The court confirmed the conviction for misappropriation and corruption, establishing that the accused alone managed funds, while her confessions were voluntary and credible.

JUDGMENT :

A. Badharudeen, J.

The sole accused in C.C.No.1 of 2004 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, (SPE/CBI) II, Ernakulam, is the appellant herein and he assails judgment in the above case dated 25.07.2011. The respondent herein is the Inspector of Police, CBI/SPE, Cochin, represented by the Special Public Prosecutor for C.B.I.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused as well as the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI. Also heard the learned Standing Counsel representing for the 2^nd additional respondent/defacto complainant in this case.

3. Perused the judgment under challenge as well as the records of the Special Court and the decisions placed by both sides.

4. I shall refer the parties in this appeal as 'prosecution’ as well as 'accused’ for easy reference.

5. In this case the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 409 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC’ for short) as well as under Section 13 (1)(c) and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('PC Act’ for short hereinafter), by the accused. The prosecution allegation is that the accused while working as Sub Postmaster in the Sub Post Office, Pulpally, misappropriated Rs.2,73,318.65 in between May, 2002 to March, 2003, which was entrusted to her in her official capacity, by abusing her official position.

6. When final report alleging commission of the above said offences was filed before the Special Court, the court took cognizance of the matter and proceed with the trial on completing the pre trial formalities. During trial, PW1 to PW20 were examined and Exts.P1 to P73 were marked. Then the accused was questioned under Section 313 (1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C’ for short). Even though opportunity was given to the accused to adduce defense evidence, no defense evidence adduced.

7. On considering the contentions raised by prosecution and the contentions raised by the defence, the Special Court found that the accused committed offences punishable under Sections 409 and 477A of the IPC as well as under Section 13 (1)(c) and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the PC Act. Accordingly she was sentenced for the said offences.

8. The learned counsel for the accused, who assailed the verdict, vehemently canvassed that on perusal of the evidence available, it is discernible that PW13 examined in this case Sri Joseph Pazhayathottam, also worked along with the accused as Money Order Clerk at Pulpally Sub Post Office from January, 2002 to March, 2003 and he was the joint custodian of the money alleged to have misappropriated by the accused. According to the learned counsel for the accused, when the entrustment of money is in the joint custody of the accused and PW13, avoidance of PW13 from the liability and fastening the entire liability upon the accused could not be justified, since the liability of the joint custodian is also involved in the allegation of misappropriation. It is pointed out that since the joint custodian was excluded from the penal consequences, it is not right to conclude that misappropriation regarding the shortage of Rs. 2,73,318.65 was done by the accused. Further that shadows doubt in the prosecution case.

9. It is argued further that excluding the evidence to find joint liability of the accused along with PW13, the prosecution has given reliance on Exts.P2 and Ext.P16 confession statements dated 26.03.2003 and 27.03.2003, though proved through PW4 and PW7, the same could not be acted upon to fasten criminal liability upon the accused, since the same was obtained by inducement, threat or promise as provided under Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act . According to the learned counsel for the accused, in so far as the proof as to whether the confession statement was recorded by inducement, threat or promise, the test of proof is that there is such a high degree of probability that a prudent man would act on the presumption that the t