Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14.PW4-Nagasubramani is none other than the brother of PW2 and brother-in- law of PW1. PW1 to PW4 are the witnesses, who spoke about the alleged demand of money made by the appellants/accused. As rightly pointed by the learned counsel for the appellants, there are a number of inconsistencies and contradictions. First of all, though they have spoken in one voice that the appellants/accused wanted the parents of the deceased to arrange for a sum of Rs.20,000/- to discharge the debt incurred by them for the marriage of the first appellant, there is a vital discrepancy regarding the amount paid by PW1 by pledging the jewels of the deceased. Not only, such a contradiction is found between the testimonies of PW1 to PW4, but also such contradictions are found between the particulars found in Exs.P1, but also between their parole evidence their statement recorded under section 161(3) Cr.P.C. In Ex.P1, PW1 complainant seems to have stated that he pledged the jewels of Menaka and paid a sum of Rs.17000/- to the appellants/accused. Per contra, while deposing as PW1 before the court, he has stated that only a sum of Rs.15,000/- was paid by him after raising the said amount by pledging the jewels of the deceased Menaka. On the other hand, PW2-Muthulakshmi, in her evidence, would state that a sum of Rs.17,000/- was paid by pledging the jewels of deceased Menaka. PW3 and PW4 have also corroborated the testimony of PW2 regarding the amount paid to the accused, after pledging the jewels of Menaka. All of them have stated that it was Rs.17,000/-.