KANAGARAJ Vs. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PER The appellants, who have been arrayed as A 1 to A 14, have come forward with these appeals challenging their conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Principal Ses- sions Judge, Tuticorin, by the judgment dated victing and sentencing the appellants as here- 30.11.2001 made in S.C. No. 210 of 1996 con- under: Accused rank Conviction under Sections Sentence A 1 to A 14 148 IPC Each to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs1,000/-, in default, to undergo nine months rigorous imprisonment A 1 302 read with 149 IPC (two Life imprisonment for each count and to pay a fine of Rs counts) 10,000/- for each count, in default, to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment (each count) - Sentences to run separately. A2 to A9, All to 302 read with 149 IPC Each to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs A 13 5,000/-, in default, to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment A2 to A14 (A10 149 read with 302 IPC Each to undergo life imprisonment (A10 and A14 for and A 14 two each count) and to pay a fine of Rs1,000/-, in default, to counts) undergo one year rigorous imprisonment A 10 and A 14 324 IPC Each to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs1,000/-, in default, to undergo nine months rigorous imprisonment A 11,12 149 IPC Each to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs1,000/-, in default, to undergo nine months rigorous imprisonment The sentences imposed on A2 to A4 are ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE prosecution version as unfolded through the evidence of the eye-witnesses are hereunder:

(3.) . Mr. M.S. Velusamy, Mr. A.M. Rahamath Ali, Mr. K. Kumar, Mr. N. Ananthapadmanaban, Mr. S. Durairaj, Mr. B. Pugalendhi and Mr. P. Andiraj, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that the prosecution case suffers from serious infirmities and inconsistencies. It is contended that the prosecution has put forth its case by placing reliance on the interested and partisan witnesses, namely, P.Ws.1 to 4, who are closely related to the deceased. It is contended that inspite of specific admission of the eyewitness, P.W.2, to the effect that there are 25 houses in the same street, wherein, the occurrence took place, and all the residents have seen the occurrence and P. W.4, who has stated that the occurrence took place for 10 minutes and the persons residing in the same street have known about the occurrence, but the prosecution has not examined any independent witness. 5.1. The learned counsel for the appellants would proceed to contend that there is a serious doubt about the .genuineness of Exhibit P-1 as the same could not have been received and registered at the time and in the manner as alleged by the prosecution. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants that the Thalayari, P.W.8 has categorically stated that in respect of the occurrerice he gave information to the police and on his information police came to the scene of occurrence and thereafter, they have taken P.W. 1 to the Police Station and as such, the earliest information given by P.W.8 has been suppressed by the prosecution. It is pointed out that P.W.7, Village Administrative Officer, has also categorically admitted in his cross-examination that the police came to the scene of occurrence at 8.00 a.m. itself. It is further contended that the Doctor, P.W.I3, who has conducted post-mortem on Dl and D2, admitted in his cross-examination that the occurrence could have been taken place on 7.12.1994 between 4.00 a.m. and 6.00 a.m. and P.W.I7, another Doctor, who has examined P.Ws.3 and 4/injured witnesses, has stated that the occurrence could have been taken place at 5.30 a.m. and as such, the defence version is probabilised by the medical evidence that the occurrence could have taken place much earlier than that of the claim of the prosecution to the effect that the occurrence took place at 7.45 a.m. 5.2. It is further contended that in view of the aforesaid materials available on record, the delay in despatching the First Information Report assumes importance as the First Information Report which is said to have been registered as early as at 9.45 a.m. has been despatched and reached the Magistrate's Court at 7.00 p.m. and as per the version of P.W.9, the Constable, who has despatched the First Information Report to the Magistrate Court, one could have reached the Court within half an hour from the police station and such inordinate delay is not at all explained by the prose- cution. The learned counsel for the appellants would further contend that in view of the inordinate and unexplained delay in the First Information Report reaching the Magistrate's Court coupled with the admission of P.Ws.7 and 8 to the effect that police came to the scene even at 8.00 a.m., the suppression of the earliest report given to the police cannot be ruled out and the same would make it very clear that First Information Report in this case is a fabricated document and as such, the entire prosecution case is liable to be rejected. 5.3. The learned counsel for the appellants would further contend that the version of the eye-witnesses, P. Ws. 1 to 4, is artificial and unbelievable as they have given minute details by giving specific overt acts against each of the 14 accused and such parrot like version of the witnesses, P.Ws.1 to 4, clearly demonstrates that they have not come forward with the true version and their evidence is unreliable. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants that P.W.I has not spoken about the presence of P.W.2 at the time of occurrence and P.W.3 ruled out the presence of P.W.I and as such, P.Ws.1 and 2 could not have been present at the scene at the time of occurrence. The learned counsel would submit that P. W. 1 has categorically admitted in his cross-examination that the other accused persons, namely, Sivasubramanian and Maappillaisami have been caught red-handed by him, but they have not been implicated as one of the accused in this case and as such, the participation of other accused in the occurrence cannot be ruled out. 5.4. The learned counsel for the appellants would lastly contend that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the recoveries of the weapons at the instance of A1 as the witnesses to speak about the recoveries, namely, P.Ws.7 and 8 have not supported the prosecution case and they have turned hostile. It is also pointed out that the weapons, aruvals, namely, M.Os. 12 to 18 have been recovered only on the basis of the admissible portion of the confession of A1 and the said weapons have not been stained with blood.