The court established that corroborative evidence alongside an approver's testimony is sufficient for conviction, validating the principle within criminal law regarding circumstantial evidence.

JUDGMENT

Vinod Chandran, J.

A petty attempt to steal rubber sheets ended with the brutal murder of a septuagenarian; a house wife who was alone in the house. The charge was of A1 and A2 having trespassed into the house of the deceased to steal rubber sheets and on detection, a confrontation ensued between the deceased and the accused. A1, brutally stabbed the deceased with a knife and stole the ornaments from the dead body. A1 and A2 then ran outside to the jeep of A3, in which they had come to the house of the deceased. Both the accused climbed in and A1 spoke of the scuffle ending in the stabbing, to A3; the latter of whom shared the proceeds of the thievery, having actively involved in selling the stolen ornaments.

2. A3 turned approver and was examined as PW2.

The prosecution in the trial against A1 and A2 paraded 23 witnesses and marked Exts.P1 to P40, some of the documents in series and produced 11 materials objects. The defence did not examine any witness and marked D1 contradiction. A1 was sentenced to life and fine of Rs.20,000/- under Section 302 , RI for 7 years and fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 392 , RI for 3 months under Section 447 and RI for 2 years under Section 511 (1) of Section 201 with appropriate default sentences. A2 was sentenced to simple imprisonment for three terms of which the longest was ten months. The appeal is by A1 and A2 already underwent the sentence imposed.

3. Adv.P.G.Jayasankar, learned State Brief, appeared and argued for the appellant. The learned counsel took us through the evidence let in, at the trial and raised 15 points against the conviction and sentence. It was argued that PW2 was not a reliable witness and there was no corroboration in any material particular. From the deposition of PW2 it was pointed out that there were very significant contradictions, as seen from the S.164 statement, Ext.P2. PW2 and PW8 though acquainted, spoke in different voices about the transactions between them. The prosecution did not attempt to trace out the origin of the knife and they do not have a case that the knife was carried by A1. The recovery of MO5, is doubtful insofar as the accused, after the alleged crime ought to have gone in the opposite direction to hide the same and then come back to make their escape, in the jeep parked on the road. The knife was recovered from the northern side of the house while the jeep was parked towards the southern side. According to the learned counsel, this would not be normal human conduct, especially of trespassers taken by surprise and involved in a scuffle, wherein a lady was stabbed to death. Any sensible person would only try to escape and this makes the recovery very suspicious.

4. Though the prosecution went to court with a motive of stealing rubber sheets, there is nothing brought out as to the presence of rubber sheets in the house of the deceased. PW6 who is alleged to have cleaned the septic tank in the property of the deceased, along with A1, a few days back, though spoke of A1 having queried the son of the deceased about the availability of the rubber sheets it was proved to be an omission. Again, it was pointed out that even if the prosecution story is believed, the accused only had the intention of petty theft. On being confronted by a septuagenarian, there was no reason to stab her, especially when the victim could have been easily overpowered. PW2 had specifically spoken of the dress of A1 having been blood stained, when he boarded the jeep to make the escape but PW8 and PW9 who immediately thereafter purchased the stolen goods, did not speak of any blood on the dress of A1. The witnesses including the Investigating Officer (I.O) spoke of the ornaments being new and PW2, in his S.164 statement had disclosed only the sale of a gold chain. There is no clear identification of A1 by PW8. Neither has prosecution produced the jeep in which the accused got away nor was the ownership of the jeep proved. The jeep seized by the I.O was not sent for che