R. BAIJU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A very common place altercation escalated into a terrorizing attack leading to the death of a person and injuries to three others. The investigation changed hands several times, which also had political overtones, despite which the prosecution resulted in the conviction by the Trial Court of all the accused for the offences punishable under Ss. 143, 147, 323, 324, 427, 449 & 302 read with Ss. 149 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [The IPC].

(2.) The sixth accused, the appellant herein, who was roped in on the charge of conspiracy, for the earlier incidents, his presence at the crime scene and the exhortation made to kill, was handed down the sentence of death, being the main conspirator and the others were sentenced to imprisonment for life. In appeal, the High Court acquitted the fifth accused and modified the conviction of accused No.1 to 4 and altered the conviction under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 149 of IPC to Sec. 304 Part II read with Sec. 34 of IPC and convicted the sixth accused, who is the sole appellant herein under Ss. 323, 324, 427, 450 and 304 Part II of IPC read with Sec. 120B of IPC. The appellant herein was sentenced under Sec. 450 read with Sec. 120B to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years together with fine of Rs.10,000.00 and also sentenced to RI for 10 years under Sec. 304 Part II read with Sec. 120B of IPC with a fine of Rs.25,000.00 and default sentences of one year each. The sentence for the offences under Sec. 323, 324, 427 of IPC by the Trial Court stood confirmed.

(3.) We heard Sh. Abhilash M.R learned counsel appearing for the appellant. It was argued that A6 was roped in as the main conspirator who had not joined the frontal attack alleged by the prosecution on the deceased and his family members. A5 was acquitted and A6, whose role was identical to A5, was convicted, erroneously. It is argued that PWs 1 to 3, the daughterin- law, son and wife of the deceased did not name A6 in the initial statement given under Sec. 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [The Cr.P.C.] and was included only later in the statements given under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. The reliance placed on PW7 is untenable since he belongs to a rival political party and there were cases pending between him and A6, clearly indicating an intention to somehow inculpate A6.