Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

advised him to report in the police station within whose jurisdiction the lorry started and endorsed on Ex.P.131 to that effect. He further deposed that on 27.08.2008 he met PW.3 and collected the invoice of Iron load, transportation copy and photo showing the lorry along with the load and driver and cleaner and thereafter went in search of his vehicle upto Kanchipuram and could only get information that his vehicle entered Andhra Pradesh through the check post at Lakkadkot border of Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh (now Telangana). So he went back and presented Ex.P.131 (which was returned with endorsement by the Police of Tarabahar PS, Bilaspur) to the police of Urla PS. He further deposed that on 22.01.2009 PW.46 - the S.I of Police, Ongole came to his residence and informed that his vehicle was found near S.Konda and that the driver and cleaner were murdered. Then PW.2 handed over Ex.P.1 to P7 - lorry documents to P.W.46 under the cover of Ex.P14 - mediators report in the presence of two mediators i.e., PW.11 and LW.53 - Jai Prakash Joshi. PW.46 recorded his statement and asked him to come to Ongole to identify his vehicle. This witness further stated that he informed PW.7 & PW.8 who are brother and brother-in-law of deceased cleaner and driver. PW.1 further deposed that on 03.02.2009 he along with PW.7 & PW.8 went to Ongole PS and the police took them to the place where the lorry was kept. He checked the Engine Number and Chasis Number with the registration certificate available with him and identified his vehicle. On the ::31::

(j) P.W.36 deposed that on the instructions of their Tahsildar, himself and L.W.2 acted as mediators for the interrogation and arrest of A1, A3 and A11 by PW.56. He further deposed that in their presence, on 10.11.2008, A1, A3 and A11 gave independent statements which inter alia contain their confession of ::65::

different offences including the offence in the present case and their concealing of properties concerning to different cases. He stated that a mediator report under Ex.P.79 was prepared which was signed by the mediators, Police, A1 and A3. The A11 put his thumb impression on Ex.P.79. It should be noted that on the same day A1, A3 and A11 led the mediators and police to Praveen Tobacco Suppliers Godown in Sitarampuram Kostalu and on their revelation, the police have seized MO.13 - Verna Car and also lorry cut pieces and tyres etc., under the cover of mediators report which is marked as Ex.P.122 in the other connected SC No.595/2010. P.W.56 - the I.O. confirmed the said fact.

(l) It is argued before us that the same witnesses i.e., P.W.36 and L.W.2 were the mediators in the present case and the remaining two other cases i.e., S.C. ::66::

No.595/2010 and S.C. No.91/2010 and therefore, they are stock witnesses. We are unable to appreciate this argument. Ex.P.79 - mediator report would show that A1, A3 and A11 disclosed before P.W.36 and L.W.2 about the commission of different offences including the present offence and concealment of the properties. Ergo, naturally P.W.36 and L.W.2 would appear as witnesses in all those cases which were disclosed under a common mediator report. It is further argued that P.W.36 is a stock witness and he gave evidence for police in other cases also. This argument also has no much force because P.W.36 is a VRO and one of his duties is to appear as a mediator in criminal cases, and to assist the police to maintain law and order. As such, the evidence of P.W.36 can be safely relied.

the cover of Ex.P85 to P88 - mediator reports. Later PW.8 - the brother-in-law of deceased driver identified MO.10 - gold ring as that of the deceased and PW.7 - the brother of deceased cleaner identified MO.4 - wrist watch as that of his brother under Ex.P9 - property identification report in the presence of the mediators i.e., PW.4 and LW.55 - Shaik Tummala Cheruvu.

(a) Learned counsel for Appellants/A3 and A11 vehemently contended that the alleged identification of MO.4 - wrist watch by PW.7 and MO.10 - gold ring by PW.8 is legally impermissible for the reason that as per Rule-35 of Criminal Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1990 issued by A.P. High Court, an identification parade for properties shall be conducted in the Court of concerned Magistrate where each item of property shall be mixed with four or five similar objects and then witness shall be called to identify the property. However, they argued, in the instant case such a procedure was given a total goby and thereby the identification made by the witnesses during trial before the Court lost its sanctity.