Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

17. It may be that the prosecution has been over-confident and has not adduced all the evidence available in support of its case; but certainly on the record before me I should hesitate to accept the identification evidence. There is nothing impossible in prosecution witnesses Nos. 1 and 2 recognising and identifying the skins after so long an interval of three weeks. But, as pointed cut by Seshagiri Aiyar, J., there are suspicious circumstances about the evidence of these witnesses, which have not been adequately explained. No complaint either to the Police or the village Magistrate was preferred for 13 days after the disappearance of the goats. There is nothing to corroborate 1st prosecution witness's statement that he went to the Tirukoilur Police station four days after the theft, and was sent away again "finding nothing." It would seem from the rest of the evidence that the skins should then have been at Tirukoilur open to identification The 1st prosecution witness's statement that he found nothing and was sent away by a Constable, is difficult to understand. No questions were asked of any other witness regarding the floods which are said to have prevented prosecution 1st witness from going to Tirukoilur earlier. Prosecution 2nd witness is a boy of 11, and both he and his father, prosecution 1st witness, are pariah coolies, whose evidence carries no great weight. The owner of the goats (a Brahmin ex-monigar under whom prosecution 2nd witness works) has not been examined at all.