Explanation offered by accused must be shown to be false by prosecution.

The accused in Sessions Case No. 18 of 1961 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge of Quilon who has been found guilty and convicted under sections 380 and 461 has filed this appeal. The case against him was that on 10th March," 1960 he committed theft of a sum of Rs. 14,000 from the iron safe of P.W. 1.

One Kunjuraman deceased is the husband of P.W. 1 and they were living in Dharmakhudi house. The father of the accused died early, his mother married again and the accused was brought up by the deceased Kunjuraman and his wife P.W. 1 and he was living with them. Kunjuraman was said to be a wealthy man and was running a bus service. The accused was employed as a clerk in the Bus Service. Kunjuraman died suddenly on 13th January, 1960. After his death his son-in-law P.W. 4 who is a Government servant entered on leave and took up the management of the bus service. P.W. 2 is his wife.

It is the prosecution case that on 20th January, 1960 the accused opened the iron safe in the presence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 and it was found to contain Rs. 21,000 in currency notes, one sovereign and a diary. A sum of Rs. 6,000 was taken out separately, bundled and kept in the safe for the purpose of meeting the ceremonies in connection with Kunjuraman’s death. Out of this Rs. 4,000 was spent and the balance of Rs. 2,000 was replaced in the safe. On 3rd March, 1960 P.W. 1 took Rs. 3,000 from the safe for certain repairs to the buses and for payment of tax.

On 17th March, 1960 there was auction sale of toddy shops in the Quilon district P.W. 1 wanted to take part in it and therefore on the night of 16th March, 1960 it is stated she opened the safe and to her utter dismay found the entire cash missing. She reported the matter to P.Ws. 2 and 4. The key for opening the safe used to be kept in an almirah. The lock of the almirah was found tampered with. The same night they went to their Advocate P.W. 10 and under instructions from him a complaint was filed by P.W. 1 at the Quilon East Police Station the next day. P.W.12, the Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case and took up investigation. P.W. 13 the Circle Inspector of Police also proceeded to the house. A scene mahazar Exhibit P-2 was prepared. P.W. 1 produced Exhibit P-4 an account book maintained of the amounts in the safe. It was taken into custody under a mahazar Exhibit P-3. The accused was arrested at about 11-30 a.m. and on information furnished by him a sum of Rs. 11,660 along with some other articles were recovered from his box kept in the V.M.S. Bus Office and it was taken into custody under a mahazar Exhibit P-5. The next day P. W. 13 recovered from the house of P.W. 11 a relation of the accused another sum of Rs. 4,280 kept in a table in one of the rooms.

The accused when questioned denied commission of the offence. He denied that the safe was opened by him on 20th January, 1960 as alleged. He admitted recovery of moneys from the V. M. S. Office and also from the house of P.W. 11, but claimed the money as his. He alleged enmity with P.W. 14 the son-in-law and according to him a false case had been foisted on him. He also stated that Kunjuraman was in financial difficulties and could not have had any money with him.

The question for decision is whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing that the accused did commit theft of currency notes from P.W. 1’s safe. There are no eye-witnesses and the whole case depends on circumstantial evidence. To justify an inference of guilt from circumstantial evidence the inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and must be incapable of explanation upon any reasonable hypothesis other than that of his guilt. Circumstantial evidence in order to furnish a basis for conviction in a criminal case requires a high degree of probability, that is to say, sufficiently high that a prudent man considering all the facts and realising that the life and liberty of the accused depend upon the decision feels justified in hold