JASEER M. K. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The best laid schemes of Mice and Men oft go awry, an' lea'e us nought but grief an' pain, For promis'd joy !

(2.) The charges are under Sections 120B criminal conspiracy], 143 unlawful assembly], 402 assembly for committing dacoity], 449 house-trespass for commission of offence punishable with death 342 wrongful confinement], 324 voluntarily causing hurt with dangerous weapons], 396 dacoity with murder], 302 murder and 201 disappearance of evidence read with Section 149 of the IPC. A1 and A3 were convicted under Section 120B and Section 302 and the other accused for the offences herein above mentioned except Section 302. The prosecution examined 140 witnesses, marked 266 exhibits and produced 50 material objects. The defence marked D1 to D4 contradictions and exhibits. The accused were handed down appropriate sentences, which are to run concurrently. The conviction and sentence are challenged in the appeals.

(3.) Sri.B.Raman Pillai, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Adv.Sri.Sujesh Menon V.B., appearing for A2 and A4, pointed out various contradictions from the FIS, S.161 statements and depositions of PWs.1 to 3. The test identification parade for brevity, 'TIP' was seriously assailed pointing out that the Magistrate PW-98], who carried out the same, has not deposed to the identification proper. The accused were taken to various places for investigation before the TIP. The conspiracy is not proved and the mere presence of A2 and A4, as spoken of by PW-104, at Kasaragod does not implicate them in the crime. The mobile phones of A2 and A4 were stationary and in Trichur, where they ordinarily reside. The FIS does not speak of PW-1 being able to identify the accused and in the context of his statement that the trespassers had their face covered; it is a very remote possibility. PWs.1&2 could not have identified A2 and A4 and PW-3, a child, is definitely a tutored witness. Many of the overt acts spoken of against the accused have not come out in the FIS, which makes the direct evidence weak for grounds of obvious embellishments. The inconsistencies in direct evidence and improbability of the circumstantial evidence including the recoveries, make this a fit case for acquittal of the accused.