Case: Laxmi Raj Shetty & Another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu


Decision reasoning: 0[ds]We are afraid, that is not a proper approach for the Court to adopt. In the present case, the circumstances were closely linked up with one another and the Court would be misdirecting itself and commit a serious error of law if it were to separately deal with each circumstance, rejecting the circumstances one by one and then acquitting the accused on the ground that the incriminating circumstances brought out were not consistent with the guilt of the accused. There can be no doubt whatever that the circumstances enumerated above has been cogently and firmly established by the prosecution which, taken cumulatively, form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused Laxmi Raj Shetty and none else26. It is nowd that a statement of fact contained in a newspaper is merely hearsay and therefore inadmissible in evidence in the absence of the maker of the statement appearing in Court and deposing to have perceived the fact reported. The accused should have therefore produced the persons in whose presence the seizure of the stolen money from appellant No. 2s house at Mangalore was effected or examined the press correspondents in proof of the truth of the contents of the news item. The question as to the admissibility of newspaper reports has been dealt with by this Court in Samant N. Balakrishna v. George Fernandez, 1969 3 SCR 603 : (AIR 1969 SC 1201 ). There the question arose whether Shri George Fernandez, the successful candidate returned to Parliament from the Bombay South Parliamentary Constituency had delivered a speech at Shivaji Park attributed to him as reported in the Maratha, a widely circulated Marathi newspaper in Bombay, and it wasA newspaper report without any further proof of what had actually happened through witnesses is of no value. It is at best ad secondary evidence. It is well known that reporters collect information and pass it on to the editor who edits the news item and then publishes it. In this process the truth might get perverted or garbled. Such news items cannot be said to prove themselves although they may be taken into account with other evidence if the other evidence is forcible."We need not burden the judgment with many citations. There is nothing on record to substantiate the facts as reported in the newspapers showing recovery of the stolen amount from the residence of appellant No. 2 at Mangalore. We have therefore no reason to discard the testimony of PW 50 and the seizure witnesses which go to establish that the amount in question was actually recovered at Madras on the 29th and the 30th as alleged27. As to the second, much emphasis was laid on the statement made by PW 9 Govindaraj showing that the accused Laxmi Raj Shetty was taken into custody at the Railway Station on the 27th when he arrived by the West Coast Express. It was submitted that the admission of the prosecutions own witness PW 9 about the arrest of the accused on the 27th was a serious infirmity which shows that the prosecution case about the alleged recoveries was concocted and untrue. We have gone through the evidence of PW 9 with care. It cannot be forgotten that this witness and the accused were appointed together as Probationary Clerks and obviously he is trying to help the accused. We are satisfied that the Courts below were justified in not placing any credence on the statement made by this accused. It is pertinent to mention that the alleged statement has been brought out during then of this witness by learned counsel appearing for appellant No. 2. It would certainly have been better for the Public Prosecutor to have the witness declared hostile with a view toe him and also called witnesses from the Bank to contradict him. This was unfortunately not done but that would not have the effect of destroying the entire prosecution case having regard to the fact that the substantial portion of the stolen amount has been recovered from both the accused. It is not disputed that the money recovered belongs to the Bank. It is not suggested that such a large amount as Rs. 12, 32, 000/bearing the seal of the Bank would have been planted on the accused. In the premises, we are satisfied that the finding of guilt reached by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court after a proper and careful evaluation of the facts and circumstances appearing does not warrant any interference