Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

21. What is significant is that this witness asserted that the red kyli which she had been wearing at the time of the incident was smeared with brain matter and blood. She categorically stated that she did not show the Kyli to the Police. According to her, she changed her kyli and wore a saree before going to the hospital with Appu.  Similarly the towel (thorthu mundu) which was used to wipe off the blood on the head of Appu was also left at the scene of occurrence. She further stated that she used another towel (thorthumundu) for bandaging the head of Appu, which she took from her house. Curiously this witness stated that the kyli which she had been wearing at the time of occurrence was still available at home. She further stated that Police had questioned her for the second time three months after the incident. Even at that time she did not choose to show the kyli to the Police. The Police also did not ask her about the same. The towel which was used as a bandage on the head of Appu while he was taken to the hospital was left behind at the hospital. That was also not produced before the Police, since according to her she did not see it. This witness insisted that she had told the Police about the kyli and the thorthu which she had left behind at the scene of occurrence. But she could not say why such a statement was absent in the statement recorded by the Police. She had also informed the Police that the brain matter and blood were splashed on the ground. She also stated that she did not show the Police the saree she was wearing when she went to the hospital. The Police did not seize it.

24. Coming to the evidence of Pw.2, the son of Pw.1, he categorically stated that he saw the incident standing along with Pw.1, Pw.5, Uncles Sura, Uthaman, Kuttappan and Ani. In cross examination this witness admitted that firewood had been kept in a heap near the  well. Pw.1 had also stated that she had gone near the well to collect a few pieces of firewood kept near the well. But in Ext.P4 scene mahazar there is not even a mention of any firewood being stocked there.

25. Pw.2 stated in his cross examination that he had told the Police that he ran towards the well. Though he had stated so before the Police, he could not say why such a statement was absent in the statement recorded by the Police. He further stated that he had not told the Police that he had remained in the courtyard of the house itself and he had not gone near the well because he was frightened. He admitted that he had stated so before the Police. But according to him that was not correct. He had in fact gone near the well. Similarly the other embellishments or contradictions (Exts.D2 and D3) in the deposition of this witness brought out during his cross examination were never stated before the Police at the time when he was questioned. We do not propose to refer to each and every one of them. He disowned Ext.D3 statement given to the Police by which he had told the Police that the thorthu used for giving a bandage to the head of Appu was available at home. He also asserted that he had mentioned the names of all the people like Sura, Uthaman, Kuttappan etc. before the Police. But if such a statement is absent, she could not say why.

4. It is pertinent to note that Ext.P1 statement was given by Pw.1 within 3 hours of the incident, at the Medical College Hospital. Ext.P1

(a) and (b) would show that at the time when Ext.P1 was recorded, Pw.1 was subjected to clinical treatment. Her wound at the head and hand were bandaged. As regards the injury sustained to Pw1 deposed by her, the bandages noted in Ext.P1(a) would corroborate. Absence of wound certificate or treatment records are insignificant. Trustworthiness of the evidence of Pw1, is not lost for that reason. The deceased was also subjected to clinical treatment. He was unconscious  and in the intensive care unit. Deceased is none other than the husband of P.W.1, though there is no proof of marriage. The state of mind of the first informant while she was on the verandah of the Intensive Care Unit at Medical College is very significant. Ext.P1 was given before Pw1 being absolved from the shock of the assault. There is every possibility that Ext.P1 may not contain a narrative description in a picturesque manner as to how the incident occurred. Assailant was specifically named. Assault and the weapon were also mentioned. No new case is advanced later. So, minute variations with reference to Ext.P1 First Information Statement and the evidence of the witnesses in the box may not be a reason to disbelieve the witness as such.

13. The non production of the wound certificate and the fact that Pw.1 had not undergone any hospital treatment are also not reasons to disbelieve that witness because of the special circumstances of this case. Ext.P1(a) would show that Pw.1, as I mentioned earlier, had undergone clinical treatment and her wounds at the right elbow and right side of the head were bandaged clinically along with the wounds of the deceased. The injuries sustained to Pw1 were simple. According to Pw.1, she was advised to undergo treatment but she did not care because her husband was in the Intensive Care Unit. Her abstination from undergoing treatment is only an indication about her love and affection to the deceased and the anxiety. Pw1 was not caring to make evidence. She ignored her simple injuries. It need not be viewed in any other manner or to suspect the veracity of her evidence. The evidence of Pw.1 regarding assault to her is also supported by clinical bandages noted in Ext.P1(a). All failures of PW1, including the failure to preserve the blood stained cloths are indications that PW1 was not caring to collect materials to wreak vengeance, but looking forward for the future management. Her orientation was to sustain and not to prosecute. There is nothing abnormal in her behaviour.