Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3.3.​ On 31.03.2006 at about 11 a.m., the appellant was arrested while he was found standing in the KSRTC bus stand at Thiruvalla. Based on the disclosure statement made by the appellant, a knife and a chopper, which is allegedly used by him for the commission of the offence, were seized. Ext.P6(a) is the confession statement alleged to have been made by the appellant. On the same day itself, a search was conducted in the house of the sister of the appellant, and the clothes which were allegedly worn by him at the time of the occurrence were seized. The appellant was produced before the Doctor, and a certificate was obtained. Insofar as the injuries found on the body of the accused are concerned, when he was questioned, he is alleged to have stated that those injuries were sustained when he had fallen down while escaping from the scene of crime. The seized items were forwarded to the court as per Ext.P15 series property list. The items were forwarded to the analyst as per Ext.P16 forwarding note, and Ext.P17 FSL Report was obtained thereafter. Directions were issued to the Village Officer to prepare the scene plan.

Sri. T.P. Pradeep, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that the finding of guilt arrived at by the learned Session Judge cannot be sustained under law. He would point out that in the case on hand, the Investigating Officer had concluded the investigation and submitted the final report in the month of September 2006. The final report was returned by the court as the same was defective. It was after 5 years, i.e., in 2011, that the final report was laid before the jurisdictional Court. The learned counsel urged that it was brought out in cross-examination that PW12 had to question and record the statements of the witnesses all over again. The statements originally given by the witnesses are missing. This being the position, it can only be concluded that the version presented by the prosecution before the court is not the true version of the incident, but a fabricated version. The learned counsel would then point out that the lapses in the investigation are fatal in as much as a fair trial has been denied to the appellant. He has not been served with the original statements recorded by the police and therefore, he was prevented from cross-examining the witnesses to bring out the falsity in their statements. The learned counsel would then submit that the evidence let in by the prosecution by examining PW1 is at variance with the evidence let in by PW4. The discrepancies have been ignored by the learned Sessions Judge and have ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 2025:KER:48346 Crl. A. No. 876 of 2019 ​ ​ :: 12 :: ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ proceeded to blindly believe their version. He would urge that though the prosecution would urge that the parties were inimical to each other, the very prosecution case is that the accused, as well as the deceased, were consuming alcohol together on the date of the incident. It is urged that the conduct of the occurrence witnesses in refusing to go to the rescue of the deceased is unnatural, which would only show that they were not present in or around the scene of the crime when the incident allegedly took place. The learned counsel would point out that the non-examination of Anil Kumar, who was allegedly present during the alcohol party and the witnesses who admittedly were present in and around the scene of the crime, and the neighbours are fatal. It is submitted that PWs 1 and 4, being related and thereby interested witnesses, the learned Sessions Judge ought to have subjected their evidence to detailed scrutiny. It is pointed out that though the prosecution witnesses state that they could not have entered the house as the gate was closed, the fact remains that neither in the scene plan nor in the scene mahazar, there is any reference to a wall separating the property of the appellant from the southern road, or with the house of the deceased, which according to the prosecution is immediately on the eastern side. The non-examination of one Rajamma, who is stated to be the elder sister of PW4, is also highlighted by the ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 2025:KER:48346 Crl. A. No. 876 of 2019 ​ ​ :: 13 :: ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ learned counsel as a serious flaw in the prosecution case. It is submitted that the recovery of weapons effected at the instance of the appellant could not be relied upon, as the same was not proved in accordance with law. The report of the Scientific Expert was also attached, and it is urged that the same did not reveal that the blood found on the weapons were that of the deceased.

12.6.​ Now we come to the evidence of the investigating officers. We have already narrated the sequence of events that transpired after the completion of the investigation. As stated earlier, it was PW10, the Circle Inspector of Police Thiruvalla, who had laid the final report before the Court on 30.06.2006. However, owing to the failure of the officer to annex the scene plan the same was returned. He stated that he had not received any information from the Court. PW13, the Station House Officer, Pulikeezhu Police Station, stated that he submitted Exhibit P25 report before ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 2025:KER:48346 Crl. A. No. 876 of 2019 ​ ​ :: 22 :: ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Court on 26.09.2018 that the case files in SC No 572/12 were missing. He stated that the Station used to leak, and to save the documents, the same used to be shifted from one place to the other. However, he stated that the missing documents were traced out later. He also stated that except for the additional statement of PW1 and the statement of CW2, all other documents were intact. In cross-examination he stated that he has not submitted a report before Court to the effect that the original charge has been irrecoverably lost. He denied that the 161 statements of the witnesses were irrecoverably lost. PW10, stated before Court that on 6/9/2010 a complaint was lodged by PW1 stating that on his enquiry the charge had not been laid before the jurisdictional Court in connection with the murder of Pankajaskhan Pillai. In the said circumstances, he handed over investigation to CW17 and submitted a request to the Magistrate seeking permission to carry out further investigation. It was PW12 , who carried out the investigation and laid the final report before the court. He stated that he had questioned the witnesses yet again and, after completion of investigation, laid the final report before the court. In cross-examination he stated that the final report was returned originally since the scene plan and the FSL report were not produced along with the final report. He, however, stated that the FSL report was traced out later.

21.​ The learned counsel drew attention to the scene plan and argued that since no wall separates the southern road from the appellant's property, the narrative of the prosecution witnesses should be disbelieved. It is urged that if there was no wall, PW1, PW4, or other residents would have easily intervened. It is true that the scene plan and mahazar do not explicitly mention a wall separating the appellant's property with the southern road. However, that omission to mark the wall in the plan will not negate the occurrence of the incident. In fact, the defence version, as suggested during cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, was that the deceased had entered the appellant's house and was involved in an altercation with local people. Yet, in the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C, the appellant presents a different version. Furthermore, he does not dispute that the deceased was found dead in the courtyard of the house of the appellant.