Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

from the house of the murdered couple, were relied upon to find that the murders had been committed by the accused between 18.45 and 19.00 hours. The testimonies of Kunjikuttan, PW6 Balakrishnan and PW7 Mani Mannadiyar [both of whom were passengers in the autorickshaw of the appellant/accused] were relied upon to find that the accused had left early the next morning to go to Tirupur and that he did not return home till the Police asked him to come there for questioning. The testimonies of PW13 Saravanan and PW14 Thiruvenkada Kumar, who were the salesman and owner respectively of a Jewellery in Tirupur were relied upon to find that the accused had sold the bangles worn by Anandavally Amma, that he had cut and removed from her body, to the Jewellery at Tirupur. Saravanan had also identified the accused at a TI parade conducted by the Magistrate PW26. The confession statement of the accused that led to the recovery of the murder weapon was relied upon to the extent permitted under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, as was the testimony of the Police Surgeon PW29, read with documents Exts.P38 and P39 and the testimony of the Forensic expert PW27 James Philipose, Director, FSL to find that the recovered weapon was capable of inflicting the injuries found on the bodies of the deceased couple as also making the tool marks on the Almirah in the house of the deceased. The trial court also found that the accused had purchased Pepsi and Entrine, traces of which were found at the scene of crime to infer the presence of the accused thereat. Based on the said findings, the trial court directed the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 10 years for the offence Crl.A.No.136/2018 :: 6 ::

- the day following the day of the murder, were never in dispute, there were serious infirmities in the evidence adduced to suggest that (i) the appellant was seen in the vicinity of the deceased couple's house nearer to the time of the alleged incident, (ii) that he had sold two broken golden bangles belonging to the the deceased Anandavally Amma at a Jewellery shop in Tirupur the next day (iii) that the salesman in the Jewellery shop had identified him as the person who sold the broken gold bangles in a TI parade conducted by the Magistrate (iv) that the billhook/koduval recovered pursuant to his confession statement before the CBI officials was the murder weapon (v) that he had sprinkled kerosene and coconut oil on the bed sheets and pillows and lit fire to it after putting it on the dead bodies and (vi) that he had also sprinkled the compound of Pepsi Entrine and Phenol all over the area where he had moved so as to destroy any evidence of his presence at the scene. It is his submission that in respect of the above six circumstances, there is no evidence that points to the presence of the appellant at the scene of the crime on the fateful evening. On the aspect of sentencing, it is the submission of the learned counsel that the appellant has been sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years under Section 449, RI for 10 years under Section 397, RI for 2 years under Section 201, and imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (SI for 1 year in default). That the trial court directed that the sentence under Sections 449 and 397 shall run first, and that the same shall be consecutive in nature, and only after that would the sentence under Section 302 would start to run. The sentence under Crl.A.No.136/2018 :: 8 ::

appellant in the TI parade was on 25.07.2009. Quite surprisingly, Saravanan deposed that he remembered the appellant from over two years ago, as the man who sold him cut gold bangles, simply because he was then dressed in the attire of a Sabarimala pilgrim. He then proceeded to identify him in a TI parade conducted two months later. When it is apparent that Saravanan had no prior acquaintance or subsequent dealings with the appellant we are constrained to view the said testimony with suspicion. We cannot also rule out the possibility of Saravanan having been shown a photograph, or given a description, of the appellant by Thiruvenkada Kumar who had seen the appellant when he was taken to his shop by the investigating team on 15.05.2009. In our opinion, the delay in obtaining the evidence of Saravanan and Thiruvenkada Kumar, as also in holding the TI parade wherein the appellant was identified by Saravanan, vitiates the said evidence and renders it insufficient to connect the appellant with the gold bangles taken from the body of Anandavally Amma which, in any event, was never recovered. It is trite that the test identification parade has to be conducted within a reasonable time after the commission of the offence and the evidence regarding the TI parade loses its significance when held after enormous delay. [See: Hasib v. State of Bihar - [AIR 1972 SC 283]; Mahabir v. State of Delhi - [AIR 2008 SC 2343]; Hari Nath v. State of UP - [1988 KHC 849]; Girija Shankar Misra v. State of UP

- [AIR 1993 SC 2618]]. The object of holding a TI parade is two-fold. Firstly, it is to enable the witnesses to satisfy themselves that the prisoner Crl.A.No.136/2018 :: 20 ::

whom they suspect is really the one who was seen by them in connection with the crime. Secondly, it is to satisfy the investigation authorities that the suspect is the real person whom the witnesses had seen in connection with the said occurrence [See: State of Maharashtra v. Suresh - [(2000) 1 SCC 47]]. In the instant case, the enormous delay of almost 3 years, between the date on which Saravanan saw the appellant and then identified him at the TI parade, coupled with the possibility of information relating to the appellant having passed from Thiruvenkada Kumar to Saravanan renders the evidence of Saravanan weak in character, in the absence of further corroboration.