STATE Vs. MOTA ALIAS MOTTA S O MADIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN incident of horrifying dimensions took place on the night between 24th and 25th April 1992 at Chinnakkal, Kevalur village in Piriyapatna taluk, Mysore district wherein five human beings were hacked to death in the most savage and blood curdling manner along with a poor goat which was also tied there, which only heightens the intense brutality with which the incident was committed. It was alleged that the two accused who are brothers and aged hardly 20 and 22 years respectively at that time had initially entered the hut of deceased Chothaiah @ Thimmaiah and attacked him so savagely that his head was almost separated from the body. Thereafter the two accused are alleged to have entered the hut of Shettaiah @ Muthaiah and perpetrated a similar assault on him, but in this case, the injuries were very similar to the injuries inflicted on the previous victim. The next target of the accused was the wife of Muthaiah who is PW-18 Madamma. In this case, she was assaulted with a club on her face and the upper part of her body, but for some reason, she was not killed. The grand-daughter Muthi however was not so fortunate because eventhough she was a girl aged hardly 15 years, she was attacked and beheaded. The prosecution alleges that Nagaraj son of Muthaiah who came there hearing the commotion turned out to be the next victim who was also beheaded. The last of the victims was Chotiah who was also beheaded. In between these attacks, it is alleged that the accused turned their fury on a goat that was tied there which was also attacked with the machus and the goat died on the spot. It is the prosecution case that the two accused who were armed with machus, M. Os. 4 and 5 thereafter made their way towards the hills and forests. Madamma narrated what had happened to PW-1 the next morning and PW-1 in turn lodged a police complaint which has been treated as the F. I. R. It is the prosecution case that the two accused were thereafter cited by PW-7 who in turn apprehended accused-2 and accused-1 had also accompanied him. The two accused were apprehended by the villagers PW-15 and others who tied them up and the Investigating Officer-PW-38 states that when he arrested the accused, they had bloodstained clothes on their persons.

(2.) AT the very outset, Mr. Devaraju raised a preliminary objection. His contention was that the prosecution has alleged that five murders have been committed by the accused and furthermore, he points out that it is the prosecution case that these five murders come under three different groups or heads in so far as they are alleged to have been committed at three separate spots. He therefore submits that a single trial for these offences is impermissible. He has relied on the provisions of Sec. 218 Cr. P. C. and he contends that in respect of each of the separate charges, there ought to have been a separate trial. Obviously anticipating the defence to this submission from the other side, the learned counsel contended that prejudice is manifest to the accused if the various offences are grouped together because the complexion of the entire incident gets completely altered and it is his submission that the damage to the defence is very substantial. The learned SPP has countered the submission by pointing out that the incident has taken place within a short span of time on the same night virtually in the huts that were next to each other and that they formed a series of connected acts and that therefore, having regard to the provisions of Secs. 215 and 200 Cr. P. C. that it was perfectly permissible to try the offences in one and the same case. Learned counsel has also submitted that when prejudice is alleged, it must be demonstrated to be real and substantial and not something that is imaginary. He submits that irrespective of whether one trial was held or five trials were held, that the facts relating to what transpired on that night would be narrated and common evidence would be led and that under these circumstances, it is absurd to argue that the Court would get prejudiced merely because there is reference to more murders than one. We are in total agreement with what is pointed out by the learned SPP because the law itself makes specific provision for a single trial in incidents of this type. He is right when he points out that the time frame, the place where the incidents were committed, the rapidity with which one after the other and above all, similarity with which the acts were repeated, would certainly indicate that they are all virtually interlinked and come within the frame work of one transaction. Moreover, where each of the incidents is gory in itself and where in any one of the trials the facts are related, the complexion of the case is no different to a situation wherein separate trials are held. Infact, the learned counsel demonstrated to us that quite apart from the immense waste of judicial time that if one were to talk of prejudice, the situation would be far worse if the trials had to follow each other and that in a consolidated trial, the accused would certainly be better off. We are unable to read even the slightest prejudice that has occurred to the accused and having regard to the clear cut position in law, the objection that has been pleaded is overruled. We need to add here that the Criminal Procedure Code itself makes a distinction between irregularities and illegalities, the first of them are capable of being corrected and it is only in the second set of situations that the trial would be vitiated. In this instance, we do not even need to go into any such distinctions because we have already held that the answer from the learned SPP more than nullifies the objections.

(3.) MR. Devaraju thereafter took us through the major heads of evidence. He first dealt with the evidence of PW-1 Kariyappa who is the complainant. His contention is that this witness has only relayed to the Police whatever PW-18 told him and that too, whatever she conveyed to him on the morning after the incident. Two submissions were canvassed, the first being that whereas the incident took place somewhere around midnight, that the F. I. R. has been lodged with the Police after a delay of several hours and secondly that this is virtually a second-hand communication because Kariyappa is only a messenger not having been anything himself. The learned SPP has pointed out to us that the law takes a serious note of delays provided there is no valid explanation but more importantly, in cases of this type, if the situation gives rise to suspicion in so far as there is reason to believe that during intervening period, the aggrieved or interested persons have met and conspired for purposes of falsely implicating one or more persons. He points out the remote location of the village in this case, the nature of the incident, the fact that PW-18 Madamma herself was injured and that as soon as she has conveyed the information to PW-1 he has made his way to the Police Station and lodged the complaint. We do not see any justification for making any grievance with regard to the delay because the complaint had been lodged within the earliest possible time having regard to the overall situation. As regards the second aspect of the matter, the learned SPP is again right in so far as he points out that PW-18 Madamma was injured apart from which, she has lost her husband, son and grand-daughter on the previous night, she was an old lady of 65 and in this background it would be unreasonable to expect her to make her way to the Police Station which was a long distance from that spot. Also, having regard to the fact that it was a remote village, she has done the next best thing in conveying the information to PW-1 and he in turn has straightway communicated it to the Police. More importantly, what the learned SPP demonstrated to us is that if one were to cross check the details of the incident from the other material on record that it will be found that the FIR is a correct summary of what has transpired on that night. He submits that in this background, the criticism levied vis-a-vis, the evidence of PW-1 and the FIR are totally unjustified. Again, we have no hesitation in accepting the submission because it represents the correct position in law but more importantly, that on the facts of the present case, there is no ground for us to find any fault with this material.