M.M.MANI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revisions are preferred by the first, third and second accused respectively in S.C.No.68 of 2016 of Additional Sessions Court IV Thodupuzha, in Crime No.1196 of 2012 Thodupuzha Police Station for offences punishable under Sec. 143, 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 118/302, 120B of 302 IPC and Sec. 3 r/w 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act.

(2.) The incident leading to the present case has a chequered history. One Anchery baby was the leader of Congress party in Idukki area. The members of the Marxist party maintained enmity towards him, apprehending that, Baby was attracting the members of their political party to his party. Consequently, few local leaders of Marxist party entered into a criminal conspiracy on 14/10/1982 at 9 p.m, at the Rajakkad area committee office of Marxist party and resolved to commit murder of Baby and another person. In furtherance of the above conspiracy, on 13/11/1982 at about 11 a.m. while Anchery Baby along with PWs.1 to 6 (Johny, Benny, Mathachan, Sekharan, Sebastian and Rajan) were proceeding along an estate footpath, few of the accused, who were hiding behind the cardamom plants fired twice at Baby with an unlicensed country gun. The third shot injured PW2, Benny. They created a terror in the scene of occurrence and scared away the persons accompanying Baby and Benny. Baby died at the spot and Benny sustained serious injuries. FIS of PW1, Johny was recorded by the Santhampara Police on the same day at 1.45p.m. and crime was registered as FIR No.118 of 1982. After investigation, final report was laid against nine accused for offences punishable under sec. 143, 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 118 of 302, 120B of 302 and S.3 r/w 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act. All the nine accused faced trial in S.C.No.58 of 1984. They were (A1) Panackal Kunjoonju @ Kesavan, (A2) Joseph @ Jose, (A3) Mohandas, (A4) Lekshmanan, (A5) Jose, (A6) Michael, (A7) Sugathan, (A8) Prasad and (A9) Baby. On the side of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 18 were examined, Exts.P1 to P12 were marked and Mos.1 to 18 were identified. On the side of the accused, DW1 was examined and Exts.D1 to D7(a) were marked. Learned Sessions Judge, on an appreciation of the entire evidence, found that the prosecution failed to establish the allegations against the accused and acquitted all the accused.

(3.) The above acquittal was challenged by the State in Crl.Appeal.411 of 1986 before the High Court. By judgment dtd. 24/1/1990, the appeal was dismissed confirming the acquittal. The above judgment has become final.