AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.N. Moorthy, J.—For an occurrence that took place on 19th November, 1977 at 7. 30 p.m. at Manakulam village resulting in the death
of one Veluswamy, fourteen accused faced a trial before the learned Sessions Judge, Ramnad at Madurai, in S.C. No. 2 of 1979. There were in
all 11 charges framed against the accused. A4 to A 8 were convicted for an offence under S. 302, read with 34, I.P.C. and sentenced to
imprisonment for life. A4 to A13 were convicted for an offence under S 148, I.P.G. and A14 for an offence under S. 147, I.P.C, but no separate
sentence was awarded to them. Accused 9, 11 and 12 were convicted for an offence under S. 324, I.P.C for pausing injury to P.W. 2 and
sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment. A13 and A14 were convicted for an offence under S., 324 for causing injury to P.W. 3 and
sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment. A8 was convicted for an offence under S. 324, I.P.C. for causing injury to P.W. 4 and sentenced
to three years rigorous imprisonment. A9 to A14 were convicted for an offence under S. 302 read with 149, I.P.C. and. sentenced to seven years
rigorous imprisonment.
Crl. App. No. 46 of 1980 is filed by the accused against their conviction and sentence by the trial court and Crl. Revision Case No. 44 of 1980
(Case taken up 1 of 1980) for enhancing the sentence imposed on Accu-9 to 14 who were sentenced to only seven year rigorous imprisonment
for an offence under S. 392 read with S. 149 , I.P.C.
The prosecution case briefly is as follows : P.W. 2 is the brother of the deceased. P.W. 1 is the wife of P.W. 2. P.W. 3 is their of the deceased.
P.W. 4 is the sister-in of P.W. 3. P.W. 5 is the father of P.W. 1. the accused are also interrelated. A2 and A3 are brothers of A1 A4 and A5 are
sons of A2; A3 is the of A1; A7 and A8 are sons of A3; A9 and A14 are sister''s sons of Al; A10 is son-in-law of A2; A12 is sister-in-law''s son
of A2 and A13 is brother-in-law of A2.
On 19th November, 1977 at about 7:30 p.m. there was a quarrel between Al and one Bagiam regarding grazing of goats. At that time P. W.2''s
brother Velusamy came there and questioned A-l for quarrelling with Bagiam. A2 and A3 intervened and, saying that people who cultivate on
waram basis should not talk, incited for beating the deceased. At that time P.W. 2 came and pacified his brother the deceased and, saying that
they need not quarrel with them, he called him. For that the deceased replied that the accused were often saying that they lived on waram
cultivation. Immediately A2 and A3 said that these people should be beaten and killed. A4 immediately stabbed the deceased on the right side of
the neck with a ''velkambu''. A5 stabbed the deceased on the right leg. A6 stabbed the deceased on the back with a bill-hook. A7 stabbed the
deceased on the left thigh. A8 stabbed the deceased on the upper lip.
When P.W. 2 tried to lift the injured Velusamy, A9 beat him on the left wrist. A10 beat P.W. 2 on the right shoulder. A10 again beat P.W. 2 on
his right finger. All cut P.W. 2 on the back. A12 cut P.W. 2 on the same place.
This occurrence was witnessed by P. Ws. 1 3, 4 and 5 and they tried to separate them.
A13 cut P.W. 3 on his right fore-hand and A14 beat him on the leg. A8 cut P.W. 4 on the head. Al Cut the aunt of P.W. 1 on her head.
Accused 8, 6, 4 and 5 attacked P.W. 5.
Later, at about 10 p.m., P.Ws.1, 3, 4 and 5 went to Keezhathooval police station and P.W. 1 gave a statement, Ex. P 17 to P.W. 12, head
constable. P.W. 12, after receiving Ex. P 17, F.I.R., sent express reports to superior officers and to court. He then went to the scene of
occurrence at l:30 p.m. P.W. 12 917. In Ex. P19 it was stated that the files of the house of some of the accused herein had been broken. P.W. 12
registered a case on that complaint.
P.W. 13, Inspector of Police, after receiving the information, came to the spot at about 5 a.m. on 20th November, 1977. He prepared Ex. PI
mahazar and held inquest from 7 to 10 a.m., and prepared Ex. P21, inquest report. He drew a rough sketch of the scene of occurrence, Ex P22.
He seized M.Os. 10 and 11 under Ex. P2 mahazar. He sent the body of the deceased to Mudukulathur Hospital for post-mortem examination.-
P.W. 8, the doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body, found as many as five injuries out of which four were incised injuries.
According to P W.8, the deceased would appear to have died of haemorrhage, shock and injury to the vital organs. Ex. Pl2 is the post-mortem
certificate. Injuries 2 and 3 are as under:-
An incised injury of transverse direction of 4"" x 3"" X 4"" in the supra clavicular region 2"" above the right clavicle:
3 An incised injury of 10"" x 8"" x 8"" found in the middle of the left scapular region. The wound is gaping, running transversely starting 1"" away from
the thoracic spine, running laterally. The first 6"" length of the wound near the thoracic spine is having 8"" breadth and 8"" depth. The lateral 4"" of the
wound having 2"" breadth and 1"" depth. The left scapular bone is fractured and gaping was present.
According to P.W. 8, these injuries are fatal in nature.
P.W. 8 examined P.W. 2 and found four injuries on her as noted in Ex. P6 wound certificate.'' He examined P.W. 5 and found on him seven
injuries as noted in Ex. P7 wound certificate. He also examined P.W. 7 and found three injuries as mentioned in Ex. P8 wound certificate. He then
examined P.W. 4 and found an injury as noted in Ex. P9 wound certificate. He also examined one Baglam, Wife of Velu and found two injuries as
mentioned in Ex. P10 certificate. P.W. 9 is the doctor who examine P.W. I and he found one injury on her as found in Ex. P13 wound
On 5thDecember, 1977 P.W. 13 arrested accused, 1,2,3,5 to 9, 13 and 14 in the presence of P.W. 7 from the house of one Palanisami
Thevar. On 9th December, 1977 he arrested accused 10 to 12. He seized the weapons from the accused as stated in Exs.P24 and P25. After
completion of investigation, charge sheet was laid against the accused.
The prosecution has examined 13 witnesses, marked 25 Exhibits and produced 14 M.O.s. in order to prove the case against the accused.
On the incriminating evidence appearing against the accused when questioned under S. 313 , Cr. P.C. the accused stated that the case against
them was a foisted one. A-l stated that the tiles of his relatives'' house were broken, that there was a huge crowd and that he ran away from the
place. A-2 also stated the same thing. No witnesses were examined on behalf of the accused.
The evidence let in by the prosecution proves that there was ill feeling between the families of P. Ws.1 and 2 on the one hand and the accused
1 to 3 on the other. On the day of the occurrence, A-I''s goat grazed P;W.3''s son''s land, according to the witnesses, and this incident is said to be
the root cause for the quarrel.
The evidence of P.W. I is that A-l''s goats grazed the crop of the deceased. When A-l was questioned about this, A-l retorted saying that
people living on waram cultivation should not talk. Thereafter, a scuffle ensued between A-1 and Velammal, wife of the deceased. At that time, the
deceased intervened saying why A-l was pulling the hair of his wife. For that A-l replied to the deceased that he would allow her goats to graze
like that and threatened by calling her brother. At that time accused 2 and 3, brothers of A-1, came there shouting that the deceased should be
killed. The other accused came to the spot with weapons. According to K.W.I, A-4 cut the deceased on his left-side moustache, A-5 cut on the
left leg, A-6-cut on the neck, A7 cut on the left hand, A-8 cut near about the stomach and A-9 stabbed on the back. A-10 cut P.W. 2 who
warded it off and the cut fell on the wrist, A-11 cut P.W. 2 on the back near the waist, A-12 beat him on the right shoulder, and A-13 beat him on
the right forearm, and A-14 cut P.W. 3. According to her one Ramakrishnan, and others went to the police station. She went to the police station
along with her husband after the said Ramakrishnan brought the police to the scene of occurrence. Till then she was with her husband. She states
that it was about 10 or 11 p.m when she went to the police station. She denies having given any report to the police.
According to P.W. I 2, on 19th November, 1977 when he was at the police station at 10 p.m., P.W. I came to the police station and gave the
report, Ex. P-17. On receipt of the report, he sent express reports to superior Officers and to the Court. He later visited the scene of occurrence.
Thus we see in this case that the maker of the F.I.R. has gone back on the statement she is alleged to have given to the police.
Coming to the evidence of the other witnesses it is the evidence of P.W. 2 that A-4 cut the deceased on the left moustache to the middle of the
cheek, A-5 cut him on the left leg, A-6 cut him on the neck, A-7 cut him on the back near the waist and A-8 cut on the same place as A-7.
According to P.W. -2, A-9 cut P.W. 2 on the left wrist, A-10 cut him on the left shoulder and both A-11 and A-12 cut him on his right back.
P.W. 3 speaks to the cuts on the deceased given by Accused 4 to 8. He states that A-8 cut P. W.4 on the head, and P.W. 5, on his neck.
According to P.W. 3, A.9 cut P.W. 2 on the left forearm, A 10 beat P.W. 2 on the right shoulder, A-11 cut P.W. 2 on the right side of the back,
and A-8 cut P.W. 2 on the, same spot. Further, according to him, A-13 cut P. W. 3 on his right hand and A-14 beat P.W. 3 on the right neck and
again on the left side of the back.
P.W. 4 states that Accused 4 to 8 cut the deceased, A-8 cut P.W. 5, A-9 cut P.W. 2 on the left hand, A-10 cut P.W. 2 on the right shoulder,
A-11 and A-12 cut P.W. 2 on the back of the waist, A-13 cut P.W. 3 on the right forearm and A-14 beat P.W. 3.
P.W. 5 states of the cuts inflicted by Accused 4 to 6 and 8 on the deceased. He saw A-6 cut P.W. 2 on the back side of the hip, A-11 cut
P.W. 2 on the back centre, A-12 cut P.W. 2 on the same spot, A-14 cut P.W. 2 on left wrist, A-9 cut P.W. 5 near left eye, A-10 beat P.W. 2 on
left shoulder and A-7 cut P.W. 5 on neck below chin.
There is ample evidence to show that there is ill-feeling between the accused party and the prosecution party due to drawing of water. On the
day of occurrence the quarrel started, because of A-l''s goats grazing the land of the deceased as spoken to by the witnesses. The questioning of
grazing has led to the deceased''s wife and Al get'' into a scuffle. When the deceased intervened A2 and A3 also entered the fray and, shouted for
others to get weapons to kill the deceased. At the time of the occurrence, P.Ws.1 to 3 were standing-nearby. It cannot be disputed that P.Ws.1 to
3 as they were injured at the place of occurrence, were witnesses to the occurrence. Though injured, as there is enmity between the parties, their
evidence has to be scrutinised with care.
Coming to the time of occurrence, according to P.W. I, the occurrence took place at 5 p.m. and she went to the police station at about 10 or
11p.m. According to P.W. 2 the occurrence was at 5p.m. P.W. 3 states that the occurrence took place at 5 or 5.30 p.m. and they gave
information at the police station at about 7:30 p.m. She speaks of P.W. I giving the report to the Head Constable P.W. 12. According to P.W. 5
the incident took place from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. In Ex. P17, the statement given by P.W. I, the occurrence is said to have taken place at 7:30 a.m.
Thus we see there is discrepancy about the time of occurrence. If the occurrence had taken place at 7:30 p.m. in an incident like the one which
happened, on the day in question where 14 persons are said to have attacked the prosecution party and caused injuries to them, it would be
difficult to know exactly which person caused which injury by which weapons and on which person,
Even though it is the evidence of P.W. 5 that he was attacked by Accused 7 to 10, the learned Sessions Judge was not prepared to accept his
deposition regarding the attack on him, though he was prepared to accept the evidence of P.W. 2, 3 and 4 regarding their attack by the accused.
As the details of attack given by P.Ws.2 to 4 are more or less in conformity with the F.I.R., Ex. P 17, it has to be considered whether Ex. Pl/ is a
document worthy of credence. According to P.W. I2 the Head Constable, this Ex. Pl7 was given to him by P.W. I at 10 p.m. According to P.W.
I, one Ramkrishnan went to the police station first. The police came after Ramakrishnan has reported to them. She went to the police station
afterwards with her husband fill then she was with her husband P.W. 2 at the scene of occurrence. She says that she went to the police station only
after the police had visited the scene of occurrence. Ex. P l7 is a very lengthy statement giving details of the occurrence. We are not in a position to
believe the statement, Ex. P l7, for, immediately, after the occurrence, when her husband Was lying injured, a woman like P.W. I would not have
gone to the police station and given the report to the Head Constable.
The evidence of P.W. I is that one Ramakrishnan went to the police station to give the report. Even in Ex. P17 it is mentioned that
Ramakrishnan is one of the persons who knew about the occurrence. The possibility of this Ramakrishnan giving the report of the occurrence
before Ex. P. l7 was registered by the police cannot be ruled out. According to P.W. 13 Ramakrishnan was examined at the inquest on the
morning of 20th November, 1977. The non-examination of Ramakrishnan on the side of the prosecution is another serious lacuna. When once
overt acts have been attributed to the accused under Ex. P. 17, it only natural for the witnesses examined on the side of the prosecution to
corroborate the version given in it.
On the evidence of P.W. I and on the circumstances of the case, we are of the view that Ex. P 17 was prepared to implicate as many people
as possible and assign specific overt acts to them. The F.I.R. is a statement which can only be used to corroborate or contradict the version of the
maker of it and it is not substantive evidence. If there is a doubt about the F.I.R. being fabricated or brought into existence to implicate as many
persons as possible, after deliberation, the entire fabric of the prosecution case collapses. Fourteen accused have been implicated in this case who
belong to the opposite group of the prosecution party. The court must, of course, make an attempt to separate grain from the chaff if it is possible.
We are satisfied that, on the facts of this case and having regard to the interested evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it would be unsafe to
convict the accused. As we are not prepared to accept Ex. Pl7 as a true document containing what has actually happened on the day of the
occurrence, we are not inclined to attach importance to the witnesses who corroborate Ex. P 17. On the evidence of P.W. I alone, (sic) (the
maker of the report), who is alleged to have given Ex. Pl7 and does not support it in the witness box, the accused are entitled to acquittal. The
conviction and sentence imposed on the accused are set aside, and they are acquitted of all the charges. Accused 5, 7 and 8 will be released from
jail forthwith. The bail bonds executed by the other accused stand cancelled. Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 1980 is allowed and Criminal Revision
Case No. 44 of 1980 (taken up case 1/80) is dismissed.