Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. Thereafter A.1 and A.3 are alleged to have taken them to Manusamudram near Kalahasthi where they noticed the body in a water sluice. Similar is the version of P.W.4, who is a resident of Brahmadevam and who is a relative of P.W.1. Though, P.W.3 in his earlier statement do not refer to these facts namely A.1 and A.2 leaving them to Manusamudram from Naruku Centre etc., but his version in Court along with that of P.W.4 runs totally contra to the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. In other words, while P.W.1 and P.W.2 speaks about A.2 and A.3 making an extra-judicial confession leading to CPK, J & Dr. KMR, J discovery of dead body, (of course not a discovery under Section 27). The evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 is to the effect that it was A.1 and A.3, who made the extra-judicial confession leading to tracing of the dead body near Srikalahasti. Therefore, this extra-judicial confession leading to recovery of dead body of the deceased being inconsistent, which was made the sheet anchor of prosecution case, falls to ground.

23. When the two circumstances namely extra-judicial confession leading to discovery of body and the recovery of articles from A.1 are not proved beyond doubt, the only circumstance namely the accused being last seen with the company of the deceased may not be sufficient to convict the accused.

24. In Sahadevan and another vs. State of Tamil Nadu5, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paragraphs 27 to 32 of the said judgment, observed as under:-

27. The courts below, the trial court in particular, have laid some emphasis on the theory of last seen, while finding the accused guilty of the offence. As far as PW 5 is concerned, he says that he only saw three persons going on the moped and he could not identify these persons. PW 4 stated that he had seen the deceased going on a moped with Chandran at about 2 o'clock in the afternoon. The time-lag between the time at which this witness saw the accused and the deceased together and when the body of the deceased was found on the next day is considerably long. According to PW 4, he could identify Loganathan while, according to PW 5, the face of the deceased was burnt and, therefore, he could not identify him. Moreover, according to the doctor, PW 7, the deceased had died about 27 to 28 hours before the autopsy. The autopsy was admittedly performed upon the deceased on 10th of July at about 2 o'clock.