Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13. PW11 was the Village Officer who prepared Ext.P8 scene plan. PW11 deposed in his evidence that there was an electric post about 1.2 meters away from the scene of occurrence and the position of that electric post is shown in Ext.P8 scene plan as P2. Similarly, it was deposed by PW11 that there is another electric post 21.55 meters away from the scene of occurrence and P3 in Ext.P8 scene plan is the position of that electric post. In cross-examination, it was clarified by PW11 that he has not recorded in the sketch, the existence of electric bulbs in the electric posts shown in the scene plan and Crl.A Nos.976 and 199 of 2019 2025:KER:5418 that existence of bulbs are not usually shown in the scene plans.

17. PW19 was the investigating officer who conducted the substantial part of the investigation in the case. It was deposed, among others, by PW19 that during the interrogation after the arrest, the first accused disclosed to him that a knife has been kept by him in the pump-house attached to the rubber estate of one Damodaran near the house of the first accused and when he was taken to that place as guided by him, the first accused took out MO1 knife from inside a PVC pipe kept in the pump-house and handed over the same to PW19 and the same was seized by PW19 as per Ext.P4 mahazar. Ext.P4(a) is the information which led to the recovery of MO1 knife. It was also deposed by PW19 that during the interrogation, the first accused disclosed to him further that he has dropped a few clothes in a deserted well near his house and when he was taken to that place as guided by him, he took out from a deserted well in the rubber estate of one Damodaran, MO2 and MO3 clothes and the same were seized Crl.A Nos.976 and 199 of 2019 2025:KER:5418 by PW19 as per Ext.P10 mahazar. Ext.P10(a) is the disclosure which led to the recovery of the said MOs. In the cross- examination, PW19 affirmed that PW2 did not give a statement that the second accused held the hands of Shaji from behind and that what was stated by PW2 in her previous statement is only that the second accused who was present at the scene, did not prevent the first accused from attacking the victims. It was also affirmed by PW19 in cross-examination that what was revealed in the investigation as regards the role of the second accused was that he came along with the first accused to the house of the victims and that he had not made any attempt to prevent the attack of the first accused on the victims. Likewise, it was stated by PW19 that in the previous statement of PW6, he did not state as to the precise time when he heard the utterance. It was also deposed by PW19 in cross-examination that the house of PW6 is not one that could be seen from the scene of occurrence and that is why the house of PW6 is not shown in the scene plan. Nevertheless, it was asserted by PW19 that PW6 is a neighbour of the victims. When PW19 was Crl.A Nos.976 and 199 of 2019 2025:KER:5418 asked as to the distance between the house of PW6 and the scene of occurrence, PW19 took the stand that he did not conduct any investigation regarding the same. In the cross- examination, PW19 also affirmed that the statement of PW3 was recorded only on 07.04.2009. PW14 was a person who witnessed the recovery of MO2 and MO3 clothes at the instance of the first accused as also a witness to Ext.P10 mahazar prepared by the police in this regard. PW14 deposed the said facts in his evidence.

In the light of the proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court as referred to above, there is absolutely no reason to disbelieve the evidence tendered by PW1 as regards the occurrence and the complicity of the first accused in the crime.

19. Coming to the evidence tendered by PW2, the specific case of PW1 was that when the first accused dragged her husband to the road, PW1 along with PW2 followed Shaji and the first accused. The said part of the evidence of PW1 is consistent with the First Information Statement given by her within hours after the occurrence. Therefore, the presence of PW2 at the scene at the time of occurrence, cannot be doubted. True, as regards the sequence of events that took place at the scene of occurrence, there are trivial omissions in the evidence of PW2. PW2 was aged 74 years at the time when the evidence was taken and the occurrence took place about nine years prior to that date. Minor discrepancies are bound to occur in situations of this nature and the evidence let in by the parties cannot be ignored on that ground. True, Exts.D1 to D4 Crl.A Nos.976 and 199 of 2019 2025:KER:5418 contradictions were proved in the evidence tendered by PW2 and those contradictions, according to us, are not significant inasmuch as the same does not relate to the material parts of the evidence tendered by PW2. Needless to say, there is absolutely no reason to disbelieve the evidence tendered by PW2 also. As noted, the evidence tendered by PW1 and PW2 were attacked mainly on the ground that no one could see the occurrence as there was no light in the locality at the time of occurrence. The evidence was let in by the prosecution in the case to prove that there was light at the scene of occurrence and that there were lights on both sides of the house of the victims also, through the evidence of PW1. It was also stated by PW1 that one of the street lights was on the north-western boundary of their house close to the scene of occurrence. The learned counsel for the first accused took us through Ext.P8 scene plan to contend that even though the existence of electric posts were noted therein, the existence of bulbs in the said posts are conspicuously absent in the scene plan. According to the learned counsel, the explanation offered by Crl.A Nos.976 and 199 of 2019 2025:KER:5418 the Village Officer who prepared Ext.P8 scene plan that existence of bulbs in the electric posts are normally not shown in such plans, is not acceptable. Similarly, after taking us through the scene mahazar, the learned counsel for the first accused contended that there are no indications therein that there was sufficient light at the scene at the time of occurrence to enable anyone to see the occurrence. We are not impressed by these arguments. According to us, the accused in the case cannot be heard to contend that there was no light at all at the scene at the time of occurrence for, the occurrence took place after the first accused dragged the deceased to the road from the main door of the house where there was sufficient light. Be that as it may, the existence of electric posts close to the scene of occurrence is sufficient for us to infer that there was light at the scene at the time of occurrence.