Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The case of the prosecution as disclosed from the oral and documentary evidence can be succinctly stated as follows :

A1 and A2 are brothers and sons of A3. A4 is the brother of A3. The deceased is one Natarajan alias Subbiah. P.W. 5 and the deceased are stepbrothers born through the same father. P.W. 5 married P.W. 1's eldest sister. P.W. 6 is the wife of P.W. 1. They are all residents of Meenakshipuram village. In the year 1981 there was a competition with regard to Kabadi game at Meenakshipuram in which A2 was successful and he defeated the deceased. It is further stated that A1 and A2, on account of a quarrel, beat the deceased Natarajan. This was witnessed by P.Ws. 1 and 5. A few days later, the deceased stabbed A2 with a knife. In respect of the same a complaint was given to Eppothum Vendran Police station and a case was registered in Crime No. 2 of 1981 under S. 324 I.P.C., and the deceased was prosecuted and he was convicted. It is further stated that on appeal he was acquitted. After the said case, the deceased left the village and was staying at Virudunagar and was employed as a taxi driver and he used to come twice or thrice in a month to the village since his family was at Meenakshipuram. It is the further case of the prosecution that the deceased came to the village on the day of occurrence 27-4-1985, and he along with P.Ws. 1 to 5 was heaping hayrick and they used a plank for the said purpose. At that time P.W. 4. came there. A little later, A1 came there armed with a kozhival aruval and called P.W. 6 to accompany him to the house of his master Kumar in order to receive the wages. At that time, the deceased found fault with A1 for having brought the aruval there and questioned him. A1 was murmuring and left the place. After completing the work, P.Ws. 1, 4 and 6 and others left the place for taking their meals. P.W. 1 and the deceased, after taking coffee in the house of Aruna chalam, who is none other than the father-in-law of the deceased and after staying there for some time, were proceeding to answer calls of nature. While they were proceeding from south to north A1 to A4 came in opposite direction and at that time A1 was armed with aruval and A2 with kuthu tharangu. A2 instigated the other accused to cut and kill the deceased and so A2 shouted by saying that the deceased had come and he should be cut and killed and so saying he stabbed the deceased on his right arm with kuthu tharangu. A1 cut him with aruval on the chest forcefully. At that time P.W. 1 beat A1 with a plank which he was having on the back and broke it into pieces which are marked as M.Os. 1 and 2. Immediately A1 cut P.W. 1 above the left wrist once. A3 threw a stone on the chest of P.W. 1. In the meantime, after receipt of the injury the deceased went to a distance of 4 Bagams (8 yards) and caught hold of the wall and standing. A1 ran towards him and also cut him across the hip twice with aruval. On receipt of the injury the deceased fell down. Thereupon the accused ran away with the respective weapons. P.Ws. 1 and 3 went near the deceased and found him dead. It was at the time 9.15 a.m. A little later, P.W. 4 came there. P.Ws. 1 to 3 requested him to inform P.W. 5 about the occurrence and give a report. Accordingly P.W. 5 took a cycle and met P.W. 5 who was working in the field. P.W. 5 went to Pasuvanthanai police station with the same cycle directly and reached there at about 10.45 a.m. and reported that his younger brother Natarajan alias Subbian was murdered when A1 cut him with aruval and A2 stabbed him with kuthu tharangu and he got the information through P.W. 4. P.W. 14 entered the same in the General Diary in the station. Thereupon, he, along with the constables, went to the Meenakshipuram police station and thereupon to the scene place at about 11 a.m. He recorded a statement, Ex. P1, from P.W. 1 attested by P.W. 5. Thereupon he sent P.W. 1, with a memo to the Government Hospital, Tuticorin and returned to the police station at 12.45 p.m. and on the basis of Ex. P1 complainant registered a case in Crime No. 14 of 1985 under sections 302 and 324, I.P.C. and prepared the first information report Ex. P14 and the copies thereon. He sent Exs. P1 and P14 express report though P.W. 2 to the Judicial II Class Magistrate, Kovilpatti and a copy of the same through P.W. 13 to the Inspector of Police of Ottapidaram, who was in charge of that circle. P.W. 16, who was Inspector of Police (Crimes.) Pudukottai and who was in charge of Ottapidaram circle got information through V.H.S. about the case about 12.40 p.m. from P.W. 14. Thereupon he left Ottapidaram and was proceeding along Pasuvandhanai where he got the copy of Ex. P14 and P.W. 13 at about 1.15 p.m. and he took up investigation. He reached the scene place at 1.30 p.m. inspected the same in the presence of P.W. 8, prepared an observation mahazar, Ex. P2 at about 2 p.m. and drew a rough sketch, Ex. P16 and at about 2.45 p.m. he sent constables to search for the accused. Between 3 and 6 p.m. he held inquest over the dead body of Natarajan alias Subbiah and during the inquest he held inquest over the dead body of Natarajan alias Subbiaih and during the inquest he examined P.Ws. 2 to 5. Ex. P17 is the inquest report he examined prepared by him. After completing the inquest he entrusted the dead body with P.W. 13 constable along with a requisition Ex. P6 to the Medical Officer to conduct autopsy. At 6.45 p.m. he seized the bloodstained earth, M.O. 5 from the place where the dead body was found lying, under Ex. P3 attested by P.W. 8. At about 7 p.m. in front of the Agricultural Seva Sangam he seized M.O. 6 blood-stained earth and M.O. 7 sample earth under cover of a mahazar Ex. P4. He also seized M.O. 1 under cover a mahazar Ex. P5 from the pial of A3's house in the presence of P.W. 8. He examined P.W. 7 to 9 p.m. At that time he produced another broken piece of the plank and he seized the same. P.W. 10 is the Medical Officer attached to the Government Hospital, Tuticorin. He examined P.W. 1 at about 2.30 p.m. on 27-4-1985 for certain injured said to have been caused on 27-4-1985 at 9.15 a.m. and it could be due to cut with an aruval. She noticed the following injury on P.W. 1 :

9. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that in the instant case the delay in lodging the first information report has been explained by the prosecution through the evidence of P.Ws 14 and 12. According to him, it is the evidence of P.W. 14 that he entered the statement given by P.W. 5 in the General Diary as P.W. 5 is not and eye-witness of the occurrence and further P.W. 12, who took the first information report, was examined in order to explain the delay and it is for this court to consider from the said evidence whether the delay has been properly explained or not. No doubt, he fairly submitted that the prosecution ought to have produced the General Diary which was relied on by the prosecution very much to explain the delay as well as to get over the contention that the earlier report was suppressed wherein the earlier statement of P.W. 5 was recorded. He would further submit that merely because P.Ws 1 to 3 are interested and related their evidence cannot be rejected and it is for this Court to consider whether the evidence has to be taken into consideration only with due care and caution and if ultimately the Court comes to the conclusion that the evidence is not reliable, then only the accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt, and it is purely an appreciation of the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 3 According to him, the medical evidence so far as the attack on the deceased by A1 is consistent with the ocular testimony and it cannot be said that there is a material discrepancy which goes to be root of the case. He would further submit that the recovery of M.Os. 1 and 2 cannot be a clinching circumstance to connect the appellant with the crime. When once the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 3 is held to be acceptable, then, the same can be taken into consideration as a corroborative piece of evidence. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also submits that on the mere fact that A2 to A4 were acquitted it cannot be said that A1 also ought to have been acquitted, and it is for the Court to consider as to how far the evidence of the witnesses can be believed so far as this appellant is concerned.

12. The report in this case, Ex. P1 as well as the first information report, Ex. P14, were received by the learned Judicial Magistrate only at about 7.30 p.m. and there is a delay of 10 hours and 15 minutes. According to the prosecution, P.W. 4 came to the scene place immediately after the occurrence when P.Ws 1 to 3 informed P.W. 4. who requested him to go and report to P.W. 5, and P.W. 5, in turn, went to Pasuvandhanai police station at about 10.45 p.m. and reported the matter. But, according to P.W. 14, reported to him the fact that his brother Natarajan alias Subbiah was murdered when A1 cut him with an aruval and A2 stabbed him with Kuthu tharangu and that he got the information through P.W. 4 and he recorded the same in the General Diary and thereupon he proceeded to the scene place along with constables and recorded the statement Ex. P1 from P.W. 1, who was there P.Ws 1 to 3 had also stated that they gave the details of the incident to P.W. 4 and requested him to convey it to P.W. 5 P.W. 4 also informed P.W. 5 about the details of the occurrence. P.W. 5 also in his evidence stated that at about 10-15 a.m. P.W. 4 came to him and informed that his brother Natarajan was murdered by A1 to A4 and he in turn made the same report to Pasuvandhanai police station. It is to be noted that though it is stated that the same was entered in the General Diary, the General Diary was not even Produced in this case, exhibited and marked. Further, even P.W. 14 admitted that he did not show the General Diary to the Inspector. P.W. 16, and even in his statement he did not refer to anything about the entry made in the P.W. 16 P.W. 16 had categorically stated that and P.W. 14 ought to have recorded the complaint and registered the case. But, when he was further questioned whether he has taken any action against P.W. 14 for not taking the complaint and registering the case, he categorically admitted that he did not do so. It is the contention of the appellant that earliest first information report was suppressed and Ex. P1 came into existence long after the arrival of the Inspector and it was fabricated after due deliberation and consultation and on account of enmity the appellant was also impleaded as an accused. It is also to be noted that when an informant came and reported about the murder and also the names of the assailants and details of the occurrence, even though he is not an eye-witness, it is the duty of the Station House Officer to record the same and register a case. In the instant case it is stated on behalf of the prosecution that P.W. 5 was unable to give the full details of the incident, that he entered his statement in the General Diary and then proceeded to the scene place. Even P.W. 14 himself has stated that P.W. 5 complained that his brother was murdered when A1 cut him with an aruval and A2 stabbed him with Kuthu tharangu. If that be the case, it is the duty of P.W. 14 to record his statement and register case on the basis of the same and above all, even accepting his explanation, when he has chosen to record the in the General Diary, that is the very first document which came into existence where it is stated that the appellant was implicated, that should have been produced before Court. The failure to produce the said document even before the investigating officer is certainly fatal and there is every force in the contention put forward by the learned counsel for the defence that the appellant was implicated, that should have been produced before, Court. The failure to produce the said document even before the investigating officer is certainly fatal and there is every force in the contention put forward by the learned counsel for the defence that the entries made in the General Diary will go against the present version of the prosecution case and hence the earlier report also was suppressed. Even with regard to the recording of Ex. P1 from P.W. 1, there is no consistent version with regard to the time and also the circumstances under which it was recorded. According to P.W. 14, he wen to the scene place at about 11 a.m., saw P.W. 1 there and recorded a statement from him. There-upon he returned to the police station at about 11.45 a.m. and registered a case in Cr. No. 14 of 1985 whereas the first information report, Ex. P14, would show that the statement is said to have been recorded only from 11.45 a.m. to 12.15 p.m. Thereupon he returned to the police station. The police station is about 3 k.m. from the scene place. In the cross-examination of P.W. 14 it has been elicited that when he went to the scene place the Inspector of Police was already there. He has also fairly admitted in the cross-examination that in the investigation he did not say that since the details of the occurrence were not correctly known he went to the scene place. It is the evidence of P.W. 16 that at 12.40 p.m. he got the message from the police station about the case by V.H.S. from P.W. 14 and he reached the scene place at 1.30 p.m. When a question was put to P.W. 14 also as to whether P.W. 1 was brought from Tuticorin after he went there, he would state that he did not know.

In Sevi v. State of Tamil Nadu, it is held as follows :

"Though he claimed that relevant entries had been made in the general diary at the Station the Sub-Inspector did not also produce the general diary in Court. The production of the general diary would have certainly dispelled suspicion. In the circumstances we think that there is great force in the submission of the learned counsel for the accused that the original F.I.R. has been suppressed and, in its place some other document has been substituted. If that is so, the entire prosecution case becomes suspect. All the eye-witnesses are partisan witnesses and not withstanding the fact that four of them were injured we are unable to accept their evidence in the peculiar circumstances of the case".