KILAKKATHA PARAMBATH SASI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prosecution story, given by PW-1 Shaji, who is the brother of the deceased, Sathyan is as under:

(2.) The Trial Court held that though PW-1 was an injured witness, yet he could not be believed as in the FIR he had named only four accused i.e. Sasi, Dasan, Ashokan and Babu, although, he had referred to three others and had in a supplementary statement to the circle inspector named these three as well and that he had also admitted to the deep political animosity between the two groups, which cast a doubt on his story. The court also held that the police had admittedly carried PW-1 and his fatally injured brother in the police jeep to the hospital, but as the police officer had made no attempt at recording the statement of PW-I, at that stage, the prosecution story was, apparently, an after-thought and could not be relied upon. The Court also observed that the manner in which the injuries had been caused by all the accused, could not be believed as the eye-witnesses were discrepant on this material aspect. The Trial Court went through the evidence of PW-2, Prakasan and found that he had not been able to explain his presence in the bus at the relevant time despite the fact that his presence had been specifically indicated in the FIR. The court then examined the evidence of Shyamala (PW-3), one of the other passengers in the bus, and observed that her presence too was doubtful as her name did not figure in the FIR. The court also found that PW-4, another eye-witness had deposed that he had been present at the bus stop at Ayithara near Babus shop and that when the bus had stopped and the passengers were getting down, he had heard a great deal of shouting and had subsequently, witnessed the incident in which the four main accused-Appellants herein caused a large umber of injuries to the deceased and PW-1, but as PW-4 was admittedly an autorickshaw driver operating from Kuthuparamba and as his autorickshaw was stationed at Kuthuparamba, the story projected by him that he had come to Ayithara to get it repaired, appeared to be doubtful. The court also opined that the eyewitness account was not substantiated by the medical evidence in the light of the fact that all the incised injuries appeared to bear clear-cut margins whereas the prosecution had suggested that accused Nos. 5 to 7 had been armed with a crow bar and sticks.

(3.) The court also went into the evidence of the primary investigating officer PW-15 and opined that there appeared to be something remiss in the manner in which the investigation had been conducted by him. In conclusion, the Trial Court observed that: