Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

28. Looking to the evidence as against accused Nos.2 to 3 are concerned, the evidence relied upon by the prosecution is the alleged voluntary statements said to have been given by accused Nos.2 to 4, which are at Exs.P48, P49 and P50. But so far as these statements are concerned, it has been seriously challenged by the defence during the course of cross- examination of the Investigating Officer contending that the accused persons have not at all given any such statement and they were created for the purpose of this case and there is a manipulation of the said documents putting antetime and antedates. Let us examine the evidence of the Investigating Officer in this regard. He has deposed that when he prepared Ex.P3, he has not arrested accused No.4. He has not seized the mud of the place where the dead body of Nandeesha was buried for the purpose of chemical examination. He has not taken accused No.4 to the place where the dead body was buried. In the cross- examination, PW.31 has admitted the suggestion as true that in connection with this case, in the FIR which was prepared on 13.9.2008 there is no mention about the accused persons. On 25.9.2008, the second FIR was prepared and even in the second FIR also, the names of the accused is mentioned as Srinivas and others. On 26.9.2008 when he produced the accused persons for the first time before the Court in the remand application pertaining to accused Nos.1 to 4, it is stated that he produced accused Nos.1 to 4 on 26.9.2008 at 1.45 p.m. but he apprehended them on 25.9.2008. He admitted the suggestion as true that in the second page of remand application pertaining to accused Nos.1 to 4, it was typed as 24.9.2008 at 1.45 p.m. As they were apprehended on 25.9.2008, the date was corrected as 25.9.2008. Even he has admitted the suggestion as true that in connection with the said correction, he has not made any writings in the remand application. He denied the suggestion that on 24.9.2008 itself he took accused persons to his custody and they were in the police custody. He has denied the suggestion that on 25.9.2008 he has called the complainant to the Police Station and told that he apprehended accused No.1 and whether he has to say anything as against accused No.1. He cannot say the timings as to when the contents of Ex.D6 were typed on 25.9.2008. He produced Ex.D6 before the Court on 26.9.2008. In the report which he has sent to the Taluka Executive Magistrate on 26.9.2008 in the morning he has not mentioned about the fact that at the place where the dead body of Nandeesha was buried, his head and hairs are visible and PC.Nos.6746, 5877 were deputed to guard the place. On 25.9.2008, about the rest of accused persons and in the report submitted to the Taluka Executive Magistrate, he has not mentioned the time details of their apprehension. From 25.9.2008 to 26.9.2008 till accused persons were produced before the Court, they were in their Police Station. On 25.9.2008 and 26.9.2008, i.e., for two days, himself was the SHO of the Police Station. He cannot say without seeing the station house diary whether PC.Nos.6746 and 5877 who were deputed to guard the place were on day duty or night duty, but it was in the evening. Perusing Ex.D4, it is mentioned that from 3.30 p.m. the dead body was exhumed and inquest proceedings were conducted till 5.30 p.m. In Ex.P6 at Sl.No.28 which is pertaining to time of conducting inquest proceedings, wherein, the time is mentioned that it was commenced at 5.00 p.m. and it was closed at 7.00 p.m. The figures 5 and 7 were written by putting whitener on the original writings and there are two small initials, which clearly goes to show that there are corrections made in the original documents at Ex.P6. Looking to the documents as well as the oral evidence of the Investigating Officer, in the cross-examination, learned counsel for accused Nos.2 to 3 is justified in making the submission that the said documents were manipulated, corrections are carried out to the original writings, time has been changed. Therefore, it is the contention of the defence that accused No.3 was apprehended on 24.9.2008 itself and not on 25.9.2008, as deposed by the prosecution witness. Looking to the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer, it supports the contention of the defence that they were apprehended on 24.9.2008 itself. Apart from the materials placed on record, by way of cross-examination by the defence to the prosecution witnesses, it made amply clear that even earlier to 26.9.2008 the alleged date of recording the voluntary statements of the accused persons, the information regarding place where the dead body was buried was very much available with the police and two Police Constables were deputed to guard the place. In this regard we have perused the evidence of PW.1. In the cross-examination he has deposed that on 25.9.2008 at 10.00 a.m. when he has gone to the Police Station, accused Srinivas and Murali were there in the Police Station. He further deposed that they were in the Police Station even earlier he going to the Police Station. This evidence also goes to show that they were apprehended much earlier and it also falsifies the contention and the evidence of the Investigating Officer that they were apprehended on 25.9.2008 at 1.45 p.m. Therefore, if all these materials were taken into consideration, the contention of the prosecution that place where the dead body was buried came to be known at the instance of the accused persons and as per their voluntary statements, cannot be accepted at all. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to make out a case that for the first time there is discovery of the place where the dead body of the deceased was buried and it was on the basis of the voluntary statements of the accused persons. As the materials clearly go to show that much earlier to the same, it was within the knowledge of the police as well as the public about the said place. Therefore, the alleged voluntary statements are not fulfilling the requirements of Section 65 of the act. Therefore, these aspects have not been taken into consideration by the trial Court before placing reliance on the said voluntary statements.