Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows :-

One Ganta China Veerayya, hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased', is a resident of Chinna Buddidi village and was working as village watchman of Pedda Buddidi. P.W. 2 is the wife of the deceased. A-1 to A-10 were the employees working under the arrack contractors of Parvatipuram. A-11 to A-12 were working as Excise Constables at Parvatipuram. A-1 is said to be the leader of the raid party, and A-2 to A-10 were working under him to detect the illicit arrack distillation. The accused suspected that the victim was aware of the illicit distillation of arrack. On 2-5-1991 all the accused were searching for the illicit distillation of arrack in the outskirts of Pedda Buddidi. At about 10.00 a.m. the deceased accompanied by his wife and their young child reached the outskirts of Peda Buddidi from China Buddidi on a foot-path. By the time they reached 'Devudu Manyam' near Nagavali main canal, the accused demanded the deceased to disclose the places where the illicit distillation of arrack was being done. The deceased answered that he did not know anything. All the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the common object of murdering the deceased. In pursuance of their common object, A-11 and A-12 kicked the victim-deceased with shoes and A-1, A-2 and A-3 threw the deceased on the ground and pressed him with stout sticks. A-4 to A-10 kicked and fisted the victim. The victim died instantaneously. The accused carried the dead body of the deceased and threw it in the nearby fields of P.W. 3. P.W. 1 went to Parvatipuram Taluk Police Station and gave a statement, Ex. P.19, which was recorded by P.W. 18 at about 5.00 p.m. on 2-5-1991. P.W. 18 registered the same as a case in Crime No. 51-91 and sent the F.I.R., which is marked as Ex. P.20, along with Ex. P.19 to the Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Parvatipuram. P.W. 19 Inspector of Police, Parvatipuram, who received the express F.I.R. in Crime No. 51/91, took up investigation and examined P.W. 1 and recorded his statement Ex. P.1 under S. 161(3), Cr.P.C. On 2-5-1991 he reached Peda Buddidi at 7.30 p.m. and examined P.Ws. 2 and 3 and another, between 8.00 and 9.00 p.m. On 3-5-1991 he visited the scene of offence and prepared a rough sketch of the scene of offence, Ex. P.21, and also got Exs. P.15 to P.17 photoes taken by P.W. 15. He held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of the Panchayatdars including P.Ws. 8 and 14. He examined P.Ws. 1 to 4 at the inquest. He also seized M.Os. 1 to 3 during inquest under Ex. P.7 inquest report. Thereafter, he sent the dead body of the deceased to the Government hospital for postmortem examination. P.W. 16 Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Parvatipuram conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased from 3.00 p.m. to 5.00 p.m. on 3-5-1991 and found huge contusion over right side of neck extending from lower jaw down to collar bone up to supra sternal notch, one contusion over the upper portion of right buttock, and one contusion over the upper portion of left buttock. The doctor opined that all the injuries are ante-mortem in nature and all injuries could have been caused by blunt objects and injury No. 1 is fatal in nature. The doctor also pointed that the deceased would appear to have died of asphyxia due to compression over neck, and that injury No. 1 is sufficient to cause the death in the ordinary course of nature. According to the doctor injuries 1, 2 and 3 could be caused with sticks, hands and legs. Ex. P.18 is the postmortem examination certificate issued by the doctor. P.W. 19 the Inspector of Police arrested A-1, A-4, A-7, A-8, A-9, A-10, A-5, A-3, A-6 and A-12 3-5-1991. After completion of investigation into the case, charge sheet was filed.

5. First of all, let us consider the effect of Ex. P.19 statement of P.W. 1, recorded by P.W. 18. In this connection we may also look into the evidence of P.W. 18 Head Constable, Parvatipuram Rural Police Station who recorded the statement of P.W. 1. He deposed that on 2-5-1991 at about 5.00 p.m. while he was in charge of Parvatipuram Taluk P.S., he recorded the statement of P.W. 1 in Parvatipuram Rural P.S., that he read over the contents of the statement to P.W. 1 and admitted by him, that P.W. 1 affixed his thumb mark and it is marked as Ex. P.19. Now coming to the evidence of P.W. 1, who, as already stated, was declared hostile, has given a complete go by to the version given by P.W. 18 and stated that the police did not examine him and did not record his statement. In his cross-examination by the Additional Public Prosecutor he has stated that the Head Constable did not record his statement. He completely denied the giving of a statement before the Head Constable (Ex. P19) and also the contents of Ex. P.1 statement recorded by P.W. 19 Inspector of Police under S. 161(3), Cr.P.C. He has also stated that he stated in his S. 164, Cr.P.C. statement at the instance of the police. A close scrutiny of the evidence of P.W. 1 does not inspire confidence. Nothing is elicited against P.W. 18 Head Constable and no motive is attributed to him why he should fabricate an important document like Ex. P.19. His evidence clearly discloses that P.W. 1 came to his police station at about 5.00 p.m. and P.W. 18 recorded his statement Ex. P.1. He also stated that he read over the contents of that statement to P.W. 1 and admitted by him and P.W. 1 affixed his thumb mark. On a careful scrutiny of the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 18 coupled with Ex. P.1 statement, we are of the firm opinion that P.W. 1 has given the statement Ex. P.1 and he has resiled from it while he gave evidence, on oath, in court. In grave crimes registered for the offence under S. 302, I.P.C. etc., as in the present case, if the prime witness resiles from his earlier statement given before the police basing on which a case is registered, no case will stand and there will be no fear in the minds of wrongdoers. Persons who gave the statements which lead to the registration of the crime and subsequently resiled from their earlier statement and gave contraversion on oath in court should not be let off and they must necessarily visit with penal consequences. In the present case, either the original statement Ex. P.19 must be wrong or the deposition given by him in court on oath must be wrong. In either way he is responsible for giving false statement or false evidence on oath. Unless such persons are taken to task, it is very difficult for the criminal justice to go in a smooth way. Therefore, we direct the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vizianagaram to initiate proceedings against P.W. 1 for giving false evidence in court, so that it will teach a lesson to the like-minded persons.

9. P.W. 9 Korati Jan Tyagaraju was the Excise Inspector, Parvatipuram and he deposed that on 2-5-1991 he started along with A-11, A-12, Kumara Swamy and Venkata Naidu in a van at about 6 a.m. from Parvatipuram and reached China Buddidi at about 8.00 a.m. Along with them, A-1 to A-10 also followed them in the van. He deposed that himself, A-1 to A-12, Venkatanaidu, Kumaraswamy reached China Buddidi by 8.00 a.m. According to him, while the above persons were conducting raid for detecting illicit arrack distillation, he heard that the raid people and excise constables murdered a person. This witness was also treated as hostile and was cross-examined. In his cross-examination he denied having stated before the police as in Ex. P.8. P.Ws. 10 and 11 are also working as Excise Constables and though they admitted the raid conducted on the date of offence, they denied having stated before the police as in Exs. P.9 and P.11 respectively. P.Ws. 12 and 13 are residents of Pedda Buddidi village and they did not support the case of the prosecution and they were declared as hostile and were cross-examined by the prosecution. They have denied having stated before police as in Exs. P.13 and P.14. P.W. 14 is the Sarpanch of Ankavaram and China Buddidi is the hamlet of Ankavaram. He was present at the time when the Inspector of Police conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and he attested Ex. P.7. However, in his cross-examination by the defence counsel he stated that the inquest was not held near the dead body and Ex. P.7 was not written in the mango garden. Consequently this witness was also treated as hostile.

11. The medical evidence also corroborates the injuries spoken to by P.W. 2. P.W. 16 Civil Asstt. Surgeon, Government Hospital, Parvatipuram deposed that on a requisition from the Inspector of Police, Parvatipuram he conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and he found one huge contusion over right side of neck extending from lower jaw down to collar bone up to supra sternal notch, one contusion over the upper portion of right buttock, horizontal in position and one contusion over upper portion of left buttock which is also horizontal in nature. According to the doctor all the injuries are ante-mortem in nature and all injuries could have been caused by blunt objects. The doctor is of the opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of asphyxia due to compression over neck. The evidence of P.W. 2 is to the effect that one stick was placed on the left side of the neck and one stick was placed on the right side of the neck by crossing each other and the neck of her husband was pressed with those sticks. It is also her case that one stick was placed on the chest and another stick was placed on his back and they were pressed, and that the deceased died due to crush injuries. Thus, the medical evidence amply corroborates the evidence of P.W. 2 and it is proved that the death of the deceased is on account of the injuries sustained by him and the death of the deceased is homicidal in nature.