NAVEEN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused 1 to 7 in S.C.No.705 of 2015 on the files of the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge - IV, Thrissur who stand convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Ss. 143, 147, 148, 341, 506(ii), 326, 120B, 109, 212, and 302 read with Sec. 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) are the appellants in this appeal. They challenge in this proceedings, their conviction in the said case. The case aforesaid pertains to the brutal and heinous murder of one Shihab, an activist of the political party, CPM. There were altogether 11 accused in the case and the remaining accused were acquitted of the charges levelled against them.

(2.) One Vinod, an office bearer of the organisation, RSS was murdered by the activists of the political party, CPM. Deceased Shihab was the first accused in the said case. The accusation in the case is that due to the animosity towards Shihab, he being the person who committed the murder of Vinod, accused 1 to 10 hatched a conspiracy to cause the death of Shihab, and in furtherance to the said conspiracy, on 1/3/2015 at about 7.30 p.m., accused 2, 4, 5 and 6 proceeded in a black Ambassador car driven by the third accused and accused No.1 proceeded in a Passion Plus motorcycle ridden by the seventh accused through the public road leading to Chukku Bazar from Poovathur within the limits of Pavaratty Panchayat in Thrissur District. It was alleged that that it was based on the instructions given by the eighth accused who followed Shihab, who was proceeding in the opposite direction then on the very same road with one Baiju riding pillion on the motorcycle ridden by Shihab and at about 7.30 p.m., when they reached near Puthenambalam junction, the third accused knocked down the motorcycle ridden by the deceased with the car driven by the third accused. It is also the accusation in the case that when the deceased and Baiju fell down on the road, the second accused came out of the car with a sword and threatened Baiju to run away from the scene, if he wants his life and when Baiju ran away from the scene, accused 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 struck Shihab with the swords carried by them, on the vital parts of his body. Shihab succumbed to the injuries sustained by him on the same day at 10.10 p.m. The accusation against the eleventh accused in the case is that he provided shelter to the ninth accused knowing fully well that the ninth accused is involved in the crime.

(3.) Based on the information furnished by Baiju from the hospital where he was admitted on the same day after a few hours of the occurrence for treatment of the injury sustained by him on account of the fall from the motor cycle, a case was registered by Pavaratty Police. On submitting the final report in the case disclosing commission of offences triable exclusively by the Court of Session, the accused were committed for trial. Thereupon, the Court of Session framed charges against the accused under Ss. 143, 147, 148, 341, 506(ii), 326, 120B, 109, 212 and 302 read with Sec. 149 IPC and under Sec. 27 of the Arms Act. As the accused pleaded not guilty of the charges framed against them, the prosecution examined 65 witnesses as PWs 1 to 65 and proved through them as many as 158 documents as Exts.P1 to P158. MOs 1 to 45 are the material objects proved in the case. Exts.D1 to D30 are the contradictions in the previous statements of the witnesses proved by the accused. After the prosecution tendered its evidence, when the accused were questioned under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code), they denied the incriminating circumstances brought out against them and maintained that they are innocent. Since the Court of Session did not consider the case to be one fit for acquittal under Sec. 232 of the Code, the accused were called upon to enter on their defence. A witness was examined thereafter on the side of the fifth accused as DW1. As noted, based on the materials on record, the Court of Session acquitted accused 8 to 11 and convicted accused 1 to 7 for the offences charged and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine for the offences punishable under Ss. 302, 120B and 326 IPC. They were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for different terms and to pay fine for the various other offences found to have been committed by them. The accused are aggrieved by the decision of the Court of Session and hence this appeal.