Judgment :- 1. The three accused who have been convicted under S.376 and 302 read with S.34 I.P.C and sentenced to death by the Tellicherry Sessions Judge are the applicants. The reference by the learned Sessions Judge for confirmation of the death sentence was also heard along with the appeal. 2. Fifteen-year-old Narayani, a student in the eighth standard of the Kayyoor High School, though married was living with her parents to prosecute her studies. On 19-8-1963 at about 8 A.M. as usual she went to her school and left it at 4 P. M. with other students to return home. At about 5 or 5-30 P. M. she parted company and walked alone till she reached the Vallarkkat Poyil about four furlongs away from her home. It is alleged by the prosecution that all the three accused were standing under a cashew tree near the well in Vallarkkat Poyil on the north-western side. Seeing Narayani, one among the accused asked her to stop whereupon she began to run away. Accused 3 then caught hold of her skirt from behind and she fell down on her face. All the three accused then lifted the girl and carried her away into the thicket nearby. Pw. 6 who heard the girl's cries "Kunhetta, Kunhetta", interfered. He was warned by accused 1 to run away if he cared for his life hearing which Pw. 6 left the place in fear. As Narayani did not return from school even after the usual time her people got frightened and searched for her all the evening and the whole night in vain. On 20-8-1963 morning Narayani's brother Kannan found Narayani's bundle of books by the side of the well and her dead body in the well at Vallarkkat Poyil. Her parents were informed who sent Pw.1 Narayani's father's brother and Pw. 2 to inform the Nileswar Police. A case of death by drowning was registered by the station writer and the First Information Report was sent to the Sub-Inspector of Police who ordered the Head Constable to investigate the case. The Head Constable then proceeded to the spot, held the inquest and sent the body for post-mortem examination. After the post-mortem was completed the Sub-Inspector took over the investigation on 23-8-1963. Complaints arose from the villagers that the investigation by the local police was 'tardy and ineffective' and C.I.D. Inspector Pw. The Head Constable then proceeded to the spot, held the inquest and sent the body for post-mortem examination. After the post-mortem was completed the Sub-Inspector took over the investigation on 23-8-1963. Complaints arose from the villagers that the investigation by the local police was 'tardy and ineffective' and C.I.D. Inspector Pw. 29 was deputed to look into the case. He took charge of the investigation on 26-9-1963, questioned some witnesses including Pw. 6, arrested the accused on 1-10-1963 and filed the charge-sheet in court on 10-12-1963. 3. The post-mortem was held about fifty hours after the death and due to putrefaction the doctor Pw. 16 Smt. Mandakini was unable to give an opinion as to the cause of death. She further stated that from the description of the body given in the inquest report also she could not say whether the body entered the water alive or dead and whether death was due to drowning. However she noticed (1) an abrasion 1/4" x 1/4" between the vulva and anus (2) an abrasion 1/4" x 1/4" in the centre of the forehead and (3) an irregular rough dark area on the left wall of the vagina and opined that injuries 1 and 3 could be caused by a violent sexual intercourse and the second injury by a fall with face downwards. When cross-examined she admitted that injury No.1 could be caused by scratching with one's own finger nail and that injury No. 3 could be caused by slight pressure and added that she could not give the age of the injuries which she put at any time within ten days. The C.I.D. Inspector consulted two doctors Pws.17 and 18 for their expert opinion with reference to the post-mortem certificate and inquest report. Pw. 17 said that injuries 1 and 3 could indicate a violent sexual intercourse and as such she could not rule out the possibility of rape. There were no positive signs of drowning, and she also expressed her inability to say definitely how death was caused. Pw. 18 also gave evidence of an inconclusive nature. Pw. 17 said that injuries 1 and 3 could indicate a violent sexual intercourse and as such she could not rule out the possibility of rape. There were no positive signs of drowning, and she also expressed her inability to say definitely how death was caused. Pw. 18 also gave evidence of an inconclusive nature. He said that the data gathered from the post-mortem certificate and the inquest report can support either a case of death in the course of violent sexual intercourse and the body being subsequently put into the well or the person committing suicide by jumping into the well after the intercourse or by an accidental fall and drowning. As the medical evidence is not conclusive on the point we can only speculate about the cause of death though the learned Sessions Judge somehow found a "consensus of medical opinion that the death of Narayani was the result of sexual violence". 4. The plea of the accused is one of total denial. All the three accused contend that the case is foisted on them by the two influential and rich persons of the locality Kottan Kunhi and Cherootta Krishnan Nair who were suspected of the crime and who to escape punishment wanted to implicate them. 5. The only evidence connecting the accused with the crime is that of Pw. 6 and for the purpose of this appeal the main question that falls to be considered is whether the evidence of Pw. 6 is worthy of acceptance and if so whether corroboration is necessary. Pw. 6 Kunhikannan swears that at about 5-30 P.M. on 19-8-1963 he saw Narayani coming from the west carrying a bundle of books in one hand and holding an open umbrella in the other. The three accused were standing together under a cashew tree and one of them called out to her to stop. Narayani attempted to run away when accused 3 pulled her skirt from behind. She fell down on her face. All the three accused then lifted her and carried her away when she cried "Kunhetta, Kunhetta". Hearing this cry he ran up and scolded them. Accused 1 then threatened him and asked him to run away if he cared for his life. He got frightened and he returned to his house. She fell down on her face. All the three accused then lifted her and carried her away when she cried "Kunhetta, Kunhetta". Hearing this cry he ran up and scolded them. Accused 1 then threatened him and asked him to run away if he cared for his life. He got frightened and he returned to his house. He lives two miles off from the scene and explains his presence at the scene by coming out with a story that he was out to gather "Sathavari" roots for preparing an oil for his ailing mother. According to him he was at that work from 10 in the morning and had secured the requisite quantity by 4-30 P.M. All the same he seems to have waited for another hour to witness the occurrence. He gave contradictory versions even about the Vaidian who was treating his mother and who deputed him to gather the herb. He was questioned by the C.I.D. twice and on the former occasion he gave the name as V.K. Vasu Vaidian and on the second as K.V. Ambu Vaidiar who is examined as Pw. 8. The explanation that he gives for this change of names is not acceptable. He has no case that Vasu Vaidian was also treating his mother. Pw. 8 belongs to the same Vannan Community as the deceased and the defence suggestion that Pw. 8 who was pitched upon as Vasu, Vaidian was not willing to afford corroboration to the evidence of Pw. 6, may not be altogether unfounded. The admission of Pw. 6 that be did not know the name of Pw. 8's Vaidiasala which he visits often only adds strength to this suggestion. It is also not known why Pw. 6 had to be questioned twice. Another strange feature about this "Sathavari" hunting campaign is that the witness waited for three days without handing it over fresh to the Vaidian. The explanation given for this is that he had to go to the Nileswar Hospital to purchase medicine for his mother. Evidently that could not have prevented him from handing over the "Sathavari" roots to Pw. 8 whose Vaidiasala also happens to be at the same place. In his cross-examination he said that he did not tell Ambu Vaidian about the death of the girl but Pw. Evidently that could not have prevented him from handing over the "Sathavari" roots to Pw. 8 whose Vaidiasala also happens to be at the same place. In his cross-examination he said that he did not tell Ambu Vaidian about the death of the girl but Pw. 8 says that he had told him that the dead body of the girl was discovered the next day in a well and also that from what Pw. 6 told him he suspected it must be a case of murder. This untrue statement of Pw. 6 must have been made with a purpose since Nileswar Police Station is only two hundred yards away from Pw. 8's Vaidiasala. The most suspicious circumstance which makes the witness's evidence unreliable is that he did not disclose the precious information to the police until 27-9-1963 when he was questioned by the C.I.D. Inspector though he had every reason to come out with it earlier and there were ever so many occasions on which he could have and should have done so. He admits that he was well acquainted with Narayani's father for the past ten years. Narayani's house is three or four furlongs from the place. One would have naturally expected him to carry the information promptly to Narayani's father especially when he felt indignant at the conduct of the accused and asked them "Have you not got mothers and sisters. Why do you behave in this manner." Even when he came to know of Narayani's suspicious death the next day he did not care to go and meet Narayani's people. Again the Nileswar Police Station is within 200 yards of Ambu Vaidiar's Vaidiasala and he did not care to convey the information to the police station though he had visited Ambu Vaidiar on the 3rd day & also on later occasions. It is even stranger that he did not mention about it to his parents or wife. The prosecution has made a desparate attempt to bring in evidence, most of it irrelevant, to strengthen the evidence of the witness by making Pw. 7, 8, 20 and 21 say that be had communicated the information to them some time or other before he divulged the information to the police. We shall be adverting to that evidence presently. The prosecution has made a desparate attempt to bring in evidence, most of it irrelevant, to strengthen the evidence of the witness by making Pw. 7, 8, 20 and 21 say that be had communicated the information to them some time or other before he divulged the information to the police. We shall be adverting to that evidence presently. The only explanation given by the witness for not informing Narayani's people or the police who are the most interested parties in the detection of the crime is that he was frightened of the accused. To this the learned judge would add another viz., "The villagers had lost confidence in the officers who were investigating the case and the atmosphere was highly surcharged with suspicion against their good faith and sincerity of purpose." However the witness himself had no such case. This explanation is also untrue. The accused saw the witness, threatened him and then carried Narayani off to the thicket. Pw. 6 says that he knows the accused from "boyhood". The accused must know that Pw. 6 who witnessed the abduction would be a dangerous person whose silence should be obtained at any cost. But the witness does not even suggest that any of the accused or anybody on their behalf approached him or threatened him for one month and odd during which period he was freely moving about, two times to Nileswar and at least once to the very place where the occurrence took place. It is the definite case of the accused that the services of Pw. 6 were obtained by Kottan Kunhi and Ambunhi who were two of the suspects in this murder case and who are admittedly very rich and influential persons of the locality. The sudden transformation of Pw. 6 as an eye-witness as if by a touch of the magic wand, immediately after the appearance of the C.I.D. Inspector on the scene speaks for itself. On the whole the evidence of Pw. 6 has not impressed us as that of a truthful witness. 6. In appreciating the evidence of this witness the observations made by the Supreme Court in Satyanarayan v. Hyd. State (AIR. 1956 Supreme Court 379) are, if we may say so with respect, very helpful. In that case their Lordships were assessing the evidence of a solitary eye-witness who came out with the information only later. 6. In appreciating the evidence of this witness the observations made by the Supreme Court in Satyanarayan v. Hyd. State (AIR. 1956 Supreme Court 379) are, if we may say so with respect, very helpful. In that case their Lordships were assessing the evidence of a solitary eye-witness who came out with the information only later. Their Lordships observed: "There is no warrant for the extreme proposition that if a man sees the perpetration of a crime and does not give information of it to anyone else, he might well be regarded in law as an accomplice and that he could be put in the dock with the actual criminals. Indeed, there can be no doubt that the evidence of such a man should be scanned with much caution and the court must be fully satisfied that he is a witness of truth, especially when no other person was present at the time to see the murder. Though he was not an accomplice, the Court would still want corroboration on material particulars as he is the only witness to the crime and as it would be unsafe to hang the accused (four in this case) on his sole testimony unless the Court feels convinced that he is speaking the truth. Such corroboration need not, however, be on the question of the actual commission of the offence; what the law requires is that there should be such corroboration of the material part of the story connecting the accused with the crime as will satisfy reasonable minds that the man be regarded as a truthful witness." 7. As for corroboration there is precious little. The prosecution has sought the services of Pws. 7, 8, 20 and 21 and Pw. 9 to afford corroboration. Pw. 9 Koran a mazdoor says that on his way back from the market he found the accused at a distance of one and a half furlongs from the Vallarkkat Poyil. He also kept the information to himself for a month when he is said to have mentioned it to Pw. 21 and the C.I.D. Inspector a week after he came to investigate. He admits that he had gone to the scene earlier and found the Nileswar Police investigating the case and he knew that the accused were being suspected as the culprits. 21 and the C.I.D. Inspector a week after he came to investigate. He admits that he had gone to the scene earlier and found the Nileswar Police investigating the case and he knew that the accused were being suspected as the culprits. All the same he did not divulge the information and when asked for an explanation he said he had none. The defence suggestion is that his services were also secured by Kottan Kunhi though he does not admit it. 8. Pw. 7 is a mazdoor and a close neighbour of Pw. 6 to whom Pw. 6 is alleged to have communicated the information the same evening and Pw. 8 Ambu Vaidiar who was told about it two or three days later. Pw. 20 is the reporter of Mathrubhoomi for Cheruvathoor and the suburbs who presided over a public meeting of the villagers held on 12-9-1963 at which Ext. P.13 resolution was passed to inform the Government that the local police have failed to detect the crime and requesting the people of the place to impart any available information to the authorities. A committee was constituted with the witness as chairman and the witness said that at the committee meeting held on 19th, Pw. 6 was present and narrated all that he had seen. Pw. 21 is another member of the committee who gave similar evidence. Before dealing with the evidence of those witnesses on the merits it has to be mentioned that the evidence of all except Pw. 7 is inadmissible. S.157 of the Evidence Act enjoins that: "In order to corroborate the testimony of a witness, any former statement made by such witness relating to the same fact at or about the time when the fact took place or before any authority legally competent to investigate the fact, may be proved." The section requires as a condition precedent to the admissibility of a previous statement that it should have been made either before an authority legally competent to investigate the fact or at or near the time when the fact to which the statement relates took place. This condition serves as a safeguard against fabrication and falsehood. This condition serves as a safeguard against fabrication and falsehood. If the statement was made before an authority legally competent to investigate the fact the time element may be immaterial, but where it was not made before such authority it must be shown to have been made at or near the time when the fact took place. The words "at or about the time" must mean that the statement must be made at once or at least shortly after the event when a reasonable opportunity for making it presents itself. In this case the statement is made to Pw. 8 two or three days after the event and to Pws. 20 and 21 thirty days later. By no stretch of imagination can these statements be stated to have been made at or about the time. 9. Apart from the question of relevancy this sort of repetition by half a dozen others is not the sort of corroboration that is necessary for the acceptance of the evidence of Pw. 6. What the prosecution, has attempted is to put the words spoken by Pw. 6 in the mouth of the others and make them repeat it. These statements must be construed as the statements of. Pw. 6 himself and not independent evidence. To lend assurance to the evidence of a witness the corroboration has to come from independent sources. As observed by their Lordships in Satyanarayan v. Hyd. State (AIR. 1956 Supreme Court 379) what the law requires is that there should be corroboration of the material part of the story connecting the accused with the crime. 10. In this view of the matter though it may not be necessary to go into the merits of the evidence of Pws. 8, 20 and 21, certain salient aspects of their evidence which instead of lending strength to the evidence of Pw. 6 only affect its credibility adversely may be as well referred to. Even if one can understand a common illiterate villager being reluctant to come out with the information the conduct of Pws. 20 and 21, two public spirited and educated gentlemen who had taken upon themselves the task of helping the police to bring to light the dastardly crime and were moving very high authorities in the matter, in not caring to pass on the precious information they were in possession of to the authorities is inexplicable. Of course Pw. 20 and 21, two public spirited and educated gentlemen who had taken upon themselves the task of helping the police to bring to light the dastardly crime and were moving very high authorities in the matter, in not caring to pass on the precious information they were in possession of to the authorities is inexplicable. Of course Pw. 20 would say that they had no confidence in the local police, but there is no such complaint against the superior police officers. It is in evidence that the higher police officers like the Dy. S.P. and the D.S.P. were also engaged in the investigation and the District Collector was also approached. It is also strange that the presence of Pw. 6 at the meeting or the evidence he gave before the committee is not referred to in Ext. P14 the minutes. There is not even a general suggestion that such precious evidence was available. As for the evidence of Pw. 8 we have already referred to the fact that the witness himself is the result of an after-thought and probably a substitute for Vasu Vaidian. He is a public spirited gentleman and was one of the speakers at the public meeting held on 12-9-1963 at the scene of incident. Though he says he exhorted others to come forward fearlessly with any relevant information he himself did not care to communicate the information he was in possession of to the authorities and that when the police station is only two hundred yards from his Vaidiasala. The Sub-Inspector gives evidence that both Pws. 8 and 20 had met him several times at the station and in the village and discussed with him about the case and Pw. 21 at least once and none of them could give him any useful information. 11. The evidence of Pw. 7 may now be gone into. He is a neighbour of Pw. 6. He is a mazdoor. Though he denied the suggestion that he works permanently for Edathara Valappil Kottan Kunhi one of the suspects and his brother he admitted that he used to work for them sometimes. He knew the deceased Narayani and her father well and adds that when he came to know about the presence of Narayani's body in the well he suspected the accused. However he did not convey the information to them. He knew the deceased Narayani and her father well and adds that when he came to know about the presence of Narayani's body in the well he suspected the accused. However he did not convey the information to them. He was present at the public meeting but even then he did not think it necessary to come out with the information. He would say that he mentioned about it at the committee meeting and was asked by the committee to carry the information to the police, but failed to do so for no reason. It is not possible to place any reliance on the witness's evidence. Thus the time and energy spent by the prosecution in attempting to prop up the evidence of Pw. 6 by letting in evidence of "repetition" in the guise of "corroboration" has not only not served the desired purpose but has had the reverse effect. 12. Equally ineffective is the attempt to secure corroboration by letting in evidence to show that Narayani had told her parents and brother two days before the occurrence that at midnight the first accused and one Ambunhi pulled her by her legs in her sleep and that Narayani had complained to them that the same persons made fun of her and splashed water on her, on her way to the school. Pw. 3 the father says that Narayani was sleeping with her mother in an enclosed verandah with no doors and at about midnight on hearing her cries he asked her what the matter was and she then said that accused 1 and Ambunhi (accused 2's brother) pulled her by the legs. Pw. 3 also said that Narayani had complained to him that the same persons had made fun of her and splashed water on her on her way to the school. To the same effect is the evidence of Pws. 4 and 5. It is doubtful whether these statements alleged to have been made by Narayani are admissible under S.32(1) of the Evidence Act. To the same effect is the evidence of Pws. 4 and 5. It is doubtful whether these statements alleged to have been made by Narayani are admissible under S.32(1) of the Evidence Act. S.32(1) makes a statement by a person who is dead relevant: "when the statement is made by a person as to the cause of his death, or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in the death, in cases in which the cause of that person's death comes into question." In this case it is not necessary to consider the various judicial pronouncements on the matter. We have already found that it is not possible to enter a positive finding as to the cause of death of Narayani in the inconclusive nature of the medical evidence. It has been observed by the Supreme Court in Moti Singh v. State of U. P. (AIR. 1964 Supreme Court 900) while considering a statement made by the deceased man that: "Clause (1) of S.32 makes a statements of a person who has died relevant only when that statement is made by a person as to the cause of his death or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death, in cases in which the cause of that person's death comes into question. When the deceased is not proved to have died as a result of injuries received by him in the incident where the deceased is alleged to have been killed his statement relating to that incident cannot be said to be the statement as to the cause of his death or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death." The Public Prosecutor would argue that the statements are relevant under S.8 of the Evidence Act as conduct. Even so, it is not possible to place any reliance on them. Neither the parents nor her brother Pw. 5 mentioned these facts to the police at the time of inquest though Pw. 5 would have it that he had his suspicion against the accused even then and the Head Constable who held the inquest pointedly asked him whether anyone was suspected. The only explanation he had to offer for this strange conduct is that he was frightened of the accused. 5 would have it that he had his suspicion against the accused even then and the Head Constable who held the inquest pointedly asked him whether anyone was suspected. The only explanation he had to offer for this strange conduct is that he was frightened of the accused. It is not possible to believe the witness when he says that the fear of the accused was such an overwhelming force before which the natural affection of a brother and parents for the girl and their indignation for her brutal murder evaporated. And if he is to be believed we must observe that this wilful suppression of incriminating circumstances by the parents and brother of Narayani at the time of the inquest must have deflected the line of police investigation and is primarily responsible for the failure of the case. While Pws. 4 and 5 admit that they came out with the information only when the C.I.D. Inspector questioned them Pw. 3 would say that he had told the Sub-Inspector about it. Again while Pw. 3 would say that that his water-splashing incident was on the Saturday prior to the occurrence the others speak of only a general complaint to that effect. As for the leg-pulling incident it might only be a guess work as it is highly improbable that one pulled by the leg from outside the house in her sleep could have recognised the mischief makers. We are not adverting to Ext. P3 letter which makes no reference to any of the accused. Thus it is seen that there is no evidence of circumstance by way of corroboration not to speak of corroboration in any material particular. 13. It is a case in which even a definite opinion as to the cause of death is not available and the life of three person hangs on the slender thread of the evidence of a solitary witness who is found to be utterly unreliable. Though there is some avoidable delay in registering the case and in the conduct of the post-mortem we feel that the observations made by the learned judge about the conduct of the Sub-Inspector of Police in the investigation of the case are unmerited. Though there is some avoidable delay in registering the case and in the conduct of the post-mortem we feel that the observations made by the learned judge about the conduct of the Sub-Inspector of Police in the investigation of the case are unmerited. The Sub-Inspector swears that he was away on duty at Hosdrug on the 20th having left the station at 9 A.M. and had to direct the complaint petition handed over to him by Pw.1 at the office of the Circle Inspector of Police Hosdrug to be taken to the Nileswar Police Station. When the fact that the Sub-Inspector was on duty at Hosdrug and had returned to the station only at 8 A.M. on the 21st is borne out by the records maintained in the station and the evidence of Pw. 23 the station writer that Pw.1 presented Ext. P-2 at the station before him only at 5 P.M. when he registered the case and forwarded the F.I.R. to the Sub-Inspector is left unchallenged we see no reason why the evidence of Pws.1 and 2, to the contrary should be preferred. The inquest was held by the Head Constable and the Sub-Inspector could take charge of the investigation only on the 23rd. The only fault of the Sub-Inspector who is a probationer of three years' experience seems to be that he could not anticipate the potential dangers in a case of "death by drowning" and had taken the trouble of making some inconsequential corrections in the original petition given to him. 14. It is with profound regret that we have to acquit the accused in a murder case of such a revolting nature. At the same time we are not prepared to allow out indignation to over-ride our judicial equanimity. The heinousness of the crime should not result in the lowering of the standards of evidence. So we are constrained to acquit the accused. They will be set at liberty. The appeal is allowed and the reference made by the learned judge is rejected.