Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

17. P.W.8 is also a crucial witness. He deposed that he is a resident of Ilavaram and that the deceased supplied soil to him. He further deposed that one month prior to his death, the deceased supplied 10 tractor loads of soil to him; that at 8.15 a.m. on 15-10-2009, the deceased came to his house for recovery of the money payable for supply of soil and that he did not pay any amount and 30 minutes thereafter he came to know that the deceased was murdered in Chairman Bazaar.

18. When we closely examine the case of the prosecution, we find a ring of artificiality. The deceased as well as P.Ws.1 to 4 are residents of Peddavaram. While the purpose of the deceased to go to Ilavaram was to collect the money payable by the recipient of the soil i.e. P.W.8., in normal course, there was no necessity for P.Ws.2 to 4 to accompany the deceased. Ex.P1 did not state the purpose for which the said witnesses accompanied the deceased. While Ex.D-1, the earliest version spoken to by P.W.2 before the Magistrate, reveals that he and others were asked to come to Ilavaram for distribution of the money to labourers, there is a complete change in this version when he deposed before the Court. As per the changed version, P.Ws.2 to 4 accompanied the deceased in the tractor along with the load of earth. Neither these witnesses have specified to whom they supplied the earth nor the prosecution examined any such person as a witness to prove the presence of PW-2 to PW-4 at Ilavaram along with the tractor and trailer. On the contrary, PW-8 did not speak about his receiving earth on 15-10-2009 or his noticing the tractor and trailer or seeing PW-2 to PW-4 accompanying the deceased. It is the specific case of PW-2 to PW-4 that when they were following the deceased in the tractor, all the accused have obstructed the deceased who was travelling on the motor cycle with sickles and attacked him and that they were watching the said attack from a distance of 40 to 50 yards from the tractor. In Ex.P-10 rough sketch of the scene of offence, the existence of tractor and trailer in the vicinity has not been noted. Even PW-8 and PW-10, the independent witnesses who supported the case of the prosecution have not referred to the presence of PW-2 to PW-4 or the tractor near the scene of offence. These omissions coupled with the admission of P.W.2, that he did not notice which accused held which weapon and the sequence in which accused Nos. 3 to 9 surrounded the deceased, creates a serious doubt on the presence of P.Ws.2 to 4 at the scene of offence. Apart from this fact, very crucial omissions in their statements were elicited from PW-14, such as PW-2 not stating that the deceased received injury on the centre of his hand, that he has witnessed the occurrence from a distance of 40 to 50 yards, A-3 to A-9 coming from behind the wall and surrounding the deceased and PW-2 going near the deceased lying in a pool of blood. The omissions from PW-3s evidence regarding their going to Ilavaram on tractor with a load of earth etc., are also material. P.W.2, being the brother-in-law of the deceased, is a highly interested witness and P.Ws.3 and 4 appear to be closely associated with the deceased and P.W.2 in connection with the activity of loading and unloading the soil. These witnesses are thus highly interested witnesses. The conduct of these witnesses also arouses serious suspicion. They claimed to have witnessed the occurrence from about 40 to 50 yards away from the scene of offence. P.W.2 being no other than the brother-in-law of the deceased, he is not expected to be a mute spectator especially when he was not all alone. None of the alleged eyewitnesses tried to intervene when a brutal attack was taking place. Added to it, none of the witnesses tried to go to Bhattiprolu Police Station, which is just 4 kilometers away from the scene of offence to lodge a report or at least make a phone call to the police station informing about the incident.