They were acquitted for all the other charges.
A wordy quarrel took place between A 6 and Rajappan Nair over the manner in which the price of the fruits was paid.
He also deposed that he and P.W. 5 were taken to the Police Station alongwith the deceased and he witnessed the beating.
He identified A l and A 4 as the persons who gave kicks and who hit the head of the deceased against the wall etc.
The case mainly rests on the evidence of P.Ws.
Hearing the quarrel, Bhuvanendran, the deceased in the case, came to the scene and dragged A 6 by his companylar out of the premises.
When the deceased attempted to rise up, A l pushed him and again kicked him on his chest.
To that extent his evidence companyroborates the evidence of P.W.5.
5 and 6 which has been accepted by both the companyrts below.
Dr. K.M.K. Nair, P.W.12 was summoned to the Police Station and he found the victim unconscious and his pulse very weak.
He and P.W.6 were made to stand inside the screen and he saw the deceased being beaten and kicked by the police companystables.
P.W.19, who companyducted the post mortem, found companytusions all over the body of the deceased and on internal examination he found that Panchreas, liver and duodenum were bruised.
As a result of the injuries inflicted, the victims companydition became very serious.
A 6 left the place threateningly.
1,7,8 and 9 to bring the culprit to the Police Station.
A S deputed accused Nos.
They accordingly brought deceased as the offender and also P.Ws 5 and 6 as the persons present at the scene at about 2.30 P.M. On reaching the Police Station, A l and A 2 slapped Bhuvanendran, the deceased and A l hit the deceased on his flanks with his hand.
The evidence of P.W. 6 is also to the same effect.
He companyld number identify the other accused.
They preferred an appeal.
This witness was cross examined at length.
An intimation was sent to the police and a case was registered and P.W.31, the Detective Inspector took up the investigation and companypleted the same and laid the charge sheet.
Then A l dashed his head against the wall of 3 or 4 times causing injuries on the right side of the head.
A l made the deceased fall down by kicking him on his legs.
A 10 was a Sub Inspector attached to that Station and A 4 was a police companystable in the Central Crime Station, Trivendrum.
1 and 4 were tried alongwith 19 others for offences punishable under Sections 143, 149, 302, 342, 201, 218, 119 and 114 I.P.C. The trial companyrt acquitted the 19 others and companyvicted the two appellants under Section 304 Part II I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to undergo R.I. for five years.
He further deposed that after some time some of the police people came and took the deceased, himself and also P.W. 6 to the Fort Police Station.
The deceased was removed to the hospital at about 5 P.M. and he was examined by P.W.I, Dr. K. Sudhakaran there but the deceased died at about 6 P.M. The inquest was held and the dead body was sent for post mortem.
A 3 then hit the deceased on his back just below the neck with his bent elbow.
The prosecution examined P.Ws 1 to 31 and the accused when questioned totally denied the offence.
A l also kicked the deceased on his back.
The Doctor opined that the death was the result of blunt injuries to the heart, lungs and brain of the deceased.
1 to 3, 7 to 9 and 11 to 21 were police companystables attached to the Fort Police Station, Trivendrum.
On 18.12.80 at about 2 P.M. A 6 went to the shop of Rajappan Nair, C.W.8 to purchase plantains.
Then A 4 kicked the deceased on his back 3 or 4 times.
The general criticism against the evidence of P.W.5 is that numbertest identification parade was held and there was every possibility of the appellants accused being shown to the witnesses.
A 6 was a companystable attached to Armed Reserve Camp.
Hence the present appeal.
The prosecution case is that at the relevant time accused Nos.
The State also preferred an appeal against the acquittal of three of the other accused.
He went to the Fort Police Station and companyplained of the incident to A 5, the Head Constable.
Jayachandra Reddy, J. The two appellants herein original accused Nos.
P.W.5 deposed that he was owning a pan shop and used to sell ice also.
5 and 6 held that the prosecution has proved its case only against A l and A 4 beyond all reasonable doubt and having regard to the nature of the attack, companyvicted them under Section 304 Part II I.P.C. and acquitted others as they were number identified by P.W.5.
Learned companynsel also submitted that the medical evidence does number support the prosecution case since the kicks and slapping given by the accused companyld number have resulted in the internal damage.
P.W.6, however, did number identify any of the accused but his evidence clearly shows that he and P.W.5 were taken to the Police Station and both of them witnessed the beating.
At the time of occurrence he was standing near his brothers shop which was opposite to the shop of Rajappan Nair and he heard numberse and he deposed that A 6 who was identified in the companyrt, was quarrelling with the deceased.
The High Court dismissed both the appeals.
