Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

ii. One week prior to the death of the Deceased, the Accused came to the house of PW1 and demanded PW5 to join him. PW5 stated that if the Accused brings elders, she will go with him. But, the Accused failed to bring any elders. Even prior to the date of incident, the Accused beat PW5 questioning her as to why she was not returning to matrimonial home. After the said incident, PW1 went to coolie work, while, the Deceased took buffaloes for grazing in the field. It was 1.00 PM by then. He was grazing buffaloes in the field of PW3. Even PW2 and PW3 were grazing cattle at different places in the field. The Accused came to the field and was talking with the Deceased and thereafter, he hacked the Deceased with sickle on the front and back side of the neck. The Deceased fell down. PW2 and PW3 ran to that place and noticed the Deceased lying with injuries. The Accused is said to have escaped from the place. They informed the incident to PW1 on phone. Thereafter, the injured was taken to Government Hospital, Jangareddigudem and later to Eluru Government Hospital, where he died.

5) On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor would contend that, there are four eye witnesses to speak about the incident and there is no reason to disbelieve them.

6) In order to appreciate the same, it would be useful to refer to the evidence of PW1. PW1 is no other than the son of the deceased. He was not an eye witness of the incident, but, he speaks about earlier quarrels between the Accused and his wife [sister of PW1]. Insofar as incident proper is concerned, it is stated that, on the date of incident, he went to coolie work, and the Deceased took buffaloes for grazing to the fields of PW3, which is within the limits of Thadithota village. According to him, the Accused went there, quarreled with his father and demanded him to send PW5 to his house. Though, some persons were present, they did not intervene. According to him, the said quarrel was witnessed by PW2 and PW3 and they also did not intervene as it was between father-in-law and son-in-law. During that quarrel, the Accused hacked the deceased with sickle. The incident was informed to him by PW2 and PW3 on phone. Pursuant to which, he went there and noticed the body of the deceased. Thereafter, arrangements were made to take the body to hospital. The suggestions given to the witness in the cross-examination were all denied.

8) It would be appropriate to extract the evidence of PW10 who examined PW2 and PW3 immediately after registering the FIR, which is as under:

"PW2 did not state before me that the accused was in a drunken state. PW2 did not state before me that he tried to catch hold of the accused but the accused escaped. PW2 did not state that he saw the accused hacking the deceased with knife. Pw3 did not state before me that he secured the ambulance by doing phone call. PW3 did not state before me that he did not interfere in the discussion between the accused and the deceased as it is between the father-in-law and son-in-law. PW3 did not state before me that himself, PW2 and the Deceased were grazing cattle in three different places in that field. PW3 did not state before me that he was grazing his bulls in his field. PW3 did not state before me that the accused hacked the deceased with sickle and that he alone witnessed it. He did not state that while he was calling the persons in that surroundings, the accused escaped from that place".

9) From the evidence of PW2, it is very clear that, he did not state in his earlier statement recorded under 161 Cr.P.C., that he tried to catch the Accused but the Accused escaped. He also did not state before the police that he saw the Accused hacking the Deceased with knife.

10) Similar is the version of PW3 who in his evidence states that on the date of incident, he, the deceased and PW2 were grazing cattle at different places. According to him, at 2.00 PM, the Accused came to the said place and entered into some discussion with the deceased. They did not involve as the discussion was between father-in-law and son-in-law. But, the deceased started raising cries. Then the Accused hacked the Deceased with a knife on both sides of the neck. The witness did not say that the Accused hacked the Deceased with sickle. The Deceased fell down on the ground with bleeding injuries. PW3 and PW2 informed about the incident to PW1 by phone. This information which is now given in the Court is again an improvement from what he has said before the investigating officer during his examination under Section 161 Cr.P.C.