GANESHAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence made in S.C.No.169/1999 on the files of the Court of I Addl. Sessions Judge, Thrissur. The conviction is under Section 326 of IPC. Appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. The facts of the case is as follows :

(2.) When the appeal came up for hearing, the learned counsel Sri. N.K. Unnikrishnan argued before this court that here is a case where the prosecution suppressed the original information and thereafter an F.I.Statement was brought on record by obtaining the signature of PW1 as evident from his deposition. It is also the submission that a perusal of the evidence of PW3 will reveal that in the night of the incident itself ie. by about 12 at night, PW15 the investigating officer went to the place of incident, met PW3 and went to the spot of incident and he was also taken to show the house of the accused. But all these facts were seen denied by PW15. But the fact that the Police received information and further the fact that PW1 was taken to the police station in a police jeep on the next day of the incident is apparent and evident from the evidence tendered on oath before the court. When the original information was suppressed, the consequence is that even Ext.P1 now recorded by the Police can be only treated as a statement collected during investigation which is hit by section 162 of Cr.P.C., 1973. It cannot be used for any purpose much less to corroborate the evidence of PW1.

(3.) The next point argued before this court by the learned counsel is that on the background of the suppression of the earliest version, non-examination of CW4, admittedly the shop owner in front of whose shop the incident occurred attains importance. He is a person named in the so called F.I.Statement as a witness to the incident. The said person was examined before the court. The non-examination of such a witness is actually fatal to the prosecution especially when it can be seen that PW2 and PW3 belongs to the same family of the deceased. It is also pertinent to note that PW4 also belongs to the same family.