Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

While so, A3 took the complainant by the side of huts and started chitchatting. On seeing the same, the deceased suspected her and abused A3 that Aha Kanthri Lanjakodukula tho yemi Matladuchunnavu (why you are talking with that kantri bastards). On hearing the same, A3 asked the other accused to beat the deceased. Immediately A1 caught hold of deceased and started beating him with hands. In the meantime, A2 lifted the deceased and threw on the ground causing head injury. At the same time, A3 also intervened and gave fist blows to him and pressed his testicles and murdered on the spot. The complainant informed about the incident to her brothers-in-law (PWs.1 and 2) at first and then gave complaint.

c) Thirdly, it is argued that except PW5 no other eye-witnesses were examined though there were huts in and around the scene of offence and inmates were there. PW5 was none other than the wife of the deceased and she was highly interested witness and hence, her sole testimony could not have been relied upon by the trial Court to convict the accused. Further, the testimony of PW5 is not trustworthy as she deposed as if, during the course of accused beating her husband, A3 squeezed the testicles of her husband but in Ex.P5post-mortem report and in the evidence of PW4post-mortem doctor, no injuries were identified on the testicles of the deceased which implies that PW5 gave false evidence to implicate the accused.

b) Regarding veracity of her evidence, learned Public Prosecutor argued that merely because PW5 gave report on the next day, by that count her evidence and prosecution case need not be doubted for the reason that the incident took place not in the native village of the deceased i.e Kaverammapet but in the neighbouring village of sister of PW5 i.e. Badepalli and therefore, PW5 after giving intimation to her brothers-in-law (PWs.1 and 2) had to wait till their arrival and thereafter she gave report to the police on the next day morning. Regarding her evidence that A3 squeezed the testicles of her husband, learned Public Prosecutor argued that since no specific external injury was caused to the testicles, the post-mortem doctor might not have noticed any injuries and on that count her evidence cannot be disbelieved. He argued that the accused failed to bring-forth any enmity for the prosecution side to implicate them in the case. While praying to dismiss the appeal he fairly conceded that the offence would not fall under Section 302 IPC.

12) Accordingly, as rightly observed by the trial Court, there is no reason to discard the evidence of PW5. Her evidence was sought to be discredited firstly on the argument that as per PW5, A3 squeezed the testicles of the deceased but however, neither in the evidence of PW4 nor in Ex.P4port-mortem report any injuries were mentioned on the testicles of the deceased and therefore, she was speaking falsehood. It is true that PW4 admitted except two injuries mentioned in Ex.P4, he did not find any other injuries. However, we will find in Ex.P3inquest report that the inquest witnesses found some abrasions on the testicles and they were swollen. Probably PW4 either might have missed this aspect during post-mortem or by the time he conducted autopsy the swelling might not be prominent to attract his attention. Be that it may, the testimony of PW5 cannot be held as false as it gets corroboration from Ex.P3.