KAILASH POTLIA versus THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 689 · Decided: 14-08-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

KAILASH POTLIA 
A 
v. 
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
AUGUST 14, 1995 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
B 
Indian Penal Code, 1860: 
Sections 302, 38o-Murder-Trial-Conviction based on circumstantial 
evidence-Held, prosecution failed to establish case against appellant beyond C 
all reasonable doubt. 
Evidence Act, 1872: Circumstantial Evidence-Conviction under sec-
tions 302 and 380 !PC, Evidence regarding extra judicial confession and 
recovery of stolen articles found not reliable- judicial confession u/s. 164 not 
recorded-Held, evidence is too weak to fomi a chain strong enough to tie D 
the appellant with so serious an offence as murder. 
/ 
The accused-appellant filed the instant appeal by special leavf 
against the order of conviction and sentences under sections 302 and 380 
IPC passed by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court. The 
appellant was alleged to have committed murder of one of his acquaintence E 
for gain in her hut in the night between 1/2 May,.1986. The circumstances 
relied on to connect the appellant with the crime were : (1) PW. 18, a hotel 
clerk, had seen the appellant on the fateful night in the neighbourhood of 
the scene of occurrence; (2) injury on the finger of the appellant; (3) 
extra-judicial confession said to have been made to PW. 13 on the following 
F 
day; and ( 4) the statement made under s. 27 of the Evidence Act to PW.22 
leading to recovery of gold ornaments of deceased from the shop of 
appellant's father. 
Allowing the appeal and setting aside the conviction and sentences, 
~c~ 
G 
HELD : 1.1. The prosecution has failed to establish the case against 
the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. [692-A] 
1.2. The evidence of PW. 13, to whom the appellant is alleged to have 
made extra-judicial confession, does not inspire confidence. He admitted H 
689 
690 
SUPREME COURTREPORTS (1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
that the appellant had for the first time taken him in a scooter. He did not 
know the names of the father and the relation of the appellant and had 
gone with the appellant to the place where the appellant is claimed to have 
made extra- judicial confession. Though he had gone near the dead body 
and found there some persons including the police, he did not disclose the 
B 
alleged confession to anyone at that time. No ostensible reason was given 
to take PW.13 into confidance to confess the crime. Judicial confession 
under section 164 was not recorded. (691-D-E] 
1.3. PW .22, the witness to the recovery practically admitted in the 
cross-examination that he was taken to the appellant's father's shop. His 
C 
shop was opposite the police station. He volunteered, at the instance of the 
Sub-Inspector, to go to the place for recovery. From the tenor of cross-
eamination and the answers given by him, it would be clear that he did not 
know the place of recovery. The other panch witness was not examined to. 
corroborate his evidence. It is hard to accept the uncorroborated sale 
testimony of PW .22 to believe the recoveries said to have been made. 
D 
~~ 
E 
F 
1.4. If the testimony of PW.13 and PW .22 is excluded from evidence, 
no other unimpeachable evidence is there to connect the appellant with the 
crime: The circumstances of the presence of the appellant near the scene 
of occurrence at the mid-night and an injury on his finger are too weak to 
form a chain strong enough to tie the appellant with so serious an offence 
as murder. (691-H; 692-A] 
CRIMINAL. APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
Criminal Miscel-
laneous Petition No. 214 of 1994. 
IN 
Criminal Appeal No. 719 of 1992. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.9.91 of the Andhra Pradesh 
G High Court in Crl. A. No. 932 of 1990. 
K. Madhava Reddy and P.K. Dey for the Petitioner/Appellant. 
G. Prabhakar for the Respondent. 
H 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
KAILASH P01LIA v. STATE 
691 
Heard the counsel on both sides. The entire prosecution case rests A 
on circumstantial evidence. According to the prosecution, the appellant 
was acquainted with deceased Smt. Shanti Devi. On the intervening night 
of May 1/2 1986, the appellant had gone to the hut of the deceased when 
she was alone and murdered for gain. 
The circumstances to connect the appellant with the crime are that 
(1) PW 18, a hotel clerk, had seen the appellant at mid- night on May 1, 
1986 in the neighbourhood of the scene of offence; (2) injury on the finger 
of the appellant; (3) extra-judicial confession said to have been made to 
PW

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.