the appellant's father's shop. His shop was opposite to the police station. He volunteered, at the instance of the Sub -Inspector, to go to the place for recovery. From the tenor of cross -examination and the answers given by him, it would be clear that he did not know the place of recovery. The other panch witness was not examined to corroborate his evidence. It is hard to accept the uncorroborated sole testimony of PW 22 to believe the recoveries said to have been made.