Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. PW1, at the time of chief examination, narrated the events in tune with Ext.P1 FIS. It is the case of PWs 1 and 2 that deceased was Mandalam Sharirik Shikshak Pramukh of RSS and they are RSS followers. According to PWs 1 and 2, appellants are workers of NDF. It is a fact known to everyone that there were frequent clashes between RSS and NDF at various parts of the State. Both PWs 1 and 2 testified that the incident happened at about 7.30 p.m. on 23.12.2007. Vinod sustained injury firstly from the side of a culvert on a public road starting from Parayantekizhakkethil Junction and at about 100 metres west of the junction. According to both these witnesses, they were accompanying deceased Vinod on another bicycle. It has come out in evidence that deceased Vinod and PWs 1 and 2 along with others played football on a ground adjacent to Kakkurumbu Junction. PW1 deposed that 2 nd accused and his brother also played football. Accused 1 and 5 were watching the game. According to PWs 1 and 2, accused 1 and 5 were watching the movements of deceased Vinod. At about 6.30 p.m. the game was over. Thereafter PW2 went home. PW1 and Vinod, after taking their bicycles parked in front of a temple, went to Anchuthengil Stores, Kakkurumbu Junction and waited for PW2. They went to the shop for drinking water. Till 7.15 p.m. they were in the shop. When PW2 came, they proceeded to Vinod's house on two bicycles. After proceeding a short distance, the accused persons came on five motor bikes and waylaid Vinod. At that time, 1st accused exhorted to slash Vinod and on hearing this, 2 nd accused jumped out of a motor bike and inflicted a cut injury on Vinod's right elbow by using a sword. Immediately Vinod cried and jumped out of his bicycle. He ran for safety towards a residential compound on the southern side. According to PWs 1 and 2, the incident was seen in the headlight of five motor bikes on which the accused persons came. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the prosecution witnesses had previous acquaintance with the appellants as all of them are residents of the same locality. In other words, identity of the accused was not challenged at the time of trial and therefore, that question does not arise in these appeals. PWs 1 and 2 identified the appellants and both of them deposed that accused 1 and 2 were wielding swords. 3 rd accused was holding a big- shopper and accused 4 and 5 were armed with iron rods. While Vinod was running for his life, accused 1 to 5 chased him. At that time, 3 rd accused took out a hatchet from the big-shopper and followed Vinod. PW1 deposed that on seeing these happenings, petrified PW2 ran towards west. PW1 also proceeded on his bicycle towards west. They saw Vinod jumping into the car porch from the sit-out of PW5's house. It has come out in evidence that the house was facing towards north. Sit-out and car porch directly faced the gate in front of the compound. According to PWs 1 and 2, height of the compound wall was 3 to 4 ft. PWs 1 and 2 saw the incident standing close to the compound wall by hiding in darkness. According to these witnesses, the accused persons surrounded deceased Vinod and prevented his escape. Thereafter, accused 1 to 3 indiscriminately inflicted cut injuries on Vinod by using swords and hatchet. At that time accused 4 and 5 were beating deceased Vinod with iron rods. Both the witnesses deposed that they could see the incident in the light available in the car porch and in the sit-out. Even though Vinod tried to ward off the blows, he could not resist the fierce attack and he ultimately fell down. After severely cutting and chopping Vinod, accused went out through the gate. PWs 1 and 2 deposed that they saw weapons in the hands of the accused. After that PW1 went to the car porch where Vinod was lying with bleeding injuries. Both the witnesses found Vinod lying in a pool of blood with multiple severe injuries on head, neck, limbs and all over body. PW1 went to the police station on a motor bike of a known person who came there on receiving information. At about 8.15 p.m. he reached the police station and gave Ext.P1 FIS. PW1 identified the dress materials worn by deceased at the time of occurrence. He also identified the bicycle used by deceased Vinod. He identified MO5 sword and MO6 iron rod. Hatchet (MO7) and big- shopper (MO8) are also identified by PW1. In addition to that, he identified MO9 shirt and MO10 dhothi worn by the 3rd accused at the time of incident. 5th accused was wearing MO11 shirt and MO12 pants as identified by PW1. MO13 motor bike was identified as one of the motor bikes used by the accused. It is pertinent to note that no serious cross examination was done on identification of these material objects by PW1.

12. During cross examination on PW1, attempt was made to elicit answers from him to establish that he was not an eye witness to the occurrence. All the questions relating to this aspect was denied by PW1. Contradictions in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were also marked. It is a well settled principle that all contradictions may not affect the credibility of a witness unless they are material contradictions affecting the substratum of the prosecution case. In cross examination, PW1 admitted that he was an accused in Ashraf murder case where deceased Vinod was also involved. Deceased Ashraf was an NDF worker. PW1 was convicted by the trial court for an offence of murder and awarded life imprisonment. Although it was argued that he was acquitted in appeal, no material is produced before us to show that fact. It is an undeniable fact that PW1 and the accused were hostile to each other on account of their ideological orientations.

16. Shri Alex M.Thombra relied on the testimony of PW9 Vasudevan, father of deceased Vinod. He was questioned by PW36, Circle Inspector of Police at the time of inquest. His testimony would show that shortly after the incident, he came to the place of occurrence and saw his son's body lying drenched in blood. According to his chief examination, PWs 1 and 2 were also present at that time. He identified the 1 st accused and also other accused. It is his unchallenged deposition that all the accused persons are residing in the locality. PW9 deposed that his son had faced threats from NDF workers 2-3 times before the incident. It is his version that his wife had informed him that some NDF workers had come home and asked for Vinod. When his wife informed them that Vinod was not there, they threatened his wife saying that within 24 hours Vinod would be beheaded. PW9 also deposed that PWs 1 and 2 used to accompany Vinod as he was fearing attack at any time.

19. Ext.P65 is the copy of FIR in Crime No.1160 of 2006 of Karunagappally Police station registered under Sections 143, 147, 506(II) and 452 read with Section 149 IPC. That was a case registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by deceased Vinod's mother (wife of PW9) on 18.10.2006 at about 1.30 p.m. alleging that about 25 NDF workers armed with sword stick, iron rod, etc. came to her house and asked for her son Vinod. When she informed them that Vinod was not there, they threatened her by saying that they will kill Vinod before sunrise on the next day. It is also mentioned that if Vinod could not be located, his mother and father (PW9) would be burnt alive in their house. This is the incident which PW9 was referring to in his deposition.