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

1. Appellant No. 1 Laxmi Raj Shetty is under sentence of death on his conviction under S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for having committed the murder of the deceased P. N. Gnanasambandam, Actg. Manager of the Karnataka Bank, Main Branch, Madras by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Madras by his judgment and sentence dated October 28, 1985. He has further been convicted under S. 392 for having committed the offence of robbery of Rs. 13, 97, 900/from the strong room of the Bank and also under S. 449 for having committed house trespass with intent to commit the said robbery and murder. He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years on each of these counts and the sentences are directed to merge in the sentence of death. Appellant No. 2 Shivaram Shetty, father of appellant No. 1, a retired Sergeant Major of the Indian Air Force,d as Security Officer, Karnataka Bank, Main Branch, Mangalore has been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under S. 212 for having harboured his son Laxmi Raj Shetty having known or having reason to believe that he had committed the murder of the Bank Manager and disappeared with a very large sum of money from the Bank and also under S. 411 for having with dishonest intention retained possession of the huge sum of Rs. 12, 27, 500/knowing the same to be stolen and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years on both counts; the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. On a reference by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, a Division Bench of the High Court by its judgment dated September 1, 1986 has confirmed the sentence of death passed on appellant No. 1 Laxmi Raj Shetty under S. 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as also the conviction and sentences passed on him under Ss. 392 and 449 of the Indian Penal Code and those under Ss. 212 and 411 on his father Shiva Ram Shetty

Reasoning: 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