Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The following is the gist of the evidence thus gathered by P. W. 34. About three months before the occurrence, the appellant went to P. Ws. 13 and 14 two tinkers at Bapatla and purchased 12 secondhand iron-safe keys for Rs. 15. from p. W. 14, by representing that he wanted them for his iron-safe which was at, his native place Kothapatnam. On 2nd September, 1954, 3rd September, 1954 and 4th September, 1954, the appellant obtained the prescriptions Exhibits P-5 P-7 and P-9 from P, W. 11, a registered medical practitioner of Ponur, for the supply of two ounces of brandy on each of the dates by representing that his wife was suffering from bronchitis and needed brandy.

14. Exhibit P-18 the appellant's statement has been admitted in evidence reads as follows:

A bearded Muhammadan (P. W. 14) sold 12 iron-safe keys for Rs. 15. In the beginning of the month I took a brandy prescription from a doctor (P. W. 11) on the ground that my wife was sick. On 10-9-1954. I purchased three daggers, brandy from a brandy shop (P. W. 10's shop). I kept my hold-all, zip canvass-bag and a basket in Guntur Railway Police Station. I slept in the Police Station, Then I readied Bezwada by 11 A. M. As soon as Nizam train came, I and Masthan drank two orange crush from the ice-compartment. I reached Gudivada at about 2 P. M, A known constable (P. W. 20) talked with me.
Then the accused took me to several places. On 18-9-1954, we reached Guntur at 1 P, M. I examined P. Ws. 15 and 17 and some others. The accused took me to the place of P. W. 17 and showed his shop. The accused then took me to Ponnur at 7 P. M. and took me to the shop of P. W. 10. I sealed his shop before the mediators, I examined P.W. 10 and others. On the next day, I searched the shop of P, W. 10 and seized brandy chits Exhibits P-5 and P-7 and P-9 and the brandy account of P, W. 10,...The accused then took me to Bapatla and we readied the place by 2 P. M.,., The accused showed me the shop of P, Ws. 13 and 14. I examined them...On 20-9-1954, the accused showed me P. W. 16 at 2-30 P. M. I examined P, W. 16 and seized the bag M. O. 7 with its contents. On 21-9-1954, we left Guntur at 9-30 A, M. and reached Vijayawada at 12 noon. The accused showed me P. W 19 and I examined him and others.

20. Sri G, V. Raghavayya, the learned Counsel for the appellant relies on the judgment of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in 1934 Mad WM G01 (A) for the position that information leading to the discovery of a witness is not admissible under S 27. But we are bound by the decision contra of the Full Bench in ILR 58 Mad 642; (AIR 1935 Mad 528)(FB)(B). The admissible information in Exhibit P-18 given by the appellant, with reference to Sri S. Malakonda Buddy's argument, is his showing the shops of P. Ws 10 and 14 and the person of P. W. 19. There is no force in Sri Raghavayya's contention that these were belated witnesses and that P. W. 34 has invented the story of having traced them with the aid of the appellant in order to dispense with getting them to identify the appellant at identification parades. The entire group of witnesses who were traced with the aid of the appellant merely speak to the appellant's preparations to commit the offence and it is extremely natural and probable that they should have been traced only with the aid of the appellant. We have carefully perused the evidence of P. Ws. 10 to 20 and find no reason to distrust their testimony. They are all persons who have no motive whatever to give perjured evidence against the appellant. So far as P. Ws 10 and 11 are concerned, the appellant admits having purchased brandy and their evidence is only relevant to show that the appellant could have had brandy to be given to the deceased, in whose viscera alcohol was found As regards the evidence of P.Ws. 13 to 20, the learned Counsel contends that the iron-safe in the Bank was Ghubb's make, with doublelock, and that the appellant would not have been so foolish as to think of opening the safe with the aid of P. W. 14's keys or of the tinker P W. 16. But the appellant's desire to rifle the safe and to get rich quickly might have overcome his powers of reflection as to the practicability of his schemes. In agreement with the learned Sessions Judge, we are of the opinion that the impracticability of opening the safe in the Bank is not by itself a reason to discredit the motive put forward by the prosecution.