JAYAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life each and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000 each as they were convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal code. They were charge-sheeted in connection with the murder of husband of P. W. 2 who was working as Quality Control Inspector, Chirayinkeezh. Allegation of the prosecution was that on 20-4-1995 at 6. 30 p. m. A-1 uttered obscene words against P. Ws. 2 and 4 at Kunnapuzha junction and that he also shattered the spectacles worn by P. W. 4. On coming to know about the same, on the same day at about 9. 30 p. m. , deceased Stanley Benzer along with C. W. 2 came to the courtyard of his house in a motorcycle uttering obscene words against A-1 who is residing near his house. Due to that enmitya-1 to A-3 in furtherance of their common intention of causing death of deceased Benzer trespassed into his courtyard and stabbed him with M. O. 1 series pen knives on various parts of his body and he succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment in the Medical College Hospital, thiruvananthapuram on 21-4-1995 at 5. 45 a. m. After the death of benzer, P. W. 1 went to the police station and gave Ext. P-1 First Information statement before P. W. 20, the then Addl. Sub Inspector of Police, Poojappura police Station on 21-4-1995 at 8 a. m. and on the basis of Ext. P-1 F. I. Statement, Crime No. 41/1995 was registered for an offence punishable under section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for which he prepared ext. P-1 (a) F. I. R. P. W. 21 was the Investigating Officer. The prosecution examined P. Ws. 1 to 4 as occurrence witnesses. P. W. 1 who gave the F. I. Statement was also a neighbour. P. W. 2 is the wife of the deceased. P. W. 3 is their son. P. W. 4 was residing in the house of P. W. 2 on a rental basis and she was working as a house maid in other houses. The court below mainly believed the occurrence witnesses P. Ws. 2 to 4 and convicted the accused. Various contentions were raised by the defence and it was mainly contended that P. Ws. 2 to 4 have not seen the incident and a fabricated story is made out.

(2.) WE will first come to the evidence of P. W. 1 and defects pointed out with regard to registration of the crime itself. It is not seriously disputed that P. W. 1 was present at the time of occurrence and he gave Ext. P-1 F. I. Statement. P. W. 1 in his deposition admitted that A-1 to A-3 are known to him and they are also residing in the same area. However, during cross-examination he deposed that he was not able to identify the accused who has done the offence even though he confirmed the other averments in Ext. P-1 f. I. Statement. According to his deposition, he was returning to his house after closing the shop at 9 p. m. Then the deceased Stanley Benzer came there in a bike and invited him to ride as a pillion rider. Since P. W. 1 had to purchase some goods on the way, he declined the offer. The deceased went to his house along with one Solamon (C. W. 2 not examined ). He also stated that he saw P. Ws. 2 and 4 going towards the junction and when he asked where they were going, they said that they were going to make a telephone call. After purchasing the goods, P. W. I went to his house. While returning home, he saw deceased Benzer sitting on the bike in the courtyard of his house. The deceased invited P. W. 1. At that time, the deceased was uttering obscene words and since he was repeating and continuing the abusive and obscene words, p. W. 1 started to go back to his house. At that time, 5 to 6 persons came and inflicted injuries on the deceased and he was not able to identify the accused as there was not enough light. He also stated that when he cried aloud, the assailants ran away and at that time, the deceased was lying over his bike. When P. W. 1 lifted him, his hands were wet and when he looked his hands in the light he found that there was blood. Immediately he along with C. W. 2 Solamon, p. Ws. 2, 3 and 4 took Benzer in a car brought by Solamon to the hospital. On the way, they stopped at Poojappura Police Station. Police asked them to take him to the Medical College Hospital immediately and when he came to know that Benzer died at 8 a. m. on the next day, he went to the Poojappura Police Station and gave Ext. P-1 f. I. Statement. He was declared hostile and was cross-examined. During cross-examination he stated that there was street light, but, he is not aware whether the street light was switched on at that time. He also stated that there was light inside the house, but, there was no light in the veranda and he was not able to see anything because of darkness. He deposed as follows: MALAYALAM Even though P. W. 1 was declared hostile and cross-examined by Public Prosecutor, no portion of Ext. P-1 was put to him for contradiction. In cross-examination he reiterated that P. W. 2 went for making a telephone call and there was no telephone in the nearby houses. He deposed as follows: MALAYALAM In cross-examination by defence, he deposed that even though he gave the F. I. Statement and signed the same, statements were not read over to him and he was asked to sign Ext. P-1.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellants very seriously argued that in Ext. P-6 inquest report in column No. XII name of the accused and nature of the weapons ought to have been mentioned. But, at column XII it is noted that accused were already identified and weapons have to be recovered. In col. No. X names of three accused were mentioned by a person called Simon and even though he was not an eye-witness. It is true that at the time of inquest the weapons were not recovered. We are of the opinion that since names of the accused were mentioned in column No. X and merely because in column No. XII their names were not mentioned, it cannot be presumed that F. I. Statement was given after the inquest was conducted. A three member Bench of the Supreme Court in radha Mohan Singh v. State of U. P. 2006 A. I. R. S. C. W. 421 recently considered the question of non-mentioning of names of accused in inquest report. After considering in detail the purpose of Section 174 of Cr P C. , it was held by the apex Court that purpose of inquest report was only limited to ascertainment of cause of death and it is not necessary to mention names of the accused or eye-witnesses or weapons in the inquest report. THE Apex Court held that there is absolutely no requirement in law of mentioning the details of the FIR, names of the accused or the names of the eye-witnesses or the gist of their statement nor it is required to be signed by any eye-witness. [see also Babu Singh v. State of Punjab A. I. R. 1996 S. C. 3250, Khujji v. State of M. P. A. I. R. 1991 S. C. 1853. Statement recorded in inquest report is not a basic or substantive evidence as held by the Apex Court in Munshi Prasad v. State of Bihar A. I. R. 2001 SC 3031.