SUDHEER Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) J. Sakkeer, aged 29, who was elected as the Chairman of the Law College, Thiruvananthapuram on 16.1.1995, lost his life on the same night, which according to the prosecution, was the result of a murder. Sakkeer was an active worker of DYFI. After the election as Chairman, he came home during night and went to sleep. His house was a thatched house consisting of two bedrooms. Sakkeer and his father went to bed, Sakkeer in the southern bedroom and the father in the northern bedroom. After the midnight of 16.1.1995, according to the prosecution, the accused persons, nineteen in number, who were members of an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons, illegally trespassed into the house of Sakkeer and inflicted injuries on him and his father Abdul Rasheed. Sakkeer tried to escape, ran to the compound of Shajahan (PW19) and tried to hide somewhere there. The prosecution alleged that the accused chased Sakkeer and inflicted several injuries on him with deadly weapons. Sakkeer was taken to the hospital immediately. The doctor stated that he was brought dead. The trial court found accused Nos. 1 to 5, 7, 8 and 10 guilty of the offences under Section 302 and under other Sections of the Indian Penal Code and accused Nos. 6, 9, 13 and 15 to 19 were acquitted. Against the conviction and sentence, the accused filed Criminal Appeals while the father of Sakkeer filed Revision challenging the acquittal of some of the accused. The High Court disposed of the Criminal Appeals and the Revision by a common judgment dated 2.9.2005, set aside the conviction as well as acquittal and remanded the case to the trial court with certain directions. One of the defects pointed out by the High Court was that the accused were not properly questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court also held that Shajahan, who is the only occurrence witness in respect of that part of the incident which took place in his compound, was not examined. The petition filed by the prosecution to examine Shajahan, who was at that time in Saudi Arabia, was dismissed by the Sessions Court. The High Court also directed to examine Shajahan by video conferencing, in case he is not available in India. The trial court was directed to question the accused afresh under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) After remand by the High Court, several correspondences took place and at last, video conferencing was arranged to be held on 26.12.2007. By that time, some of the accused absconded. On 26.12.2007, Shajahan was examined in the presence of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class V. Thiruvananthapuram, to whom commission was issued for that purpose, at I.T. Mission, Vellayambalam. Prior notice was given to the accused to appear for video conferencing. However, counsel for accused Nos. 2, 3, 8 and 9 reported no instructions as those accused did not appear.

(3.) After remand, accused Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 13, 15, 18 and 19 faced trial. The trial court found accused Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 7 guilty of the offence under Sections 143, 147, 148, 450, 302, 307 and 427 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and they were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- each under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, they were directed to undergo simple imprisonment for two years. They were also sentenced to undergo imprisonment for various terms under the other heads of offences. The trial court acquitted accused Nos. 13, 15, 18 and 19. Accused No. 1 filed Crl. A. No. 1940 of 2008, accused No. 7 filed Crl. A. No. 1217 of 2008, accused Nos. 3 and 5 filed Crl. A. No. 1325 of 2008 and accused No. 4 filed Crl. A. No. 1079 of 2008. These Criminal Appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment.