AYYAPPAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PWS. 1, 2 and 3 are the eye witnesses to the incident. Before the Sessions Court, these witnesses have stated with material details what has happened on 5-12-1982 on the verandah of the shop of pw. I which resulted in the death of Hassainar.

(2.) PW. 1 has stated that the accused came to the verandah of the shop, where the deceased was sitting on a wooden plank, and stabbed him on the chest of the deceased. Immediately after the stabbing, the accused ran away from the scene. PWs 2 and 3 also deposed that they also saw the accused stabbing the deceased. It is brought out in evidence that the accused stabbed the deceased saying that he bad attempted to molest the daughter of the accused. The daughter of the accused has been examined as PW. 7 in this case.

(3.) THE attack made against the credibility of the evidence of pw. I is on the basis of certain minor and trivial discrepancies in the evidence of pw. I given before the court and the statement he had made before the Police. Counsel pointed out that there is some mistakes in regard to the date on which the First Information Statement was given. As per Ext. P1, the statement was given by pw. 1 on 5-12-1982 at 6 p. m. On Ext. P1 an endorsement of the Judicial First Class Magistrate is seen. It is dated 6-12-1982 and the time noted is 9 a. m. pw. 1, when examined before the court, deposed thus: Obviously the deposition quoted above was given in a confused state of mind. This is clear from his subsequent statements in cross-examination. We feel that instead of saying the witness said which can never be true since Ext. P1 shows that the statement was given on 5-12-1982 at 6 p. m. Further, it has to be noted that the Police came to the scene of occurrence and prepared the mahazar when pw. 1 banded over the fatal weapon, mo1. pw. 1 is a witness to this mahazar. Being a rustic witness, be was not able to make the difference between the mahazar, in which he signed, and Ext. P1 first Information Statement. This aspect of the matter was taken note of by the sessions Court and it found that the witness was perplexed at the time of chief examination and be further stated that he lodged the complaint on the very same day of the incident and handed over the knife, MO1, to pw. 12. It has to be remembered that Ext. P1 as well as the mahazar for the recovery of MO1 was recorded by pw. 12. THE trial court had occasion to see the demeanour of the witness and has observed that pw. 1 himself had stated that some mistake was committed by him in his chief examination as he was perplexed at the time of the chief examination. We feel that the mistakes are trivial and happened on account of some confusion in the mind of the witness. THEse mistakes which are seen corrected in his deposition themselves are hardly sufficient to cast any doubt about the veracity of the evidence given by this witness. We see no substance in the submission of the counsel for the appellant on this count.