The admissibility and reliability of evidence from identification parades and the requirement for corroboration in criminal cases.

Burn, J.

1. On 15th March 1940 a man named Abraham who belonged to Rentachintala was murdered at Gurzala. His dead body was found on the roadside next morning and the Sub-Assistant Surgeon, Gurzala, (P.W. 1) who made the post mortem examination the same day expressed the opinion that the man had been killed partly by strangling him and partly by squeezing his testicles. There is no doubt about the fact or the manner in which Abraham was done to death and the case is certainly one of murder. In S.C. No. 42 of 1940 four men were put on their trial before the learned Sessions Judge of Guntur for the murder of Abraham. The learned Sessions Judge agreeing with all the assessors found accused 1 alone guilty and sentenced him to death and acquitted the other three. C.A. No. 764 is the appeal of accused 1. C.A. No. 925 is an appeal preferred by the learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Provincial Government against the acquittal of the other three.

2. The principal evidence on the side of the prosecution was given by three women Sayamma, Akkamma and Kottamma (P. Ws. 2, 3 and 4). It was in their house that, Abraham was murdered and they said that they were eye-witnesses of the murder. They alleged that Abraham was asleep on a cot in a room inside their house when ha was attacked by the four accused. Another man they said came along with these four accused and drove the women into a room opening out of the room in which the murder was done. Accused 1, they said, caught hold of Abraham by the hands, accused 3 put his hands round Abrahams neck, accused 4 sat on Abrahams chest and accused 2 sat upon his legs and squeezed his testicles. The learned Sessions Judge and the assessors believed this evidence as far as accused 1 was concerned. The learned Sessions Judge pointed out that the women were not in themselves reliable witnesses. Their conduct was, he thought, hardly the conduct of innocent females and he would not have accepted their evidence against accused 1 but for additional circumstances appearing against him. On 21st March accused 1 made a statement under Section 164, Criminal P.C., to the Taluk Magistrate, Gurzala. Exhibit C is his statement and in that he admits that he was present when Abraham was murdered but he says that the murder was committed by accused 2, 3 and 4 assisted by the fifth man mentioned by P. Ws. 2, 8 and 4. Accused 1 alleged that he himself was only a frightened spectator of the murder like P. Ws. 2, 3 and 4. Learned Counsel for accused 1 has urged this view of the case upon us. It cannot however be accepted because there is another very important item of evidence against accused 1. This is connected with a watch (M.O. 2) and a fountain pen (M.O. 3) belonging to the murdered man. These were recovered by the police from one Guruvayya (P.W. 19) who was keeping Kottamma (P.W. 4). They had been given to him on the evening of 15th March by Kottamma. Now all the eye-witnesses (P. WS. 2, 3 and 4) say that as soon as these things were taken from the dead body of Abraham they were offered by accused 1 to Akkamma (P.W. 3) and that when she refused to receive them they were given to Kottamma (P.W. 4). The statement of accused 1 himself agrees with this evidence up to a point. Accused 1 alleges that it was accused 4 who demanded that Akkamma (P.W. 3) should take possession of Abrahams fountain pen, watch and money purse and he says that Akkamma took those things. There is therefore no possibility of doubting the fact that the fountain pen and the watch were taken from Abrahams body immediately after he died and there is no reason for doubting the evidence of P. Ws. 2, 3 and 4, when they say that it was accused 1 who handed these articles to Kottamma (P.W. 4). The learned Sessions Judge was therefore right and the assessors were right in believing the evidence of P. Ws. 2, 3 and 4 as against accused 1. He has been rightly convicted of the murder of Abraham and there is no question of the propriety of the senten