STATE OF KERALA Vs. NARAYANAN BHASKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by leave, is directed against the order of acquittal in S.C. 10/86 on the file of the Court of Session, Pathanamthitta Division. Respondents were charged with offences punishable under Sections 342, 324 and 302 read with Section 34, IPC, in that they in furtherance of their common intention, caused the death of one Muhammed Kannu and caused injuries to PW 2, at or about 9 p.m. on 5-6-1985. The incident took place in front of the shop of PW 3, at Mundukottakkal. According to prosecution, respondents were talking among themselves, when the deceased came on the scene. When deceased went near the respondents-accused, first respondent is alleged to have taken a chopper (M.O. 5), which the fourth respondent was carrying, and inflicted injuries on the deceased. PW 2 pleaded with them not to kill the deceased, and went towards them. Upon that, first accused is said to have inflicted a wound on his arm with the chopper. Thereafter, respondents went southwards. PW 2 went near the shop of PW 3 and leaning on a pillar, asked PW 3 to fetch a car. PW 3 looked for a car, but to no avail and reported the matter to PW 2. He then went to his brother's place, got a jeep and proceeded to the Government Hospital, Pathanamthitta and then to the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam. In the meanwhile, the injured Muhammed Kannu died. Around 11 p.m. on the same night, PW 1 - father of deceased, made a statement Ext. P1 before PW 12 - Sub Inspector of Police. Ext. P1 (a) is the first information report. Ext. P5 is the inquest report and Ext. P4, the wound certificate issued by PW 5 in respect of the injuries sustained by PW 2. The dead body of Muhammed Kannu was sent for post mortem examination. PW 4 performed the autopsy and issued Ext. P2 Certificate. Respondents 1, 2 and 4 were arrested on 18-6-1985. Third respondent surrendered on 3-8-1985. Pursuant to a statement made by first respondent, M.O. 5 chopper was recovered under Ext. P6 mahazar. PWs. 8 and 13 speak to the recovery. Ext. P9 certificate of chemical analysis, reveals that the chopper was stained with human blood. PWs. 2, 3 and 6 speak to the occurrence. On this evidence, respondents stood trial. The case of respondents was one of denial.

(2.) The Court of Session acquitted the respondents on the grounds that PWs. 2 and 6 are not independent witnesses, that the evidence is self-contradictory, that PW 6 was a chance witness, and that the medical evidence did not support the prosecution case. These findings are challenged as perverse by the Public Prosecutor.

(3.) PW 2 is the injured and he has given a graphic description of the incident. PW 3 who runs a trade in the vicinity, states that he saw the incident and the accused going southwards after the occurrence. PW 6 who lives near the scene of occurrence, states that he saw injuries being inflicted on PW 2 and the deceased. He has also identified M.O. 5 chopper. These witnesses were questioned at the inquest soon after the occurrence, and they gave a clear and complete account of the occurrence, which accords with their evidence in Court. They are natural and probable witnesses. The cross-examination elicited nothing from them, to suggest that they bore ill-will towards the respondents, or that they were not speaking the truth.