9911796707
TMI Blog1974 (8) TMI 125X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nanthakrishnan deceased was a landowner of village Thanni- sseri. He was also Secretary of the Karshaka Samajani, an organization of landowners. The accused are workers of the local Marxist ,Communist Party. About one or two months before the present occurrence, an agitation had been started by Karshaka Thozhilali Union, which was affiliated to the Marxist Communist Party, for the enhancement of wages payable to agricultural labourers. As a result of that agitation, the landowners found difficulty in conducting their agricultural operations. The relations between the landowners and the Marxist Communist Party consequently became strained. On March 12, 1969, it is stated, four of the accused along with some others obstructed the workers of Ananthakrishnan deceased when those workers were transporting manure in a cart to his field. The deceased filed a complaint under sections 148 and 341 Indian Penal ,Code before the District Magistrate against those persons. As there was strike and picketing by the Marxist workers, Ananthakrishnan deceased and his brother Velunni (PW 1) addressed an application to the District Collector on April 11, 1969 requesting that police protection might be g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eased, How many persons would you kill with a revolver ? Would you not withdraw the case when. asked ? . Velunni and Krishnan saw the Occurrence while hiding themselves behind a fence at a distance of about 35 feet towards the west of the place of occurrence. After the beating had continued for six or seven minutes, Sethu Madhavan Nair accused cried a halt saying that Anan- thakrishnan was dead. The accused then left that place. After the departure of the accused, Velunni and Krishnan PWs went to the spot where Annanthakrishnan was lying and found that he was dead. Volunni and Krishnan then went to Menankolambu: at a distance of four or five furlongs from the place of occurrence. Krishnan stayed there, while Velunni went from that place to Koduvayur. Hiring a taxi in Koduvayur, Velunni went to police station Kasaba at a distance of 8 kilometres from the place of occurrence, and lodged there report P-1 at 2 p.m. After the registration of the case. Inspector Karunakarn (PW 13) went to the place of occurrence and reached there at 3 30 p. m. The Inspector prepared the inquest report. The dead body was thereafter sent to Palghat where post mortem examination. was performed by Dr. V. S. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure of the right humerus. The injuries, according to the doctor, were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The case of the prosecution is that the injuries to Ananthakrishnan deceased were caused by the 13 accused. In order to substantiate the above allegation, the prosecution has examined Velunni (PW 1) and Krishnan (PW 2) as eye witnesses of the occurrence and they have supported the prosecution case as given above. It is upon the evidence of these two eye witnesses that the High Court has based the conviction of the accused. After having been taken through the evidence of these two witnesses, we find the same to be far from convincing. We are further of the view that the learned Sessions Judge gave cogent grounds for rejecting the testimony of these witnesses. The High Court, in the circumstances, should not have reversed the well reasoned judgment of the trial court. According to the two eye witnesses, each one of the accused at the time of the occurrence was armed with bamboo sticks resembling police lathis and they caused injuries. to the deceased with those sticks. Dr. Chandran who performed post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accused at the time of the occurrence. So for as Krishnan (P W2) is concerned he deposed that he had known only two of the accused for five or six years before the present occurrence but did not know the remaining 11 accused. Krishnan added that he had seen those 11 accused once before the present occurrence when he called at the office of the Communist Party. Krishnan was then confronted with his statement made before the police. According to that statement, Krishan had no acquaintance with the persons who caused injuries to the deceased. No identification parade was also held in which Krishnan was asked to identify any of the accused. The learned Sessions Judge in view of the above came to the conclusion that the evidence regarding the identity of the culprits was not satisfactory. We find nothing unreasonable in the above view. The learned Sessions Judge also expressed the opinion that the assault on the deceased took place not at 1 1 a.m. as stated by Velunni 11--M185 Sup. CI/75 and Krisnan PWs but before 9-30 or in any case before 10 a. m. Reliance in this context was placed upon the evidence of Chokkuny (PW 6). Chokkunny had been deputed by Krishnan to take labourers and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... version given by him in the first information report was that the injuries had been caused by others besides the 13 accused. in an appeal under section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against an order of acquittal, the High Court has full power to review at large the evidence on which the order of acquittal was founded and to reach the conclusion that upon the evidence the order of acquittal should be reversed. No limitation should be placed upon that power unless it be found expressly stated in the Code, but in exercising the power conferred by the Code and before reaching its conclusion upon fact the High Court should give proper weight and consideration to such matters as (1) the view of the trial judge as to the credibility of the witness; (2) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at his trial; (3) the right of the accused to the benefit of any real and reasonable doubt; and (4) the slowness of an appellate court disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses. The High Court should also take into account the reason ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
