AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. Dhinakar, J.—The appellants, 9 in number, were accused 1 to 9 respectively in Sessions Case No. 86 of 1988 on the file of I Additional
Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, and hereinafter they will be referred to as A1 to A9 respectively for the sake of convenience.
Under charge No. 1, all the accused were charged u/s 148 IPC and the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced each of them to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. Under charge No. 2, A1 was charged u/s 302 IPC for causing the death of Punamalai
Muthammal, who hereinafter will be referred to as the first deceased (D1) in the case, and the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced
him to imprisonment for life. Under charge No. 3, A2 and A3 were charged u/s 302 IPC with the aid of Section 34 IPC for sharing the common
intention of A1 in causing the death of D1 and each of them was sentenced to imprisonment for life. Under charge No. 4. A4 to A9 were charged
u/s 302 r/w 149 IPC for sharing the common object of the unlawful assembly in causing the death of D1 and each of them was sentenced to
imprisonment for life. Under charge No. 5, A8 was charged u/s 302 IPC simpliciter and the allegation against him is that he caused the death of
Dhanuskodi, who hereinafter will be referred to as the second deceased (D2), and the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced him to
imprisonment for life under the said charge. Charge No. 6 is against A4 and A5 u/s 302 r/w 34 IPC for sharing the common intention of A8 as
framed under charge No. 5 and the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced each of them to imprisonment for life under the said charge..
Under charge No. 7 A1, A2, A3, A6, A7 and A9 were charged u/s 302 r/w 149 IPC for sharing the common object of the unlawful assembly
in causing the death of D2 and each of them was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life. 8th charge was against A6 and A7 u/s 302 IPC
simpliciter for causing the death of Sekar alias Paramasivam, who hereinafter will be referred to as the third deceased (D3), and they were
convicted and sentenced by the learned Sessions Judge to imprisonment for life. Under charge No. 9, A1 to A5, A8 and A9 were charged u/s
302 r/w 149 IPC for sharing the common object with A6 and A7 in causing the death of D3 and each of them was convicted and sentenced to
imprisonment for life. Under charge No. 10, A9 was also charged for an offence u/s 307 IPC for attempting to cause the murder of P.W.2 and the
learned Sessions Judge on the evidence convicted and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years. Under charges No. 11
and 12. A9 was charged u/s 324 IPC on two counts for causing injuries to P.W. 1 and the child of P.W. 1 respectively and the learned Sessions
Judge convicted and sentenced A9 to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under each charge. Hence, the present appeal by all the
accused.
The case of the prosecution, as could be discerned from the oral and the documentary evidence, can be briefly summarised as follows:
D1 is the wife of P.W.3 and the mother of D2 and D3. P.W.2 is the daughter of D1 and P.W.3. A5 is the son of A4. A3 and A7 are brothers.
A6 and A8 are brothers and cousins of D1. The prosecution witnesses and the accused party were residents of Kambali village. About four
months prior to the date of occurrence, one Kadarkarai Nambiar was murdered by Arumugasamy, son of D1 and P.W.3. A case was registered
against Arumugasamy and according to the prosecution. A1, A3 and A4 were eye-witnesses to that incident. The said Arumugasamy was arrested
and later, came out on bail. Three days prior to the date of incident, the said Arumugasamy threatened A1 and A2 not to give evidence against him
in court in connection with that case. The said Arumugasamy was handed over to the police and a case in Crime No. 305 of 1986 was registered
against him under Sections 452 and 506 (ii) IPC at Aiykkudi Police Station.
At 9.00 p.m. on 4.12.1986, D1 appeared at Aiykkudi Police Station and gave a complaint against A1 to A3, A6 to A8 and others. alleging that
her pump set and the pump set room were damaged by the accused. A case in Crime No. 306 of 1986 was registered against A1 to A3, A6 to
A8 and Ors. u/s 147,447,435 and 379 IPC (this case was later referred as false as could be seen from Ex.D-2). The above incident is said to be
the motive for the main occurrence which took place at about 8.30 p.m. on 5.12.1986.
On 5.12.1986 at about 8.30 p.m., all the three deceased along with P. Ws. 1 to 3 were on their way to Aiykkudi Police Station to find out the
result of Crime No. 306 of 1986. They reached a bus-stand at Kambili and were waiting for a bus to board. It is the case of the prosecution that
A1 to A9 armed with ''aruvals'' and stones came from south and threw stones at the prosecution party. D1 was abused by A1 for having laid a
complaint against them. One of the stones thrown by the accused fell on the right foot of P.W.1 and caused an injury. On seeing the accused
throwing stones, all the three deceased and the prosecution witnesses ran into a tea-stall belonging to one Avudaiyappa Mudaliar, which was 12
feet away from the road, and closed the door. The accused pelted stones which landed on the door and also caused damages to the tiles.
It is the further case of the prosecution that the accused after breaking open the door with axe and other weapons, went inside the room and
attacked the prosecution party. D1 is alleged to have been cut by A1 on the left side of the neck with an ''aruval'' and a further cut was also
inflicted on D1 by A1 on the left side from mouth to neck. A2 cut D1 below the left knee and A3 cut D1 indiscriminately on the left hand and a
further cut was also inflicted on her right hand. A8 cut D2 on the backside of the neck as well as on his head with an ''aruval'' and A4 cut D2 on
the backside of the neck as well as on his head. A5 cut D2 on his right of thigh with an ""aruval"". A6 cut D3 on the left side of the abdomen with an
''aruval'' as a result of which, the intestines protruded out. A7 cut D3 on the left cheek, ear, head and on the left little finger. A9 cut P.W.2 on the
right side of her lower abdomen and thereafter, cut P.W. 1 with an ''aruval'' on the upper portion of her left hand which also caused an injury to the
child which P.W.1 was carrying. Thereafter, the accused ran away with the weapons. D1 and D2 died at the spot. D3 and P.W.2 fell down
unconscious.
P. Ws. 1 and 3 left the scene of occurrence and reached Aiykkudi Police Station by 10.00 p.m. where P.W.1 gave a complaint. Ex.P-1, to
P.W. 14, the Sub-Inspector of Police, who, on the basis of the said complaint, registered a case in Crime No. 307 of 1986 by preparing express
reports. Ex.P-38 is a copy of the printed First Information Report. Thereafter, Ex.P-l and Ex.P-38 were sent to the court through P.W.15, a
police constable, and this was at about 10.30 p.m. A wireless message was given to P.W. 17, the Circle Inspector of Police, who, on receipt of
the same, reached the police station and obtained a copy of the printed First Information Report, at 11.30 p.m. from a police constable No. 209.
Meanwhile, the witnesses, who suffered injuries and appeared at the police station, were sent to Government Hospital, Tenkasi, through a
police constable. P.W.4, the Duty Doctor attached to the hospital, examined D3 and on examination at 12.05 a.m. on the night of 5/6.12.1986.
found on him the following injuries:
An incised wound of about 5 x 3 cm on the left lateral aspect of abdomen through which the intestines and the omentum have come out.
Left little finger is cut completely at the middle of the tip is missing.
Left ring finger is cut completely at the root and is attached to the hand only by a flap of skin.
An incised wound of 2cm x 1/2 x 1 cm on the top of left ear.
An incised wound of 1 x 1/2 x 1/4 cm on the left cheek.
An incised wound of 1 x 1/2 x 1/2 cm on the left side of scalp.
An incised wound of 4 x 1 x 1 cm on the outer aspect of right palm just below the little finger.
Ex.P-3 is a copy of the accident register issued in respect of the injuries noted on D3.
P.W.4 also examined P.W.2 at 12.15 a.m. on the night of 5/6.12.1986 and found on her two incised wounds, one measuring 3 x 1 x 1 cm on
the right side of the back of abdomen and the other measuring 3x1x1 cm just 2 cm below injury No. 1. Ex.P-4 is a copy of the accident register
issued in respect of the injuries noted on P.W.2. The doctor also examined the child, who was in the hands of P.W. 1 at the time of incident, at
12.30 a.m. on the night of 5/6.12.1986 and found on her an incised wound measuring 2 x 1/2 x 1/2 cm on the outer aspect of the left forearm.
Ex.P-5 is the wound certificate issued in her respect. P.W.4 also examined P.W.1 at 12.40 a.m. on the night of 5/6.12.1986 and found on her
person a contusion measuring 1 x 1 x 1 cm on the back of the right foot and an incised wound measuring 2 x 1 x 1 cm on the back of the left hand
4 cms from the wrist joint. Ex.P-6 is a Copy of the accident register issued in respect of the injuries found on P.W. 1. As the condition of D3 was
serious, he was referred to Government Medical College Hospital, Tirunelveli, for better management. On being referred, D3 was examined by
P.W. 5, the Duty Doctor, at about 2.45 a.m. on 6.12.1986 and he was admitted into the hospital for treatment. The radiologist took x-rays.
Meanwhile. P.W. 17 reached the scene of occurrence by midnight and waited for the day break. At 6.00 a.m. on 6.12.1986, he prepared an
observation mahazar, Ex.P-13, attested by P.W. 12 and also drew a rough sketch, Ex.P-40. He seized M.0.5, a pair of slippers, and M. Os.13 to
19 under a mahazar Ex.P-14 in the presence of some of the witnesses. He also recovered M. Os.20 to 22 under a mahazar Ex.P-15. P.W. 17
commenced inquest over the dead body of D1 at 6.00 a.m. and completed it by 9.00 a.m. during which, he examined and recorded the statements
of P. Ws.1,3 and others. Ex.P-41 is the inquest report in respect of D1. He also conducted inquest over the dead body of D2 between 9.00 a.m.
and noon during which, he examined the same witnesses and recorded their statements. Ex.P-42 is the inquest report in respect of D2. After the
inquest, the dead bodies were despatched with his requisition. Ex.P-8, through P.W. 10 for conducting autopsy.
P.W.7, the Assistant Civil Surgeon attached to Government Hospital Aiykkudi, on receipt of the requisition and the dead bodies, conducted
autopsy on the body of Punamalai Muthammal, D1, in the case at about 12.45 p.m. on 6.12.1986 and at the time of autopsy, the doctor found the
following external injuries.
A transverse gaping incised wound over the left cheek extending from 1/2"" below the left eye crossing the left ear to the back of neck 10"" x 1"" x
1"" (Lower part of the left ear is injured. On dissection of the wound, the corresponding soft parts and bone are injured)
A transverse gaping incised wound over the left side of the cheek 2"" below injury No. l extending from the angle of mouth to the left side of the
neck of size 6"" x 2"" x 2"". On dissection of the wound, the corresponding parts inside are injured.
A transverse gaping incised wound over the left side of the neck 1"" below injury No. 2 about 2"" x 1/2"" x 1"".
A gaping transverse incised wound over the middle of the left forearm 5"" x 3"" x 3"". Corresponding parts are injured and bones are fractured.
A transverse gaping incised wound over the left elbow joint 5"" x 3"" x 3''''
A transverse gaping incised wound over the left side of the leg 5"" above the left ankle joint of size 6"" x 2"" x 2"". Corresponding bones and soft
parts are injured.
A gaping incised would of 2"" x 1/2"" x 1/2"" over the right wrist.
He issued Ex.P-9, the post-mortem certificate, with his opinion that D1 would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage as a result of
multiple injuries sustained by her about 16 to 18 hours prior to post- mortem.
P.W.7 also conducted autopsy over the body of Dhanuskodi, D2, at about 2.45 p.m. on 6.12.1986 and found on his person the following
ante-mortem injuries:
A transverse gaping incised wound over the left side of the neck 5"" below the left ear extending from the left side of the neck to the back of
neck 8"" x 4"" x 2"". Corresponding soft parts are injured.
A transverse gapping incised wound over the left side of the neck 2"" above injury No. 1 extending from the lower part of the left ear goes to the
back of neck 8"" x 4"" x 2
A transverse gaping incised would over the left side of the scalp 1"" above the left ear of size 4"" x I"" x 1"". Corresponding part of the skull bone is
fractured.
A gaping incised wound over the back of the right thigh 6"" above knee joint 4"" x 2 1/2"" x 2 1/2"" Corresponding soft parts are injured.
P.W.7 issued Ex.P-10. the post-mortem certificate, with his opinion that D2 would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage as a result of
multiple injuries sustained by him about 18 to 20 hours prior to post-mortem.
After the post-mortem, the bloodstained cloths of D1 and D2 were seized by P.W. 10, the post-mortem constable, and he handed over the
same to P.W. 17. P.W. 17 also took up investigation in Crime No. 306 of 1986 which was registered on the basis of the complaint given by D1 in
respect of the damages to a pump set and pump set room. P.W. 17 also seized M. Os.3 and 4 produced by P.W2. He also seized M. Os.11 and
12 from the brother of D3. In the meantime, D3 who was undergoing treatment at Government Medical College Hospital, Tirunelveli, breathed his
last at about 2.30 p.m. on 7.12.1986 and a death intimation. Ex.P-7, was sent to the police station.
P.W. 17, on returning to the police station, came to know about the death of Sekar and also perused Ex.P-43, the express report in the
altered crime. Thereafter P.W. 17 proceeded to Government Hospital, Palayamkottai, where he conducted inquest between 6.00 a.m. and 9.00
a.m. on 8.12.1986 by preparing Ex.P-44, the inquest report in respect of D3, during which he examined P. Ws.l, 3 and others and recorded their
statements. After the inquest, the dead body was sent with a requisition, Ex.P-11, through P.W. 11, for conducting post-mortem.
P.W.8, the Tutor in Forensic Medicine. Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital, Tirunelveli, conducted autopsy on the body of Seker alias
Paramasivam, D3, at 11.00 a.m. on 8.12.1986 and found on his person the following ante-mortem injuries:
5 cm sutured incised wound on both ankles done by Surgeon.
15 cm sutured incised would on the upper portion of the left side of the abdomen. Wound was extended by Surgeon (5x3 cm) according to
A.R. copy.
A drainage tube 2 cm below the lower portion done by Surgeon.
5 cm sutured incised wound muscle-deep in the right palm lower middle portion. (Defence wound).
3 cm sutured incised wound muscle-deep in the left palm lower portion. (Defence wound)
The terminal phalynx of the left little finger cut at site and the bone completely.
Sutured incised wound 2 cm over the back of the ring and the middle fingers cutting the bone at site.
1 cm sutured incised wound on the back of the index finger cutting the bone at site.
4 cm sutured incised wound over the left ear.
2 cm long sutured incised wound on the left temporal region bone- deep cutting partly at site.
2 cm x 1 cm incised wound over the left cheek.
He issued Ex.P-12, the post-mortem certificate, with his opinion that D3 would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple
injuries sustained by him.
During the course of investigation. P.W. 17 arrested A1,A3,A4,A6 and A9 at about 4.00 a.m. on 10.12.1986 in the presence of P.W. 12
near a cross-road between Tenkasi and Aiykkudi. When the accused were questioned, they came out with a statement each and the admissible
portions of the same are Exs.P-15 to P-20 respectively. In pursuance of the said statements, M. Os.23 to 27 were covered under mahazars
Exs.P.21-21 to 25 respectively from the houses of the accused. At 5.00 a.m. on 11.12.1986, A2, A5, A7 and A8 were arrested in the presence
of P.W. 12 in a road leading from Tenkasi to Madurai. When questioned, they also came out with a statement each admissible portions of which
are marked as Ex.P.30 to 33 respectively, from the house of the accused. The accused were sent to the court for remand. The other witnesses in
the case were examined on various other dates. A requisition Ex.P-34, was sent by P.W. 17 to the court for sending the material objects seized in
the case for analysis. Ex.P-36 is the report of the chemical analyst and Ex.P-37 is that of the serologist. After referring Crime No. 306 of 1986 as
false by his report. Ex.D-2, he laid a final report against all the accused on 9.3.1987.
When questioned u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure on the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, all the accused pleaded
innocence.
The fact that the three persons were done to death is established by the prosecution through the evidence of the post-mortem doctors. D1 is
the mother of D2 and D3 and all of them are deceased in the case. The evidence also discloses that there was enmity between the prosecution
party and the accused party. The incident relating to the main occurrence have been extracted by us in the earlier part of the judgment and we do
not find it necessary to refer to the same. It is also not in dispute that there was no love lost between the parties and that the three persons died on
account of the injuries sustained by them. We, therefore, hold that the three persons. Punamalai Muthammal. Dhanuskodi and Sekar alias
Paramasivam.. died on account of homicidal violence.
It is the case of the prosecution that the occurrence took place at about 8.30 p.m. on the night of 5.12.1986 and that the same was witnessed
by P. Ws.l to 3. According to the prosecution, of the three witnesses so examined P. Ws. 1 and 2 have suffered injuries during the course of the
same transaction at the hands of some of the accused. We will have to now analyse the evidence to find out whether their evidence can be
accepted and acted upon to confirm the conviction and sentence of the appellant/accused.
Before we proceed to analyse the evidence, we will take up the first information statement which according to the prosecution, came into
existence at about 10.00 p.m. on 5.12.1986. According to P.W. 1, after the incident, she accompanied by P.W.3. went to Aiykkudi Police
Station and gave a complaint, Ex.P-1, to P.W. 14, the Head Constable, which was then reduced into writing in which P.W.3 attested. P.W.14,
the Head Constable, has, in his evidence stated that P.W. 1 appeared before him and gave a complaint and the same was registered as a case in
Crime No. 307 of 1986 under various offences including an offence of murder. It is his further evidence that after the complaint was registered as a
crime, the express reports, Ex.P-38, as well as the original complaint, Ex.P-1, were despatched through P.W.15 to the court and the higher
officials. P.W. 15 has, in his evidence stated that though he received the complaint at 11.30 p.m. for handing it over to the court, he did not leave
the police station at that time since there were no transport facilities. The prosecution has not disputed that the first information statement, which
was registered at 10.00 p.m. and handed over to P.W. 15. a police constable, reached the hands of the learned Magistrate only at about 4.55
p.m. on 6.12.1986. To explain this long day the prosecution had come out with a version. According to P.W.15. there were no transport facilities
on the night and hence, he stayed at the police station and left on the morning of 6.12.1986. It is his evidence that he proceeded to the court at
Tenkasi and reached it by 8.00 a.m. and on finding that there is no Magistrate available at that time in the court and the Magistrate in-charge of
Tenkasi is at Sengottah. he thereafter proceeded to Sengottah. It is his misfortune, according to P.W.15, that even the Magistrate at Sengottah
was absent and hence, he could not hand over the complaint. Ex.P-1. to the Magistrate. Thereafter, it struck P.W. 15 that the complaint should be
handed over to some judicial officer and thereafter, proceeded to Tirunelveli and there, of all persons, he chose to hand over the complaint to the.
Chief Judicial Magistrate, but he did not hand it over to him also. It is the version of the prosecution that a Sub-Inspector of Police, who was more
intelligent, then advised P.W. 15 that the original first information statement has to be handed over to some other Magistrate and not to the Chief
Judicial Magistrate and on being advised by the said Sub-Inspector of Police, who is not a witness in the case, P.W. 15 took the said complaint
and ultimately, handed it over to a Magistrate on the evening of 6.12.1986. The facts we have extracted above do not need any comment or
discussion to hold that there is a long delay in the F.I.R. reaching the Magistrate and the explanation offered for the said delay, to say the least, is
childish.
At this stage, an useful reference can be made to the evidence of P.W.14, the Head Constable, who recorded the complaint. Ex.P-1.
According to him. after recording the complaint, he was anxious to remove the injured to the hospital at Tenkasi and so, he went to the scene of
occurrence in a van and removed the injured in the said van to Government Hospital, Tenkasi. This evidence of P.W. 14 clearly indicates that there
was a van available which was used to carry the injured to the hospital and if so we do not understand as to why and how the constable, who was
entrusted with the task of handing over the first information statement, did not think it necessary to travel in the van. The present explanation of
P.W.15 that there were no transport facilities, cannot be accepted in view of the above evidence of P.W.14. Mere fact that the first information
statement reached the court with a delay and the explanation offered by the prosecution is unacceptable, cannot by itself, we know, be a ground to
reject the evidence of P. Ws.l to 3, the so-called eyewitnesses, if their evidence is found to be trustworthy and acceptable, but, the fact remains
that we have to keep in mind the delay in reaching the first information statement to the court and the suspicious surrounding circumstances which
are writ large on the very face of the records.
According to the prosecution, since Ex.P-1 was registered as a crime. P.W.14 prepared Ex.P-2. a memo, for sending the injured to the
hospital. In the said memo. Ex.P-2. P.W 14 had mentioned the names of A1, A2, A4, A5 and one Pitchai Nambiar as the assailants, who are
responsible for the injuries on the witnesses and D1 and D2. If there had been a complaint. Ex.P-1 at 10.00 p.m. by P.W.I, wherein the name of
all the nine accused have been mentioned, we are at a loss to understand as to why and how P.W.14, in Ex.P-2 mentioned only the names of Al,
A2, A4, A5 and Pitchai Nambiar as the assailants. If there had been a complaint, Ex.P-2 would have contained the names of A3 and A6 to A9.
But, their names are conspicuous by their absence in the document, Ex.P-2, and there is no explanation by the prosecution to this. Added to the
misery of P.W.14. there is yet another aspect which stands unexplained. Apart from the names of A1. A2, A4 and A5 which are found mentioned
in Ex.P-2 as the assailants, P.W. 14 also mentioned the names of one Pitchai Nambiar as one of the assailants. His name does not find a place in
Ex.P-1 nor he was examined as a witness during investigation by the investigating Officer. There is no explanation by the prosecution as to who this
Pitchai Nambiar is and what role he played in the case. Ex.P-2 cuts Ex.P-1 which, according to the prosecution, is the earliest document. If Ex.P-
1 was really earlier and Ex.P-2 was immediately prepared thereafter, then it is not known why there are such glaring contradictions between these
two documents.
The Public Prosecutor argued that the court can accept the case against A2. A3. A4 and A5 since their names are found mentioned in Ex.P-2;
but. the said argument though looks attractive, cannot be accepted in view of the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 9. P.W.9. according to the
prosecution, was a priest in a temple and had come down the hill where the temple was situated, to take his dinner. He has further deposed that at
about 8.00 p.m.. he reached the shop of Arudaiyappa Mudaliar which is the scene of occurrence and on reaching the place, he was informed that
no food is available and was promised that food will be brought from the house for him. A reading of the cross-examination of P.W.9 clearly
shows that when he came down the hill, it was dark and he was also afraid. He has further admitted that even during day time, his vision is poor.
He has further admitted in the cross-examination that since it was dark, he could not see as to who the persons are, who were present in the shop.
P.W.1 has, in her evidence, also stated that at the time of incident, it was dark. A suggestion was made to her that there were no lights even in
the road, which of course was denied by her Learned Public Prosecutor drew out attention to the rough sketch, Ex.P-40. in which a lamp-post is
seen noted and the same is on the southern side of Surandai-Sen-cottah Road. The occurrence, according to the prosecution, took place in a tea-
stall which was on the northern side of the road which was at a distance of more than 12 feet. A perusal of Ex.P-40 also indicates that in between
the lamp- post and the tea-stall, there was a compound wall in which a grown-up neem tree is noted. North to the neem tree is another room and
west to that neem tree, there is also a room. The scene room is further north. It is the case of the prosecution that the witnesses after entering into
the room closed the door from inside. The fact that there was a compound wall, north to the road a neem tree, another room to the north of the
said neem tree and the tea-stall was situated on the far north of the road, clearly shows that even if there had been a lamp-post with a light burning,
it could not have thrown illumination into the room which was closed by the witnesses and the deceased Further, the said lamp-post which is found
noted in Ex.P-40 is not found noted in Ex.P-13. the observation mahazar. The prosecution has no explanation. Strangely in the observation
mahazar. It is found noted that there was a roof light burning in the verandah which is not found noted in the rough sketch. Ex.P-40. Apart from
this, we have the oral evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 9. who were categorical in their evidence that it was night and dark. In view of this evidence, it is
not safe lo rely upon the evidence of the prosecution that the witnesses could have been in a position to identify the accused even before the attack
started.
The case of the prosecution that the witnesses and the deceased went to Kambili bus-stand to board a bus to reach Aiykkudi Police Station to
enquire about the result of Crime No. 306 of 1986 which was registered only on the previous day is, to say the least, is strange. It is relevant to
note, at this stage, the evidence of P.W. 17, the Circle Inspector of Police, who has, in his evidence, stated that the Sub-Inspector of Police took
up investigation in Crime No. 306 of 1986 and after conducting investigation, decided to refer the matter even on the night of 4.12.1986. Even if it
is to be held that the witnesses came, to know that the Sub-Inspector of Police decided to refer the matter and went to the bus-stand to ask the
police officers about the same, the evidence of P.W. 17 makes it clear that the witnesses are not truthful witnesses since even according to the
prosecution, the allegations in Crime No. 306 of 1986 are false in nature. According to P.W. 17. D1 in the case and the other witnesses after they
themselves damaging the pump set and the pump set room, went to the police station to lay a complaint against the accused party in order to
implicate them in a criminal case. The veracity of the prosecution witness could be seen from this evidence of P.W. 17 since it shows that they
went to the extent of even giving a false complaint in order to wreak vengeance against their enemies. It is also strange that P.W. 17 had taken up
investigation in Crime No. 306 of 1986 on the night of 5.12.1986 though Crime No. 306 of 1986 is not a counter-case to Crime No. 307 of
1986. It is much stranger that P.W. 17 has in his evidence, claimed that he questioned and recorded the statements of P.W.1 and D3. Since D3
even according to the prosecution, became unconscious after the occurrence and did not regain consciousness till his death.
Be that as it may. The fact remains that the witnesses are responsible for implicating the persons since it was a dark night as we have seen
earlier and the witnesses are not truthful witnesses. If during the occurrence A6 and A7, and A8 have really attacked D3 and D2 respectively for
them to be charged u/s 302 IPC simpliciter, the said overt acts would have been greener in the mind of P.W. 1 and he would have mentioned their
names. The absence of their names in Ex.P- 2, though their names are found noted in Ex.P-1, creates a suspicion in the mind of the court whether
Ex.P-1 really came into existence at the time the prosecution claimed it to have come into existence and whether the witnesses had spoken the
truth before the trial court.
The case of the prosecution that A1, A3, A4, A6 and A9 were arrested on 10.12.1986 cannot also be acceptable by us in view of the
evidence of P.W. 1 who has, in her evidence, stated that even on the next day of the incident, all the accused were at the police station. The
evidence regarding the arrest and recovery is therefore rejected.
In view of the discussion made above, we are of the view that the accused/appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt and the same is given
to them. The appeal is allowed and all the accused/appellants are acquitted of all the charges.
It is reported that A1, A2, A4 and A5 are in jail. We direct that they shall be set at liberty unless their custody is required in connection with
any other case. The bail bonds executed by the other accused shall stand cancelled.