Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

16. The third witness cited and examined in this case was also shown as an eye witness and injured. In his examination, he deposed that he is residing at Puthur amsom and Koodiyeri desom and he is a coolie worker. He is aware of the incident, which occurred on 10.3.1995. The incident was at about 9 o' clock in the night and he went to the house of PW1. At that time Kelu, PW1, PW2 and Gopi and the children of PW1 were present. He reached the house of PW1 at about 8.45 hrs. According to him, himself and Kelu together went there for the purpose of talking about the work. According to him, they sat on the concrete bench in front of the house and Kelu sat on the western side and he sat on the eastern side of the bench and they were talking. At that time he saw with the help of a 110 v. bulb glowing on the verandah of the house and with the help of moon light, that 10-13 people were coming towards them from the eastern side of the road. Among them, A1, A3, A8, A6, A5, A2, A4, A7 and A9 were present. It is recorded in the deposition that PW3 identified the accused correctly. According to PW3, Gopi had also participated in the discussion. On seeing the people, Gopi by uttering the words "Suresh, Suresh...." fled towards the backside of the house. According to PW3, at that time, A1 threw the bag in hand at them. He realised that it was a bomb and the same hit against the right buttock of Kelu and had exploded with a heavy sound and everyone cried loudly. The buttock of Kelu scattered and he fell on the steps. Immediately thereafter, A1 hurled another bomb and the same hit against the wall of the house and exploded. The bulb was damaged and A1 hurled bomb for the 3rd time and the same also exploded on hitting against the wall. According to PW3, he sustained injury on his right hand. People rushed to the place of occurrence and he explained the incident to them and one among them hired an autorickshaw and thus himself and one Balan and Surendran removed Kelu to Panoor hospital in the autorickshaw and on reaching there, they were advised to take him to Thalassery. According to PW3, the people who came to know about the incident, arrived there in jeep and thus they took Kelu to Thalassery Government Hospital in a jeep and while he was under

25. PW11 was then working as Civil Surgeon in the Government hospital, Thalassery. According to the prosecution, it was PW11 who examined one Raveendran (PW3) at Govt. hospital, Thalassery on 10.3.1995 at 10.50 p.m. According to PW11, the injuries were noted as an abrasion in 2 cm. diameter with lacerated wound of 0.5 cm., 1 cm. deep over the right dorsum of hand. According to him, the alleged cause was that, on 10.3.1995 at 8.45 p.m. in the house of Krishnan at K.C.Mukku, one Suresh, Naveen and Balan master, hurled bomb and sustained injury. The patient was admitted with cause as alleged. The injury was simple and he had issued a certificate and the same was marked as Ext.P7. According to PW11, on the same day, he had examined the deceased Kelu, aged 56 and he had noted that, "the patient is not conscious, pulse feeble, BP not recordable, right gluteal muscles, right thigh muscles, vessels and nerves crushed and destroyed due to blast injury, with irregular brownish black edge of skin, with profused bleeding". He noted the allegation as, on 10.3.1995 at 9.30 p.m., injury was sustained by the said Kelu due to bomb blast at Kaitherikkal K.C.Mukku and it was told to him by the person who accompanied the injured to the hospital. Accordingly, the patient was admitted in M.S. and the injury was grievous in nature and issued a certificate which was marked as Ext.P8. During the cross examination, he deposed that, both the injured were brought to the hospital. Before he examined them, glucose drip was given. In Ext.P7, the injury was on the dorsum part of right arm. In Ext.P8, the injury was noted as, it can be caused by falling on a bomb, since the buttock muscles were damaged. However, PW11 deposed that a person sitting in a cement platform, was not likely to sustain injury on buttock in a bomb blast. The witness was recalled and sworn again and examination proceeded on 9.6.2011 and during such examination, he deposed as follows :

44. Now, let us see the evidence of PWs.1 to 3. PW1 is the owner of the house and PW2 is his wife and PW3 is his distant relative. PW1 and PW3 had admitted that they are BJP activists. As per the case of the prosecution, the first bomb was hurled against the deceased Kelu while himself, PW3, CW3 Gopi and Pws.1 and 2 were present at the concrete bench ( ) of the house of PW1. PW1 has deposed that while the deceased Kelu was sitting on the western side of the concrete bench ( ), CW3 Gopi and PW3 Raveendran were sitting on the eastern side of the concrete bench ( ). According to PW1, he was standing very close to the deceased Kelu on his northern side. Thus according to him, the incident had occurred when they were engaged in a conversation. PW2, the wife of PW1, also stated that at the time when Kelu sustained injury, herself and her husband were standing very near to the deceased Kelu and she further deposed that at the time of bomb blast, the distance between herself and the deceased Kelu was only 3-4 ft. Thus from the above referred evidence of Pws.1 and 2, it is crystal clear that Pws.1 and 2 were standing very close and adjacent to Kelu when he sustained injury due to the alleged hurling of bomb. But it is very strange to note that neither PW1 nor PW2 sustained injury due to the said bomb blast, even though the prosecution has got a case that PW3 who was sitting facing the deceased Kelu had sustained injury on his right hand. If truly, Pws.1 and 2 were standing very near to Kelu while he sustained injury as in the case of PW3, there would have been some injury on Pws.1 and 2. In the present case, though they were standing very adjacent to Kelu, not only did they not sustain any injury but their dresses were not damaged nor any remnants of bomb blast were found in their clothes. No prudent man will believe the version of Pws.1 and 2 that though they were standing within a breathing distance from Kelu, they did not sustain any injuries or that their dresses were not damaged when even PW3 sitting farther away sustained injury in the very same incident. So, their version that they were present along with the deceased Kelu at the time of the incident, can only be believed with a pinch of salt. It is also relevant to note that the case of the prosecution, particularly the evidence of Pws.1 and 2 is to the effect that, A1 hurled bomb against the deceased Kelu while he was sitting in the concrete bench ( ). But absolutely there were no marks of an explosion on the said concrete bench ( ). If their version that the bomb was hurled when Kelu was sitting on the concrete bench ( ) is correct, there would have been some indication as a result of such bomb explosion. So, it is crystal clear that the place of occurrence is not the one as suggested by the prosecution and the presence of Pws.1 and 2 in the alleged assault, cannot be believed for the aforesaid reasons. When the deceased Kelu and the injured were brought to the hospital, PW11-the Doctor who examined PW3 and the deceased Kelu, had recorded in Ext.P7 that, the injury can be caused only by falling on a bomb, since the buttock muscles were damaged. He had categorically deposed that, a person sitting on a cement platform is not likely to sustain injury on buttock in a bomb blast. He had also deposed that in Ext.P7, the injury is a simple injury and there was no symptom or sign to show that the injury is due to bomb blast. He had categorically stated that, "I cannot say that whether the injury was due to bomb blast". The same doctor has also deposed that the injury noted in Ext.P7 is possible if the injured fell on a hard and rough surface and that part of the body come into contact with hard surface. From the above evidence of PW11, it is crystal clear that, had the deceased been sitting on a cement platform, as claimed by Pws.1 and 2, there is no likelihood of him sustaining injury on the buttock in a bomb blast. Similarly, PW11 has ruled out that the injury noted on PW3 is an injury due to bomb blast. Thus, the above medical evidence renders the ocular version of PWs.1 to 3 as unbelievable and is liable to be rejected, especially in the light of the decision reported in Mani Ram and others vs. State of U.P. (1994 SCC (Crl.)1242) relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant. In paragraph 9 of the above decision, the Apex court has held as follows, "Neither the doctor who first examined the injured Basdeo nor the doctor who performed the postmortem found any injury on the back or back portion of the shoulder to lend support to the evidence of the sole eyewitness Prabhoo Nath. It is well settled by long series of decisions of this Court that where the direct evidence is not supported by the expert evidence then the evidence is wanting in the most material part of the prosecution case and, therefore, it would be difficult to convict the accused on the basis of such evidence. If the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is totally inconsistent with the medical evidence this is a most fundamental defect in the prosecution case and unless this inconsistency is reasonably explained it is sufficient not only to discredit the evidence but the entire case".

It is also relevant to note that PW13, the Scientific Assistant who inspected the place of occurrence has deposed in the chief examination itself that, on examination, grey coloured materials were found sticking on the surface of the steps and on the side walls. Torn pieces of paper, jute thread, granite stones and glass pieces were present on all over the floor of the verandah and on the front ground of the house. In the cross examination, he deposed that the scene was not seen guarded. He has categorically deposed that, "The scene is the front ground of house No.7/95 of Puthoor village". So, according to PW13, who examined the place of occurrence immediately after the incident, has found that the scene is the ground in front of the house at Puthoor village and that means, the place of occurrence is the courtyard of the house ; because, immediately after the steps, there is the panchayat road and as per the Ext.P6 scene mahazar, there is a courtyard between the concrete bench ( ) and the verandah of the house. So, in the light of the above referred evidence and materials and in view of the above discussion, and in the absence of any signs of bomb explosion on the concrete bench ( ), where allegedly the deceased was sitting, and in the absence of any injury on PWs.1 and 2 who claimed to have been standing very close to the deceased at the time of bomb blast, and particularly when PW3 claimed to have sustained injury in the same bomb blast and in the absence of any remnants or any marks of damage on the dresses worn by PWs.1 and 2 at the time of the incident, we refuse to believe the version of PWs.1 to 3 that the incident had occurred in their presence or they had occasion to witness the same. The medical evidence, as pointed out earlier, falsify the evidence of PWs.1 to 3. However, the learned Judge of the trial court in the impugned judgment, in paragraph 59, on conjuncture and on surmise and on unfounded presumption, has held as follows, " Ext.P8 Wound certificate coupled with the evidence of PW11, doctor, makes it clear that deceased Kelu died of blast injury on his back. PW11 Doctor was recalled after remand of the case from the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala. When PW11 was recalled, he would depose that if bomb was hurled by the assailants against the victim while he was sitting on a cemented platform, keeping his leg down on the floor below such platform and the victim by his reflex action stands up on his seat to flee for rescue and the bomb hitting on his buttock on the right side, the injuries similar in nature and grossly as appearing in Ext.P8 can occur. PW11 further opined that such injury could be possible if the victim was in a standing position while he was running away." At this juncture, it is relevant to note that neither PW1 nor PW2 or PW3 has got a case that, at the time of hurling the bomb, the deceased Kelu was in a standing position or he was in a running position. The findings and observation of the learned Judge on the basis of evidence of PW11 will be justified, in case Pws.1 to 3 had got a case that when the bomb hurled on the victim, by his reflex action stood up in the scene to flee for saving his life and at that time, the bomb hit on his buttock. But in the present case, Pws.1 to 3 had no such a case. So, the observation and the findings of the court below, are only figments of his imagination. So, from the evidence of the expert and the absence of any mark of bomb blast on the concrete bench ( ) and also, the absence of any injury on Pws.1 and 2, and the evidence of the doctor about the injury on PW3, particularly in the evidence of PW13 that the scene of occurrence is the courtyard, the prosecution case renders as unbelievable and the above factors point towards the correctness of the plea of defence that the deceased Kelu sustained injury while he was handling the country bomb carelessly and that too in some other place other than the place of occurrence fixed by the prosecution. At this juncture, it is relevant to note that, according to PW1, the deceased Kelu and himself were activists of BJP. PW1 has also deposed that he is an accused in a murder case and also yet in another case. Though he claimed that he was an activist of BJP and claimed to born and brought up in that locality, he said that he does not know the death of anybody due to bomb blast in that locality. He also expressed his ignorance about the death of one Chandran, who was an RSS man, due to bomb blast occurred in the house of one Kizhakkumpurath Balan. He was also not aware of the death of one Potty Prasanthan, an RSS activist, due to bomb blast in Maavileri. It is relevant to note that during the further cross examination, after the remand of the matter, he deposed that after the incident, neither himself nor his nephew Gopi had informed the matter to the police station though the incident was occurred in his house and there was serious injury on the deceased Kelu. It is also quite strange to note that he did not accompany Kelu to the hospital and he did not send his nephew along with Kelu for accompanying to the hospital, even though the said Kelu was the husband of the daughter of his mother's younger sister. It is also strange enough to note that though the house of deceased was situated 100-150 mtrs. near to the house of PW1, he did not inform the incident to anyone in the house of Kelu and he has also not made arrangement to inform the matter to the inmates of the house of Kelu through any other person. The above approach of PW1, is quite against the natural human conduct especially when the injured in the present case is his close relative and who is also a BJP co-activist of PW1. So, the approach of PW2, who is a lady, in not informing the matter to the inmates of the house of the deceased Kelu or at least sending Gopi - the nephew of PW1 along with the injured are quite strange. So, we are of the definite view that, the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 is totally unreliable under the above circumstances and for the aforesaid reasons, it cannot be said that they are natural witnesses, especially when there is no reliable evidence to show that the first bomb blast was occurred at the place suggested by them. PW11, the doctor who examined PW3 has categorically stated that the injury sustained over the dorsum of his right hand cannot be said to had caused as a result of bomb blast. He also admitted the suggestion of PW3 that, such an injury can be occurred by falling on a hard surface. He being an activist of BJP, particularly in view of the medical evidence which goes against him, there is no inbuilt guarantee in his evidence to treat the same as true and genuine, particularly when Pws.1 and 2 did not sustain any injury in the same incident, by which he claimed to have sustained injury on his right hand. So, the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 cannot be believed, so as to fix a criminal liability upon the appellant connected with the alleged incident. Another contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is about the inordinate delay in reaching Ext.P5 FIR in the court. We have considered the above contention and also the reply argument of the learned Public Prosecutor on the above aspect. As per the prosecution allegation, the exact time of the bomb blast was at about 8.45 p.m. on 10.3.1995. As we have indicated earlier and admitted by PWs.1 to 3, that, they were activists of BJP and were BJP sympathizers. Even though such crime was occurred and the relative of PW1 sustained serious injury, neither PW1 nor his wife PW2 or the nephew of PW1 - Gopi (CW3) who, according to PW1 and 2, was initially present when the accused came and hurled the bomb, has not chosen to inform the matter to Panoor police station situated within 4 kms. from the house of PW1. The above conduct is not in par with normal human conduct. However, PW14 claimed that he arrived at the place of occurrence by 9.30 on the same day night and recorded Ext.P1 statement of PW1. The only explanation given by PW14 to arrive at the place of occurrence is that he was on patrol duty, but there is no evidence adduced by PW14 as to at what point of time he received the information and also as to the source of such information. It is true that, the police is not expected to disclose the exact source of information, but in the present case, he was on patrol duty and if that be so, the information received by him may not be secret in nature, or, in the way somebody might have told to him. But PW14 has no such case as to who conveyed the information about the incident and at what point of time and at what place he received such an information. Thus the arrival of PW14 at the place of occurrence itself is under shadow of doubt, especially when Pws.1 to 3 or the said CW3 has no claim that either of them had informed the matter to the police. It is at this juncture, the plea of the accused have got some relevance. If actually the bomb had accidentally exploded when it was carelessly handled or at the time of using explosive substance for manufacturing the country bomb, nobody will dare to inform the matter and the person responsible for the same will not undertake the responsibility to inform the matter to the police. In this connection, it is relevant to note that as deposed by PW11 and as disclosed from Ext.P7 wound certificate, the history of the assault seen recorded as, 'as a result of sustaining injury due to bomb blast at Kaivelikkal K.C.Mukku by 9.30 p.m. on 10.3.1995.' and it is also relevant to note that PW11 has deposed that the above version was told by the person who accompanied him. From the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, it is crystal clear that the injured was taken to the hospital by Balan and one Surendran, but they were not prepared to inform PW11 as to how the deceased Kelu sustained injuries. It is come out in evidence that the said Surendran is a BJP activist and he absconded immediately after the incident. Balan is also an activist of BJP. If truly the incident had occurred as alleged by Pws.1 to 3, the said fact could have been brought to the notice of PW11 either by PW3 or by the said Surendran, but nobody has mentioned to the doctor about the incident and names of any of the accused had been mentioned to the doctor and there is no allegation that the bomb blast occurred when the bomb was hurled against the injured. It is also relevant to note that the time mentioned was at 9.30 p.m. on 10.3.1995, whereas the claim of Pws.1 to 3 was that the incident was occurred at 8.45 p.m. If actually the bomb was blasted as suggested by the defence, nobody would come and say it was happened accidentally and that is why the persons namely Surendran and Balan, who took Kelu to the hospital, had withdrawn themselves from disclosing the details of the incident and names of the accused to the doctor. The above circumstances, shrouded with doubt, point towards the correctness of the defence plea. But it is relevant to note that within 30 minutes, when PW3 was examined, he discloses the name of certain persons who are the known local leaders of Marxist party and he himself deposed before the court that Balan Master was not involved in the incident. He further deposed that he has not spoken to the doctor that he sustained injury when Balan master hurled the bomb. When it was suggested to him that, he had given the names of three prominent local CPM leaders, including that of Balan Master, to the doctor, his answer was in the affirmative and deposed that besides the names of above 3 persons, the involvement of any other person was not spoken to the doctor. So, from the above discussion, it is clear that, when the deceased Kelu was admitted in the hospital and given the details of the incident, the names of the accused were not mentioned by the person who had brought him to the hospital, whereas at the time of examination of PW3, he falsely implicated 3 known local leaders of CPM as the accused responsible for inflicting injury on PW3. So, the above circumstances create doubt in our mind about the genuineness of the prosecution case at its inception itself.