GEORGE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) George alias Vakkachan, Rajeev and Joshy, the three appellants before us (arrayed as A1 to A3, respectively in the trial Court and hereinafter so referred to) along with four others, (A4 to A7) were put up of trial before an Additional Sessions Judge, Kottayam to answer charges under Sections 143, 147, 148, 449, and 302 read with Section 149, I.P.C. The gravamen of the charges were that on May 28, 1990 at or about 11 p.m. they formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the common object of committing the murder of Sasidharan Nair and in prosecution thereof they trespassed into his house and hacked him to death. The trial ended in acquittal of all of them; and aggrieved thereby the respondent-State of Kerala filed an appeal and Smt. Sarojini Amma (mother of the deceased) filed a revision petition before the High Court. The High Court also issued a suo motu Rule calling upon the seven acquitted persons to show cause why their acquittal should not be set aside. All the matters were heard together by the High Court; and by a common judgment it set aside the acquittal of the three appellants and convicted them under Section 302, read with Sections 34 and 449, I.P.C., while affirming the acquittal of others. For the above convictions the High Court sentenced each of them to suffer imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment for five years respectively, with a direction that the sentences shall run concurrently. The above judgment of the High Court is under challenge in these appeals preferred by the appellants under Section 2 of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act read with Section 379, Cr.P.C.

(2.) Briefly stated, the prosecution case is as under:-

(3.) The appellants pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against them and contended that they had been falsely implicated at the instance of the police. A1, on being examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C., stated that P.W. 50 (Sreekumar), the driver of Car No. KEK 3114, had made a false statement before the Magistrate (recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C.) due to threat by the police. According to him prior to the examination of P.W. 50 in Court his brother was caught by the police at Thiruvalla with some ganja in his car and to get his brother exonerated from that case he gave false evidence at the instance of P.W. 54.