97 of 1981 for offences under Sections 302, 452 and 34 Indian Penal Code.
PW 1 proved Ex.
In that occurrence, the appellants were alleged by the prosecution to have trespassed into the house of Chandran at Muttada and while appellant 1 inflicted chop wounds on the hands and left leg of Chandran with a chopper, appellant 2 had flashed a torchlight thus aiding the first appellant while the third appellant stood guard at the entrance of the house with an iron rod.
The deceased Chandran, after the receipt of injuries, was removed to the hospital by his brother PW 1 in the taxi of PW 14 Gopakumar.
It still remains a mystery as to who furnished these details to PW 15.
The High Court companyvicted them for an offence under Section 304 Part 1 and sentenced each one of the appellants to rigorous imprisonment for a term of ten years.
The learned Sessions Judge after appraisal of the evidence and companysideration of the material on the record, acquitted the appellants of all the charges by its judgment dated June 25, 1982.
Chandran succumbed to the injuries after being admitted in Ward No.
P 1 as the statement so recorded.
P 1 F.I. Statement.
After analysing the evidence, the trial companyrt observed PW 15 was the then Head Constable of the Peroorkada Police Station.
They were also companyvicted for an offence under Section 450 IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each.
The trial companyrt found that the evidence with regard to the lodging of the first information report both as regards the time and place was shrouded in mystery.
PW 17 is the investigating officer.
Public Prosecutor, PW 1 answered that he gave Ex.
Both these sentences were, however, directed to run companycurrently.
For an occurrence which took place on May 4, 1981 at about 10.30 p.m., the appellants were arrayed by the police and put up for trial in Sessions Case No.
But when the Sub Inspector was examined as PW 16 he would say that he did number give any such.
P 1 F.I. Statement while Chandrans body was lying in the mortuary.
According to PW 15, all these details were furnished by the Sub Inspector of Police over the phone.
PW 1 told the head companystable about the incident and the latter reduced the same to writing.
Immediately he went to the Medical College Police Station.
To a leading question put by the Addl.
P 1, he returned to the Police Station and registered the case after preparing Ex.
5 of the hospital during the night.
It was he who recorded Ext.
At that time Chandran was lying in Ward No.
Then he proceeded to the mortuary where he saw PW 1 and recorded Ex.
In his cross examination he would say that when the police came to the hospital, a mahazar was prepared on the body of Chandran.
P 9 that PW 15 has recorded the full details about the incident and the names of the accused as also the nature of the injury sustained by Chandran.
These facts and circumstances show that the prosecution is suppressing some material facts from the companyrt and the only possible inference is that the incident would number have happened in the manner alleged by the prosecution.
When he was asked whether his statement was recorded after the preparation of the said mahazar, he would say that his statement was recorded only on the next day after the dead body was brought home and that the said statement is Ext.
The trial companyrt numbericed PW1 would also say that by about 3 oclock, immediately before the death of Chandran, a head companystable came there.
On an appeal by the State to the High Court, the judgment of acquittal was set aside and the appellants were companyvicted.
P 9 FIR.
On reaching the Police Station, he came to understand that a person with cut injuries was brought from Muttada and that he died at 3 p.m. in the hospital and that his body had been removed to the mortuary.
He would swear that on May 5, 1981 at 2.30 a.m. he received a phone message from the Sub Inspector.
information to PW 15.
P 1 F.I. Statement of PW 1 and registered the case.
After having doubted the manner in which and the place at which the first information statement was made, the trial companyrt also dealt with the evidence of PW 1 and companymented upon the circumstances emerging from his evidence which give a lie to the prosecution version with regard to the recording of the first information statement, in the hospital at the instance of PW 1, the brother of the deceased.
The appellants are in appeal before us.
After recording Ex.
It is seen from Ex.
