1951 (10) TMI 31

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....believed the third eye-witness Jamal (P. W. 1) who he thought was corroborated by certain other evidence and based his conviction on that. He also convicted another accused Pongiannan, with whom we are not concerned, on the same evidence and sentenced them both to death. 2. The High Court considered that P. W. 1, was as unreliable as the other two eye-witnesses and so refused to believe him. But they thought the confession had been wrongly rejected and, believing it to be voluntary, they upheld the conviction relying on the confession alone. They acquitted the other accused Pongiannan because once the eye-witnesses were discarded the only evidence implicating him was this uncorroborated confession of a co-accused. The question is raised ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s Judge who saw them and who saw the police witness Ratnasami, P. W. 24, believed the former. The High Court give no reasons for preferring the latter despite the fact that they did not have the advantage of observing their demeanour. All they say is that they see no reason to disbelieve him. But that, in our opinion, is not sufficient to displace the conclusion of the Judge who actually saw the witnesses in the box. We would require more convincing reasons in a case of this kind and would want to be shown how and where the learned Additional Sessions Judge went wrong; also, in any case, the fact remains that the appellant and his co-accused were not arrested till nearly two and a half months after the murder and the High Court considers th....