IMPORTANT POINT
Extra-judicial confession can be acted upon along with other evidence.

JUDGMENT

Pareed Pillay, J. - Appellant is the accused in S.C. 34 of 1986 of the Sessions Court, Kozhikode. He was charged under Section 302 of. the Indian Penal Code for having caused the death of Babu on 20-4-85 at about 1.30 a.m. Learned Sessions Judge found him guilty under Section 302 and convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life.

2. The prosecution case in brief is as follows. Accused had borrowed a gold necklace and some money from his friend Babu (deceased). Babu was demanding the return of the ornament and money. Finding it difficult to return the same, the accused conceived a plan to end the perpetual nuisance from Babu. On 19-4-1985 accused told Babu that the ornament was pledged to a person residing near Badagara Railway Station and that he would redeem and return it to Babu. In the night accused led Babu to the premises of Badagara Railway Station and informed him that the person with whom he had pledged the gold ornament was not readily available as he had gone for a second show cinema Accused and Babu waited near the goods-shed attached to the Railway Station. Babu began to doze and accused used that opportunity by cutting him with a chopper. Accused threw the dead body into the nearby bushes.

3. P.W.1, uncle of the deceased happened to know about the death of Babu at about 9.30 a.m. on the next day. He lodged Ext. P.1 First Information Statement. P.W. 17 registered the First Information Report. Accused was arrested and M.O 2 chopper and his blood stained cloth were recovered. The gold necklace (M.O 1) was recovered from P.W. 11 to whom the accused sold it.

4. Prosecution chiefly depends upon the circumstantial evidence to fix the complicity of the accused with the crime. Evidence of P.Ws. 2, 7, 8 and 9 is highly emphasised to prove the prosecution case that the accused and deceased were seen together last. Prosecution also relies on the extra judicial confession as stated by P.W. 2 and the recovery of chopper and accused's blood stained cloth. Prosecution also leans heavily upon the motive to complete the chain of circumstantial evidence.

5. P.W. 3 mother of the deceased deposed that 2 months prior to the incident her son Babu had given a gold necklace (M.O 1) and some money to the accused who was his close friend and that the accused never returned the ornament. P.W. 3 and her brother P.W. 1 saw Babu last at about 8.30 a.m. on 19-4-1985. As usual Babu went to the shop of Kelu (father of P.W. 7) at about 8.30 a.m. P.W.7 who was working along with the deceased in the shop of Kelu saw the accused and deceased going together. P.W. 7 deposed that Babu had told him that he had given the accused his mother's gold chain. On two or three occasions P.W. 7 heard Babu demanding the accused to return the chain. According to P.W. 7, Babu told him that he was going with the accused to get the necklace. P.W. 2 is an employee in the jewellery shop of Revindran in Badagara Town. He stated that Babu had agreed to work in the shop during the night on 19-4-1985 that at about 7.30 p.m. on that day Babu came along with the accused and expressed his inability to work during the night that though accused promised to work in the place of Babu he came and told him at about 2 a.m. that he could not come earlier because he had gone for a festival that on the next morning at 8'Oclock accused left him and came back at 3.30 p.m. P.W. 2 stated that when the accused came in an autorikshaw at about 2 a.m. he handed over to P.W. 2 his watch, shirt and banian with instructions to keep it. P.W. 2 stated that accused came to the shop at about 3.30 p.m. on the same day and that he enquired to him about Babu and the accused told him that he had seen a corpse near the railway station and indentified it as that of Babu.

6. P.W. 7 stated that he saw the accused and the deceased together at about 6.30 p.m. on 19-4-1985 that Babu left the shop of Kelu along with the accused on 19-4-1985 at about 6.30 p.m. and that he saw them at 10 p.m.