STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM Vs. K. SURESH KUMAR, S/O. GOVINDAN MANILYANAR, KOZHAKKARAVAN VEEDU, MANADUKAM, BANDADUKKA VILLAGE,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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.