Madras High Court
Additional District Sessions Judge, ... vs Mohammed Safi, Siddiq Ali @ Siddiq, ... on 26 February, 2003
Author: N. Dhinakar
Bench: N. Dhinakar
JUDGMENT R. Balasubramanian, J.
1. Eight persons were tried in S.C. No. 202/2000 on the file of the Additional District Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. II, Coimbatore for various offences, including an offence under section 302 I.P.C. (A1 to A4); 302 read with 149 I.P.C. (A5 to A7) and 302 read with 109 I.P.C. (A8). For the offence of murder as referred to above, A1 to A4 were found guilty and they stand sentenced to death; the rest of the accused stand sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. On account of the death sentence having been imposed, there is a Statutory reference before this court and it is taken on file as R.T. No. 1/2003. A1 and A5 have filed C.A. No. 122/2003; A2, A3, A6 and A7 have filed C.A. No. 123/2003 and A4 and A8 have filed C.A. No. 124/2003. Since all the appeals and the referred trial arise out of one sessions case, we are inclined to dispose of the same by this common judgment.
2. The case of the prosecution is that at about 9.00 p.m on 29.11.1997, as a sequel to the incident that had taken place at 8.10 p.m in the Investigating Police Station, one Selvaraj, a police constable (traffic) on duty was stabbed to death. The charges as framed against the accused are as follows:
A1 to A4 : Section 148 I.P.C.
A5 to A7 : Section 147 I.P.C.
A1 to A4 : Section 302 I.P.C.
A5 to A7 : Section 302 r/w 149 I.P.C.
A8 : Section 302 r/w 109 I.P.C.
To substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8, 14 and 15 as eye witnesses to the occurrence, out of whom, P.Ws.14 and 15 turned hostile.
3. To understand the prosecution case, we summarise hereunder the evidence of P.W.1:
"Around 9.00 p.m on 29.11.1997, to buy vegetables, I had gone to the market at Ukkadam; I crossed the road and at that time I saw 7 or 8 persons coming to the main road from Vincent Road loudly abusing the police personnel; out of them, 5 were armed with knife and I know three among them; A1, A2 and A3 are known to me and they are present in court (the witness identifies A1 to A3 in court); all the 8 persons, who came from Vincent Road, reached the centre of the road at Ukkadam, where there is a police traffic umbrella; Selvaraj/since deceased was regulating traffic standing in that police umbrella; A1 abused him in a filthy language looking at him and further challenged him as to how the police can assault their leader namely, Amar in the police station?; saying so, A1 climbed the police traffic umbrella and then pushed down Selvaraj; Selvaraj fell down; he tried to regain position and at that time A2 with a knife attacked him on the right side of his neck followed by A1 stabbing twice on his right side chest; this was followed by A3 with a knife in his hand stabbing on the left side chest twice; the other two persons, who were also armed at that time, joined A1 to A3 and all of them indiscriminately stabbed Selvaraj; Selvaraj was initially attempting to thwart the attack by extending his arms; ultimately he fell down; on seeing him falling down, all the 8 accused made good their escape by running towards Pollachi Road; there was an electric tower lamp post near the scene, where there was a number of sodium lamps burning; about twenty feet away, another police constable was on duty (P.W.8); he came to the spot and tried to lift Selvaraj and at that time, Selvaraj's head was hanging down; he was bleeding; the police constable put Selvaraj in an autorickshaw and took him to the Government Hospital; on my way, I entered a bakery and I had a cup of tea; I took a paper from there and then requested another person, who was taking tea in the bakery, to write down the complaint to my narration; he reduced that complaint into writing, in which I signed in the bakery itself and gave it in B1 Police Station (Investigating Police Station) where the Head Constable was there; Ex.P.1 is the said complaint; I was given, under acknowledgement, a copy of the printed first information report and I was asked by the said Head Constable to come to the police station the next day morning at 8.00 a.m.; accordingly I left for my house; on the next day morning at 8.00 a.m., I went to the police station but the Investigating Officer was not there; there was one Head Constable, who told me to go to the Government Hospital stating that the Investigating Officer is in the Government Hospital; accordingly I went to the Government Hospital, where I found the Investigating Officer; I found him conducting inquest over the dead body and I was also examined during inquest; around 11.00 a.m., I was asked to go home; ten months later, CBCID examined me; M.Os.1 to 3 are the weapons of offence in the hands of A1 to A3 respectively and M.O.4 is the white uniform shirt of Selvaraj, which he was wearing at the time of attack."
P.W.2 would state that he happened to be near the scene after returning from Pollachi. According to him, he was waiting there to board a bus to reach his house in North Coimbatore. On the occurrence proper, his evidence is more or less on the same lines as that of P.W.1.
4. P.W.20 is the Head Constable on duty in the Investigating Police Station. He would state that around 9.45 p.m on 29.11.1997, P.W.1 appeared before him and gave a written complaint, which he received. He would further state that he registered that complaint as Ex.P.1 in Crime No. 2205/1997 for an offence under section 302 I.P.C. Ex.P.13 is the printed first information report, which he prepared. He served Ex.P.13 on P.W.1 under his acknowledgement. Then he sent the material records to the court as well as to the higher officials through a police constable. He placed a copy of the first information report before the Investigating Officer for his examination. He was examined by the CBCID on 14.10.1998. P.W.8 is the police constable, who was on duty in close proximity to the place where the deceased was doing duty on the fateful evening. He would state that some one in the road informed him that a little away, a police constable is being stabbed and he was asked to go. Immediately he ran towards that place, where he found near the police traffic umbrella, the deceased being targeted by 5 or 6 persons, who were stabbing him with knives. The deceased was attempting to thwart the attack by the use of his hands and he fell down. Immediately all the accused ran towards Pollachi Road. He reached the scene, where he found Selvaraj lying upside down. He turned Selvaraj and found that he was having several bleeding injuries. Immediately he put the injured in the autorickshaw available there and took him to the Government Head Quarters Hospital at Coimbatore. On reaching the hospital, P.W.17/Medical Officer, on examination, pronounced him dead. The dead body of Selvaraj was taken to the mortuary. At that time, one Soundarrajan, the Sub-Inspector of Police attached to B1 Police Station, came to the hospital and at 11.00 p.m., he went home. He was examined by P.W.34 and again by P.W.35 on 24.09.1998.
5. P.W.10 is the autorickshaw driver, who would state that he was at the scene at that time along with his autorickshaw; all his colleagues had gone to a nearby restaurant and therefore his autorickshaw alone was in the forefront to be taken on hire; at that time, he sensed a sort of commotion in that area and he noticed P.W.8 running to the scene from Mahaliamman Kovil end; he also noticed at the Ukkadam Road-Vincent Road Junction under the police traffic umbrella, a policeman lying down; P.W.8 called him to the spot and he accordingly went to the spot with the autorickshaw, in which injured Selvaraj was taken to the hospital by P.W.8. P.W.17 is the duty Medical Officer in the Government Head Quarters Hospital at Coimbatore. He would state that around 9.15 p.m on 29.11.1997 when he was on duty, police traffic constable Selvaraj was brought before him by P.W.8; he was informed by P.W.8 that around 9.05 p.m on 29.11.1997 in the Vincent Road-Palghat Road Junction, the injured was stabbed by 5 or 6 persons and therefore he had brought him. On examination, P.W.17 found him dead and prepared Ex.P.7, the accident register.
6. P.W.27 is the Inspector of Police attached to B4 Police Station. It appears that the hospital is within the jurisdiction of his police station. He would state that on 29.11.1997 when he was on a regular bandobust duty, he received information about Selvaraj being brought dead before the hospital from the hospital outpost. Accordingly he reached the hospital at 10.15 p.m on 29.11.1997, where he found P.W.8 standing before the emergency ward. He also found the clothes of P.W.8 blood stained and therefore asked him as to what happened. At that time P.W.8 told him that around 9.00 p.m on that day, Selvaraj was stabbed by 5 or 6 Muslims and that in an autorickshaw he brought him to the hospital. P.W.8 also stated that Selvaraj is no more and accordingly the dead body was kept in the mortuary. P.W.27 went to the mortuary and observed the dead body. P.W.27 would state that he contacted the Investigating Police Station and at that time he was informed that already a crime had come to be registered. P.W.27 would state that he continued to stay in the hospital and at 1.00 a.m in the following morning, P.W.18 came to the police station and on he identifying the dead body to P.W.18, he took photographs of the dead body. He would further state that till the year 1993 when he was the Investigating Officer in the Investigating Police Station, he investigated the complaint registered in Crime No. 1910/1993 and A5 in the present case was one of the accused in that crime number. He would also state that a final report had been filed in that crime number before Judicial Magistrate No. 5 on 29.11.1997. He would also state that Ex.P.21 is the printed first information report and Ex.P.22 is the final report filed by him in that case. He would also refer to some earlier crime numbers in which A5 and A6 in the present case were the accused and Exs.P.23 and P.24 are the printed first information report and final report respectively filed against them in that crime number. He would further refer to another crime registered in the year 1994, in which Ex.P.25 is the printed first information report. He would also state that A1 in the present case is one of the accused in that case. He would further depose that the case taken on file on the final report filed in Crime No. 608/1994 was pending adjudication on the date of his evidence. He would give details about another crime, which came to be registered in the year 1994 as Crime No. 1562/1994 and Ex.P.27 being it's printed first information report. Ex.P.28 is the final report filed by him in that case. He would further depose that in that crime number also, some of the accused, who are put up for trial in the present case, were the accused.
7. P.W.7 during the relevant time was the Sub-Inspector of Police, Law and Order in the Investigating Police Station. Standing opposite to his police station at about 8.00 p.m on 29.11.1997, he was conducting routine vehicle check. P.W.24 and a few more police constables were with him at that time. At about 8.10 p.m., a person in Bajaj M80 motor cycle came from the east. That vehicle was stopped and checked. The registration number of that vehicle is TN-37-Q1342. The person, who was on the wheel, admitted that he had no licence but added that he belongs to "Al Umma" group. To serve a police challan on him, he wanted him to divulge his father's name and address but he refused to give the same. At the same time, another scooter driven by P.W.12 also came there and he was also checked. He also did not have a licence and on him, a police challan was served. In the presence of P.W.12, the earlier referred to person was again examined to divulge his identity and even at that time he refused. Then he took the said person inside the police station to get details about his identity and even at that time, the said person was stoutly refusing. At that time two persons namely, the General Secretary of "Al Umma" movement/A8 and A7 came inside the police station and informed that the person detained by him belongs to "Al Umma" group; no case should be registered against him and that he and the vehicle should be released. P.W.23 refused to oblige. Immediately A8 and A7 threatened P.W.23 stating that as he does not know the force of that movement, his life would be put an end to on the spot itself. They even said that their movement would divide Coimbatore into two and then by criminally intimidating P.W.23, they took away the earlier referred to person. Outside the police station, about 10 or 15 persons belonging to "Al Umma" group were standing. P.W.23 prepared a special report and placed it before P.W.34 at 8.30 p.m on the same day when he reached the police station. P.W.34 registered it in Crime No. 2204/1997. P.W.24 is the police constable, who was assisting P.W.23 in the vehicle check. He had given evidence regarding the events that happened opposite to the police station and inside the police station at that time as spoken to by P.W.23. P.W.12 is the other person on whom, a police challan was served by P.W.23 as spoken to by him. H He had also given evidence as to what happened outside the police station as spoken to by P.W.23. P.W.31 is having a business place in Vysial Street and he had also given evidence in corroboration to the oral evidence of P.Ws.23 and 24 as to the person detained by P.W.23 having been taken away by use of force by A8 and others.
8. P.W.34 is the Investigating Officer. He received the special report given by P.W.23 and prepared Ex.P.43, the first information report. He registered that in his police station Crime No. 2204/1997 for offences under sections 353 and 506-II I.P.C. He was investigating into that complaint. At that time he came to know that around 9.15 p.m in Ukkadam junction there is a law and order problem and accordingly with the police constable available in the police station, he left for Ukkadam junction. On reaching there, he came to know that a police constable regulating traffic standing in the junction of Ukkadam Road and Vincent Road was stabbed by a few people and that he was taken to the Government Hospital for treatment. Immediately arranging for police security at the spot, he tried to control the unruly mobs from creating mischief. The Assistant Commissioner of Police arrived there with a police force. At 10.10 p.m on that day, P.W.34 received the material records in Crime No. 2205/1997 registered by P.W.20 relating to the death of Selvaraj in this case. He took up investigation in that crime as well. At 10.15 p.m in the presence of P.W.13 and another, P.W.34 prepared Ex.P.3, the observation mahazar and Ex.P.44, the rough sketch. Through P.W.18 he caused photographs of the scene of occurrence to be taken. P.W.18 is the police Photographer. On instructions from P.W.34, he took photographs of the scene of occurrence from different angles. M.O.12 are the photographs and negatives. M.O.9 is part of M.O.12 series. P.W.18 reached the Government Hospital at Coimbatore around 00.30 hours and took photographs of the dead body from different angles. M.O.13 series are the photographs and negatives. P.W.34 in the presence of P.W.13 and another, recovered from the scene blood stained tar portion of the road/M.O.19 and sample tar portion/M.O.20. He recovered M.Os.8, 11 and 21 under Ex.P.4. Then he examined witnesses and recorded their statements. Later on he constituted a police party to apprehend the accused. From 8.00 a.m till 11.00 a.m on 30.11.1997 he conducted inquest over the dead body in the presence of panchayatdars and witnesses. During inquest he examined P.Ws.1, 2 and others and recorded their statements. Ex.P.45 is the inquest report prepared by him. Through P.W.21/police constable, he sent a requisition at 11.00 a.m on that day for post mortem. Ex.P.41 is the requisition given by him. P.W.21 is the constable, who carried the requisition given by the Investigating Officer to the hospital for post mortem. He was present throughout post mortem and after post mortem he removed M.Os.7 to 18 from the dead body and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer along with his special report Ex.P.14.
9. P.W.33 is the Doctor, who did post mortem on the dead body on receipt of Ex.P.41. He commenced post mortem at 11.30 a.m on 30.11.1997. During post mortem he found various symptoms on the dead body as noted in Ex.P.42, the post mortem report. The Doctor is of the opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of multiple stab injuries sustained by him and death could have occurred 12 to 24 hours prior to post mortem. The symptoms noted by the Doctor during post mortem are as follows:
"Injuries: 1) Slicing type of cut injury 4 x 1.5 cms bone deep on the lateral border of right thumb. Upper end flapped.
2) Slicing type of cut injury 3 x 2 cm bone deep on the dorsum of middle phalanx of right little finger. The bone underneath also cut along the line of the injury. The upper end flapped.
3) Horizontal cut injury 4 x 1 cm bone deep on the medial border of right palm. The tendons and the bone underneath found cut in the direction of the injury.
4) An oblique stab injury wedge shaped 3 x 1 x 7.5 cm seen in the upper most part of the right side neck. The lower lateral end is pointed. The wound passes downwards medially and cutting through the muscles and blood vessels underneath and has gone upto the retropheringal space.
5) An oblique wedge shaped stab injury 2.5 x 1.5 cm thoracic cavity deep just below the medial end of clavicle 1 cm to the right midline of front of chest. The lower lateral end is pointed and has entered into the right pleural cavity through the first intercostal space to the upper lobe of right lung 1 x 1 cm. Total depth of the wound is about 9 cms.
6) An oblique stab injury elliptical in shape 4.5 x 2 cm cavity deep on the 6th left intercostal space 7 cms from the midline of the chest entering into the left pleural cavity obliquely downwards and piercing the left dome of diaphragam and entering into the peritoneal cavity and producing a small injury on the surface of the spleen 1 x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm.
7) An oblique stab wound elliptically shaped 6 x 2 cm x cavity deep on the front of right side of chest 6 cms away from the midline and entering into the 6th intercostal space to the right lobe of the liver 5 x 1 x 4 cm. Total depth of the wound is about 16 cms.
8) Vertically oblique stab injury 7 x 3 cm thoracic cavity deep in the 2nd intercostal space with the upper medial end is pointed and lower lateral end is serrated. It has cut the medial border of the upper lobe of right lung 6 x 1 x 1 cm.
9) Horizontally oblique stab injury 7 x 3 cm cavity deep on the 6th right intercostal space entering into the abdominal cavity cutting through the anterior abdominal muscles. The upper end is pointed and lower end is serrated. Total depth of the wound 14 cms.
10) Horizontal oblique stab injury 7 x 3 cm cavity deep in the 6th left intercostal space, entered into the peritoneal cavity and ending in the spleen into two. The medial end serrated and lateral end pointed. Total depth of the wound is 13 cms.
11) An oblique wedge shaped stab injury 4 x 1.5 cm bone deep seen in the lower part of right posterior lateral aspect of chest along the posterior axillary line. The wound passes in the thoracic cavity through the 9th intercostal space and piercing the lower lobe of right lung 3 x 1 x 1 cm. Total depth of the wound is 11 cm.
12) Vertically oblique stab injury 3 x 1.5 cm muscle deep on the middle of lateral surface of left thigh. The upper end pointed and lower end blunt.
13) Vertically oblique wedge shaped stab injury 2 x 1 x 2.5 cm middle of right scapula.
14) Horizontal stab injury 4 x 1.5 cm x cavity deep seen below the lower border of the left scapula in the 6th intercostal space both ends pointed.
15) Horizontal stab injury 3.5 x 1 cm x muscle deep left renal angle. Both ends pointed. Thoracic cavities contains 500 ml of fluid blood and 200 gms of blood clots. Peritoneal cavity contains 500 ml of fluid blood.
Other Findings: Hyoid bone - intact. Lungs cut section - pale. Heart chambers - empty. Coronaries - patent. Stomach - 100 grams of undigested food particles. No specific smell. Mucosa - pale. Small intestine - empty. Mucosa - pale. Liver, Spleen, Kidneys cut section - pale. Urinary bladder - empty. Brain cut section - pale. Sample of blood preserved."
The Doctor also gave evidence that injuries 1 to 3 could have been caused while the victim attempted to ward off the attack with his hands; injuries 8, 9 and 14 could have been caused by a weapon like M.O.1; injury No. 10 could have been caused by a weapon like M.O.3; injury No. 3 could have been caused by a weapon like M.O.3; injury No. 5 also could have been caused by a weapon like M.O.3; M.O.2 could have caused injury No. 4 while the other injuries could have been caused by weapons like M.Os.1 to 3. All the injuries could have been caused when the victim was in a standing position. He was examined by the Investigating Officer by showing M.Os. 1 to 3.
10. P.W.34 continued the investigation further by examining witnesses and recording their statements. On prior reliable information, in the presence of P.W.32 and another, at 12.15 p.m on 30.11.1997 he arrested A1, A2 and A3 and examined them. Each one of the accused at that time gave a voluntary confession statement. Between 3.00 and 4.00 p.m on that day, he examined A1 and recorded his confession statement, the admissible portion of which is Ex.P.35. The admissible portion of the confession statement of A2 is Ex.P.36, which was recorded by him between 4.00 and 5.00 p.m on that day in the presence of P.W.32 and another. Ex.P.37 is the admissible portion of the confession statement of A3, which came to be recorded between 5.00 and 6.00 p.m on that day in the presence of P.W.32 and another. M.O.1 came to be recovered pursuant to Ex.P.35 under Ex.P.38 attested by the same witnesses. M.O.2 came to be recovered under Ex.P.39 pursuant to Ex.P.36 and M.O.3 came to be recovered in the presence of the same witnesses under Ex.p.40 pursuant to Ex.P.37. The arrested accused and the case properties were brought to the police station and then the accused were sent for judicial remand. P.W.34 examined P.w.8 on 01.12.1997 and recovered from him his blood stained white top uniform as well as his khaki pant. M.Os.5 and 4 are the two material objects, which he came to recover as referred to above. P.W.34 examined P.W.33 on 02.12.1997 by showing M.Os.1 to 3. He then collected Ex.P.42 from him. Ex.P.7 is the accident register issued by P.W.17 on he examining Selvaraj, when he was brought before him. When he was in the investigating Police Station, he investigated Crime No. 237/1997 registered for an offence under section 302 I.P.C and filed the final report on 06.05.1997 before court against a number of accused, including Sahul @ Kunnur Sahul (The said person is shown to be an accused in the present case as well and died before the final report came to be filed). Ex.P.46 is the printed first information report and Ex.P.47 is the final report filed by him in that case. The said Sahul died in a police encounter on 01.12.1997. He also investigated Crime No. 237/1997 and it was pending as S.C. No. 8/1999 before the court of sessions. Three accused were tried in that case and all of them were sentenced to life imprisonment. In the Investigating Police Station, during the occurrence time, he had 3 Sub-Inspectors of Police and 6 Head Constables, besides others. For about 10 days after the occurrence in the case on hand, within the jurisdiction of the Investigating Police Station, there was tension and the atmosphere was a disturbed one. During that time a number of offences were committed and as many as 350 cases had come to be registered in that police station. He was relieved from duty on 02.12.1997.
11. P.W.11 is the Assistant Executive Engineer in the Corporation of Coimbatore, who had been examined to speak that at the scene of occurrence there was an electric tower lamp post with 6400 watt bulbs and that it was in a working condition. P.W.13 witnessed the preparation of Ex.P.3 and recovery of M.Os.8, 10 and 11 under Ex.P.4 by P.W.34. P.Ws.14 and 15 turned hostile and their evidence recorded till they were treated as hostile had been perused by us and it is of no use. P.W.16 is the Judicial Magistrate before whom, an application was given to record the statement of P.Ws.1 and 2 under section 164 of the Code. Accordingly he recorded their statements and they are Exs.P.5 and P.6 respectively. P.W.19 is the Magisterial Clerk, who speaks about the receipt of the case properties along with the requisition submitted by the Investigating Officer. Ex.P.10 is the chemical examiner's report and Exs.P.11 and P.12 are the serologist's reports. He would state in his evidence in cross that the statements of P.Ws.1 and 2 recorded under section 161 of the Code reached the court on 09.12.1997 and the statement of witnesses recorded by P.W.35 under section 161 of the Code reached the court only on 30.12.1998. He would further affirm that the inquest report/Ex.P.45 reached the court only on 09.12.1997. P.W.22 turned hostile and his evidence recorded till he was treated as hostile is of no use either to the State or to the accused. P.W.25 is the Assistant Commissioner of Police, who besides speaking about the registering a crime, had given evidence about Sahul Hameed dying in a police encounter on 01.12.1997. P.W.26 during the relevant time was the Inspector of Police in B11, Saibaba Police Station. He speaks about the involvement of A6 in the present case in Crime No. 1904/1993 and the involvement of A5, A6 and A8 in Crime No. 1883/1993, both on his file. P.W.28 was the Inspector of Police in the CBCID Coimbatore Police limits from 14.12.1997. He speaks about the involvement of A3, A4 and A7 in Crime No. 741/1996 and also the involvement of A7 in Crime No. 917/1996. P.W.29 would speak about the investigation done by him as the Sub-Inspector of Police in B1 Police Station in Crime No. 511/1997 and filing the final report in court against A6, A2 (present case) and others. Ex.P.31 is the printed first information report and Ex.P.32 is the final report. P.W.30 gave evidence about the death of Sahul Hameed @ Kunnur Sahul in a police encounter, besides speaking about Crime No. 1241/1997 in respect of the murder of one Ramesh.
12. P.W.35, on transfer of investigation to the file of CBCID, took over investigation on 24.07.1998. He verified the investigation already done by P.W.33. From 05.08.1998 to 04.09.1998, he was on deputation to Calcutta for training. He rejoined duty on 09.09.1998 and took up the investigation. He examined P.W.1 and recorded his statement. He also examined P.W.10 and others and recorded their statements. He examined P.Ws.3 to 7 also subsequent to that and recorded their statements, who would state that they saw the occurrence. He verified the statement of P.W.23 and P.W.24 recorded by the Sub-Inspector of Police on 03.12.1997. After completing the investigation, he filed the final report in court against the accused, including Sahul Hameed, who is shown to have died in a police encounter, on 30.12.1998 for offences under sections 147, 148 and 302 read with section 149 and 109 I.P.C. When the accused were questioned under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the basis of the incriminating materials made available against them, they denied each and every circumstance put up against them as false and contrary to facts. No oral evidence was brought before court at their instance. But however on their side Exs.D.1 to D.5 came to be marked.
13. Mr. V. Gopinath learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants would contend as follows:
"Ex.P.1 is open to serious doubts and according to him, it could not have come into existence in the manner and at the time alleged; P.W.1 could not be an eye witness at all and there are innumerable inherent materials available on record to sustain such a doubt; P.W.2 also could not be an eye witness to the occurrence; there is an inordinate delay in sending Exs.P.1 and P.13 to the court; if P.Ws.1 and 2 could not be believed as persons speaking the truth, then this court can legitimately take the delay in sending the material records to the court to doubt the entire prosecution case; the evidence of P.W.20, read as a whole, gives room to suspect as to whether Ex.P.1 could have been brought into existence in the manner and as spoken to by P.W.1; P.Ws.3 to 7 had come to be examined only an year after the occurrence and only then the involvement of A4 to A8 had been brought out; the inordinate delay in examining the said witnesses, assumes considerable importance in this case and therefore the benefit of the same should be given to the accused; P.W.1 cannot also be believed because, he has made a definite and positive improvement in the oral evidence before court by implicating A4 to A8 also in a grave crime like murder; this only shows that he is an obliging witness to the prosecution and in the totality of the circumstances available in this case, it would not be possible and safe for this court to act on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 as eye witnesses to the occurrence. If the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 are eliminated from consideration and if for the reasons referred to earlier, the evidence of P.Ws.3 to 7 also are removed from the area of consideration, then there is no other legal evidence against any of the accused. Therefore the submission of the learned senior counsel is that the prosecution case is surrounded by so many suspicious circumstances, which the prosecution cannot explain and therefore the benefit of such substantial suspicious circumstances should be given to the accused."
Mr. I. Subramanian learned senior counsel and State Public Prosecutor would answer the argument of the learned senior counsel for the appellants as follows:
"After the murder of the police constable while he was on duty, the atmosphere was a surcharged one; if there is a ring of truth in the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, then as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as well as this court, the delay, if any, in sending the material records to the court, would not destroy the evidence of such reliable witnesses; the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 should be tested on their own merits without reference to any infirmities, assuming they are there, that are shown to have been committed by the Investigating Team in either omitting to do certain things which are expected of them or doing something which are not expected of them and therefore the delay in sending the material records to the court would not affect the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2; in such a surcharged atmosphere when two persons, who are shown to be ordinary people, have come forward to give evidence against persons whose involvement in more than one crime stands established, it should be given it's due credit; therefore the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 must be believed at it's face value and if that is done, then it is end of the matter for the accused. As far as interlineation of a material aspect in Ex.P.1 with a corresponding interlineation in Ex.P.13 is concerned, the learned senior counsel and State Public Prosecutor would contend that it only shows the genuineness in the prosecution case. He would also contend that if the Investigating Team is interested in bringing a concocted version, especially when they had so much of time at their disposal, they would not have spared any efforts in bringing a cleanly prepared complaint and first information report and therefore the very presence of interlineation/ interpolation in Exs.P.1 and P.13 would itself lend credibility to the prosecution case. In the above context, the learned senior counsel and State Public Prosecutor would submit that in a couple of days after the occurrence in question, as many as 350 cases have come to be registered against various persons for various offences, including offence of murder, arson, rioting and therefore the whole area was in the grip of fear, which disabled many willing persons, who had actually seen the occurrence, from coming forward to give statement. In such a surcharged atmosphere, the failure to examine P.Ws.3 to 7 by the Investigating Team at the earliest point of time would not in any way mean that the witnesses cannot be relied. To sum up, the argument of the learned Public Prosecutor is that, if the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is believed, then it would establish the involvement of A1 to A3 and if the evidence of P.Ws.3 to 7 is believed (there is no reason as to why their evidence should not be believed), it would establish the involvement of the other accused and therefore there would be no difficulty at all in confirming the conviction of all the accused. To a question put to the learned Public Prosecutor that if the case of the prosecution is accepted, whether the death sentence is warranted, the learned counsel would submit that it is purely within the discretion of the court to decide as to the appropriate punishment to be given on established facts. The learned State Public Prosecutor also invited our attention to the judgment equivalent to 1983 Crl.L.J.Pg.1457, which lays down the principles that would guide the court to choose the sentence and if the case on hand is tested on the ingredients laid down in that judgment, then this court would be in a position to decide as to what would be the appropriate punishment."
14. An innocent civilian by name Selvaraj, who happened to be in the police force, was stabbed to death while he was discharging his duty as a police constable at the scene of occurrence. The occurrence is shown to have taken place at 9.00 p.m on 29.11.1997. The materials available on record do not show that Selvaraj/since deceased has anything to do with the accused to meet the end, which he had suffered at the hands of the accused. The only sin, which he appears to have committed, is being in the police force of the State of Tamil Nadu. The case of the prosecution is that the fatal attack on Selvaraj took place by the assailants in an agitated mood. The agitated mood is due to the allegation that an hour earlier to the fatal attack, there was a wordy altercation (accepting as true for the present) in the Investigating Police Station between P.W.23/Sub-Inspector of Police, Law and Order and a person, who came on a motor cycle namely, Bajaj M80. According to the prosecution, P.W.23 is not shown to have transgressed his duty limits. The case of the prosecution is also that the person, who came in that motor cycle was stoutly refusing to disclose his identity except stating that he is a person belonging to "Al Umma" group. It is the further case of the prosecution that to get that person released from the hold of P.W.23, a number of other persons belonging to Muslim religion headed by A8 and A7 assembled near the police station and A8 and A7, by entering into the police station, confronted P.W.23 with strong words and ultimately succeeded in getting their colleague released from the police station along with their vehicle. Therefore the prosecution case is that, annoyed over the attitude of P.W.23 in his persistent questioning of a person belonging to "Al Umma" group, all the accused loudly and stoutly abusing all police personnel, attacked the victim on noticing him in the intersection of Ukkadam Road-Vincent Road. The murdered man is a police constable and that too, he was killed when he was in the discharge of his duties. Such a brutal murder should have definitely sent shock waves not only to the public at large but also made the police force get demoralised. Tempers would have been flying high and there would have been many hot burns. Sentiments would have been playing a leading role in the minds of all and definitely there should have been a sense of insecurity prevailing at that time. There is evidence to show that immediately after the occurrence, all the shop owners pulled down their shutters. All these facts, as cautioned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment (Kashmira Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh), should not sway or influence the mind of the court before which the case comes up for appreciation and decision. We extract hereunder what is said by the Supreme Court in that judgment:
"Where the murder committed is a particularly curel and revolting one, it is necessary to examine the evidence with more than ordinary care lest the shocking nature of the crime might induce an instinctive reaction against a dispassionate judicial scrutiny of the facts and law."
Therefore we are exercising utmost care and caution while appreciating the entire materials brought before us to decide the issue without in any way being least swayed by passion and the attendant circumstances to the murder of Selvaraj. P.W.33 is the Doctor, who did post mortem on the dead body of Selvaraj. Ex.P.42 is the post mortem report. In fact Selvaraj was brought before P.W.17/duty Medical Officer in the Government Hospital at Coimbatore around 9.30 p.m or so on the night of 29.11.1997 by P.W.8. The medical evidence of P.W.33 coupled with Ex.P.42, the post mortem report, leave no room at all to doubt that the cause of death of Selvaraj in this case is established to be one due to homicidal violence. In fact the defence is not disputing the cause of death of Selvaraj but their attempt is that the accused are not responsible for causing his death. The case of the defence is that, they are totally unconnected with the occurrence; they were not even present at the scene at that time and that the prosecution case is a foisted one. To substantiate the charge, the prosecution had examined P.Ws.1 to 8, 14 and 15 as eye witnesses to the occurrence. We have found that P.Ws.14 and 15 have turned hostile and the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 8 alone remain as evidence of eye witnesses to be scrutinised. It may be noticed here in this context that P.W.8 also claims to have seen Selvaraj being attacked with knives by 5 or 6 persons and that is his statement before P.W.17, when he took Selvaraj to the hospital for treatment. Ex.P.7 is the accident register/contemporaneous record issued by P.W.17 which also shows that the Doctor was informed by P.W.8 that the assailants are 5 or 6 in number and they attacked the victim with lethal weapons. Therefore in a way, P.W.8 also can be taken as a person, who had witnessed the occurrence. This therefore means, we have before us the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 8 as eye witnesses to the occurrence. P.W.10 is the driver of the autorickshaw in whose autorickshaw P.W.8 took injured Selvaraj to the hospital where he was pronounced dead. The presence of P.W.10 at the scene is not and cannot be disputed by the defence and we see no reason at all to disbelieve his presence. In other words, we have no doubt at all in our mind that the presence of P.Ws.8 and 10 at the scene stands established not only by legal evidence but also on preponderance of probabilities.
15. Let us now take up the case of the prosecution against A8. A8 was tried for an offence under section 302 read with section 109 I.P.C. There is no dispute that A8 was not present body and soul at the scene of occurrence. As already stated, the prosecution wants to rope him in based only on section 109 I.P.C. To speak about the instigation by A8, we have the oral evidence of P.W.23, the Sub-Inspector of Police; P.W.24, who assisted P.W.23 and P.W.31. The sum and substance of their evidence, assuming it is true and trustworthy, would show that a number of people belonging to Muslim religion were opposite to the police station and atleast two persons out of them have gone inside. P.Ws.23 and 24 would state that the two persons inside the police station are A7 and A8. P.W.31 also would state that one of the two persons inside the police station is A8. Those standing outside the police station and stated to belong to the said group were not identified by any of the witnesses. The core evidence of these three witnesses is that after A7 and A8 succeeded in getting their colleague released from P.W.23, though against law and on reaching the road, they raised a slogan that all the police personnel should be taught a lesson and the said lesson should be taught immediately. This is the evidence of P.Ws.23, 24 and 31. We are analysing the case of the prosecution as against A8, accepting the oral evidence of P.Ws.23, 24 and 31 for the present as correct, true and reliable. (We make it clear that we are reserving our right to analyse the evidence of P.Ws.23, 24 and 31 at the appropriate stage when it comes to analysing the case of the prosecution against the other accused). Therefore we applied our mind to the oral evidence of P.Ws.23, 24 and 31, without disputing the correctness of the same, to find out whether that evidence establishes the guilt of A8 beyond all reasonable doubts for the offence under section 302 read with section 109 I.P.C. In our considered opinion, the evidence of the above referred to witnesses do not establish the same. There is no material on record to show that A8 instigated any of his persons, who were present with him to kill the deceased in this case. At best, the words stated to have been uttered by A7 and A8 are of a general nature directed against the police at large and we see no particular reference in those words directed against the deceased in this case. There is no evidence to show that A8 also proceeded with the assailants in this case to the scene of occurrence. There is definitely a time gap between the words stated to have been uttered by A8 (assuming he had said so) and the fatal attack on Selvaraj. Therefore going by the totality of the materials available on record, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution had not established all the ingredients of section 109 I.P.C., so that on the basis of the said section, A8 can be brought in as an accused in the murder of Selvaraj in this case. In the light of our discussion as referred to above, we have no doubt in our mind even at this stage that the prosecution case against A8 cannot be sustained either in law or on facts and therefore we are acquitting him of the offence under section 302 read with section 109 I.P.C.
16. We now go to the next stage of the prosecution case namely, the involvement of A1 to A7. The sheet anchor of the argument of the learned senior counsel for the accused is that, Ex.P.1 is a fabricated document and that P.Ws.1 and 2 could not have witnessed the occurrence at all. In other words, the submission of the learned senior counsel is that, Ex.P.1 could not have been brought into existence in the manner and at the time alleged. It is needless to state that once the very foundation of the prosecution case namely, laying of Ex.P.1 as spoken to by P.Ws.1 and 20, is doubted and the doubt is sustained, then the entire edifice of the prosecution case must fall to the ground. The mere fact that there are eye witnesses to this occurrence, who speak about the same in a cogent way, would not advance the case of the prosecution any further, if the very foundation of the prosecution case is destroyed. Therefore having that principle in our mind, we proceeded to analyse the argument of the learned senior counsel for the appellants attacking Ex.P.1. Ex.P.13 is the printed first information report. A perusal of the same shows that the police station is at a distance of half-a kilometre from the scene of occurrence. P.W.2 would admit in his evidence in cross that in five minutes one can reach the police station from the scene of occurrence. P.W.34, the Investigating Officer would also admit in his evidence that one can walk in 10 minutes to the Investigating Police Station from the scene of occurrence. According to the prosecution, P.W.1 is the author of Ex.P.1. P.W.1 is a resident of Saibaba Colony, which is at a distance of 6 Km from the scene of occurrence (This information is furnished to us by the police officer present in court). P.W.2 is residing in North Coimbatore. The said place is also at a distance of not less than 5 or 6 kms from the scene of occurrence. Why we are referring to the distance factor is, to show that P.Ws.1 and 2 would be only chance witnesses. P.W.1 would state that he had gone to Ukkadam to buy vegetables while P.W.2 would state that he had gone to Pollachi and on his way back home, he got down at Ukkadam bus stand and waiting to board a bus to reach his residence at North Coimbatore. Therefore there cannot be any doubt at this stage that P.Ws.1 and 2 are not ordinary residents of the area where the occurrence is shown to have taken place and they are definitely in the character of chance witnesses to the occurrence. At this stage itself, we would like to state that the presence of P.Ws.8 and 10 at the scene of occurrence is more natural and there is no dispute about their presence at the scene.
17. As already stated, P.W.1 is the author of Ex.P.1. We have already noted in the earlier paragraph the time that may be needed to reach the police station from the scene of occurrence. P.W.1 would state that he saw the occurrence and after P.W.8 took injured Selvaraj in an autorickshaw to the Government Hospital, he went to a bakery; spent half an hour there in taking a cup of tea and during that interregnum, requested one of the persons taking tea in that bakery to write down the complaint, in which he had signed and then gave it to P.W.20, the Head Constable in the Investigating Police Station. Ex.P.13 is the printed first information report. P.W.20's evidence would show that P.W.1 appeared before him at 9.45 p.m and gave Ex.P.1, the written complaint, which he registered for various offences. As rightly contended by the learned senior counsel for the appellants, if really P.W.1 was interested in lodging the complaint on seeing the attack on Selvaraj (P.W.1 claims that he knows him), then we are of the firm opinion that his natural conduct would be to reach the police station, which is at a stone throwing distance and give the complaint there itself, especially when he had stated in his evidence that he does not know to read and write Tamil. Whatever it is, his evidence is that, he took the assistance of a person taking tea, where he was also taking tea, to write down the complaint to his narration and gave it before P.W.20, the Head Constable. P.W.1 had also admitted that the person, who wrote the complaint did not read it over to him and that till he gave evidence in court, he did not know the contents of the same. It is all the more strange when we find that when P.W.1 appeared before P.W.20 for handing over the complaint, P.W.20 did not ask him anything about the contents of the complaint or even about the occurrence and he was just told to come the next day. to come on the next day morning. The conduct of P.W.20 in such circumstances, especially when his colleague is the target of attack, also appears to be very strange. Normally when a complaint relating to a capital offence is given before a police officer, it is expected of him to enquire the person, who gave the said complaint. In this case we find that P.W.20 does not even talk a word with P.W.1 but told him to come on the next day morning on receiving the complaint and keeping it on his table. Therefore reading the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 20 on the above lines, we have a lingering doubt in our mind as to whether Ex.P.1 could have come to be given as projected by the prosecution. P.W.1 would state in clear terms that on receiving the complaint, P.W.20 asked him to come the next day morning at 8.00 a.m. In this context we perused the evidence of P.W.20 to find out whether there is any corroboration in his evidence to the oral evidence of P.W.1 and we find that P.W.20 had not even whispered in his entire length and breadth of his evidence that on receiving the complaint he asked P.W.1 to come on the next day morning at 8.00 a.m. Therefore in the absence of corroboration to the oral evidence of P.W.1 that he was asked to come to the police station the next day morning from the evidence of P.W.20, we have every reason to doubt as to why P.W.1 should go to the police station first on the next day morning and then to the hospital. It may be noticed here that P.W.20 was relieved of his duty at 6.55 a.m on 30.11.1997 and therefore he was not in the police station when P.W.1 claims to have reached the police station. This means that the police personnel, who was present in the police station at that time may not be knowing P.W.1 as the author of Ex.P.1. Here also the Investigating Officer should have examined the police constable before whom P.W.1 appeared on 30.11.1997 and who instructed him to go to the hospital. This evidence, in our opinion, is of a vital nature, which is also absent in this case. P.W.1 would then claim that he had gone to the hospital, where he was examined by P.W.34. P.W.1 is a stranger to P.W.34. P.W.1 had admitted in his evidence that he is not used to go to the Investigating Police Station. There must be some material on record to show that P.W.1 was identified by some persons, as the author of Ex.P.1, to P.W.34, which is also absent in this case. Therefore the circumstances under which P.W.1 came to be identified by P.W.34 as the author of Ex.P.1, which made him to examine him during inquest, is left in a grey area, which leads us to doubt as to whether P.W.1 could have come to be examined on the morning of 30.11.1997 itself.
18. Exs.P.1 and P.13, though shown to have been registered at 9.45 p.m on 29.11.1997, had reached the court only at 9.00 a.m on 30.11.1997. We are fully aware that the delay in sending the material records to the court by itself would not be enough to doubt the entire case of the prosecution, provided the court finds a ring of truth in the evidence of the eye witnesses. We have already hinted our mind that all is not well with the oral evidence of P.W.1 even regarding the manner in which he is shown to have presented the complaint before P.W.20. P.W.34 in his evidence had admitted in categorical terms that if there is any delay in sending the material records to the court, then it is incumbent on the Investigating Officer to examine the police constable, who carried the material records to the court. P.W.20 had admitted that Grade-I Police Constable Palanisamy is the person, through whom he sent the material records to P.W.34 as well as to the court. P.W.34 had admitted that it is only the said Palanisamy, who handed over the records to him. The said Palanisamy had not been examined. To a question put to the learned Public Prosecutor (there is nothing on record to show as to how long it would take for one to reach the court from the police station) he, on instructions from the police officer present in court, stated that it would hardly take 30 minutes for a person to reach the court from the police station. Therefore when the court is at such a short distance and that too when a police constable having been done to death by the assailants, the police would definitely show utmost urgency in sending the material records to the court and the said urgency appears to be totally lacking in this case. Why we are emphasising on an explanation to be offered by the Investigating Team for the delay in sending the material records to the court is because, as we have already stated, there are some suspicious circumstances in lodging Ex.P.1 itself. Having said that when there is delay in sending the material records to the court, it is incumbent on the Investigating Officer to examine the police constable, who carried the material records to the court, we fail to understand as to why either P.W.34 or P.W.35, who succeeded P.W.34, have not examined him. In fact P.W.35, the last of the Investigating Officer, who completed the investigation and filed the final report, would admit in his evidence that Palanisamy is the person, who carried Exs.P.1 and P.13 to P.W.34 and he is same person, who carried the material records to the court as well. But however he would add that as he thought it unnecessary to record his statement, he had not recorded it. In this context, it may be worth noticing the evidence of P.W.34, who would state that he has to verify the records to find out whether Palanisamy was in fact attached to his police station or not. He would further add that the case diary, it would not be possible to find whether Palanisamy was in his police station or not. In the context of the oral evidence of P.W.35 that it is Palanisamy, who carried the material records to P.W.34 and he is the person, who carried the same to the court, we have every reason to doubt the oral evidence of P.W.34, who would state that he does not even know whether Palanisamy was attached to his police station or not. It may be noticed here that P.W.34 had admitted in his evidence that he received Exs.P.1 and P.13 at the scene of occurrence around 10.10 p.m. If really the material records can reach the hands of the Investigating Officer within half an hour from the time it came to be registered, then we see no reason at all as to why the said material records could not have been dispatched with the same urgency to the court. P.W.20 had stated in his evidence that he dispatched the material records to the court as well as to the higher officials. Therefore reading the evidence of P.Ws.20 and 34 together, we find that the prosecution had not at all explained the delay in sending the material records to the court. Up till now we have applied our mind as to whether there are any suspicious circumstances, which surround the lodging of Ex.P.1 and whether the delay in sending the material records had been satisfactorily explained and on both counts, we find that the lodging of Ex.P.1 before P.W.20 as spoken to by P.Ws.1 and 20 is not free from doubt and there is avoidable delay in sending the material records to the court, which delay had not been explained at all.
19. Let us now apply our mind to the issue whether P.Ws.1 and 2 could be eye witnesses to the occurrence. As already stated, P.Ws.1 and 2 are chance witnesses to the occurrence. Without going into the reason as to why P.W.1 had gone to Ukkadam market to buy vegetables, we applied our mind in a subjective manner to the oral evidence of P.W.1 as well as the oral evidence of P.W.2, to test their reliability. P.W.1 in Ex.P.1 had implicated only three persons by name as assailants. P.W.2 is neither the author of Ex.P.1 or he had signed as a witness to Ex.P.1. Therefore his oral evidence must be tested on it's own merits whereas the oral evidence of P.W.1 can always be tested in the context of the averments contained in Ex.P.1. As already stated, in Ex.P.1 there is a clear averment of three known assailants being responsible for the attack on Selvaraj and there is no mention of any other known or unknown persons involved in the crime. In other words, as per Ex.P.1, only three persons are involved in the crime. However in his oral evidence before court, P.W.1 had improved the situation by leaps and bounds by implicating a total number of 8 persons as assailants; out of whom 5 persons were armed; out of 5, A1 to A3 are known to him and all the 5 armed accused indiscriminately stabbed the victim. This is a clear improvement in the oral evidence of P.W.1. This only shows that this witness is not prepared to stick on to the allegations made by him in Ex.P.1. This witness, as already stated, would state that after lodging Ex.P.1 with P.W.20, he was asked to come the next day morning by P.W.20. We have already found that P.W.20 does not even whisper about this. If really Ex.P.1 is given by P.W.1 to P.W.20 and when we find that there is no acceptable evidence to show that P.W.1 was asked to report at the police station on the next day morning at 8.00 a.m., then in the usual course, the Investigating Officer would serve summons on the author of Ex.P.1 namely, P.W.1 to appear before him. But in this case P.W.1 claims that he had gone to the police station on 30.11.1997 as directed by P.W.20 and then proceeded to the hospital from there as directed by a constable present in the police station. Though P.Ws.1 and 34 would state that P.W.1 was examined during inquest conducted between 8.00 and 10.00 a.m on 30.11.1997, yet we have our own doubt regarding that aspect of the prosecution case also, on which we will reflect our mind a little later in this judgment.
20. P.W.1 would state that he knows Selvaraj/since deceased earlier. It is seen from his evidence that he is very eager to give a complaint. The police station is hardly at a distance of half a kilometre from the scene of occurrence. Showing him to be a man interested in Selvaraj, the normal conduct of such a person would be to reach the police station in the quickest possible time and lodge the information. But in this case P.W.1's evidence is to the effect that he went to a bakery to have a cup of tea; spent nearly half an hour in the bakery; took a white paper from the person in the cash counter; requested one of the persons taking tea in that bakery to write down the complaint to his narration; signed it and then gave it to P.W.20. This oral evidence of P.W.1 does not inspire confidence in the mind of this court as that of a natural witness, who not only claims to have seen the occurrence but also claims to know the victim in this case. It is his further case that he neither knows to read nor write Tamil. Admittedly there is an interlineation in Ex.P.1. The person, who reduced into writing the oral complaint given by P.W.1 had not been examined. When P.W.1 would state that he can neither read nor write Tamil, we expect the Investigating Officer to examine the person, who reduced that complaint into writing. This is all the more so because, P.W.1 would admit in his evidence that the complaint was not read over to him at any time and that he did not know the contents of the complaint till he gave evidence in court. We have to lay more emphasis on this aspect because, P.W.20, on receiving the complaint from P.W.1, had not put even a single question to P.W.1 about the occurrence. P.W.1 would state in his evidence that he did not whisper a word about the occurrence to P.W.20 and left the police station after giving the complaint to him. P.Ws.20 and 34 have admitted the interlineation in Ex.P.1. The same interlineation is found reflected in Ex.P.13, the first information report. The interlineation is to the following effect:
". . . . . . . . . ."
The English translated version of the same is "within a short time, he died". P.W.1 would state that as he was narrating the complaint, he was told to state that Selvaraj died and therefore the interlineation was brought in. Who told him to bring that fact, is again a mystery and there is no legal evidence about the identity of the person, who told him to add that fact as well. Selvaraj's death came to be pronounced for the first time by P.W.17 in the hospital to P.W.8 at about 9.15 p.m on 29.11.1997. There is no evidence to show that before that time either P.W.1 or P.W.2 or anybody else in the vicinity of the occurrence, had known that Selvaraj died on the spot itself. According to P.W.1, the complaint was prepared on his way to the police station in a roadside bakery. Therefore we are at a loss to understand as to who supplied information to P.W.1 that Selvaraj's death must also be mentioned in the complaint and there is a big vacuum on this important aspect.
21. An explanation is given by P.Ws.20 and 34 that the interlineation found in Ex.P.1 was literally incorporated in Ex.P.13 also by way of an interlineation. We find it rather strange to accept such an explanation given by the official witnesses. One can understand, if the interlineation in Ex.P.1 had come to be introduced in the midst of reducing the complaint into writing. Admittedly Ex.P.13 was prepared on the basis of Ex.P.1. Therefore once there is an interlineation in Ex.P.1, it is not necessary that Ex.P.13 should also contain the same interlineation. Therefore we have some serious doubts in our mind as to whether P.W.1 know at all about the interlineation disclosing the death of Selvaraj. We have already noted in the evidence of P.W.1 that the death of Selvaraj was told to be mentioned, which means the source of such information is a person other than P.W.1 and the evidence on record do not show who that person is. It may not be out of context at this stage to notice that the Investigating Team had not even examined the owner of the bakery, in whose bakery, P.W.1 claims to have taken tea and then got the complaint reduced into writing. We have already noticed that P.W.20 nowhere states in his evidence that he asked P.W.1 to come to the police station on the next day morning. He would further state in his evidence that he was on duty from 9.00 p.m on 29.11.1997 till he was relieved of his duty at 6.55 a.m on 30.11.1997. He would also admit that during the time when he was in the police station, he did not meet P.W.34 at all. We perused the evidence of P.W.34. His evidence does not show that he reached the police station after receiving the material records on 29.11.1997. In fact his evidence is that, he was at the scene of occurrence till 01.30 hours on 30.11.1997 investigating into the crime in question and then left the place for other investigation. If P.W.34 had gone to the police station between 9.00 p.m on 29.11.1997 and 7.00 a.m on 30.11.1997, then P.W.20 would not have failed to see him. Therefore reading the evidence of P.Ws.20 and 34 together, we hold that P.W.34 would not have reached the police station at all on the night of the occurrence day or even in the early morning of 30.11.1997. If that is so, then when P.W.34 had given evidence that he asked the witness to come to the police station the next day morning, it means that he should have told some person in the police station to inform the witness accordingly. P.W.34 in his evidence had no-where stated that he instructed any police constable present in the police station to inform the witness to report on the next day and the said police constable had also not been examined in this case. Therefore the appearance of P.W.1 in the police station on the next day morning namely, on 30.11.1997, is not free from doubt, in our considered opinion.
22. P.W.2 claims to be an eye witness to the occurrence. He admits that within five minutes from the scene, he can reach the police station and yet he did not decide to go to the police station. But he appears to be keen on giving the information to the police. He admits that on his way home is B11 Police Station at Saibaba Colony. He had not given any complaint at the said police station as well. But however as he was very eager to inform the police about the incident and as he had passed two police stations namely, the Investigating Police Station/B1 Police Station and the other Police Station namely, B11 Police Station near his residence, we see no reason as to why he had not chosen to reach either of the police station and this is an important circumstance to doubt the veracity of his evidence. Giving credit (for the present) to his evidence that he did not decide to go to both the police stations for giving the complaint, we perused his evidence about the circumstances under which he had come to give the complaint. He would state that from his house he telephoned to the directory enquiry namely, 197; got the telephone number of the Investigating Police Station and then gave the information over telephone that he saw the occurrence in question. He would state that the person, who received the call at the other end identified himself to be the Head Constable and that he collecting his address and other details, asked him to come on the next day morning. The evidence of P.W.20 undoubtedly shows that he was the only Head Constable in the Investigating Police Station during the relevant time namely, from 9.00 p.m on 29.11.1997 till 6.55 a.m on 30.11.1997. Therefore if at all any Head Constable would have received the telephonic information from P.W.2, then it would be only P.W.20. P.W.20 did not say in his evidence that he received any telephonic call from P.W.2, as spoken to by the said witness, about this incident. Assuming for a minute that P.W.2 passed on the information over telephone to the Investigating Police Station about he witnessing the occurrence, then we have no doubt that the police would not have spared any efforts in getting P.W.2 at the quickest possible time, especially when he is an eye witness to the occurrence in which a police constable was killed. The lethargic attitude adopted by the police officer in the police station on receipt of the information from P.W.2 over telephone, as spoken to by P.W.2, leads us to doubt whether P.W.2 is a concocted witness to add strength to the prosecution case. P.W.2 also claims that he came to the police station on the next day morning and on he telling the police personnel that he is the person, who passed on the information over telephone, he was asked to go to the hospital, where P.W.34 was there. Once again we find that the police personnel whom he met on 30.11.1997 and who asked him to reach the Government Hospital, had not been examined. This is a vital link to connect the presence of P.W.2 in the police station and then his onward journey to the Government Hospital. P.W.2 is not shown to be acquainted with P.W.34. Therefore there must be legal evidence identifying P.Ws.1 and 2, one as the author of Ex.P.1 and the other as the person, who on the earlier night informed over telephone about the occurrence to P.W.34, so as to enable him to fix these persons as the respective persons and then examine them during inquest. P.W.34's evidence is that, he conducted inquest between 8.00 and 11.00 a.m on 30.11.1997. P.W.19 is the Clerk attached to the remand court. He would state that the 161 statement and inquest statements of P.Ws.1 and 2 reached the court only on 09.12.1997. We have already found that there is delay in sending Exs.P.1 and P.13 to the court. The inquest report also reached the court only on 09.12.1997. If these records have reached the court without any delay, then there cannot be added credibility to the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. But the delay as referred to above is haunting our mind to doubt P.Ws.1 and 2 as eye witnesses to the occurrence; whether P.W.1 could have lodged the information as spoken to by him and whether they could have been examined during inquest as spoken to by P.W.34. In other words, the delay in sending the inquest report and the inquest statement of witnesses, lead us to hold, with certain amount of certainty, coupled with the delay in sending Exs.P.1 and P.13 to the court, that the entire case of the prosecution as spoken to by them, could have been brought about after much deliberation only on the morning of 30.11.1997.
23. The reliability of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 can also be tested from another angle. We have already noted that both are very eager to lodge the information with the police. According to them, they saw the occurrence. P.Ws.1, 2, 8 and 10 are shown to be at equi distance from the traffic umbrella in the intersection of Ukkadam Road-Vincent Road. The assailants, after attacking the victim, ran for safety. P.Ws.1 and 2 claim to have gone near the spot, where Selvaraj was lying with bleeding injuries. They cannot be frightened also because, P.W.8/police constable, in uniform, had reached the spot in no time. We are fully aware as to how a human being would respond on seeing a dastardly crime and it would vary from individual to individual. It cannot be said, as a matter of universal rule, that failure to respond by an individual in a given situation, would be taken against him to discredit his evidence. But P.Ws.1 and 2 do not appear to be persons falling under that category. P.W.1 and 2 claim to have reached the spot after the assailants left. They are also shown to have seen P.W.8/Police Constable in uniform and on duty at the spot taking the injured to the hospital. But they have not chosen to disclose to P.W.8 that they are eye witnesses to the occurrence and they knew the assailants. They cannot be frightened to disclose the information to P.W.8 because, admittedly the assailants have left the place. P.W.10, the autorickshaw driver had also reached the scene. Therefore the element of fear in the mind of P.Ws.1 and 2, which would have frightened them from disclosing the information to P.W.8, is totally absent in this case. This failure on the part of P.Ws.1 and 2 in not disclosing to P.W.8 as to what they saw and the identity of the assailants, would definitely enable us, in the context of the other materials surrounding the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, to doubt as to whether they would have been present at the scene of occurrence at all. We have also noted in the earlier portion of this judgment that the presence of P.Ws.8 and 10 at the scene of occurrence cannot be disputed and among the two, P.W.10 is shown to be a person, who is usually available there. P.Ws.1, 2, 8 and 10 are shown to be at equi distance from the spot, where Selvaraj came to be attacked. P.W.8 would state that as he was running towards the scene, he saw 5 or 6 persons attacking the victim. But he has not disclosed the identity of the assailants. P.W.10 would only state that he felt a sense of urgency in that area; immediately he saw a police constable lying on the ground near the police traffic umbrella and that P.W.8 was running towards that place. P.W.8 and P.W.10 do not even whisper about the presence of P.Ws.1 and 2. P.W.10 admittedly reached the spot and gave a helping hand to put Selvaraj in his autorickshaw as requested by P.W.8. There is no evidence to show that after the assailants left, the place where Selvaraj was lying on the ground was surrounded by a huge crowd. P.W.1 would admit in his evidence that there was no gathering of people. In other words, from the evidence it is seen that only P.Ws.1, 2, 8 and 10 were there. Therefore if really P.Ws.1 and 2 were there, P.Ws.8 and 10 would not have failed to notice their presence. But we find that P.Ws.8 and 10 do not speak about the presence of P.Ws.1 and 2 at the spot, where Selvaraj was lying with bleading injuries. For all the reasons noted above, we have every reason to doubt the presence of P.Ws.1 and 2, who claim to be eye witnesses, at the scene of occurrence. If their presence is doubted, then the involvement of the assailants, in the absence of any evidence on the part of P.Ws.8 and 10 that the assailants were present at the scene, is also open to a serious doubt.
24. Let us now go back to the genuineness of Exs.P.1 and P.13. The defence has marked Exs.D.1 to D.4 to show that Exs.P.1 and P.13 could not have been brought into existence in the manner and at the time alleged. Exs.D.1 to D.4 are printed first information reports on the file of the same Investigating Police Station namely, B1 Police Station. Ex.D.1 relates to Crime No. 2201/1997 registered at 10.45 p.m on 28.11.1997. Exs.D.2 and D.3 relate to Crime Nos. 2202/1997 and 2203/1997 respectively, registered on the file of the same police station at 10.45 p.m on 28.11.1997. The serial numbers of the three printed first information reports, on which the complaint had come to be incorporated, are found to be 270446, 270447 and 270448, all in ascending order. According to P.W.23 and P.W.34, on P.W.23 giving a special report on the trouble which arose on account of the vehicle check conducted by him, P.W.34 registered it and Ex.P.43 is the printed first information report. Ex.P.43 is also shown to be on the file of the same Investigating Police Station. Ex.P.43 shows that it had come to be registered at 8.30 p.m on 29.11.1997. We will reserve our opinion as to whether this could have come to be registered at 8.30 p.m itself on 29.11.1997. For the present, we are leaving that question open. A perusal of Ex.P.43 shows that the serial number of the said first information report is 270440. P.W.20, when confronted with Ex.P.43, would state that the first five digits, namely 27044 is clear to his eye and the last number is not clear to him. To a question put to him whether the said printed form of F.I.R belongs to the investigating police station, he answered that unless he sees the printed F.I.R Book in his station, he cannot say that. P.W.34 on this issue at one stage admitted that the serial number of Ex.P.43 (printed F.I.R) is 270440. But however he corrected it by saying that as the impression of the last digit is not clear, he cannot say whether it is "0" or "9". But to our mind it is clear that the number is 270440. Ex.D.4 is another printed first information report on the file of the said police station, namely B1 Police Station. It is in relation to Crime No. 2206/1997 with the printed F.I.R serial number 270401 and it came to be registered on 29.11.1997 at 10.30 p.m. Ex.P.13 is the first information report relating to the murder of Selvaraj with Crime No. 2205/1997 and it is shown to have been recorded at 9.45 p.m on 29.11.1997. On going through Ex.D.4 and Ex.P.43, we find that in the Investigating Police Station, F.I.R leaves with serial numbers 270401 (Ex.D.4) to 270440 (or) 270449 (Ex.P.43) were infact available. Therefore after registering Ex.D.4, there would be atleast 39 or 40 F.I.R leaves in the very same book available in the very same police station for utilisation. But however, we find from a perusal of Ex.P.13, that it contains the F.I.R serial number as 281477. In this context, we looked at Ex.P.15, another first information report, on the file of the very same police station. It relates to Crime No. 2210/1997 with printed F.I.R serial number as 270411 and it shows that it was registered at 1.00 p.m on 01.12.1997. Therefore if we take into account the availability of F.I.R leaves in the F.I.R book available in the Investigating Police Station, in the context of Exs.D.4 and P.15, it is definite that atleast 10 F.I.R leaves in the same book must have been available from 10.30 p.m on 29.11.1997 till 1.00 p.m on 01.12.1997 when Ex.P.15 came to be registered. It may be noticed that the serial numbers of the printed first information reports namely, Exs.D.1, D.2 and D.3 on the file of the same police station is 270446, 270447 and 270448 all registered at 10.45 p.m on 28.11.1997. If Ex.P.43 had come to be registered at 8.30 p.m on 29.11.1997, then the printed F.I.R form should contain only number that succeeds the number found in Ex.D.3. But on the other hand, Ex.P.43 serial number is 270440. In the context of the serial numbers in the various exhibits referred to above, we perused Exs.D.4, P.13 and P.15 and we are unable to understand as to how the serial number found in Ex.P.13 alone jumped numbers by a margin of nearly 10,000 or so (to be precise 11039). P.W.34 admits that such a vast difference in the serial number exists. The defence have taken an application before the court to send for, among other records, the printed F.I.R book from the Investigating Police Station. A counter had been filed at the initial stage that the F.I.R book had been destroyed. An additional counter had been filed showing that it is missing. The petition and counters (authenticated copy) are produced before us by the defence counsel and we perused them. The State is also not disputing it. | The non-production of the records asked for by the defence, especially the printed F.I.R book, by the State would amount to, in our considered opinion, holding back a relevant material from the purview of the court. The answer given by the State in the pleading referred to above does not satisfy our conscience. The stand taken by the State in the first counter is inconsistent with the stand in the second counter. When a crime of this nature is pending adjudication before court, we are not prepared to accept the easy going answer given by the State for non-production of the material records. | Therefore the evasive response from the Investigating Team in not answering positively to the application taken out by the defence would only be on line with the consistent case of the defence that Exs.P.1 and P.13 were not brought into existence in the manner and at the time alleged as spoken to and in fact Ex.P.13 is a leaf out of a printed F.I.R book of a different police station. It is not possible to brush aside this defence put forward before court. Therefore the serial number of the first information report found in Ex.P.13, in the context of the serial numbers found in Exs.D1 to D3, Ex.P.43 and Ex.P.15 definitely lends support to our doubt that Exs.P.1 and P.13 could not have been brought into existence as spoken to by P.Ws.1 and 20. | If Ex.P.43 had come to be registered at 8.30 p.m on 29.11.1997 with the printed F.I.R serial number 270440 or 270449, then Ex.P.13, which is shown to have been registered at 9.45 p.m., should have the serial number which immediately succeeds the serial number found in Ex.P.43. P.W.34 had admitted that he registered Exs.D.1 to D.3. Ex.D.3 contains the printed F.I.R number as 270448 and that was registered at 10.45 p.m on 28.11.1997. Therefore the printed F.I.R relating to the murder crime (Ex.P.13) should be a few numbers after that. But it is not so. As already stated, from the serial number available in Ex.D.3 (admitted document), the serial number found in Ex.P.13 is 11039 numbers after the said serial number. Though P.W.34 had claimed that the difference in the serial number available in Ex.P.13 with the serial number available in the other exhibits may be due to using of a different book, yet it stands falsified by the serial number available in Exs.P.15 and P.43, which are 270441 and 270440 respectively. Ex.D.4 is also on the file of the same police station and it contains the printed F.I.R serial number 270441. Ex.P.15 contains serial number 270411 and Ex.P.43 contains serial number 270440. Therefore it is clear that the printed F.I.R book containing serial numbers 270401 to 270440 was available in the police station upto 1.00 p.m on 01.12.1997. If that is so, the explanation given by P.W.34 that Ex.P.13 is from a different F.I.R book, cannot be easily digested.| These materials, in the context of the other materials, which we have already referred to in the oral evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 20, cumulatively enable us to doubt about the genuineness of Exs.P.1 and P.13 as projected by the prosecution now.
25. Now we analysed the evidence of P.Ws.3 to 7. P.W.3 would state about the presence of P.W.5 at the scene of occurrence. He would also state that eight persons came, out of whom, four are known to him. The known four persons are identified by him as A4, A5, A7 and Sahul Hameed, who is shown to have died in a police encounter. He would further state that five among the eight attacked the victim and he also saw P.W.8. He would admit that he was examined one year later by P.W.35. P.W.5's evidence is on the same lines as that of P.W.3. He would state that out of eight, he knows A1, A4 and Sahul Hameed, since deceased. He would further state that five out of the eight were armed and A1, A4 and Sahul Hameed, besides two more, stabbed the victim. He also speaks about the presence of P.W.8. He was also examined by P.W.35 one year later. P.W.4 would speak about the presence of P.W.7 at the scene. He would state that eight persons in all came, out of whom, he knows A3, A6 and Sahul Hameed. P.W.4 would further state that he identified A3 and A6 in court. He also speaks about the presence of eight persons. He was also examined one year later by P.W.35. P.W.7 would state that he was present along with P.W.4 and out of eight persons, five were armed and he knows A1, A2, A5 and A6. He would further state that five persons out of eight attacked and he also saw P.W.8. This witness was also examined one year later by P.W.35. P.W.6 claims that he was present at the scene of occurrence; he saw eight persons coming together, out of whom, five were armed and out of the eight persons, he knows A3, A4 and Sahul Hameed. He would also state that A4, Sahul Hameed and three more attacked the deceased and P.W.8 was present at the scene of occurrence. This witness was also examined one year later. A perusal of the evidence of these witnesses would show that they did not even disclose the incident, which they claim to have witnessed, to even their kith and kin. They have not disclosed to anyone till they were examined by P.W.35 almost an year later. They were examined almost an year after, is an admitted fact, since P.W.35 took charge of the Investigation in this case in July 1998, and effective investigation was commenced by him only in September 1998. There is no evidence to show that all these witnesses namely P.Ws.3 to 7, till they were examined, did not even come out. Their evidence is that, P.W.35 was enquiring the inmates of every house in Kembatty Colony and during such time, they came out and stated that they are eye witnesses to the occurrence. In a grave crime like murder, we have no doubt that it would be extremely unsafe to act upon the evidence of witnesses, who come before police for the first time almost an year later and say that they witnessed the occurrence. The presence of P.Ws.3 to 7 at the scene of occurrence had not been spoken to all by P.Ws.1, 2, 8 and 10. Therefore we have no doubt at all that P.Ws.3 to 7 appear to have been witnesses brought about to suit to the situation and therefore we have the least hesitation to hold that the evidence of P.Ws.3 to 7 would be totally unsafe to be acted upon. We have already found that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 are totally unreliable and that we have also, for reasons given by us, doubted Exs.P.1 and P.13 as true and genuine documents. Though the prosecution had established that Selvaraj was done to death, we have no doubt in our mind that there is no legal material to connect the accused with the crime. However high the suspicion may be, it will never take the place of proof. When P.W.8 claims to have seen 5 or 6 assailants attacking his colleague/Selvaraj, we see no reason at all as to why no identification parade was conducted by the Investigating Team to enable P.W.8 to identify the assailants. In our considered opinion, it only shows that P.W.8 is the only person, who had a glimpse of the occurrence and he did not even know the assailants. We are also of the considered opinion that except P.W.8, nobody else could have seen the occurrence. The case of the defence is that, P.W.8 lodged an information with the police; on that basis only P.W.34 commenced the investigation and finding that the assailants could not be fixed under that complaint, a substituted complaint through P.W.1 was brought on record. This argument cannot be ignored. P.W.8 is the constable on duty and he knows what he must do in law on seeing an occurrence, especially when his colleague is attacked. P.W.8 had informed P.W.17, the duty Doctor before whom he took his injured colleague Selvaraj for treatment that 5 or 6 persons attacked the victim. P.W.27 is the first police officer, who was present in the hospital. He had stated that P.W.8 informed him that 5 or 6 Muslims attacked Selvaraj. Therefore P.W.8 can be safely taken as a witness, who had seen the actual attack but however he had not given evidence in court that the present accused are the assailants. It may be noticed that according to the evidence of P.W.8, a Sub-Inspector by name Soundarrajan attached to the Investigating Police Station was the first person to reach the hospital. He had not been examined in this case. On what information he reached the hospital, there is no material. The case of the defence is that P.W.8's complaint was the earliest complaint and that alone set the law in motion. | When the presence of Soundarrajan/Sub-Inspector of Police of the Investigating Police Station in the hospital stands established, then it must be on the basis of an information available for him to respond. Ex.P.1 could not be that information because, it came to be registered only at 9.45 p.m on 29.11.1997 whereas P.W.8 was in the hospital along with Selvaraj even at 9.15 p.m on 29.11.1997. P.W.8 would state that the said Sub-Inspector of Police Soundarrajan and P.W.27/Inspector of Police also examined him in the hospital. What happened to that statement of P.W.8, there is no explanation. P.W.8 was also not examined during inquest. It is rather strange that a witness like P.W.8, who had seen some assailants attacking his colleague was not even examined on the same day by P.W.34. P.W.34 had admitted in his evidence the importance of examining P.W.8 and yet he would state that since his whereabouts are not known, he was not examined. He would further admit that till 8.00 a.m on 30.11.1997, he could not examine P.W.8. Does not this explanation given by P.W.34 is surprising and it is. |
26. The case of the prosecution is that, as a sequel to the incident that took place at 8.00 p.m on the night of 29.11.1997, the accused came out as a mob along with his supporters giving out an open threat to the police force at large and then committed the offence. P.W.23 would state that he gave a special report about this incident to P.W.34 at 8.30 p.m on 29.11.1997 when P.W.34 reached the police station. P.W.34 also would state that he registered the said complaint and Ex.P.43 is the printed first information report. It apparently shows that it came to be registered at 8.30 p.m on 29.11.1997. | The serial number of the F.I.R form in which Ex.P.43 came to be recorded is 270440. Though P.W.34, after admitting the serial number as referred to above had corrected himself saying that it may be 270449 also, yet we have found, on a perusal of Ex.P.43, that the serial number found on that is only 270440. Ex.P.15 is marked in this case by the prosecution. The serial number of the said printed F.I.R form is 270411 and it is on the file of the very same Investigating Police Station. It shows that it came to be registered at 1.00 p.m on 01.12.1997 i.e., two days after registering Ex.P.43. If that is so, then we fail to understand as to how the serial number for Ex.P.15 is 29 numbers ahead of the serial number available in Ex.P.43. In other words, Ex.P.43, which is shown to have been registered at 8.30 p.m on 29.11.1997, has a serial number which is 29 numbers after the serial number found in Ex.P.15, which had come to be registered on 01.12.1997. The case of the defence is that there was no such incident at all as reflected in Ex.P.43. If we go by the serial numbers available in Exs.P.15 and P.43, we are not in a position to brush aside the argument of the defence that there is every possibility for Ex.P.43 having come to be registered only after Ex.P.15. This argument of the defence also gets support from the fact that P.W.23 (author of the special report on which Ex.P.43 had come to be registered) came to be examined only on 03.12.1997. When the prosecution projects the alleged incident that is stated to have taken place at 8.00 or 8.30 p.m on 29.11.1997 in the police station as the motive for the murder, then the Investigating Officer ought to have examined P.W.23 first in connection with the murder crime, which he had not done. Therefore we have a serious doubt as to whether the occurrence as reflected in Ex.P.43 could have taken place at all. P.W.34, who conducted inquest, would state that the details available in the inquest should be on the basis of the information furnished by witnesses examined. Admittedly P.W.23, who is alleged to be the author of the contents of Ex.P.43, was not examined during inquest. But we find that Ex.P.45, the inquest report, contains all the details available in Ex.P.43 as exhibited before the lower court now. At the risk of repetition, we reiterate that it ought to have been in the forefront in the mind of P.W.34 to concentrate on the motive incident and examine all persons concerned with that motive first immediately after the murder crime, which he had not admittedly done. All these facts lead us to conclude that no occurrence as reflected in Ex.P.43 could have taken place at all. |
27. | The learned State Public Prosecutor took enormous pains in persuading us to believe the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 on it's own merits and ignore the events that had taken place after the registration of the crime. We paid our best attention to the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 to find out whether they are reliable witnesses. We only reiterate our earlier conclusion that P.Ws.1 and 2 cannot be believed as eye witnesses to the occurrence for the reasons, which we have already given. | These are all several substantial doubts hovering in our mind, which we are unable to get rid of. We are also unable to find any answer in respect of those doubts in favour of the prosecution and therefore we have no hesitation in giving the cumulative benefit of all doubts as referred to above to the accused. Accordingly giving the benefit of such cumulative doubts to the accused, we are inclined to set aside the judgment under challenge and acquit all the accused of all the offences for which they were charged, tried and convicted. Reference in R.T. No. 1/2993 is answered against the State. C.A. Nos. 122/1997, 123/1997 and 124/1997 would stand allowed. The acquitted accused are directed to be released forthwith, if they are not wanted in any other case.