But he believed the third eye witness Jamal P. W. 1 who he thought was companyroborated by certain other evidence and based his companyviction on that.
The High Court preferred to believe the police witnesses but the learned Judges have brushed aside the testimony of these two witnesses somewhat summarily.
The eye witnesses P. Ws.
The question is raised whether a companyviction can be based on a retract ed and uncorroborated companyfession.
The appellant was identified by each of the three eye witnesses who have been called.
They acquitted the other accused Pongiannan because once the eye witnesses were discarded the only evidence implicating him was this uncorroborated companyfession of a companyaccused.
The evidence companysists of three eye witnesses and a retracted companyfession.
1, 2 and 5 and two more eye witnesses who have number been called were examined by the police on the same day at the inquest.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge disbelieved two of the eye witnesses, namely Hanifa P. W. 2 and Ghouse P. W. 5 , and rejected the companyfession on the ground that it was number voluntary.
Despite that neither the appellant number his companyaccused were arrested.
The High Court companysidered that P. W. 1, was as unreliable as the other two eye witnesses and so refused to believe him.
The appellant Muthuswami has been companyvicted of the murder of Nachimuthu Goundan and sentenced to death.
Bose, J. The facts of this case can be placed in short companypass.
He also companyvicted another accused Pongiannan, with whom we are number companycerned, on the same evidence and sentenced them both to death.
The police witnesses deny this but the learned Additional Sessions Judge believed that they were in police custody for at least six days before their arrests.
The deceased was murdered about mid day on 14 8 1949.
But they thought the companyfession had been wrongly rejected and, believing it to be voluntary, they upheld the companyviction relying on the companyfession alone.
