TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 1250X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le and, having held as above, acquitted all the accused. The State thereupon took the matter to the High court in appeal. The High Court held that calling the judgment of the trial Court qua A.1 to A.3 as perverse, partly allowed the appeal and convicted them but confirmed the judgment of the trial Court with respect to the other accused. A.1 to A.3 are before us by way of special leave. HELD THAT:- A perusal of the injuries would reveal that injury No. 1 has been caused by A.1, Injury No. 2 either by A.2 or A.3, Injury No. 3 by A.1, Injury Nos. 4 and 5 by A.1 with a stone and there are three or four additional injuries (on which emphasis has been laid by Mr. Rao) as they remain unexplained. Even assuming, however, that three injuries out of eight are unexplained, this one circumstance alone would not destroy the flow of the other evidence. It is clear that the incident had happened in the course of the Mandal Parishad Elections with several people being involved and a large group of spectators being present at the spot. In this scenario we feel that it would have been well nigh impossible for any witness to have given a mathematical or precise description of all the injur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Soodidela Bapireddy, in front of the polling station, when all the accused, 20 in number, armed with lethal weapons such as axes, knives, sticks and stones attacked him. A.1 Kotesswara caught hold of the deceased by his hair and gave two blows with a stone on his forehead and also stabbed him with a knife on his chest, A.2 Hanumantha Rao and A.3 Krishniah who were both armed with axes caused injuries on the back of the head of the deceased where after A.1 again stabbed the deceased on his shoulder. On receipt of the injuries the deceased fell to the ground. The accident was witnessed by PW.1 and in addition by PW.5- Pambha Soubhagyamma, a vegetable hawker. PW.1 raised an alarm whereupon PW.6 and PW.7, Soodidela Subbamma and Soodidela Vijaylakshmi, rushed and found that the victim was bleeding from serious injuries. They attempted to move him towards his house but he passed away after a short while. The other accused A.4 to A.20 thereafter hurled stones on the witnesses including PW.1 and PW.5 causing one simple injury with a stone on the back of PW.1. PW.12 and PW.16 an ASI and Head constable, who were on polling duty in the village, also rushed to the spot and saw the accused thro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mortem certificate Ext. P.2, but the evidence of PW.1 and PW.5 referred to only five injuries caused by the three accused i.e. A.1 to A.3. The Court accordingly concluded that the genesis of the incident had been suppressed and that apparent inconsistencies had occurred in the eye witnesses account vis-a-vis the medical evidence and as these omissions/inconsistencies went to the root of the matter the evidence of these two witnesses could not be accepted. The Court further found that the evidence with regard to the accused other than A.1 to A.3 was even more unacceptable and, having held as above, acquitted all the accused. The State thereupon took the matter to the High court in appeal. The High Court held that the eye witnesses account of PW.1 and PW.5 fully corresponded with the medical evidence; that the presence of the two witnesses had been fully explained and that the so called improvements and inconsistencies referred to by the trial Judge in the course of its lengthy judgment, were innocuous and did not go to the root of the matter and could, therefore, be ignored and having held so (and calling the judgment of the trial Court qua A.1 to A.3 as perverse) partly allowed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judgment of the trial Court is stated to be perverse. The word `perverse' in terms as understood in law has been defined to mean against the weight of evidence . We have to see accordingly as to whether the judgment of the trial Court which has been found perverse by the High Court was in fact so. We have gone through the evidence of PW.1 and PW.5 very carefully with the help of the learned Counsel. PW.1 stated that he had come to the place of incident as his uncle, the deceased, was a candidate in the election. His presence is therefore absolutely natural. PW.5 stated that she was vegetable vendor and had come to the site in order to sell her wares. Mr. Rao, has, however, sought to demolish her testimony by observing that she had started from her house at about 7.00 a.m. (as stated by her) and had reached the murder site after selling vegetables to several people and realising this difficulty she had changed the time to 6.00 a.m. to suit the circumstance that the murder too had committed at 7.00 a.m. We are of the opinion that inconsistency can be ignored as the witnesses belonged to a deprived section of society and her statement was being recorded after 8 years of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 2 either by A.2 or A.3, Injury No. 3 by A.1, Injury Nos. 4 and 5 by A.1 with a stone and there are three or four additional injuries (on which emphasis has been laid by Mr. Rao) as they remain unexplained. Even assuming, however, that three injuries out of eight are unexplained, this one circumstance alone would not destroy the flow of the other evidence. It is clear that the incident had happened in the course of the Mandal Parishad Elections with several people being involved and a large group of spectators being present at the spot. In this scenario we feel that it would have been well nigh impossible for any witness to have given a mathematical or precise description of all the injuries that had been caused and that too in a melee. The fact remains that the injuries found on the dead body correspond fully with the weapons that had been used. As a matter of fact injury Nos. 4 and 5 which appeared to be inflicted with a stone allegedly in the hands of A.1 clearly prove the veracity of the story as it would have been inconceivable for a witness to have imagined that a stone, (a very unusual weapon for a pre-planned attack) would be used as A.1 was also armed with a knife which h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
