AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Basant, J.—This appeal against acquittal is preferred by the State. The State claims to be aggrieved by the acquittal of respondents 1 to 4 by the learned Sessions Judge under the impugned judgment. The prosecution alleged that at 7.45 p.m. on 8/4/00 the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, had murdered the victim P.G. Vijayan, Branch Secretary of the CPI (M) of Manadukkam by stabbing him with knives. The scene of occurrence was the public road in front of the house of P.W.1 at Manadukkam in Panathady Village. Political animosity is said to be the motive for the incident. A1 to A4 allegedly belonged to the BJP; whereas the deceased was the Branch Secretary of the CPI (M). A1 and A2 are alleged to have stabbed the deceased with two knives, one of which has been produced as M.O. 1. A3 and A4 are alleged to have facilitated the infliction of the stab injuries by A1 and A2 by holding the deceased.
The investigation commenced with the registration of Crime No. 33/2000 of Bedakam Police Station on the basis of Ext. P1 First Information Statement lodged by P.W. 1. P.W. 1, it must be noted, is not a witness to the occurrence. In Ext. P1 First Information Statement he had made it clear that he does not know how and at whose hands the deceased suffered injuries. After completion of investigation, final report/charge sheet was filed before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction. The learned Magistrate after observing all legal formalities committed the case to the Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge took cognizance of the offences alleged against the accused. They pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them by the learned Sessions Judge. Thereupon, the learned Sessions Judge directed the prosecution to adduce evidence.
The prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 5 only. Ext. P1 First Information Statement lodged by P.W. 1 was marked. M.O. 1 was also marked. At this juncture, prosecution evidence was closed and the learned Sessions Judge proceeded to pass the impugned judgment of acquittal.
Only five witnesses were examined by the prosecution. P.W. 1, as stated earlier, had lodged Ext. P1 First Information Statement. P.W. 2 is the brother-in-law of the deceased. He was allegedly available along with P.W. 1 in the house of a neighbour when they received information about the deceased suffering injuries. P.W. 2 does not also claim to know the miscreants at whose hands the deceased suffered injuries. Evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 are totally unhelpful to ascertain the identity of the miscreants at whose hands the deceased must have suffered the injuries. P.W. 3 was examined by the prosecution. He supported the prosecution. His evidence only indicates that earlier on the day he had seen accused 1 to 3 at a point near the scene of the crime. The place where he saw A1 to A3 evidently was not very close to or adjacent to the scene of the crime. Elsewhere; but at a point from where access to the scene of the crime was probable the accused were allegedly seen by P.W. 3. P.W. 4 was examined by the prosecution to duplicate the evidence of P.W. 3 - to show that A1 to A3 were available in the locality. P.W. 4 turned hostile to the prosecution. P.W. 5 was cited by the prosecution. He was available in court. He was put in the witness box, oath administered and thereafter he was given up. This is the only evidence adduced by the prosecution.
There can possibly be no dispute that on the evidence adduced before the court below, no better finding or conclusion was possible. The State claims to be aggrieved by the impugned judgment of acquittal. What is the grievance of the State? The learned Public Prosecutor only contends that all the witnesses cited by the prosecution were not examined by the learned Sessions Judge. The prosecution has unfairly been denied an opportunity to examine witnesses and prove its case. This, in short, is the grievance of the learned Public Prosecutor.
We have been taken through the proceedings paper maintained by the learned Sessions Judge. The prosecution was evidently granted adequate opportunity to examine its witnesses. Though a large number of witnesses were cited without any rhyme or reason, summons were issued initially to all the witnesses. Later as they were not present, non-bailable warrants were also issued against the witnesses. The learned Sessions Judge appears to have been fed up and finally the learned Sessions Judge gave up the attempt to secure the presence of witnesses and proceeded to examine the accused under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. As early as on 19/12/06 the matter was posted for examination of the accused under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. The judgment was ultimately pronounced only on 4/1/2007. It is significant to note that during the interregnum the learned Public Prosecutor had not raised a grievance before the learned Sessions Judge that the prosecution has been denied opportunity to examine any witness. Evidently, such a grievance could not have been legitimately raised by learned Public Prosecutor as it can be seen that the court had taken all necessary steps to issue summons/non-bailable warrants against the witnesses. We do not, in these circumstances, find any merit in the grievance raised by the State that reasonable opportunity has been denied to the State to examine witnesses and establish its case.
The learned Sessions Judge has in the impugned judgment referred to the futility of continuing with the trial. The learned Sessions Judge has in paragraphs-13 and 14 of the impugned judgment referred in detail to the possible evidence which could have been made available as per the final report filed by the Investigating Officer. The learned Sessions Judge did not feel that it was necessary to wait for examination of any other witnesses.
We entertained the very same doubts about the case of the prosecution. We called upon the learned Public Prosecutor to explain how the prosecution intended to prove its case and in what manner the interests of the prosecution has been prejudiced by the non-examination of witnesses. Which further witness did the prosecution want to examine? Was any insistence made before learned Sessions Judge that such witnesses ought to be examined? If not, why was such insistence not made? Was it a case where the Public Prosecutor was also fully aware and cognizant of the fact that there was no point in waiting for examination of any more witnesses?
We do not get satisfactory answers for the above queries. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the prosecution intended to prove that it was a case of homicidal death by the examination of the Doctor who conducted the post- mortem examination on the body of the deceased. The prosecution also wanted to prove the alleged motive. A1 and A4 who belonged to the BJP had some quarrel with two persons belonging to the CPM. Those two persons have not even been cited as witnesses. On account of a quarrel and an altercation between them a case and counter case was allegedly registered. That incident related to the alleged removal of a flag of the CPM. The documents relating to the relevant crimes have not been produced before the court. The prosecution also wanted to examine witnesses to prove that the accused was available in the locality at about the time when the offence was committed. The prosecution wanted to prove that A1 and A4 were absconding after the incident. Blood stained shirt of A4 was recovered from his house by the Investigating Officer by conducting a search. A1, A2 and A3, when arrested on 13/4/00, were found wearing clothes which the chemical examiner found to be blood stained. These and these alone are the circumstances sought to be relied on.
The learned Sessions Judge has, in detail, adverted to the futility of continuing with the trial. It was, in these circumstances, that the learned Sessions Judge discontinued further examination of the witnesses. Evidently the Public Prosecutor had also acceded to such a course and this can be clearly understood from the conduct of the Public Prosecutor not insisting that any further witnesses ought to be or deserve to be examined.
Having rendered our very anxious consideration to all the relevant inputs, we are unable to agree that our appellate jurisdiction to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal can or ought to be invoked in the facts and circumstances of this case. The learned Sessions Judge could have remained a passive spectator to the witnesses passing through the witness dock in his court. The learned Sessions Judge, it appears to us, was not satisfied that such meaningless continuation of the trial was necessary. Nay, what appeals to us as most relevant is the conduct of the Public Prosecutor not insisting on examination of any further witnesses.
In any view of the matter, we are satisfied that the impugned judgment of acquittal does not deserve to be interfered with. The challenge in this appeal fails. This appeal is dismissed.