Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

78. Further, as seen from the record, the crime was registered on 30-4-1993. While so, the investigating officer arrested P. W. 2 on 17-7-1994 and P. W. 1 on 14-2-1995. P. Ws. 1 and 2 were examined under Section 164 Cr. P. C. On 25-2-1995 and tender of pardon was granted to them under Section 306 Cr. P. C. on 18-3-1995, i.e.. about two years after the registration of the crime. Thus, there is a long gap between the registration of the crime and recording of the statements of P. Ws. 1 and 2 and during this long gap, the possibility of P. Ws. 1 and 2 changing versions cannot be ruled out. Further, as seen from the evidence of P. W. 3, the Sub-Manager of Syndicate Bank, Gandhinagar, Vijayawada, in which bank A-4 and A-5 worked and further A-3 was allegedly introduced by P. W. 1, the investigating officer examined P. W. 3 and recorded his statements on 17-2-1994 and 7-1-1995. Thus, after examination of P. W. 3 by the investigating officer, P. Ws. 1 and 2 allegedly made confession statements on the basis of which they were treated as approvers. This event viz., the investigating officer arrested P. Ws. 1 and 2 after examining P. W. 3, gives rise to a suspicion over the veracity of the statements made by P. Ws. 1 and 2 and thus I am of the considered view that the evidence of these accomplice witnesses does not satisfy the double test prescribed by the Apex Court. When the evidence of both P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 is eschewed from consideration, there remains nothing which points towards the guilt of A-3.