IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2009 / 7TH MAGHA 1930 CRL.A.No. 153 of 2005() ----------------------- SC.131/2000 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC) FAST TRACK COURT NO.I, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE C.I. OF POLICE, CHALAKUDI. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U. NAZAR RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED: --------------- 1. THOMAS, S/O. PADMADAN ANTHONY, PARIYARAM VILLAGE, KUTTIKKAD DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 2. DAVIS, S/O. PADAMADAN ANTHONY, PARIYARAM VILLAGE, KUTTIKKAD DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 3. OUSEPHKUTTY, S/O. KOCHAPUTTI, ANBADAN HOUSE, PARIYARAM VILLAGE, KUTTIKKAD DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 4. FRANCIS, S/O. KOCHAPUTTY, PARIYARAM VILLAGE, KUTTIKKAD DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 5. DAVIS, S/O. KOCHAPUTTY, PARIYARAM VILLAGE, KUTTIKKAD DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 6. SHAJI, S/O. GEORGE, MADANI HOUSE, PARIYARAM VILLAGE, KUTTIKKAD DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 7. PAULSON, S/O. AMMANAM LONAPPAN, PARIYARAM VILLAGE, KUTTIKKAD DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 8. VARGHESE, S/O. ANTHONY, PALLIPPADAN HOUSE, PARIYARAM VILLAGE, KUTTIKKAD DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 9. WILSON, S/O. VARKEY THOMAS, PARIYARAM VILLAGE, KUTTIKKAD DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 10. SHAJU, S/O. DEVASSY, CHAKKALAKKAL HOUSE, PARIYARAM VILLAGE, KUTTIKKAD DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. ADV. SRI.G.JANARDHANA KURUP, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 - 10 SRI.P.K.VARGHESE FOR R1 TO 10 SRI.JOHN K.GEORGE FOR R THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.A.No.153 OF 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 27th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT Basheer, J: State is the appellant in this appeal against acquittal. By the impugned judgment, learned Third Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court No.1, Trichur held that the prosecution had not been able to prove the charge levelled against the respondents/accused in the case. Accordingly, they were found not guilty and acquitted of the charge under Sections 143,147,148 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case in brief was that on January 11, 1997 at about 11.15 p.m the accused, ten in number, had formed themselves into an unlawful assembly in prosecution of their common object to cause death of one Padamadan Varghese by inflicting injuries on him with weapons like chopper, knife, sword etc. According to the prosecution, the motive behind the crime was the animosity between the deceased and accused No.1 in connection with a dispute over a water channel that was being used for agricultural operations. The police had charge sheeted the respondents/accused after completing the investigation for the offences referred to above. 2 Crl.A.No.153/05 3. The prosecution examined Pws 1 to 5 and marked Exts.P1 to P28 and Mos1 to 15. Exts.D1 and D2 contradictions were marked on the side of the defence. 4. Learned sessions judge, after a careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, took the view that it was not safe to rely on the solitary testimony of Pw8, brother of the deceased, who alone supported the prosecution case to some extent. Further, the learned sessions judge noticed that the version given by Pw8 before the court was inconsistent and contradictory to the version given before the police. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor, while assailing the above judgment of acquittal, contends that the learned sessions judge was not justified in disbelieving Pw8 whose presence at the scene of occurrence was never in dispute. He was walking along with the procession, at a short distance behind the deceased. The assailants and the deceased were also participating in the procession as stated in Ext.P5 First Information Statement given by Pw6. The learned sessions judge, according to the Public Prosecutor, discarded the evidence of Pw8 without any valid or justifiable reason. 6. It is also pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor that barring a few contradictions here and there, the evidence of Pw8, if read along with other pieces of evidence, will undoubtedly show that the accused had, in furtherance of their common object, inflicted the fatal injuries on the 3 Crl.A.No.153/05 deceased. 7. We have carefully perused the entire materials available on record. In our view it may not be necessary to deal with the deposition of all the witnesses or the documents marked in this case. As mentioned earlier, the only witness, who supported the prosecution case was Pw8, the younger brother of the deceased. The prosecution had examined Pws7 and 10 also as eye witnesses to the incident. But these two witnesses did not support the prosecution case and they were declared hostile. But, Pw8 made an attempt to support the prosecution case. In his evidence, he deposed that he had gone to participate in the Ambu festival, that was being held in the nearby church, after taking his food at about 9 p.m. Pws 6, 7, 10 and three other named persons had also accompanied him. These persons who were friends of the deceased had come to his residence as invited by the deceased. 8. The deceased had also started off from the residence in order to join the Ambu procession. The deceased and his friends were moving along with Nadaswaram contingent in the procession while Pw8 was a little behind moving along with Band contingent . At about 11 p.m, while the procession was moving on, accused No.2 came near the deceased and asked him not to perform twist dance. The other accused were also along with accused No.2. After identifying all the accused in the court, Pw8 stated that in response to the 4 Crl.A.No.153/05 demand made by Accused No.2 not to perform twist dance, the deceased asked him what was wrong with twist dance. At that time accused No.2 pushed at the neck of the deceased. A push and pull ensued between Accused No.2 and the deceased. Somebody pulled away the deceased. At that time, Accused No.1 took out a sword from behind and cut at the neck of the deceased. Accused No.8 inflicted a cut injury with a chopper on the thigh of the deceased who tried to avert the the assault with his hand. There was a scuffle between the deceased and the accused to get hold of the weapon. The deceased managed to get the chopper in his hand and he slashed it at the accused. In that process, accused Nos.2 and 8 sustained some injuries. While accused No.2 sustained injury on the hand, accused No.8 suffered an injury on his thigh. Accused No.8 snatched away the chopper from the hand of the deceased and inflicted an injury on his back. The deceased ran from the scene towards the gate of the residential building of Kunjuvareed Master. The accused followed him with the weapons and sticks. The deceased ran further ahead from the gate of Kunjuvareed Master and reached the residential compound of Ittira. The accused followed him, stabbed and beat him. The deceased went inside the gate and fell down. Accused Nos.1 and 8 inflicted injuries on the deceased with a sword and chopper. Accused Nos.4 and 5 beat the deceased with sticks. Accused No.9 beat the deceased on his head with a torch. Accused No.10 stabbed on 5 Crl.A.No.153/05 the left side of the chest of the deceased with a knife. All others stood around the deceased and kicked. Pw8 stated that seeing all this, he ran away to his house to report the matter. He saw the incident in the tube light. He further stated that Accused Nos.1 and 2 were closely related to him and the deceased. 9. In cross examination, Pw8 admitted that he had not told the police about the assault with chopper and sword. Further he stated that the weapons involved in the crime were two sticks, one sword and one chopper. He further conceded that out of the ten accused, only four were carrying weapons; but the others did not. He further admitted that the alleged motive namely the dispute with regard to the irrigation channel had occurred about 18 years ago and that there was no further incident or altercation between the two families in respect of the said dispute. 10. We do not propose to refer to the various inconsistent and contradictory statements with regard to the manner in which the alleged incident took place. Further those inconsistent and contradictory versions which came out in evidence will not only create confusion in the mind of the court as rightly noticed by the learned sessions judge, but they will also cut at the root of the prosecution case itself. 11. It may be true that Pw8 had spoken about the first part of the incident. But in this context, it has to be noticed that according to the prosecution, the first part of the 6 Crl.A.No.153/05 incident took place while the procession was proceeding. The specific case of the prosecution was that accused No.2 had asked the deceased to stop his twist dance. Thereupon accused No.2 is alleged to have pushed at the neck of the deceased. At that time accused No.1 is alleged to have cut at the neck of the deceased with a sword and accused No.2 had inflicted a wound on the thigh of the deceased. Further, the deceased had caused two injuries on accused Nos.2 and 8 after snatching away the chopper from the hands of accused No.8. It was the further case of the prosecution that accused No.8 had thereafter inflicted a stab on the back of the deceased. At that time accused No.8 also is alleged to have inflicted another cut injury at the back of the deceased with the chopper. Thus the deceased had suffered three injuries while he was participating in the procession at the hands of A1 and A8. Similarly accused Nos.2 and 8 also had suffered some injuries which were allegedly inflicted by the deceased himself after snatching away the chopper from accused No.8. 12. Going by the site plan no incident took place on the road while the procession was going on. This material deviation in the prosecution case in our view is enough to cast shadow of doubt on the entire prosecution version. 13. In this context, we may also refer to the charge sheet in Crime No.21/1997 which was registered against the deceased for allegedly causing injuries on accused Nos.2 and 7 Crl.A.No.153/05 8. Ext.P3 is stated to be the wound certificate issued by Pw4, Dr. Antony after examining accused No.2. Ext.P4 is the wound certificate issued by Pw5, Dr. Ravindran in respect of the injury suffered by accused No.8. In Ext.P4 the doctor had recorded that the injured (A8) had informed him that Padamadan Varghese (deceased) had caused the injury by assaulting him with a sword stick. We have referred to these two certificates only to highlight the fact that the deceased had also allegedly caused injuries on the two accused. But, a perusal of the records in Crime No.21/1997 indicates that the deceased had allegedly inflicted the injury on the defacto complainant in that case with a chopper. 14. As mentioned by us earlier, perusal of the oral testimony of Pw8 does not inspire any confidence in us. The trial court in our view, had rightly refused to place any reliance on the evidence of this witness. The trial court which had the advantage of watching the demeanur of this particular witness apart from others, was justified in disbelieving the prosecution case. 15. We may also notice that Pw8 had not chosen to go to the police and report the matter, though according to him he had seen the entire incident. He did not go to the hospital either. Further he gave his statement before the police only 3 days after the alleged incident. This conduct of Pw8 also cast a shadow over the credibility of his version. 16. It is trite that the scope for interference in appeal 8 Crl.A.No.153/05 against acquittal is very narrow and limited. Even if two views are possible, it may not always be permissible to substitute the view of the trial court with the other possible or alternate view. In State of Maharashtra v. Sijay M. Poyarekar [2008 (4) KLT SN.28 (SC)] it has been held by their Lordships that the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court merely for the reason that another view is possible. It is also trite that acquittal by the trial court should not be interfered with unless it is totally perverse and wholly unsustainable. 17. Having carefully perused the impugned judgment and the materials available on record, we do not find any apparent perversity or illegality in the finding entered by the learned sessions judge. We are satisfied that the learned Sessions Judge was justified in giving the benefit of doubt to the accused. Therefore we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of acquittal. The appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. (A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE) (THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE) cl 9 Crl.A.No.153/05 A.K.BASHEER & THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JJ. Crl.A.No.153 OF 2005 JUDGMENT 27th January, 2009 10 Crl.A.No.153/05