Judgment : The accused 1 to 6 were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years under Secs.120(b) and 395, I.P.C. in S.C.No.61 of 1988. The charges against the accused are that when P.W.1, the jewel merchant was travelling in Kollam Express, the accused and approver Kannan pretending themselves to be customs officials asked the said Jewel Merchant to get down from the train and that thereafter, he was taken in a car and that in Panruti Road they snatched the bags from the complainant and robbed 500 gms of jewels and cash of Rs.84,900 and a draft at about 4.30 a.m. on 23. 1986 and that to commit the said offence the accused also entered into a conspiracy and that therefore, they are liable to be punished under Secs.120(b) and 395, I.P.C. The accused denied the charges. 2. On the side of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 24 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-40 and M.Os.l to 108 were marked. On the side of the accused, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.D-1 to D-5 were marked. 3. The case of the prosecution as disclosed from the . above evidence is as follows: P.W.1 belongs to Nellore, Andhra Pradesh and he is a Jewel Merchant. He used to manufacture jewels and sell the same at Madurai and Madras. On 20.3.1986, he reached Madras at 10.00 a.m. by Bokaro Steel city Express and at about 7.30 p.m. on the said day. he boarded Pandian Express bound for Madurai and at about 7.30 a.m. on 23. 1986 he reached Madurai. He took a room in Santhanam Lodge, Madurai at about 8.00 a.m. P.W.3 is the Manager of the said lodge. P.W.3 has also collected the lodging charges from P.W.1. 4. When P.W.1 came to Madras from Nellore, he carried with him 388.100 gms jewels which contained ‘JK’ initial. P.W.10 the goldsmith employed in Nellore Jewellery shop-entrusted the jewels to P.W.1 at the time when P.W.1 started his journey from Nellore to Madras. Two other goldsmiths entrusted some jewels to P.W.1 for selling the same. P.W.1 came to Madurai along with his son. At about 10.00 a.m. he went to S.M.R. and Sons jewellery shop. P.W.5 is the owner of the said shop. On 23. 1986. P.W.5 purchased 25 items of jewels weighing 208 grams: But he did not pay cash on that day. P.W.1 came to Madurai along with his son. At about 10.00 a.m. he went to S.M.R. and Sons jewellery shop. P.W.5 is the owner of the said shop. On 23. 1986. P.W.5 purchased 25 items of jewels weighing 208 grams: But he did not pay cash on that day. When P.W.1 came to his shop next day. he gave a cheque for Rs.75,000. P.W.1 also went to the shop of Ambika Jewellery. P.W.4 is the Manager of the said jewellery shop. On 23. 1986 P.W.1 went to the shop to collect the balance amount and on 23. 1986 P.W.4 issued a cheque for Rs.21,919 to P.W.1. P.W.1 borrowed a sum of Rs.48,000 at 18% on 23. 1986. Thereafter, P.W.1 along with his son went to Meenakshi Temple and offered their worship, and after offering worship, he went to the Bazzar and purchased a camera M.O.2 for Rs.800 and thereafter, he returned to the lodge, He then made arrangements to reach Nellore, After making all arrangements, he put ail the jewellery, cash, books and the papers given by the customs Department in a handbag. The jewels entrusted to him by three goldsmiths at Nellore which were not sold were also placed in the hand-bag. At about 8.15 p.m. P.W.1 and his son boarded Kollam Express at Madurai. 5. P.W.2 was residing at Door No.35, Pacharsikara Street, Madurai. He was employed as a driver in Karpagam Hotel for sometime. Afterwards he was’ employed in Abirami Hotel. His father also purchased a van for him and he was driving the said van as a tourist taxi. The first accused is the taxi driver at Madurai Railway Station. The 6th accused is an auto driver. The second accused was the constable attached to railway police station. P.W.2 was also employed as taxi driver for A-3. The third accused used to come to lodge along with the fifth accused One day, the third accused asked P.W.2 as to whether his father would manufacture any jewels for him. P.W.2 told him that his father would not manufacture any jewels for outsiders. P.W.2 told him that if he want to purchase any jewels, he would introduce him to P:W. 18 and thereafter, he introduced A-3 to P.W.18. One day, the third accused told P.W.2 that they would act as Customs Officials and rob the jewels from the gold smuggler, for which P.W.2 was promised substantial payment. P.W.2 told him that if he want to purchase any jewels, he would introduce him to P:W. 18 and thereafter, he introduced A-3 to P.W.18. One day, the third accused told P.W.2 that they would act as Customs Officials and rob the jewels from the gold smuggler, for which P.W.2 was promised substantial payment. Thereafter, he took the third accused to the shop of P.W.18 On 23. 1986, he saw Santhilai Sait and a boy at the said shop, P.W.18 asked P.W.2 to bring the third accused to purchase the jewels. Then he enquired P.W.18 as to where P.W.1 is staying and he was told that P.W.1 was staying in Santhanam Lodge. On enquiry he came to know that P.W.1 was travelling in Kollam Express and informed the said matter to the third accused. He also brought P.W.20 to Vanitha Jewellers and identified P.W.1 there. Thereafter, the third accused requested P.W.2 to come to railway station taxi "stand at about.8.00 p.m. and when he reached there, he saw accused 3 to 6 and at that time, the second accused also came there. At that place they hatched conspiracy to rob the jewels. The third accused asked all the accused to come at 10.00 p.m. near a lane. The third accused also informed P.W.2 that the matter was already informed to first accused and that P.W.2 was asked to bring the first accused. Thereafter, he went to the house of first accused and brought him in his car TNG.9855. They reached the lane and found the other accused i.e., A-2 to A-6 there. The third accused was having a small bag and a torch light in his hand. P.W.2 drove the car. On the way, the person known to first accused also got into car. When they were travelling in the car, the third accused told the second accused that he should act as Customs Official and bring P.W.1 from the train when they reached Trichi Railway Station, they were told that the train already left. Thereafter, they proceeded to Villupuram Railway Station and reached there at about 3.30 a.m. The accused 2 and 5 got down from the car and went into the Railway Station. As per the instructions given by the accused, P.W.2 parked the car behind the stater.. 6. Thereafter, they proceeded to Villupuram Railway Station and reached there at about 3.30 a.m. The accused 2 and 5 got down from the car and went into the Railway Station. As per the instructions given by the accused, P.W.2 parked the car behind the stater.. 6. The train in which P.W.1 and his son were travelling reached Villupuram station at about 4.30 a.m. A-2 and A-5 entered into the compartment and told P.W.) that Excise Inspector wants to check him. They asked P.W.1 to open the bag. P.W.1 told them that there are jewels in the bag and that therefore he would not open the same. But the accused 2 and 5 told P.W.1 that the Superintendent is standing in the station and that he would check the bags. Thereafter, the accused took his bags and P.W.1 followed them and at that time, the fifth accused was having torch light in his hand. They told P.W.1 that Superintendent is sitting in the car, M.O.7 and P.W.1 was brought to the said place in darkness. The persons seated in the car told P.W.1 that they should go to Central Excise Office and therefore, they asked P.W.1 to sit in the car. Then P.W. was seated in the back seat of the car. In the seat, there were two other persons. He also saw four other persons in the front seat. The first accused drove the car and accused 2, 4 and 5 were seated in the back seat and the accused 3 and 6 were seated in the front seat and Kannan, P.W.2 was also seated in the car. After the car proceeded to some distance, P.W.1 asked them about the Customs Office. But, the accused stopped the car one furlong away from the railway gate and there was darkness at that time. P.W.1 and his son were asked to get down from the car. Thereafter, he was checked by one person. When P.W.1 asked to return his bags, they threatened him to cut his legs and hands and one person also fisted on his chest and thereafter, the car flew away. After some time, he stopped a tractor and he told the tractor driver that he did not have any money. The Tractor Driver gave Rs.2 to P.W.1 and asked him to go in the town bus and thereafter P.W.1 boarded town bus and reached Villupuram Railway Station. After some time, he stopped a tractor and he told the tractor driver that he did not have any money. The Tractor Driver gave Rs.2 to P.W.1 and asked him to go in the town bus and thereafter P.W.1 boarded town bus and reached Villupuram Railway Station. When he went to the police station, he saw the Constable and at about 7.00 or 7.15 a.m., the Sub-Inspector came there. 7. P.W.21 the Sub-Inspector examined P.W.1 on 23. 1986 at about 7.00 a.m. and recorded his statement under Ex.P-1 and on the basis of the said complaint, he registered the case under Sec. 420, I.P.C. Ex.P-2 is the First Information Report. Thereafter, he sent the First Information Report to Inspector through P.C. 934. 8. P.W.22, the Crime Inspector attached to Villupuram Railway Station received the First Information Report from P.C.934 and examined P.W.1 and recorded his statement at about 4.00 p.m. After examining the other witnesses, he directed the SubInspector and Head Constable to go to Trichi and Cuddalore to recover the stolen goods. On 23. 1986, he took up investigation and on 23. 1986 he examined P.W.1 again. On 23. 1986, he examined P.Ws.3. 4 and 5. P.W.22 also examined other witness on 23. 1986. Thereafter, he again sent message to P.W.1 who was at Nellore to come to Madurai Railway Station on 33. 1986. On 33. 1986, he verified the records of Madurai Railway Station concerning the second accused. P.W.8 the Head Constable attached to Madurai Railway Station has written in Ex.P-12 that the second accused was not present for duty on 23. 1986 at 7.00 a.m. P.W.22 also examined him on 11. 1986. 9. P.W.22 along with his party went to the house of second accused on 30.3.1986. But on seeing them, the second accused escaped from the house and therefore, he could not be arrested. The house of the second accused was searched in the presence of D.W.I and one Jayapal. The camera M.O.2 and also a sale document were recovered in the presence of witnesses under mahazar Ex.P-36. Thereafter, P.W.22 made a requisition to Superintendent to transfer the case to State Crime Branch and accordingly the case was transferred to C.B C.I.D. on 24. 1986. 10. P.W.23 the Sub-Inspector attached to Cuddalore Branch received the file relating to R.P.No.475 of 1986 and examined P.Ws.1 and 10. Thereafter, he sent the records to Madurai, C.B. C.I.D. 11. Thereafter, P.W.22 made a requisition to Superintendent to transfer the case to State Crime Branch and accordingly the case was transferred to C.B C.I.D. on 24. 1986. 10. P.W.23 the Sub-Inspector attached to Cuddalore Branch received the file relating to R.P.No.475 of 1986 and examined P.Ws.1 and 10. Thereafter, he sent the records to Madurai, C.B. C.I.D. 11. P.W.24 was the Crime Inspector attached to C.B. C.I.D., Madurai. He took up further investigation and perused the records on 86. He came to know that the accused i to 3 and 6 obtained anticipatory-bail in High Court. P.W.24 again examined P.W.1 and recorded his statement on 110. 1986. On 110. 1986, at about 9.30 a.m. he examined the first accused in the presence of P.W.9 and the statement given by him was recorded. Ex.P-14 is the admissible portion of the confession statement. In pursuance of the above statement, the first accused took them to Door.No.23-A, Samiar Lane and produced the pledge receipt and the same was recovered under mahazar Ex.P-15. Thereafter, the first accused took them to Saravana Pawn Broker. P.W.6 the Accountant in the said shop produced three bracelets M.Os.3 to 5 and the same were recovered in the presence of P.W.9 under mahazar Ex.P-7, ExP-6 is the pledge receipt. At about 6.15 p.m. on the same day, P.W.24 recovered the car TNG.9855 under mahazar Ex.P-37. M.O.I is the said car. Thereafter, he altered the case into Sec.395, I.P.C. and sent First Information Report to Villupuram. Judicial Magistrate Court. On 210. 1986 the Inspector examined the wife of first accused namely: Rarnlakshmi. 12. On 24, 10.1986 the second accused appeared before him in the C.B. C.I.D. office and since, he was on bail, he was sent away, On 210. 1986 at about 11.00 a.m. P.W.2 was examined in the presence of witnesses. On the basis of the Statement given by him. he produced Rs.10,000 M.O.98 series alongwith three gold dollars and three pairs of Thengattan which are M.Os.6 to 14, and the above objects were recovered under mahazar Ex.P-40. Thereafter, P.W.2 took them to the shop of P.W.18. P.W.18 produced Rs.37,000 (M.O.99) and the same was recovered under mahazar Ex.P-33. After completing the said process, P.W.2 was kept in custody. P.W.24 also sent requisition to examine P.W.2 under Sec.164, Crl.P.C. and conduct identification parade. On 111. Thereafter, P.W.2 took them to the shop of P.W.18. P.W.18 produced Rs.37,000 (M.O.99) and the same was recovered under mahazar Ex.P-33. After completing the said process, P.W.2 was kept in custody. P.W.24 also sent requisition to examine P.W.2 under Sec.164, Crl.P.C. and conduct identification parade. On 111. 1986, the Inspector arrested the fifth accused and the statement given by him was recorded. In pursuance of the said statement, he look them to his house and produced M.Os.105 to 108, the jewels and the same was recovered under mahazar Ex.P-32. On 111. 1986, he examined P.W.13 and recorded his statement. On 30.11.1986, he arrested the sixth accused in front of Murugan Cinema Theatre at about 12.15 p.m. In the presence of P.W.15, he recorded the statement given by the sixth accused. In pursuance of Ex.P-28 statement, he took them to his house and produced M.Os. 100 to 103 and the same was recovered at about 4.00 p.m. under mahazar Ex.P- 29. Thereafter, the 6th accused took them to the shop of P.W.17 and identified him. P.W.17 produced Rs.1,000 and the same was recovered under Ex.P-30. P.W.24 also sent requisition to the court to conduct identification parade. On 210. 1987 he examined A-3 and recorded the statement, the admissible portion of which is marked as Ex.P-25. In pursuance of the same, he took them to one Meenakshi Sundaram and produced M.Os.15 to 25, the jewels and the same was recovered under mahazar Ex.P- 26. At about 4.00 p.m. the third accused took them and identified one Thiyagarajan. The said Thiyagarajan produced M.Os.26 to 97 and the same was recovered under Ex.P-27 in the presence of P.W.14. On 11. 1987, he arrested the fourth accused at about 4.30 p.m. at Madurai Arasadi and sent him to judicial custody. On 111. 1987, he sent requisition to court to tender pardon to P.W.2 and to conduct identification parade. 13. P.W.1, was the Judicial Magistrate Villupuram recorded the confession statement of P.W.2 after observing all formalities. Ex.P-16 is the confession statement. On 11. 1986, he conducted identification parade for accused 1 and 2 P.W. 1 identified the accused 1, 2 and P.W.2. Ex.P-17 is the proceedings relating to the above identification parade. On 211. 1986 at about 3.10 p.m. he conducted identification parade for the fifth accused and P.W.1 also identified the fifth accused. Ex.P-18 is the proceedings relating to the above identification parade. On 112. Ex.P-17 is the proceedings relating to the above identification parade. On 211. 1986 at about 3.10 p.m. he conducted identification parade for the fifth accused and P.W.1 also identified the fifth accused. Ex.P-18 is the proceedings relating to the above identification parade. On 112. 1986, he conducted identification parade for the 6th accused. P.W.1 also identified the first accused. Ex.P-19 is the proceedings relating to the above identification parade of first accused. P.W.19 the Judicial Magistrate, Villupuram conducted identification parade in 111. 1987. The accused Duraipandi who was on bail was asked by P.W.19 to remain in his room and he was asked to stand along with 14 other persons, P.W.1 identified the said Duraipandian, the fourth accused. Ex.P-34 is the proceedings conducted by P.W.19. He also conducted identification parade on 211. 1987 relating to A-3. P.W.1 identified A-3. Ex.P-35 in the proceedings. 14. P.W.12 was Head Clerk of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, South Arcot. The Chief Judicial Magistrate was requested by Inspector to tender pardon to P.W.2 as he was willing to become approver, and accordingly the proceedings were conducted in the court and P.W.2 gave confession statement and thereafter, he was, tendered pardon by the court. Ex.P-20 is the said proceedings. 15. P.W.24 has also examined P.W.20 who has revealed the complicity of the accused with the offence. He also perused the letters written by P.W.20 on 4. 1988. P.W.20 also produced the agreement and on the basis of the same, P.W.24 examined other witnesses. P.W.24 filed charge sheet on 11. 1988. 16. The incriminating evidence available against the accused were explained to the accused and the accused denied the said evidence. On the side of the accused two witnesses were examined. 17. D.W.I has stated that he is a rickshaw puller and that he knew Jayapal who was also a rickshaw puller and that he does not know Madurai bus stand and that he did not carry on any fruit business at Madurai bus stand and that his signature was obtained in Ex.P-36 in the Railway Station, Villupuram by P.W.22. 18. D.W.2, the Head Clerk of Judicial Magistrate’s Court No.II, Villupuram has stated that the statement of P.W.1 was received by the court on 21. 1988 and the statements of P.Ws.3 to 5 were received on 21. 1988. 18. D.W.2, the Head Clerk of Judicial Magistrate’s Court No.II, Villupuram has stated that the statement of P.W.1 was received by the court on 21. 1988 and the statements of P.Ws.3 to 5 were received on 21. 1988. He has stated that the statements of witnesses namely Udayagiri, Srinivasan, P.W.9, P.W.6, P.W.13, P.W.15, P.W.17, P.W.14 and P.W.20 and P.W.18 were received by him only on 21. 1988. 19. On a consideration oral and documentary evidence, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Villupuram convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years under Secs.120(b) and 395, I.P.C. Aggrieved on the said conviction and sentence, the accused 1 and 2 preferred appeal C.A.No.3 of 1989, Accused 3 to 6 have preferred appeal C.A.No.17 of 1989. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge has held that M.O.I the car should be confiscated to the State. Aggrieved on the said order, the wife of the first accused has filed appeal C.A.No.4 of 1989. 20. The point for determination is whether the charges levelled against the accused are proved beyond all reasonable doubt? 21. P.W.1 is the Jewellery Merchant of Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, P.W.2 is the resident of Madurai and was owning tourist taxi. A-2 was employed as constable attached to Railway Police Station. It is alleged by the prosecution that P.W.2 and the accused entered into conspiracy to commit robbery and that in pursuance of the same, they posed themselves as customs Officials and took P.W.1 from the train to another place and robbed jewels and cash belonging to P.W.1 at a distance of 10 kms away from the Villupuram Railway Station. The trial court believing the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 20 and also the witnesses who speak to the recovery of jewels has come to the conclusion that the charges under Secs.120(b) and 395, I.P.C. are established belong all reasonable doubt. The findings of the trial court are assailed by the appellants on several grounds. It is contended by the appellants that the prosecution witnesses i.e., P.Ws.2, 18 and 20 on whose evidence and entire case of the prosecution is built are not reliable witnesses and that it is not safe to base any conviction on the above evidence. 22. The prosecution has placed evidence which consist of three stages. Firstly, the evidence relates to facts that P.W.1 came from Nellore and that he boarded train on 23. 22. The prosecution has placed evidence which consist of three stages. Firstly, the evidence relates to facts that P.W.1 came from Nellore and that he boarded train on 23. 1986 during night with cash and jewels. Secondly, the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses are relating to the act of A-2 and A-5 who took P.W.1 to the nearby car and that they passed themselves as Customs Officials. Thirdly, the accused snatched the jewel bag and other materials kept by P.W.1 and that to achieve the said purpose, the accused took P.W.1 in a car and that at a distance of 10 kms away from the Villupuram Railway Station, they snatched the bag containing the jewels and cash and other articles from P.W.1 to prove the above case, the prosecution also relies upon the evidence relating to recovery of material objects. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the recovery of the jewels and cash at the instance of the accused proves the case of the prosecution that the accused and P.W.2 participated in the commission of the offence. It is also contended by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the evidence of P.W.2, the approver is corroborated by other evidence on material particulars. 23. To appreciate the rival contention of the parties, it would be useful to refer to the averments made in Ex.P-1, the First Information Report, It is alleged in the First Information Report that P.W.1 came from Nellore to Madurai with jewels weighing 388.100 gms and that the sold 208 grams for which P.W.5 who is attached to S.M.R. Sons and Jewellers shop gave a cheque for Rs.75,000 and that he also received a cheque for Rs.21,919.65 from Ambika Jewellers and that he also borrowed a loan of Rs.84,000 from 23 persons and that with the balance of jewellery that is, 180.100 grams he boarded Kollam Express on 23. 1986. The other averments made in Ex.P-1 relates to other circumstances of the case. The value of the properties stolen from P.W.1 is estimates at Rs.1,14,500 in Ex.P-1. The above First Information Report was given on 23. 1986 at about 8.00 a.m. and the same was registered under Sec.420, I.P.C. It is the case of P.W.1 that the jewels that is., 388.100 gm brought by him from Nellore includes the jewels given by 3 gold smiths at Nellore for the purpose of selling. The above First Information Report was given on 23. 1986 at about 8.00 a.m. and the same was registered under Sec.420, I.P.C. It is the case of P.W.1 that the jewels that is., 388.100 gm brought by him from Nellore includes the jewels given by 3 gold smiths at Nellore for the purpose of selling. It is the case of the prosecution that P.W.2 the Approver was arrested on 210. 1986 by P.W.24 and that on the basis of his confession, M.Os.6 to 14 and cash of Rs.10,000 were recovered by P.W.24. Thereafter, P.W.2 claims to have given confession statement under Sec.164, Crl.P.C. before P.W.11 the Judicial Magistrate on 11. 1986. It is seen from the evidence of P.W.22 that the house of second accused was searched on 30.3.1986 and that a camera M.O.2 was recovered from the house. But, it is the version of P.W.22, the Inspector of Railway Police Station that on seeing them, the second accused ran away. It is alleged that the first accused was enquired by P.W.24 on 110. 1986 and that on the basis of the statement given by the first accused, pledge receipt was recovered and that the first accused took P.W.24 to the shop of P.W.6 and P.W.6 produced M.Os.3 to 5, and that thereafter, on the basis of the confession of P.W.2, the other accused were enquired and on the basis of their statements the properties were recovered. 24. The entire case of the prosecution rests upon the evidence of P.W.2 implicated the other accused with the offence. The law is well settled that conviction can be based on the evidence of approver, provided his evidence is corroborated with other evidence on material particulars. Sec.133 of the Evidence Act states thus: “An accomplice shall be a competent witness against an accused person; and a conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice”. Sec.114, Illustration B clearly states that the Court may presume that an accomplice is unworthy of credit, unless he is corroborated in material particulars. 25. Learned counsel for the appellant relies upon certain decisions on this aspect. In Balwant Kaur v. U.T. of Chandigarh, (1988)1 S.C.C. 1 , the law on this subject has been elaborately discussed and principles to be followed in appreciating the evidence of approver have been enunciated. 25. Learned counsel for the appellant relies upon certain decisions on this aspect. In Balwant Kaur v. U.T. of Chandigarh, (1988)1 S.C.C. 1 , the law on this subject has been elaborately discussed and principles to be followed in appreciating the evidence of approver have been enunciated. In the above decision, it is held as follows: "An accomplice, by long legal tradition, is an notoriously in famous witness, one who being particepts criminis, purchases his immunity by accepting to accuse others. In indictments, particularly of serious crimes, the counsel of caution and the rule of prudence enjoin that it is unsafe to rest a conviction on the evidence of a guilty partner in a crime without independent corroboration on the material particulars. Judicial experience was, thus, elevated to a rule of law. "It is a practice which deserves all the reverence of law’. However, the nature and extent of the corroboration must necessarily vary with the nature and circumstances of each case. Enunciation of any general rule, valid for all occasions, is not practicable". It is clearly laid down in the above decision, that the nature and extent of the corroboration must necessarily vary with the nature and circumstances of each case. 26. In C. Chellappan vs. State of Kerala, A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 1761: (1979)4 S.C.C. 813, it is observed thus: "The law is well settled that the court looks with some amount of suspicion on the evidence of an accomplice witness which is a tainted evidence and even Sec.133 of the Evidence Act clearly provides that the evidence of an accomplice witness should not be accepted unless corroborated. At the same time, it must be remembered that corrobotation must be in respect to material particulars and not with respect to each and every item however minor or insignificant it may be. Actually the requirement of corroboration is a rule of prudence which the courts have followed for satisfying the test of the reliability of an approver and has now been crystallized into a rule of law. It is equally well settled that one tainted evidence cannot corroborate another tainted evidence because if this is allowed to be done then the very necessity of corroboration is frustrated." 27. From the law laid down in the above decisions the principles that emerge are as follows: .(1) The approver must prove himself to be a reliable witness. It is equally well settled that one tainted evidence cannot corroborate another tainted evidence because if this is allowed to be done then the very necessity of corroboration is frustrated." 27. From the law laid down in the above decisions the principles that emerge are as follows: .(1) The approver must prove himself to be a reliable witness. .(2) His evidence must be corroborated in material particulars by independent evidence. .(3) The approver cannot corroborated himself. .(4) One accomplice cannot corroborate another accomplice. Nearing the above principles of law in mind, the evidence of the approver, P.W.2 has to be analysed and scrutinised. 28. Before proceeding further, it must be shown that P.W.2 also participated in the offence. Unless and until it is shown that P.W.2 has also participated in the commission of the offence, he cannot be termed as an accomplice. Learned counsel for the appellant has brought to the notice of the court that there is evidence to show that P.W.2 did not participate in the commission of the offence. In this context, the evidence given by P.W.2 has to be considered along with the evidence of P.Ws.1, 18 and 20. P.W.2 has stated in his evidence that he was the owner of tourist taxi bearing registration number TDA.5982 and that he used to park the above taxi near the college house and that the first accused used to send customer to him and that A-3 and A-5 used to visit his house often. He has further stated that when the third accused enquired P.W.2 as to whether his father who is a gold smith could manufacture the jewels for him, P.W.2 told him that he would introduce P.W.18 to him who is carrying on Jewellery business under the name and style of ‘new Vanitha Jewellers’. Regarding conspiracy, P.W.2 has stated that the third accused told him that they would pose themselves as Customs Officers and rob the jewels and that on 23. Regarding conspiracy, P.W.2 has stated that the third accused told him that they would pose themselves as Customs Officers and rob the jewels and that on 23. 1986, P.W.1 and his son came to the shop of P.W.18 and that he told A-3 that P.W.1 has come to the shop of P.W.18 and that the third accused told him that he would send P.W.20 another person by name Kannan and that he could identify P.W.1 to P.W.20 and that accordingly, he bought P.W.20 to the above shop and showed P.W.1 to him and that subsequently, at about 8.00 p.m. in the night he saw A-3 to A-6 at the Railway Station and at that time the second accused, the police constable also came there. The second part of the evidence of P.W.2 relates to the commission of the offence occurred, after P.W.1 was taken in the car. 29. The fact that P.W.2 identified P.W.1 at the shop of P.W.18 and that he was shown to P.W.20 at the said who are not corroborated by acceptable evidence. The fact that P.W.2 also participated in the commission of the offence was not revealed to anyone till P.W.2 was arrested by P.W.24. In fact, P.W.1 has not mentioned anything about P.W.2 in the First Information Report, even though. P.W.1 has stated in his evidence now that in the car, in which he was taken by other accused he saw a person having beard in the car. P.W.1 has stated that he identified P.W.2 before the Magistrate. He has stated in his evidence that another person having beard was seated in the front seat of the car and that he came to know the name of the said person only now. P.W.2 is called as ‘Dhadi Kannan’. P.W.11 the Judicial Magistrate who conducted the Identification Parade has stated that P.W. 1 identified P.W.2 on 11. 1986 that is, 8 months after the date of occurrence. But, P.W.11 has stated that he did not verify whether P.W.2 was having beard at the time of identification. The said fact is not noted in the proceedings conducted by him. It is not shown that P.W.2 was asked to stand along with other persons, who were having beard: P.W.1 has admitted in his evidence that after loading the First Information Report he attended the Villupuram court several times to identify the jewels. The said fact is not noted in the proceedings conducted by him. It is not shown that P.W.2 was asked to stand along with other persons, who were having beard: P.W.1 has admitted in his evidence that after loading the First Information Report he attended the Villupuram court several times to identify the jewels. It is also possible that when P.W.2 was produced before the Magistrate, he would have been seen by P.W.1 in the court. In the above circumstances, the evidence relating to identification of P.W.2 by P.W.1 alone is not sufficient for holding that P.W.2 also participated in the commission of the offence. Further, the alleged occurrence took place in the dark night. It is admitted that six persons were seated in the car. In the above circumstances, it is highly improbable that P.W.1 has noticed P.W.2 in the car. The identification of P.W.2 by P.W.1 after 8 months from the date of commission of the offence, cannot be accepted to be a reliable evidence. 30. Regarding the involvement of P.W.2 in the commission of the offence, especially the “conspiracy” the prosecution relies upon the evidence of P.Ws.18 and 20. P.W.18 has stated that the third accused came to the shop for ordering a gold chain along with P.W.2 and that be told them P.W.1 used to come to his shop with new jewels and that he also told that P.W.1 was staying at Santhanam Lodge and that on 23. 1986, P.W.2 came to the shop and asked him as to when P.W. 1 is going to leave Madurai, for which P.W.18 told him that P.W.1 would be travelling in Koliam Express and that at about 10.45 a.m. on 23. 1986, P.W.1 came to the shop and that P.Ws.2 and 20 also came there and that after sometime, P.Ws.1, 2. and 20 left his shop. The evidence of P.W.18 on this aspect is pressed into service by the prosecution to show that P.W. was identified to P.Ws.2 and 20 by P.W.18. It is significant to note that P.W.1 did not whisper in his evidence that he had been to the shop of P.W.18 either on 23. 1986 or 23. 1986. P.W.24 the Investigation Officer has clearly admitted that P.W.1 has not stated during investigation that he went to Lalitha Jewellery (Vanitha Jewellery) on 23. 1986 or 23. 1986. It is significant to note that P.W.1 did not whisper in his evidence that he had been to the shop of P.W.18 either on 23. 1986 or 23. 1986. P.W.24 the Investigation Officer has clearly admitted that P.W.1 has not stated during investigation that he went to Lalitha Jewellery (Vanitha Jewellery) on 23. 1986 or 23. 1986. P.W.1 has stated that he visited Ambika Jewellers and S.M.R. and Sons Jewellery shop and obtained cheques before he boarded the train on 23. 1986. When P.W.1 himself has not come forward with a definite case that he visited the shop of P.W.18 before he boarded the train, it is highly un-believable that P.W.1 was identified by P.Ws.2 and 20 in the shop of P.W.18. Further, P.W.18 has admitted that his house was searched on 4. 1988 by Customs Officials and Income Tax Officials and that black money was seized from his house and that his father was produced before the Court and that the said case is pending. He has stated that he was examined hy the C.I.D. police on 210. 1986. If that is so, his statement should have reached the court on the same day or within a few days. On the other hand it is admitted by D.W.2 the Head Clerk of Judicial Magistrate Court II, Villupuram that the statement of P.W.18 was received by the court only on 21. 1988. P.W.24 filed the charge sheet on 11. 1988. It is the clear that only after filing the charge sheet, the statement of P.W.18 was sent to court. It is suggested by the appellant that P.W.18 has come forward to oblige the prosecution at the later stage of the case. It is no doubt true that as per the confession statement given by P.W.2 and P.W.18 was shown by P.W.2 on 210. 1986. If that is so, the statement should have reached the Court without delay. The abnormal delay in sending the statement of P.W.18 to the court will only inform the version of defence that P.W. 18 has come forward to depose in favour of the prosecution, for the reasons known to him. Further, the fact that P.W.1 was present in the shop of P.W.18 on 21.31986 and 23. 1986 has not been corroborated by the evidence of P.W.1. 31. Nextly, the evidence, of P.W.20 is relied upon to corroborate the evidence of P.W.2. Further, the fact that P.W.1 was present in the shop of P.W.18 on 21.31986 and 23. 1986 has not been corroborated by the evidence of P.W.1. 31. Nextly, the evidence, of P.W.20 is relied upon to corroborate the evidence of P.W.2. P.W.20 has stated that he was asked by the third accused to come to the shop of P.W.18 and that P.W.2 would identify P.W. 1 to him and that thereafter, he went to the shop of P.W.18 and that he saw P.W.1 in the said shop and that thereafter, in the Railway Station he told the second accused that he saw P.W.1 at the shop of P.W.18 and that P.W.1 was identified to second accused by P.W.20. As already stated, it is not stated during investigation before P.W.24 that P.W.1 had been to the shop of P.W.18 on 23. 1986 and 23. 1986. Even the Statement of P.W.20 was sent to the court only on 21. 1988. On reading the entire evidence of P.W.20, it is apparent that he is not a reliable witness. In cross-examination he has stated that about 10 years ago; he was involved in a criminal case in which it was alleged that he caused grievous injury to one person. He has stated that he would be able to remember the events after lapse of time. He has also stated thus: At one stage, P.W.20 has stated that he would be able to remember the events after lapse of some years. It is the case of defence that P.W.20 has also obtained anticipatory bail along with the accused. When P.W.20 was consented with the above fact in cross examination, he has stated that he does not remember whether he obtained anticipatory bail in High Court and that he does not remember whether he appeared before the Magistrate Court along with sureties. He has further stated that he does not remember whether he attended the Villupuram Judicial Magistrate Court. I fail to understand as to why P.W.20 is unable to either confirm or deny the fact that no appeared before the Villupuram Judicial Magistrate court with sureties, in pursuance to the conditions imposed in the bail order. The witness cannot say whether he appeared before the court or not. He must either confirm or deny the said fact. I fail to understand as to why P.W.20 is unable to either confirm or deny the fact that no appeared before the Villupuram Judicial Magistrate court with sureties, in pursuance to the conditions imposed in the bail order. The witness cannot say whether he appeared before the court or not. He must either confirm or deny the said fact. The evidence of P.W.20 that he does not remember the above facts will only show that P.W.20 has come forward to-suppress the material facts. 32. P.W.20 has stated that he was taken by third accused and he obtained his signature in a paper and that subsequently, he was brought to Villupuram and he was made to stay in Murugan lodge and that the accused 1 to 6 threatened him and obtained his signature stating that he would be paid a share in the ransom after the disposal of the case and that he was asked to give the copy of the document to the court. The above document was not marked. However, Ex.D-4 the copy of the letter sent by P.W.20 to the court is marked. The above letter is dated 22. 1988, That is long after the filing of the charge-sheet. In the above letter it is stated that the Sub-Inspector of Railways has asked him to identify P.W.1 in the Railway Station and that the Sub-Inspector asked P.W.2 to stand near the Railway Station with a car and that he was paid Rs.100 for the said assistance rendered by him. In the above letter, the Railway Sub-Inspector is sought to be implicated. Much reliance cannot be placed upon the above letter since it was sent to the court long after the completion of the investigation and filing of the charge sheet. As already stated, the evidence of P.W.2 does not appear to be reliable and trust worthy. As P.W.20 has also obtained anticipatory bail along with the other accused and that as he is also said to be participated in the alleged conspiracy, it cannot be said that the evidence of P.W.2 is corroborated with P.W.20 on material particulars. The law is well settled that the evidence of one accomplice cannot corroborate another accomplice. 33. It is the version of P.W.2 that he collected particulars regarding the place of stay of P.W.1 and the train in which P.W.1 is going to board the next day. The law is well settled that the evidence of one accomplice cannot corroborate another accomplice. 33. It is the version of P.W.2 that he collected particulars regarding the place of stay of P.W.1 and the train in which P.W.1 is going to board the next day. P.W.18 has stated that he told Kannan (It is not clear whether it refers to P.W.2 or P.W.20) that P.W.1 would be boarding Kollam-Madras Mail. The above evidence is contrary to the evidence of P.W.1 In crossexamination, P.W.1 has stated that after finishing his work, he reached Madurai Railway Station and thereafter, he decided as to which train he should board. Therefore, before reaching Madurai Railways Station, P.W.1 did not make any arrangements to bard Kollam Express. If that is so, 1 fail to understand as to how P.Ws.2, 18 and 20 came to know that P.W. 1 is going to travel in Kollam Express. The evidence of P.Ws. 10 and 20 far from corroborating the evidence of P.W.2 will only strengthen the defence version that P.W.18 and P.W.20 could have been projected as witnesses by the police only for the purpose of providing the case of conspiracy at later stage of investigation. Since P.W.20 also obtained anticipatory bail fearing arrest in this case, it is probable that he would have come forward to oblige the police. The inordinate delay in sending the statement of P.Ws.18 and 20 to the Court will also confirm the above fact. 34. It is significant to note that P.W.2 did not take any steps to obtain bail in the case. He admits that even though the other accused obtained anticipatory bail, he did not file any application. On the other hand, it is admitted by P.W.2 that he was arrested in another grave crime on 19. 1987. Even though his confession statement was recorded on 4,11.1986, the approver proceedings were initiated and pardon was tendered only on 111. 1987 that is., one year after the confession statement under Sec.164, Crl.P.C. was recorded. Absolutely, no explanation was offered by the prosecution as to why there is acnorinate delay in obtaining tender of pardon. It is probable that after P.W.2 was arrested in another case, he would have come forward to oblige the police, in order to wriggle out from this case. Absolutely, no explanation was offered by the prosecution as to why there is acnorinate delay in obtaining tender of pardon. It is probable that after P.W.2 was arrested in another case, he would have come forward to oblige the police, in order to wriggle out from this case. If really P.W.2 was also involved in the case, he would have taken steps to obtain anticipatory bail with other accused. But he did not reveal the fact to anyone till he was arrested by P.W.24. Only for the first time after 8 months from the date of the offence, P.W.2 was arrested by P.W.24. 35. The recovery of the amount and some gold articles at the instance of P.W.2 is strongly relied upon by the prosecution to prove that P.W.2 also participated in the commission of the offence. P.W.2 has stated that after he was arrested on 210. 1986, he gave statement and that he produced Rs.10,000 and gold dollar and Jimmiky. The recovery of Rs.10,000 long after the date of the offence, will not ipso facto prove that P.W.2 participated in the commission of the offence. In Ex.P-40, the recovery mahazar it is stated that the initial ‘JK’ is found in the jewels. P.W.2 has stated that the currency notes and jewels produced by him do not contain any specific identify mark. If really, the jewels which bear the initial ‘JK’ were taken by P.W.2, as his share in the loot, he would have noted the specific identify marks on the jewels. The evidence of P.W.2 that no specific marks are found in the jewels itself will clearly show-that he would not have produced the same on the basis of his confession statement. 36. Thus, several factors discussed above will clearly show that the evidence of P.W.2 was not corroborated with the evidence of P.Ws.18 and 20 on material particulars. It is also doubtful whether P.W.2 would have participated in the commission of the offence. 37. The prosecution relies upon the evidence relating to identification of accused by P.W. 1 and also recovery of material objects on the basis of the confession statement. It is clear from Ex.P-1 that only in the car in which P.W. 1 travelled, he saw the other accused in the car. 37. The prosecution relies upon the evidence relating to identification of accused by P.W. 1 and also recovery of material objects on the basis of the confession statement. It is clear from Ex.P-1 that only in the car in which P.W. 1 travelled, he saw the other accused in the car. But it is admitted that the car was parked in the place where there was complete darkness, P.W.1 has also admitted that due to darkness, he could not note the number of the car. The occurrence took place on 23. 1986. Long after the date of occurrence. P.W.1 has come forward with a version,that he is able to identify the accused. It is admitted that the accused 1 to 3 and A-6 obtained anticipatory bail in the month of June, 1986 and that they were appearing in the court for hearing of the case. P.W.11 the Judicial Magistrate who conducted the identification proceedings has stated that on 11. 1986. P.W.1 identification P.W.2, accused 1 and 2. There is evidence to prove that P.W.1 saw the first accused even earlier to 11. 1986. 38. P.W.24 the Investigation officer has admitted that the first accused was examined in C.I.D. office on 110. 1986 and that his confession was recorded in the presence of P.W.9. It is admitted by P.W.24 that he examined P.W.1 on 110. 1986 in Madurai. P.W.1 has stated in his evidence that he also received summons from Magistrate Court to attend the identification proceedings. P.W.11 the Judicial Magistrate has also admitted in his evidence that the first accused represented to him that he was kept in C.B. C.I.D. office from 10. 1986 and that at that time, he was shown to P.W.1 Even though, there is no evidence to prove that the first accused was in illegal custody, the admitted evidence will show that the first accused who already obtained anticipatorybail was attending to Court. Few days before examining the first accused, P.W.1 was examined by P.W.24. Therefore, the possibility of P.W.1 seeing the first accused even prior to 11. 1986, when the identification parade was conducted, cannot be ruled out. Further, it is highly unbelievable that P.W.1 is able to identify the accused 8 months after the date of occurrence, especially when the occurrence is said to have been committed during night. 39. Therefore, the possibility of P.W.1 seeing the first accused even prior to 11. 1986, when the identification parade was conducted, cannot be ruled out. Further, it is highly unbelievable that P.W.1 is able to identify the accused 8 months after the date of occurrence, especially when the occurrence is said to have been committed during night. 39. Regarding the identification of second accused, it is clearly admitted by P.W.1 and P.W.22 that P.W.1 identified the second accused near his house and that when P.W.22 and his party went near the house of second accused, the second accused ran away. P.W.1 has also admitted in his evidence that he identified the second accused on 33. 1986. When P.W.1 claim to have identified the second accused even 33. 1986, the evidence of P.W.1 that he identified A-2 in the identification parade on 11. 1986 is not entitled to any weight. 40. P.W.1 has also admitted in his evidence that on 11. 1986, P.W.1 appeared before him at about 3.00 p.m. and at the same time, the accused 1 and 2 who were already on bail also appeared before him. Therefore, much value cannot be attached to the evidence of P.W.11 for holding that P.W.1 has identified the second accused. 41. The evidence regarding identification of other accused also suffers from contain infirmities. The fifth accused was arrested on 111. 1986 and produced before the court on 111. 1986. The identification parade was held on 211. 1986 in Sub-Jail premises. The sixth accused was arrested on 30.11.1986 and the identification parade was held on 112. 1986. Similarly, fourth accused was arrested on 11. 1987 and produced on 11. 1987. It is admitted that he third accused was on bail. P.W.19 the Judicial Magistrate has stated that P.W.1 identified the accused 3 and 4 in the identification parade. In cross examination P.W.19 has admitted that both P.W.1 and A-3 were produced by the C.B. C.I.D. police. If that is so, P.W.1 would have seen the third accused even before he was produced before P.W. 19. It was also represented to P.W.19 by the accused 3 and 4 that they were shown to P.W.1 while they were in the C.B. C.I.D. office. P.W.19 has also admitted that the third accused was already on bail. If that is so, P.W.1 would have seen the third accused even before he was produced before P.W. 19. It was also represented to P.W.19 by the accused 3 and 4 that they were shown to P.W.1 while they were in the C.B. C.I.D. office. P.W.19 has also admitted that the third accused was already on bail. In the above circumstances, the evidence of P.W.1 that he identified accused 3 and 4 eight months after the date of occurrence is not entitled to much credence. 42. It is in the evidence of P.W.11 that P.W.1 identified the fifth accused on 211. 1986 and that on 112. 1986 the sixth accused was identified by P.W.1, P.W.1 S has also admitted that the accused 5 and 6 represented that they were shown to P.W.1 in the C.B. C.I.D. office and the said representation is also recorded under Ex.P-18. It is in the evidence of P.W.1 that he attended the office of C.B. C.I.D. and court on several occasions to identify the jewels. In the above circumstances, it can be reasonably held that P.W.1 would have seen the accused even before conduct of identification parade. In the above circumstances, it is neither prudent nor safe to act upon the evidence relating to identification proceedings. 43. The law is well settled that the delay in conducting identification parade would affect the evidence relating to identification. In this context, the learned counsel for the appellant relies upon a decision reported in Satrughana v. State of Orissa, 1994 S.C.C. 1424. The facts of the above case will show that the accused was identified 1 1/2 months after the date of occurrence. The Supreme-Court has observed that the prosecution has not advanced any reasons for not holding the identification parade promptly. In the above circumstances, the Supreme Court has held that unless there is good reasons for the delay, the value regarding the evidence of identification gets adversely affected. In this case identification was held 8 months after the date of occurrence and that too when some of the accused were on bail. Therefore, the evidence relating to identification placed by the prosecution will not assist their case in connecting the accused with the offence. 44. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor strongly relies upon the evidence relating to recovery of material objects from the accused. Therefore, the evidence relating to identification placed by the prosecution will not assist their case in connecting the accused with the offence. 44. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor strongly relies upon the evidence relating to recovery of material objects from the accused. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that there are glaring discrepancy with regard to jewels brought by P.W. 1 from Nellore and the Jewels recovered at the instance of the accused and that it is doubtful whether the material objects recovered from the accused are the jewels robbed on the date of the occurrence. It is seen from the evidence that the evidence relating to recovery of jewels and cash at the instance of the accused bristles with contradictions and improbabilities. 45. Regarding the recovery of material objects from the first accused, the prosecution relies upon the evidence of P.Ws.6, 9 and 24. P.W.24 has stated that on the basis of the confession given by the first accused, he produced the pledge receipt and that he also pointed out the shop of P.W.6 where the jewels were pledged and that P.Ws.6 and 9 attested the said mahazar. P.W.6 has stated that the first accused came to his shop and pledged the jewels and that Ex.P-6 is the receipt and that subsequently, the same was seized by the police under mahazar Ex.P-7, But, P.W.6 is unable to say whether the signature in Ex.P6 is that of the first accused. He is unable to say whether the jewels recovered by the police from him are the jewels produced in the court. P.W.9 used to sell Ever silver vessels by taking them in cycle. He has been examined to prove the confession given by the first accused. In cross examination he has admitted that he and other paid fine for having sold black tickets in cinema theatre. He has also admitted that the Sub-Inspector filed a case against him under Sec.41(2) on 19. 1987. He has also admitted that prohibition case were also filed against him and that he has deposed in court for C.B C.I.D. cases earlier. P.W.9 appears to be a stick witness to the police. Further, it is highly improbable that the first accused who was already on bail could have came forward to give confession statement implicating himself with the offence. M.Os.3 to 5 are the jewels alleged to have been recovered from the shop of P.W.6. P.W.9 appears to be a stick witness to the police. Further, it is highly improbable that the first accused who was already on bail could have came forward to give confession statement implicating himself with the offence. M.Os.3 to 5 are the jewels alleged to have been recovered from the shop of P.W.6. P.W.6 is not definite whether M.Os.3 to 5 are the jewels that were handover by him to the police under Ex.P-7. In Ex.P-7, it is stated the jewels were recovered on 110. 1986, Regarding the second accused, it is alleged by the prosecution that M.0.2 camera was recovered from his house in his absence. P.W.22 has stated that the second accused was identified by P.W.1 and that when he and other police officials went to his house, the second accused escaped, and that in the presence of witnesses he recovered M.O.2 camera under search list Ex.P-36. it is the case of P.W.1 that he purchased the above camera in the Burma Bazzar Market in Madurai. P.W.22 has admitted that the camera Fujika brand are available in our country and that it can be purchased in the Burma Bazzar market in Madurai, Trichi and Madras, and that there is no specific identity or mark on the above cameras. Therefore, the mere recovery of camera from the house of second accused long after the commission of the offence will not prove that the second accused long after the commission of the offence will not prove that the second accused also participated in the commission of the offence, especially when the above M.O.2, camera was available in all the Burma Bazaars in the country. 46. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that on 33. 1986. the second accused would have been found in Madurai. In Ex.P-16, the confession statement given by P.W.2, it is stated that the second accused and Maharajan told him that the incident was published in the newspaper and that therefore, they decided to obtain anticipatory bail and that thereafter, they went to Madurai and that on 30.3.1986, they came to knew that the second accused was searched by the police and his house was searched. In evidence, P.W.2 has stated that they were told on 30.3.1986 that the first accused and second accused were searched by the police and that P.W.2 told the third accused that they would go to Tuticorin and that they went to Tuticorin and after two days they came to Melavasal Street. Relying upon the above evidence, it is contended on behalf of the appellant that the second accused would not have been seen at Madurai on 33. 1986 near his house. 47. D.W.1 who is said to have attested Ex.P-36 has stated that P.W.22 obtained his signature in the police station. He denied the suggestion that on seeing P.W.22 the second accused ran away from his house. The evidence of P.W.22 itself will clearly show that he would not have conducted search in the manner and the time alleged by him. He has admitted in his evidence that he was investigating the case from 23. 1986 till 24. 1986. He has admitted that he examined the witnesses on 23. 1986 and 23. 1986 and that he also received information that there were some dispute among the accused 1 and 2, and accused 3 and 6 with regard to jewels. But, he did not take any steps to search the house of A-1, A-3 and A-6. Even though P.W.22 was aware of the fact from examining the witnesses at Madurai that A-1, A-3 and A-6 were also involved in the offence, he did not search their houses. On the other hand, he has stated that he did not obtain search warrant and that he did not make any attempt to search their houses. He would say that the house of the accused 1, 3 and 6 were not searched by him. 1 fail to understand as to why P.W.22 did not take prompt action in searching the house of accused 1, 3 and 6 even on 30.3.1986. It is admitted that the camera. M.O.2 was not recovered from the person of the second accused. The mere fact that the camera was recovered from the house of the second accused, it cannot be concluded that it was stolen by the second accused. There were other persons in the house of second accused when search was conducted by P.W.22. 48. The prosecution has let in evidence to show that during the relevant period, the second accused was found in suspicious circumstances. There were other persons in the house of second accused when search was conducted by P.W.22. 48. The prosecution has let in evidence to show that during the relevant period, the second accused was found in suspicious circumstances. P.W.8 the Head Constable of Railway Police Station has stated that on 23. 1986, the Sub-Inspector transferred the second accused to ‘B’ Section and that Ex.P-12 the minutes book contain the place of duly and that on 23. 1986 at about 7.00 a.m. the second accused did not attend roilcall. But he has admitted that the second accused was on duty till 10.05 p.m. on 23. 1986. As he was absent on 23. 1986, he was marked absent by P.W.7 the Sub Inspector in Ex.P8. But, it is in the evidence that the second accused came and presented sick report Ex.P-9. P.W.7 has also admitted that it is usual to be absent for the roilcall and that the absentee should give reason in writing for his absence and in this case, it is proved that the second accused appeared at 9.45 a.m. and presented sick report on which basis, he was given sick pass port Ex.P-18. The occurrence took place at about 3.00 or 3.30 a.m. on 23. 1986 at Villupuram 300 kms. away from Madurai. On 23. 1986, the second accused was at Madurai at 9.45 a.m. To implicate the second accused with the offence, the dress which second accused was wearing on the date of occurrence was specifically mentioned by P.W.8. P.W.8 has stated that the second accused was wearing Kaki pant and White Shirt at 9.45 a.m. on 23. 1986. P.W.8 was examined on 11. 1986 nearly 8 months after the date of occurrence by Ex.P-24. Since P.W.1 has mentioned about the dress of one of the accused in Ex.P-1, P.W.8 seems to have come forward to give details about the dress even after 8 months from the date of the occurrence. 49. It is suggested in the cross examination of P.W.7 that in the year 1984 he was enquired with regard to case involving out raging the modesty of the women and that in the said case. P.W.7 gave a statement that the second accused instigated to give a complaint against him. But, P.W.7 instead of denying the above facts has stated that he does not remember whether he has given any such statement. P.W.7 gave a statement that the second accused instigated to give a complaint against him. But, P.W.7 instead of denying the above facts has stated that he does not remember whether he has given any such statement. However, he admitted that he was placed under suspension for the alleged charge of receiving bribe, in Ex.D-4, P.W.20 has also stated about the part played by P.W.7 on the date of the offence. It is suggested to P.W.7 that due to mis-understanding between him and the second accused, he has implicated the second accused. In view of the above facts, the mere recovery of M.O.2 from the house of the second accused is not sufficient to connect him with this charge, 50. P.W.24 has admitted that he examined the third accused on 210. 1987 and that on the basis of his statement, Ex.P-25 he was taken to the house of one Meenakshi Sundaram and that the said Meenakshi Sundaram produced M.Os.15 to 25, jewels and that the same was recovered under mahazar Ex.P-26 and that thereafter, one Thiyagarajan was identified by the third accused and that M.Os.26 to 97 produced by him was recovered under the mahazar. The said Thiyagarajan and Meenakshi Sundaram were not examined. P.W.14 has been examined by the prosecution to prove the above recovery P.W.14 has stated that the third accused identified thiyagarajan and Meenakshi Sundaram and the jewels produced by them were recovered by P.W.24, P.W.14 has admitted that there were respectable persons at K.K.Nagar. As the said Meenakshi Sundaram and Thiyagarajan were not examined to prove that they produced the jewels to P.W.24 at the instance of the third accused, the alleged recovery of jewels would not connect the accused with the offence. It is significant to note that even the confession statement of P.W.2 refers the name Thiyagarajan. The above statement Ex.P16 was given before the Judicial Magistrate on 11. 1986. Therefore, it is clear that the investigation officer was aware of the fact that one Thiyagarajan was also involved in respect of receipt of looted property. But, the Investigation Officer did not make any earnest attempt to secure Thiyagarajan and recover the jewels at the earliest point of time. On the other hand, the third accused was examined by P.W.24 only on 210. 1987 that is nearly 1 1/2 years after the date of occurrence. 51. But, the Investigation Officer did not make any earnest attempt to secure Thiyagarajan and recover the jewels at the earliest point of time. On the other hand, the third accused was examined by P.W.24 only on 210. 1987 that is nearly 1 1/2 years after the date of occurrence. 51. Though P.W.24 arrested the fourth accused no property was recovered from him. Regarding the fifth accused, it is the case of the prosecution that P.W.24 recovered M.Os.105 to 108 on the basis of confession given 111. 1986. P.W.16 has stated that the fifth accused was arrested near Murugan Theatre and that he told him that he was given two pairs of jewels by the third accused and that he would produce the same from his house. Ex.P-32 is the mahazar for recovery of the said articles. According to the case of the prosecution, the sixth accused was arrested on 30.11.1986 near Murugan Theatre and that he produced M.Os.100 to 103 from his house and that thereafter, he took him to one Ganesan, P.W.17 and that he rcovered Rs.1,000 from him under mahazar Ex.P-30 P.W.15 has been examined be corroborate the evidence of P.W.24. It is suggested to him that he is a stock witness of the police and the above suggestion is denied. P.W.15 is a Rickshaw Puller P.W.17 has stated that the sixth accused wanted to purchase scooter for Rs.4,000 and that he paid Rs,l,000 and that he handed over the amount to the Investigation Officer. The fact that P.W.17 handed over Rs.1,000 to P.W.24 is not sufficient to connect the sixth accused with the offence. There may be dealings between the 6th accused and P.W.17 with regard to purchase of scooter or auto. Therefore, the fact that P.W.17 produced Rs.1,000 said to have been given by him by the 6th accused, will not strengthen the case of the prosecution. 52. The recovery of cash by the police from the witness long after the commission of the offence will not establish the charge levelled against the accused. 1 am unable to understand as to why the Investigation Officer P.Ws.22 to 24 took long time to examine the accused and recover the stolen articles. It is not the case of the prosecution, that the accused were absconding. On the other hand. P.W.24 has admitted that the accused A1 and A-3 obtained anticipatory bail on 16. 1 am unable to understand as to why the Investigation Officer P.Ws.22 to 24 took long time to examine the accused and recover the stolen articles. It is not the case of the prosecution, that the accused were absconding. On the other hand. P.W.24 has admitted that the accused A1 and A-3 obtained anticipatory bail on 16. 1986 and the accused A-2 and A-6 obtained anticipatory bail on 26. 1986. It is also admitted that the above accused were attending the court for complying with the conditional order of the bail. Both P.Ws.22 and 24 had ample opportunity to see the accused appearing in the court. Further, one of the conditions for granting anticipatory bail is that the accused should be available for interrogations as and when required by the Investigation Officer. That being so, P.Ws.22 and 24 ought to have examined the accused when they came to know that they were involved in the commission of the offence. The circumstances pointed Out by the appellants counsel will only show that the statements of witnesses and alleged recovery mahazars could have been prepared only after consultation with interested parties. As already stated, most of the 161 statements were sent to court only on 21. 1988. that too after filing the charge sheet. When the accused obtained anticipatory bail and were attending the court, it is highly improbable that they gave voluntary statement to the police with regard to the jewels long after the date of commission of offence. The witnesses procured by the prosecution to witness the recovery are not respectable persons. 53. The evidence of P.W.18 is sought to be relied upon for proving the recovery of jewels. As already stated, P.W.1 did not mention before P.W.94 that he visited the shop of P.W.18 either on 23. 1986 or 23. 1986. The evidence of P.W.18 cannot be accepted for the reasons already stated supra. 54. It is in the evidence of P.W.22 that he took up investigation and that he was investigating the case from 23. 1986 to 24. 1986 and that on 30.3.1986 he came to know about the involvement of A-1 to A-3 and A-6 in the case. 1986. The evidence of P.W.18 cannot be accepted for the reasons already stated supra. 54. It is in the evidence of P.W.22 that he took up investigation and that he was investigating the case from 23. 1986 to 24. 1986 and that on 30.3.1986 he came to know about the involvement of A-1 to A-3 and A-6 in the case. In the above circumstances, the examination of accused and recovery of the articles long after the date of commission of the offence and sending the 161 statement of witnesses after filing the charge sheet would only lead to a reasonable conclusion that the alleged recovery of jewels from the accused could not be true. 55. It is no doubt true that P.W.1 has identified the jewels. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the evidence of P.W.1 regarding the jewels suffers from grave infirmities. It is also contended by the appellant that the prosecution failed to prove that the jewels recovered by the police were the properties brought by him from Nellore. In most of the jewels the mark ‘JK’ is noted. There is also discrepancy regarding the value of the properties stolen from P.W.1. According to P.W.1 the jewels brought by him consist of jewels entrusted to him by three goldsmiths including P.W.10. To prove the possession of money, P.W.1 has stated that he borrowed loan from 23 persons. It is contended by the appellant that P.W.1 was already having cash and there was no need for him to borrow loan that too at 18% interest from 23 persons. P. W. 1 has also stated that he could not identify which of the jewels belonged to him and which are the jewels entrusted to him by three gold smiths. Relying upon the above infirmities, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the prosecution failed to prove that the properties by the police were the properties brought by P.W.1 from Nelore. It is needless to twelve deep or probe the above aspect of the case, since it is established that the prosecution failed to prove that the jewels were recovered from the accused in the manner alleged by them. As already stated, the evidence of P.Ws.18 and 20 cannot be believed. It is needless to twelve deep or probe the above aspect of the case, since it is established that the prosecution failed to prove that the jewels were recovered from the accused in the manner alleged by them. As already stated, the evidence of P.Ws.18 and 20 cannot be believed. It may be true that the police official would have recovered the looted properties and to connect the accused with the offence, all the statements were prepared and sent to court only after the filing of the charge sheet.‘Even the statement of P.W.1 was sent to court only on 21. 1988. As already stated, it is highly unbelievable that the accused would have been given voluntary statement leading to recovery when they were on bail and attending the court. 56. The evidence of the approver, P.W.2 suffers from serious infirmities which are already referred to above. Even though, he is alleged to have given confession statement, the pardon was tendered only one year after the date of confession. In the above circumstances, the evidence of the approver would not prove the case of the prosecution. 57. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the confession statement recorded by the Judl. Magistrate cannot be said to be voluntary, since the Judicial Magistrate failed to put questions to P.W.2 as to why he has come forward to give confession. On this aspect, the learned counsel for the appellants also relied upon a decision reported in Shivappa v. State of Karnataka, (1995)2 S.C.C. 76 . It has been held in the above decision thus: “The failure of the Magistrate to put such questions from which he could ascertain the voluntary nature of the confession detracts so materially from the evidentiary value of the confession of an accused that it would not be safe to act upon the same.” It is further held that the accused should be particularly asked the reasons as to why he wants to make the statement which would surely go against his self interest in the course of trial. In this case, P.W.11 the Judicial Magistrate, who recorded the confession statement has admitted that he did not put the questions to P.W.2 as to why he has come forward to give the confession. But the above confession statement is not denied by P.W.2. Therefore, the above decision will not assist the contention of the appellants. In this case, P.W.11 the Judicial Magistrate, who recorded the confession statement has admitted that he did not put the questions to P.W.2 as to why he has come forward to give the confession. But the above confession statement is not denied by P.W.2. Therefore, the above decision will not assist the contention of the appellants. Further, it cannot be denied or disputed that P.W.2 was picked up by the police only to implicate the other accused. The tender of pardon was granted to P.W.2 only after he was involved in another grave crimes. Hence Much reliance cannot be placed upon the evidence of P.W.2. For the reasons stated above, I hold that the evidence of P.W.2 and P.Ws.18 and 20 do not prove the case of the prosecution that the accused were involved in the commission of the offence. 58. The car M.O.1 was seized by P.W.24 when the first accused produced the same. P.W.1 has identified the above car in the court. The first accused is said to have produced the above car before C.B. C.I.D. office on 110. 1986. The occurrence took place on 23. 1986. It is admitted that the place where the car was parked was dark. It is also admitted as such in Ex.P-1. Therefore, P.W.1 could not have identified the car. In the above circumstances, the evidence of P.W.1 identifying the car in court two years after the date of occurrence cannot be accepted. 59. It is contended on behalf of the appellants that the first accused owns considerable property and that he is an income tax assessee and that he is the owner of the car. The law is well settled that the status of the person is not relevant in deciding the question whether the accused was involved in the offence or not. Therefore, the above contention of the appellant cannot be considered in this case. 60. Thus, the evidence produced by the prosecution is not sufficient and satisfactory to prove the charge levelled against the accused. The trial court has not considered various aspects of the case. The conclusion of the trial court solely on the basis of evidence of P.Ws.2, 18 and 20 cannot be upheld. For the above reasons, I held that the prosecution failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 61. The trial court has not considered various aspects of the case. The conclusion of the trial court solely on the basis of evidence of P.Ws.2, 18 and 20 cannot be upheld. For the above reasons, I held that the prosecution failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 61. C.A.No.4 of 1989: This appeal is filed by the wife of the accused-1 for return of the car M.O.I. The trial court has passed order confiscating M.O.I the car. It is alleged by the appellants that as per the registration certificate she is the owner and as such, the confiscation of the car without giving opportunity to the appellant is not sustainable. It is not clear whether the appellant has filed any application for return of the car in the trial court. The appellant is not a party to the case. Therefore, before passing order of confiscation, the owner of the car should be given on opportunity. But the car is said to have been produced by the first accused before the police, and it is suggested that the first accused is the owner of the car. In the above circumstances, the question whether the appellant is the owner of the car cannot be decided in this appeal. The matter is remitted xo the trial court for conducting enquiry with regard to return of the car to the owner. 62. In the result, C.A.No.3 of 1989 and C.A.No.17 of 1989 are allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the accused are set aside. The appellants accused are ordered to be released forthwith, unless their presence is required in any other case. The bail bonds shall stand cancelled. 63.C.A.No. 4 of 1989: The appeal is allowed. The order of confiscation passed by the trial court is set aside. The trial court is directed to conduct enquiry as regards the ownership of the car and pass orders according to law.