Kerala High Court
Pattakka Suresh Babu vs State Of Kerala on 8 April, 2025
Author: P.B.Suresh Kumar
Bench: P.B.Suresh Kumar
2025:KER:30106
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1947
CRL.A NO. 685 OF 2018
CRIME NO.94/2007 OF Kannavam Police Station, Kannur
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CP NO.53 OF 2008
OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,KUTHUPARAMBA ARISING
OUT OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN SC NO.421 OF 2009 OF
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - IV, THALASSERY
APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.8:
ANNERI VIPIN, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.PAVITHRAN,
PAREKETTIL (H), KUTHUPARAMBA AMSOM, MOORIYAD,
KUTHUPARAMBA.
BY ADVS.
SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI (SR.)
SRI.R.ANIL
SRI.T.ANIL KUMAR
SRI.M.SUNILKUMAR
SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B.
SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM NILACKAPPILLIL
SRI.THOMAS SABU VADAKEKUT
SRI.E.VIJIN KARTHIK
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
2 2025:KER:30106
Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018
BY ADV. SRI. ALEX M THOMBRA, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.03.2025, ALONG WITH CRL.A.722/2018, 740/2018 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 08.04.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
3 2025:KER:30106
Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1947
CRL.A NO. 722 OF 2018
CRIME NO.94/2007 OF Kannavam Police Station, Kannur
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CP NO.53 OF 2008
OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,KUTHUPARAMBA ARISING
OUT OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 04.04.2018 IN SC NO.421 OF
2009 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - IV,
THALASSERY
APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NOS.4 & 10 (IN JAIL):
1 ANNERI PAVITHRAN, AGED 59, S/O KUNHIRAMAN,
PAREKKATTIL HOUSE,KUTHUPARAMBA AMSOM, MOORIYAD.
2 PALERI RIJESH @ RIJU, AGED 42, S/O VASU,
KIZHAKKAYIL HOUSE, KUTHUPARAMBA AMSOM,
MOORIYAD DESOM, MOORIYAD PARA.
BY ADVS.
P.K.VARGHESE
K.S.ARUN KUMAR(K/1588/2003)
M.T.SAMEER(K/3346/1999)
P.S.ANISHAD(K/560/2010)
DHANESH V.MADHAVAN(K/298/2006)
JERRY MATHEW(K/658/2015)
BIJU KUMAR(K/1085/2018)
4 2025:KER:30106
Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018
SOJAN K. VARGHESE(K/1611/2019)
REGHU SREEDHARAN(K/653/2020)
APARNA ANIL(K/968/2020)
RAMEEZ M. AZEEZ(K/001008/2022)
NAMITHA K.S.(K/2262/2022)
SUDARSANAN U.(K/2436/2022)
ANU ASHOKAN(K/1343/2023)
ARJUN KUMAR K.S.(K/1680/2019)
ATHUL.P(K/001590/2023)
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & FORMAL PARTY:
1 STATE OF KERALA TO BE REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.
2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
KANNAVAM POLICE STATION,
KUTHUPARAMBA-670643.
BY ADV. SRI. ALEX M THOMBRA, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.03.2025, ALONG WITH CRL.A.685/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON 08.04.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
5 2025:KER:30106
Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1947
CRL.A NO. 740 OF 2018
CRIME NO.94/2007 OF Kannavam Police Station, Kannur
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CP NO.53 OF 2008
OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,KUTHUPARAMBA ARISING
OUT OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN SC NO.421 OF 2009 OF
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - IV, THALASSERY
APPELLANT/9TH ACCUSED:
PATTAKKA SURESH BABU, AGED 46 YEARS
S/O.CHATHUKUTTY, CHAMALAYIL HOUSE,
KUTHUPARAMBA AMSOM, MOORIYAD.
BY ADV SRI.NANDAGOPAL S.KURUP
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
2 BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,21,ROUSE AVENUE
INSTITUTIONAL AREA,NEAR BAL BHAWAN,NEW DELHI-110002
SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 25/10/2023 IN
CRL.A.740/2018
6 2025:KER:30106
Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018
BY ADV. SRI. ALEX M THOMBRA, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.03.2025, ALONG WITH CRL.A.685/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON 08.04.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
7 2025:KER:30106
Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1947
CRL.A NO. 775 OF 2018
CRIME NO.94/2007 OF Kannavam Police Station, Kannur
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CP NO.53 OF 2008
OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,KUTHUPARAMBA ARISING
OUT OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN SC NO.421 OF 2009 OF
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - IV, THALASSERY
APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.11:
VALODATH SASI @ PACHADI SASI
S/O CHATHUKUTTY, AGED 51 YEARS, SHAKHIL
NIVAS,KOOTHPARAMBA AMSOM, MOORIYAD DESOM,
KUTTIKATTIL-670643.
BY ADVS.
R.ANIL R
SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI (SR.)
M.SUNILKUMAR(K/926/1989)
SUJESH MENON V.B.(S-1613)
T.ANIL KUMAR(K/101/2006)
THOMAS ABRAHAM (NILACKAPPILLIL)(K/857/2011)
THOMAS SABU VADAKEKUT(KL/001082/2017)
MAHESH BHANU S.(K/1620/2018)
S.LAKSHMI SANKAR(K/001642/2018)
RESSIL LONAN(K/1251/2020)
8 2025:KER:30106
Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC
PROSEUCTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM,
COCHIN-31.
BY ADV. SRI. ALEX M THOMBRA, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.03.2025, ALONG WITH CRL.A.685/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON 08.04.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
9 2025:KER:30106
Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1947
CRL.A NO. 790 OF 2018
CRIME NO.94/2007 OF Kannavam Police Station, Kannur
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CP NO.53 OF 2008
OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,KUTHUPARAMBA ARISING
OUT OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN SC NO.421 OF 2009 OF
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - IV, THALASSERY
APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NOS.2,3, 5 TO 7:
1 KUNNAPPADI MANOHARAN, AGED 58, S/O.ACHUTHAN,
MANHAMPARAMBATH (H), KUTHUPARAMBA, MOORIYAD.
2 NANOTH PAVITHRAN, AGED 68,
S/O.KUNHIKANNAN, MANIKYA PARAMBATH (H),
KUTHUPARAMBA, MOORIYAD.
3 PATTAKKA DINESAN, AGED 60, S/O.CHATHUKUTTY,
CHAMALAYIL (H), MURIYAD, KUTHUPARAMBU.
4 KALATHUMKANDI DHANESH, AGED 42, S/O.BHASKARAN,
KUTTIMAKKOOL (H), KUTHUPARAMBU AMSOM, MOORIYAD.
5 KELOTH SHAJI @ KOYI SHAJI
AGED 46, S/O.BALAN, JANAKI NILAYAM,
KUTHUPARAMBU AMSOM, MOORIYAD.
BY ADVS.
10 2025:KER:30106
Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018
SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI (SR.)
SRI.R.ANIL
SRI.T.ANIL KUMAR
SRI.M.SUNILKUMAR
SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B.
SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM NILACKAPPILLIL
SRI.THOMAS SABU VADAKEKUT
SRI.E.VIJIN KARTHIK
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
BY ADV. SRI. ALEX M THOMBRA, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.03.2025, ALONG WITH CRL.A.685/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON 08.04.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
11 2025:KER:30106
Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018
JUDGMENT
[CRL.A Nos.685/2018, 722/2018, 740/2018, 775/2018, 790/2018]
Jobin Sebastian, J.
Criminal Appeal Nos. 685/2018, 722/2018, 740/2018, 775/2018, and
790/2018 arose out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
passed in S.C. No.421/2009 on the file of Sessions Court, Thalassery,
whereby the accused Nos. 2 to 11 were found guilty of the offences
punishable under Sections 143, 341, 307, 302 r/w 149 of Indian Penal
Code. Apart from the above-said offences, accused Nos. 2, 3 & 11 were
found guilty of offence punishable under Section 147 r/w 149 of the Indian
Penal Code, and accused Nos. 4 to 10 were found guilty of offence
punishable under Section 148 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code and they were
convicted and sentenced for the said offences as well.
2. Altogether ten accused faced trial in this case. The case
against the 1st accused was abated as he died after the commitment of
the case to the Sessions Division. Out of the five appeals mentioned
above, Criminal Appeal No. 685 of 2018 has been preferred by the 8th
accused, Criminal Appeal No. 722 of 2018 has been preferred by the 4th
12 2025:KER:30106
Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018
and 10th accused, Criminal Appeal No. 740 of 2018 has been preferred by
9th accused, Criminal Appeal No.775 of 2018 has been preferred by the
11th accused and Criminal Appeal No. 790 of 2018 has been filed by 2nd,
3rd, 5th, 6th and 7th accused.
3. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows:
The accused are loyalists of the Communist Party of India
(Marxist) [C.P.I.(M)], and Pramod and Prakashan, the deceased and
injured in this case, were workers of the Bharatiya Janata Party [B.J.P.].
Due to political rivalry, on 15.08.2007 at 6.00 p.m., accused Nos. 1 to 3
hatched a criminal conspiracy in the house of accused No.3. In pursuance
of the conspiracy, on 16.08.2007 at 7.00 a.m. accused Nos. 1 to 11 and
other five identifiable assailants formed themselves into an unlawful
assembly, armed with dangerous weapons, on a property where cashew
trees were planted and in the prosecution of the common object of the
said assembly, the accused attacked Pramod and Prakashan, while both of
them were proceeding to Vannathimoola Bhagam from Muriyad by walking
through a pathway situating close to the cashew tree plantation. Accused
Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 11 raised exhortations to hack and kill Pramod and
Prakashan. Meanwhile, the 4th accused hacked Pramod with a chopper
while accused Nos. 5, 9, and 10 with choppers, and accused Nos. 6, 7, and
13 2025:KER:30106
Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018
8 with swords repeatedly hacked Pramod and the other five identifiable
assailants, struck Pramod's head, legs, and hands by using iron sticks and
murdered him. Furthermore, the accused attempted to murder Prakashan
by inflicting multiple hack and stab wounds to his head, hands, and legs
with swords. Hence, the accused are alleged to have committed the
offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 143, 147, 148, 341, 326, 307,
302 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code.
4. On completion of the investigation, the final report was
submitted before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kuthuparamba.
As the case was one triable exclusively by the Court of Session, the
learned Magistrate after complying with all the necessary formalities
committed the case to the Court of Session, Thalassery. After taking
cognizance, the learned Sessions Judge made over the case for trial and
disposal to Additional Sessions Court-IV, Thalassery.
5. On the appearance of the accused before the Additional
Sessions Court-IV, Thalassery, both sides were heard under Section 227 of
the Cr.P.C. Upon hearing under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. and perusal of
records, as it was satisfied that this was not a fit case to discharge the
accused, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, framed a written charge
against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 143,
14 2025:KER:30106
Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018
147, 148, 341, 326, 307, 302 r/w 149 of IPC. When the charge was read
over and explained to the accused, all of them pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried.
6. The prosecution thereupon examined 24 witnesses as PW1 to
PW24 and Exts.P1 to P25 were exhibited and marked . MO1 to MO9 were
the material objects identified by the prosecution witnesses and marked in
evidence. The contradictions in the 161 statement of the witnesses
brought out by the defence were marked as Exts.D1 to D8. Exts.D9 and
D9(a) were the other exhibits marked from the side of the defence
through prosecution witnesses. After completion of prosecution evidence,
when the accused were questioned under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., they
denied all the incriminating materials brought out against them in
evidence. Since it was not a fit case to acquit the accused under Section
232 of the Cr.P.C., the accused were directed to enter upon their defence.
But no evidence, whatsoever, was adduced from the side of the accused.
7. After trial, accused Nos.2 to 11 were found guilty of the
offences punishable under Sections 143, 341, 307, 302 r/w 149 of the
Indian Penal Code and convicted. Apart from the above-said offences,
accused Nos. 2, 3 & 11 were found guilty of the offence punishable under
Section 147 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code, and accused Nos. 4 to 10
15 2025:KER:30106
Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018
were found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 148 r/w 149 of
Indian Penal Code and they were convicted. The accused Nos.2 to 11
were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a
fine of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees seventy-five thousand only) each with a
default clause to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the
offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 149 of the IPC.
8. The accused Nos.2 to 11 were sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- each
for offence punishable under Section 307 r/w 149 IPC. In default of
payment of the fine, the accused were sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of six months.
9. The accused Nos.2 to 11 were sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for three months each for the offence punishable under
Section 143 r/w 149 IPC.
10. The accused Nos.2 to 11 were sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one month each for the offence punishable under
Section 341 r/w 149 IPC.
11. The accused Nos.2, 3, & 11 were sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for one year each for the offence punishable under
Section 147 r/w 149 IPC.
16 2025:KER:30106
Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018
12. The accused Nos.4 to 10 were sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 2 years each for the offence punishable under Section
148 r/w 149 IPC.
13. The accused Nos.2 and 3 were found not guilty of the offence
punishable under Section 120(B), and they were acquitted under Section
235(1) of Cr.P.C. Similarly, accused Nos.2 to 11 were found not guilty of
the offences punishable under Section 326 r/w 149 of IPC and acquitted.
14. The rivalry, that existed between loyalists of two political
parties, viz, BJP and CPI(M) had allegedly led to the incident in this case,
resulting in the death of Pramod and grievous injuries to Prakashan. The
deceased Pramod as well as the injured Prakashan (PW2) were BJP
workers, whereas the accused were CPI(M) loyalists.
15. The Sub Inspector of Police, Kannavam Police Station had set
the law in motion in this case, by registering a suo motu FIR on the basis
of the telephonic information that he had received from the Sub Inspector
of Police, Kuthuparamba. The Sub Inspector, who registered this case suo
motu, was examined as PW1. According to PW1, on 16.08.2007 while he
was working as Sub Inspector of Police, Kannavam, at around 7.30 p.m.,
he received telephonic information from his colleague, the Sub Inspector
of Kuthuparamba Police Station, that somebody had attacked and injured
17 2025:KER:30106
Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018
two BJP workers named Pramod and Prakashan inside the property
belonging to Ayisha Company situated at Mooriyad. Immediately then, he
entered the said information in the general diary maintained in the Police
Station and proceeded to Mooriyad along with his Police party in the
department jeep. When he along with the police party arrived at the
scene he found blood stains here and there on the road from Morolicham
to Palaparamba. He also found blood stains on the northern side of the
one-foot pathway that leads to Vannathimoola from Palaparamba -
Morolicham road. Moreover, loose chappals and a chopper were also
found lying there. Although he made enquiries, he was unable to find
anyone. As the incident occurred in an uninhibited cashew plantation, he
deputed a Police Constable for scene guard duty and proceeded to Indira
Gandhi Co-operative Hospital to gather more information. Upon arrival at
the hospital, he learned that two BJP workers namely Pramod and
Prakashan had already been taken to the said hospital with severe injuries.
Further inquiry revealed that Pramod, one of the injured had succumbed
to the injuries at approximately 9 a.m., while the other injured person was
undergoing treatment in the ICU. He then returned to the Police Station
and informed his superior officers about the incident. Immediately
thereafter, at around 9.30 p.m. he registered a case suo motu as crime
18 2025:KER:30106
Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018
No.94/2007 of Kannavam Police Station. Ext.P1 is the FIR so registered.
16. Prakashan, who sustained serious injuries in the alleged
incident was examined as PW2. According to PW2, during the period of
occurrence in this case, he resided at a place called Ayodhya Nagar near
Mooriyad and worked as a mason. On 16.08.2007, at 6.30 a.m., he left his
house along with his brother (CW3, not examined) to go to work, as usual.
When they reached the road in front of his house, Pramod, the deceased
in this case, as well as Jinoy (PW4) and Ramesan (PW3), also arrived
there to go to work. Usually, they go to Kuthuparamba for work through a
route that passes through Mooriyad. However, about one and a half
months back, a political clash occurred between BJP and CPM workers,
resulting in escalating tension in the area. Furthermore, they faced threats
from the CPM workers. The CPI(M) workers even conducted searches on
buses passing through Mooriyad, armed with weapons. Scared of the
CPI(M) workers he as well as his friends avoided traveling through
Mooriyad to reach Kuthuparamba. Instead, they opted to go to
Vannathimoola first, taking the Chullikkunnu road and from there they
would proceed to Kuthuparamba by bus. On the alleged date of the
incident, when he and others reached in front of the house of Valanki
Vinod (PW5), they found PW5 standing there and after talking with him,
19 2025:KER:30106
Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018
he proceeded further with others. Pramod, the deceased in this case was
walking ahead of him. When they reached the road leading to
Palaparamba, around 10 to 16 assailants approached them. Then accused
Nos.1, 2, 3, and 11 uttered to hack and kill them. By that time, the
accused repeatedly hacked Pramod. It was the 4th accused who hacked
Pramod first. Following it, accused Nos.6, 7, and 8 hacked Pramod with
swords, while accused Nos.5, 9, and 10 hacked Pramod with choppers.
Five other identifiable assailants also hacked and beat Pramod using iron
sticks as well as with other weapons. He was standing about 5 meters
behind Pramod. He was unsure of what to do, so he raised the alarm and
ran about 5 to 6 meters. But he stumbled and fell down. When he raised
from the ground, someone hacked, aiming his head. Then he blocked the
attack with his hands. Thereafter, those who hacked Pramod, hacked him
also, incessantly. When he cried aloud, the accused fled from the spot to
'Valiyavelicham Bhagam'. Immediately thereafter, he contacted his wife
over the phone and informed her that he had been assaulted and asked
her to come urgently. He also contacted Shyju (PW7). Approximately five
or six minutes after the incident Valanki Vinod (PW5), Murali, and two or
three ladies approached him. Then he asked for some water, and one of
them gave him water. After 20 minutes, a Tata sumo vehicle came and
20 2025:KER:30106
Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018
he as well as Pramod were taken inside the said vehicle. Thereafter, he
lost consciousness. It was on the next day while he was in the Medical
College Hospital, Kozhikode he regained memory. The assailants belong to
his locality. PW2 identified all the accused before the court with their
names. According to PW2, both he and the deceased, Pramod were BJP
workers, while the accused were CPI(M) workers. It was due to political
rivalry the accused attacked him as well as Pramod. According to PW2,
although he could identify the weapons used by the accused in the
commission of the offence, he is unable to specify which accused used
particular weapons. However, PW2 identified a 'Chopper' as the weapon
used by the 4th accused. He also stated that the accused attacked him as
well as Pramod with MO2 series swords and MO3 series Choppers.
17. Another occurrence witness, when examined as PW3,
deposed that on 16.08.2007 at 6.30 a.m., he left his house to go for
concrete work. When he reached Chulli Bhagam he met the deceased
Pramod, Prakashan (PW2), Jinoy(PW4), and one Pradeepan. All of them
walked together towards Vannathimoola, to catch a bus to go to work.
Except Pramod he as well as the others were going to work at Kolassery
and Pramod was going to work at Vellachal. While walking so, on the way
he met Vinod (PW5) and his sister Nalini, and after exchanging a few
21 2025:KER:30106
Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018
words, all of them proceeded further. Pramod was then walking ahead of
all of them and Prakashan was walking behind him. He as well as
Pradeepan and Jinoy were walking behind Prakashan. Thereafter, while all
of them crossed the road near Ayisha Company, suddenly around 10 to 16
persons encircled Pramod, the deceased in this case, and Accused Nos.1,
2 3, and 11 uttered "വെട്ടെടാ...കുത്തെടാ...കൊല്ലെടാ...". Then the 4th accused
hacked Pramod using a chopper and accused Nos.6, 7, and 8 hacked
Pramod with swords, and accused Nos.5, 9, and 10 hacked Pramod with
choppers incessantly. Thereafter, the accused turned towards Prakashan.
When Prakashan attempted to take to his heels, he stumbled down. Then
the accused attacked Prakashan with weapons. The accused Nos. 4, 5, 6,
7, 9, and 10 hacked PW2 with swords and choppers repeatedly. Seeing
that the accused are approaching PW3 and others, he as well as his
friends Jinoy and Pradeepan ran away from the spot through the cashew
tree plantation belonging to Ayisha Company. After half an hour he
returned back to Chulli Bhagam and learned that both Prakashan and
Pramod had been taken to hospital. PW3 identified all the accused before
the court with their names. PW3 identified MO1 as the chopper used by
A4. PW3 also identified MO2 series swords as the weapons used by A6,
A7, and A8. However, he admitted that he could not identify which specific
22 2025:KER:30106
Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018
accused used each of the weapons in the MO3 series. According to PW3,
his statement was recorded by the investigating officer after three days of
the incident.
18. Another witness to the occurrence, when examined as PW4,
deposed that the deceased and the injured in this case were his
neighbours and residents of his locality. The incident in this case
happened on 16.08.2007, while he was walking towards Vannathimoola
bus stop to catch a bus to go for his job. He was accompanied by
Prakashan(PW2), Pradeepan(CW3), Ramesh (PW3), and Pramod the
deceased, who were also heading to work. On the way they met Vinod
(PW5), who was residing on the side of the road, and after making a
casual talk with him, all of them proceeded further. The deceased Pramod
and injured Prakashan were walking ahead of the group. After passing
Chullikkunnu Heights, when Pramod crossed 'Palaparamba Valiya Velicham'
road, the accused Nos.1 to 11 approached Pramod by shouting
"വെട്ടെടാ...കൊല്ലെടാ...". Thereafter, all the accused encircled Pramod and
hacked Pramod with weapons. After hacking Pramod they rushed towards
Prakashan (PW2) and hacked him down. Even after Prakashan fell down,
the accused continued to hack at him. According to PW4 fearing that the
accused would attack him and his friends, they ran towards Palapramba
23 2025:KER:30106
Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018
Bhagam and he then rushed to his house. Thereafter when PW4 was
about to inform the neighbours about the incident, his father said that all
the injured had been taken to hospital. Moreover, his father said he heard
somebody giving directions to inform the matter to police. Afraid of the
accused, PW4 as well as others remained near his house. According to
PW4, he is acquainted with all the accused in this case as they belong to
his locality. Apart from the accused facing trial in this case, five other
persons were also involved in this case. PW4 identified all the accused
before the court. He also identified the weapons of the offence.
According to PW4, the MO1 chopper was used by the 4th accused. When
MO2 series weapons were shown to PW4, though he identified those
weapons as the weapons used by the accused, he deposed that he could
not specify who used each one. However, he admitted that it was accused
Nos.6 to 8 who used the swords in the commission of the offence.
According to PW4 accused Nos.5, 9, and 10 used choppers to hack the
deceased and the injured. He also identified MO3 series weapons, as those
used in the commission of the offence. According to PW4, it was due to
political rivalry, that the accused unleashed violence and attacked Pramod
and PW2. According to PW4, the deceased Pramod and the injured
Prakashan are B.J.P./R.S.S. workers and the accused are C.P.I.(M) workers.
24 2025:KER:30106
Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018
19. Another independent witness, PW5, who rushed to the scene
after the alleged occurrence, testified that he resides at 'Chullikkunnu'.
PW2, the injured in this case as well as the deceased were familiar to him.
The incident in this case happened on 16.08.2007. On the morning of
16.08.2007 at around 7.00 a.m. he saw PW2, PW3, PW4, and CW3
heading to Vannathimoola Bhagam to catch a bus for going for their work.
On seeing him, Rameshan (PW3) exchanged friendly words with him and
left the place by saying that, he was going for work. Five minutes after
they departed, he heard a huge cry from Vannathimoola Bhagam. Hearing
the same he immediately contacted his friend named Ashokan (PW13)
over the phone and asked him to come quickly. Then he proceeded to the
place from where the outcry was heard. His sister as well as one
Dineshan also followed him. Upon arriving at the scene, he found Pramod
lying in a pool of blood. Looking around, he spotted Prakashan (PW2)
lying a short distance away, from the place where Pramod was found lying.
While rushing towards the house of Ashokan to fetch him, he found
Ashokan and one Mohanan coming along with two other persons.
Meanwhile, his sister brought some water. Then Ashokan asked both
Pramod and Prakashan whether they wanted water and gave water to
them. By that time Shyju (PW7) and one Santhosh also arrived at the
25 2025:KER:30106
Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018
scene. After ten minutes, a vehicle arrived and he along with others took
Pramod and Prakashan to Indira Gandhi Co-operative Hospital in the said
vehicle. After examining Pramod, the doctor reported that Pramod is no
more. Thereafter, Prakashan, the injured in this case was taken to Medical
College Hospital, Kozhikode for better management.
20. When Shyju, who arrived at the scene after the incident, was
examined as PW7, he deposed that on 16.08.2007 at around 7.20 p.m.,
Prakashan (PW2) one of the injured in this case, contacted him over the
phone and said that "എന്നെ അടിച്ചു, വെട്ടി". After saying so PW2 disconnected
the phone. Then he called back PW2 and PW2 told that "എനിക്കും പ്രമോദിനും
വെട്ടും അടിയും കിട്ടിട്ടുണ്ട്. പെട്ടെന്ന് വാ". Immediately then, PW7 disconnected the
phone call and rushed toward the scene of the occurrence, accompanied
by Sujeesh, Satheesh, and Santhosh. As PW2 said that the incident
occurred near the house of Vinod (PW5), he rushed to the said place.
When he reached there, Vinod, Ashokan (PW13), and some others were
also present at the scene. Then PW2 was lying, soaked in blood,
approximately 7 to 8 meters away from there, Pramod, the deceased was
found lying in a pool of blood. Five minutes after PW7's arrival, a TATA
Sumo Jeep came there and he along with others took Pramod and
Prakashan in the said vehicle and took them to hospital. Then, Pramod
26 2025:KER:30106
Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018
and Prakashan were partially conscious. Then he heard Pramod, the
deceased saying the names of one Anneri Pavithran (A4), Koyi Shaji (A7),
Rajesh (A10), Dhanesh (A6), Vipin (A8), and some others. When reached
near Palathinkara, the conversation of the deceased dwindled into mere
murmurs. Then he along with others took Prakashan and Pramod to Indira
Gandi Co-Operative Hospital, where it was later confirmed that Pramod
had succumbed to the injuries. After giving first aid, Prakashan was
referred to Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode. According to PW7, the
attack on Prakashan and Pramod was motivated by political rivalry.
21. The Circle Inspector of Police, Kuthuparamba who conducted
the initial part of the investigation in this case was examined as PW24.
According to PW24, he took over the investigation on 16.08.2007, and as
part of the investigation, he prepared an inquest after reaching the
mortuary of Government Hospital, Thalassery where the body of Pramod
was kept. Ext.P6 is the inquest report prepared by him. Thereafter, on
16.08.2007 he visited the scene of occurrence and prepared a scene
mahazar in the presence of independent witnesses. Ext.P9 is the scene
mahazar prepared by him. According to PW24, one chopper found at the
crime scene was taken into custody by him after describing it in Ext.P9
scene mahazar. Moreover, the chappals and a ball pen found at the crime
27 2025:KER:30106
Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018
scene were also seized as per Ext.P9 scene mahazar. The scientific
assistant collected blood-stained soil found at the crime scene in three
packets and handed over the same to him. The same was also taken into
custody. Thereafter, he interrogated and recorded the statements of PW5
and CW7 (not examined). Then he filed a report before the jurisdictional
magistrate and Ext.P17 is the said report. Subsequently, the additional
Sub Inspector, Kuthuparamba (PW17) recorded the statement of PW2, the
injured, from Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode, and produced the said
statement before him. On the basis of the said statement, he submitted a
report before the jurisdictional magistrate showing the correct name and
address of accused Nos.4 to 11 and Ext.P18 is the said report. Thereafter,
on 25.08.2007 he effected the arrest of the 11th accused. Subsequently,
accused Nos.2 to 10 surrendered before the jurisdictional magistrate, and
thereupon, he submitted an application for getting those accused into
police custody and the same was allowed.
22. According to PW24, after the arrest of the accused he
interrogated all, and out of them accused Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10 had
given separate confession statements and on the strength of the
disclosure statements made by those accused and as led by them he
reached a place called Morolicham and recovered weapons used in the
28 2025:KER:30106
Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018
commission of the offence which where kept separately in a concealed
state from different places in and around the place of occurrence in this
case. The mahazars prepared contemporaneously with the said recovery
were marked in evidence as Exts. P2, P3, P4, P5, P7, and P8 and the
relevant portions of the confession statements of the accused recorded in
the above-said seizure mahazars which led to the recovery and proved
through PW24 were separately marked as Exts. P2(a), P3(a), P4(a), P5(a),
P7(a) and P8(a). The weapons allegedly recovered on the strength of the
disclosure statement made by the accused were also identified by PW24
before the court. Moreover, PW24 identified the thondi articles recovered
from the place of occurrence as well as the items recovered at the time of
inquest. According to PW24, the weapons as well as the other items
recovered by him were produced before the court, after entering it in the
Ext.P22 property list. The forwarding note prepared by him for sending
the thondi articles for FSL examination is marked as Ext.P23. The FSL
report received after the examination of the thondi articles, in this case,
was marked as Ext.P24 through PW24. According to PW24, a further part
of the investigation was conducted by PW22, his successor in office.
23. The successor in office of PW24, who conducted the
remaining part of the investigation when examined as PW23 deposed that
29 2025:KER:30106
Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018
he took over the investigation on 18.01.2008. According to him, as part of
the investigation, he perused the records in this case and submitted a
report before the jurisdictional magistrate adding Section 326 IPC.
According to PW23, it was he who laid the final report in this case after
the culmination of the entire investigation.
24. This is a case in which two B.J.P. loyalists were allegedly
hacked with swords and dangerous weapons by C.P.I.(M) loyalists, out of
political rivalry. In the incident, one of the injured died and the other one
survived the grievous injuries. The prosecution mainly relies on the ocular
evidence of the said injured witness, who is the survivor of the attack as
well as the evidence of two other occurrence witnesses to prove the
matters that transpired in this case. Being a case built upon direct
evidence of the ocular witnesses, the main question to be considered is
whether their oral account regarding the incident is convincing and
reliable.
25. Before delving into a detailed discussion regarding the
reliability of the evidence of the occurrence witnesses, it is noteworthy that
even the defence is not disputing the fact that the death of Pramod, the
deceased in this case is a homicidal one. Now it is apposite to have a look
at the evidence given by the doctor who conducted the autopsy
30 2025:KER:30106
Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018
examination, who was examined before the court as PW15. On
examination before the court, PW15 deposed that on 16.08.2007 at 1.40
p.m., while she was working as an Assistant Surgeon at General Hospital,
Thalassery, she conducted a postmortem examination on Pramod, the
deceased in this case and issued a postmortem certificate. The
postmortem certificate issued by her is marked as Ext. P11. Referring to
Ext. P11 postmortem certificate, PW15 testified that she had noted the
following antemortem injuries in the postmortem examination;
● Total amputation of both legs just above the ankle with only skin
attachment on the medial aspect on left leg and lateral aspect on
the right leg;
● Multiple lacerated wounds exposing muscles inner aspect of
middle third of right leg measuring 3½ "long and 2" wide;
● Linear wound partially cutting tibia and fibula measuring 5" long
just below the level of amputation;
● 2.5cm long and 1cm wide oval-shaped wound on dorsal aspect of
left foot over middle aspect partially cutting underlying muscles
and bones 2½ " long and 1" wide wound dorsomedial aspect of
left forearm 3" above left wrist cutting underlying muscles and
radius and ulna;
31 2025:KER:30106
Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018
● Another incised wound 1cm wide and 2.5cm "long 2 above the
previous wound. 2½ " long and 1" wide incised wound on the
scalp 2.5cm above the hairline the middle line;
● Another incised wound bone deep 2½ "long 1" wide just above
the previous wound with track fracture of underlying skull bone
2" long and 1" wide incised wound bone deep back of head 2"
behind the upper level of the left ear.
26. After referring to the postmortem certificate, the doctor
opined that the death was due to multiple injuries causing blood loss and
shock. When confronted with MO1, MO2 series, and MO3 series weapons,
and after verifying the same, the doctor opined that the injuries noted in
the postmortem examination could be caused using the said weapons. A
conjoint reading of the evidence of PW15, and the postmortem certificate
issued by her clearly shows that the death of Pramod was certainly and
undoubtedly homicidal in nature.
27. While considering the question whether the prosecution has
succeeded in proving the occurrence as well as in proving the complicity of
the accused in the commission of the offence, first of all, it is to be noted
that it is a case in which there is direct evidence to prove the occurrence.
In addition to the ocular evidence of eyewitnesses, there exists evidence
32 2025:KER:30106
Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018
of an injured witness, which significantly strengthens the prosecution's
case in proving the occurrence. Now the crucial question is whether the
evidence of the injured witness as well as that of the eyewitnesses is
reliable to be acted upon. When the injured witness was examined as
PW2, on unequivocal terms he testified that he was brutally attacked by
the accused by using dangerous weapons. The evidence of PW2 further
shows that when he along with his friends including the deceased reached
the place of occurrence, Pramod, the deceased in this case was walking
ahead of him and it was then the accused Nos.1, 2, 3, and 11 approached
them by uttering "വെട്ടെടാ... കൊല്ലെടാ...". Then accused Nos. 4 to 10
incessantly hacked Pramod with swords and choppers. According to PW2,
on seeing the same, when he attempted to flee from the spot, he
accidentally stumbled and fell down, and in the meantime, the accused
mercilessly hacked him with weapons and inflicted grievous injuries on
him. It is pertinent to note that PW2 identified all the accused before the
court by their names and also deposed about the overt acts committed by
each and every accused while Pramod was under attack. However, it is
true that PW2 had not deposed about each and every overt act of the
accused while he was under attack, rather what he stated is that all the
accused who attacked Pramod also attacked him incessantly. The fact
33 2025:KER:30106
Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018
that all the accused were familiar to PW2 and other eyewitnesses in this
case is not disputed. More pertinently, the offence was committed in the
daylight. Therefore, we find no reason to suspect the identification of the
accused made by PW2 and other eyewitnesses before the court.
28. When the doctor who examined PW2 immediately after the
incident was examined as PW19, she deposed that on 16.08.2007 at 8.20
a.m., while she was working as a Casualty Medical Officer in Indira Gandi
Co-Operative Hospital, Thalassery, she examined PW2 and issued a wound
certificate. The wound certificate prepared by PW19 is marked as Ext.
P12. Referring to Ext. P12 wound certificate, PW19 deposed that the
alleged history was assault, and the following injuries were noted in the
medical examination of PW2;
1. Stab wound 3 x 1 cms in left chin;
2. Stab injury 5 x 3 cms behind the left ear lobe;
3. Bone deep lacerated wound with bleeding on the left occipital
area;
4. Swelling of right forearm upper 3rd portion fracture present;
5. Clear cut stab injury dorsum of the left hand extending up to the
ring finger. Tendon and vessels injured;
6. Bone cut stab wound 20 x 10 cms, above the left ankle with
bleeding. Absence of left foot movement;
7. Bone cut stab wound 2 x 10 cms with bleeding lateral lower 3rd
34 2025:KER:30106
Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018
of right leg;
8. Abrasions over right knee creptus - Rt. ankle fracture noted;
9. Bone deep lacerated wound Rt. side of occipital area;
10. Stab injury over left chin with bleeding.
When MO1, MO2 series, and MO3 series weapons were shown to PW19,
after verifying the same she deposed that the injuries mentioned in
Ext.P12 could be caused with weapons of that nature. It is obvious that
the injuries sustained by PW2 in the incident are life-threatening in nature
and being an injured witness, the evidence of PW2 has to be accorded a
special status. Unless a compelling reason exists, his evidence is not liable
to be discarded. In Brahm Swaroop And Another v. State of Uttar
Pradesh [AIR 2011 SC 280] the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as
follows:
"Where a witness to the occurence has himself been injured
in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally
considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with
a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and
is unlikely to spare his actual assailants in order to falsely implicate
someone. Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured
witness"
Thus, the evidence of an injured witness should be relied upon
35 2025:KER:30106
Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018
unless there are grounds for the rejection of his evidence on the basis of
major contradictions and discrepancies therein.
29. Therefore, the only conclusion that can be arrived on is that
the evidence of PW2 can indeed form a reliable basis for proving the
incident alleged in this case. Moreover, it is noteworthy that this is not a
case in which the prosecution is relying on the solitary evidence of PW2,
the injured witness, rather there is clinching evidence of PW3 and PW4 the
other eyewitnesses to the occurrence. As stated earlier, on examination
before the court PW3 and PW4 fully supported the case of the
prosecution. PW2, PW3, and PW4 consistently testified that the incident
occurred at 6:30 a.m. while they were on their way to catch a bus to go
for their regular work. All of them deposed that the deceased Pramod as
well as Pradeepan (CW3) were also with them. The fact that immediately
prior to the incident, PW3, PW4, and Pradeepan accompanied the
deceased and the injured in this case is further established by the
evidence of PW5, who resides near the place of occurrence and who
allegedly met all of them together before the incident. The evidence of
PW5 in the above regard remains unchallenged in the cross-examination.
Similarly, the evidence of PW2 to PW4 that prior to the incident, they met
36 2025:KER:30106
Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018
PW5 also remains unchallenged in the cross-examination. Therefore,
there is nothing to doubt that PW3 and PW4 were also with the injured
and deceased in this case at the time when the accused unleashed an
attack on the deceased and PW2. As already mentioned, on examination
before the court PW3 and PW4 had deposed in a convincing manner even
about the minute details of the incident. PW3 deposed that all the
accused approached them while they were almost crossing the Ayisha
Company road, and at that time, Pramod was walking ahead of all of them
and Prakashan was walking behind Pramod. According to PW3, he as well
as PW4 and Pradeepan were walking behind Prakashan and were 10 to 20
meters behind Prakashan. According to PW3, initially all the accused
encircled Pramod, and accused Nos.1, 2, 3, and 11 shouted
"വെട്ടെടാ...കുത്തെടാ...കൊല്ലെടാ...". PW3 deposed that the 4th accused then
hacked Pramod with a chopper, accused Nos.6, 7, and 8 hacked Pramod
with swords and accused Nos. 5, 9, and 10 hacked Pramod with choppers
incessantly. It was thereafter, the accused turned towards Prakashan.
When Prakashan attempted to take to his heels, he stumbled down, and
then the accused attacked Prakashan with dangerous weapons. According
to PW3, the accused Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 hacked PW2 with swords
and choppers repeatedly. Upon seeing the accused approaching him and
37 2025:KER:30106
Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018
the others, he and PW4 fled the scene through the cashew plantation
belonging to Ayisha Company. PW4, the other occurrence witness also
testified regarding the incident in similar lines as spoken by PW2 and PW3.
Although PW3 and PW4 were subjected to searching cross-examination,
nothing was brought out to discredit their evidence. Their evidence is
mutually corroborative and free from contradictions and improvements of
even minor nature. The medical evidence adduced in this case clearly
shows that injuries corresponding to the overt acts assigned to the
accused in the testimonies of PW2 to PW4 were noted in the postmortem
examination of the deceased as well as the medical examination of PW2,
the injured in this case.
30. One of the main contention taken by the learned counsel for
the appellants to assail the identification of the accused made by PW2, the
injured witness is that if he could have identified the assailants, he would
have stated their names to his wife during the phone call made
immediately following the incident. While considering the said contention,
it is to be noted that, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the
appellants, PW2 admitted that immediately after the incident, he
contacted his wife over the phone. From his evidence it is further
38 2025:KER:30106
Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018
gatherable that he had not disclosed the names of the assailants to his
wife. As revealed from his evidence, what he stated to his wife was that
he had been assaulted. Moreover, he asked her to come urgently. His
evidence further reveals that immediately thereafter, he also contacted
one Shyju (PW7). However, PW2 had not deposed about the matters
which he had told Shyju, when he contacted him over the phone, before
the court. However, when the said Shyju was examined as PW7, what he
deposed is that, on 16.08.2007 at around 7.20 a.m. i.e, immediately after
the incident in this case PW2 contacted him over the phone and said that
"എന്നെ അടിച്ചു, വെട്ടി" and after saying so, PW2 disconnected the phone.
According to PW7 then he called back PW2 and PW2 told that "എനിക്കും
പ്രമോദിനും വെട്ടും അടിയും കിട്ടിട്ടുണ്ട്. പെട്ടെന്ന് വാ". Immediately then, PW7
disconnected the phone call and rushed towards the scene of occurrence.
Ofcourse, the evidence of PW2 clearly shows that other than informing his
wife that he had been attacked and asking her to come fast, he had not
disclosed who attacked him. Similarly, a conjoint reading of the evidence
of PW2 and PW7 shows that after the incident, PW2 also contacted PW7
and informed him that he was assaulted and asked PW7 to come fast.
31. According to the defence counsel, if PW2 had known the
39 2025:KER:30106
Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018
names of the assailants or had identified them at the scene, he would
have disclosed their names to his wife as well as to PW7 when he
contacted them. The learned counsel for the appellants urged that PW2's
failure to mention the names of the accused to his wife and PW7, whom
he contacted over the phone, shortly after the incident suggests that he
was unaware of their identity. While considering the above contention, we
cannot lose sight of the fact that, evidently PW2 had sustained several
serious injuries in the incident. The evidence of PW19, the Doctor, who
examined PW2 immediately after the incident, and the wound certificate
issued by her reveals that PW2 had sustained 10 serious injuries and
almost all of them were cut injuries that required immediate medical
attention. Given the traumatic nature of the attack, it is understandable
that PW2's primary concern was to seek medical assistance and ensure his
survival. Therefore, it is not prudent to expect PW2 to have provided a
detailed account of the incident, including the names of the assailants to
his wife or PW7 immediately after the attack. His failure to do so does not
necessarily imply that he was unable to identify the assailants. Rather, it
highlights the severity of his injuries and the urgency of his need for
medical attention. When viewed in the given circumstances, it can be
seen that he contacted his wife as well as PW7, his friend, with the sole
40 2025:KER:30106
Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018
intention of seeking their assistance. Therefore, the non-mentioning of
the names of the assailants by PW2 to his wife and PW7 is not a ground to
enter into an automatic inference that he could not identify the assailants,
especially when the conversations over the phone lasted for a few
seconds. At this juncture, it is noteworthy that none of the accused are
strangers to PW2 but rather acquaintances. Moreover, the offence was
committed in broad daylight. Therefore, we find no reason to suspect the
identification of the accused made by PW2 before the court.
32. PW5 is the first person who allegedly arrived at the crime
scene, following the incident in this case. The evidence of PW5 shows
that he is residing near the place of occurrence and immediately prior to
the incident in this case he saw PW2 to PW4, CW3 (not examined), and
the deceased in this case heading to Vannathimoola Bhagam to catch a
bus by walking near to his house. He clarified that on seeing them he
made a casual talk with them and thereafter they proceeded. After a
short while, he heard an outcry, and upon hearing the same, he rushed to
the scene of the occurrence followed by his sister and one Dineshan. His
evidence further shows that on reaching there, he found Pramod, the
deceased in this case lying at the place of occurrence soaked in blood.
41 2025:KER:30106
Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018
Similarly, when he looked around, PW2 was found lying in a pool of blood,
a short distance away from the place where Pramod was found lying.
According to PW5, one Asokan who also reached by that time at the crime
scene had given water to Pramod and Prakashan. His evidence further
shows that it took around 10 minutes to take the injured to the hospital as
a vehicle could be brought only then. Furthermore, the wound certificate
prepared by PW19 and marked in evidence as Ext.P12 shows that it was
PW5 who brought PW2, the injured to the hospital. PW5 also admitted
the said fact.
33. The evidence of PW19, the Doctor who medically examined the
injured after the incident deposed that PW2 was brought to the hospital
with alleged history of assault. A perusal of the Ext.P12 wound certificate
shows that the alleged history was that "മുരിയാട് വച്ച് പ്രമോദുമായി വരുമ്പോൾ വെട്ടി
പരിക്കേൽപിച്ചു". However, during the examination before the court, PW19
did not state who provided her with the patient history. Moreover, to a
definite question put during the cross-examination, PW19 answered that
she is not duty bound to mention the name of the person who
provided/narrated the history and the alleged cause of injury. Anyhow, a
close scrutiny of the evidence of PW19 as well as the wound certificate
42 2025:KER:30106
Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018
prepared by her, shows that the patient was drowsy and not responding to
the questions. Therefore, commonsense is not comprehending to believe
that, it was the patient who stated the alleged history to the Doctor.
Therefore the non-mentioning of the names of the assailants by the
injured at the time of examination by the Doctor has no significance at all.
Now by a series of judicial pronouncements, it is trite that, when an
injured is brought before a doctor for urgent medical attention, his primary
concern is to save the life of the person brought to him and to inform the
matter to the police in medico-legal cases. Moreover, it is well settled that
the mere failure of the eyewitness to disclose the names of the assailants
to the Doctor would not discredit him as an eyewitness. Doctors are
primarily not concerned with the culprit but with medical aid to the
deceased. In the above regard, we are fortified by the decision in
Pattipati Venkaiah v. State of Andra Pradesh [1985 (4) SCC 80].
Therefore, if at all the injured was oriented, conscious, and capable of
speaking, the non-mentioning of the name of the assailants to the Doctor
is insignificant. Reverting back to the evidence in the case, it can be seen
that, PW2 was not in a position to answer the questions put to him.
Therefore, it is gatherable that the history was not stated by PW2, but
probably by the person who brought him to the hospital, who is none
43 2025:KER:30106
Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018
other than PW5.
34. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that if PW2,
the injured had duly identified the assailants he would have naturally told
their name to PW5 who reached the place of the occurrence immediately
after the incident. Furthermore, the learned counsel urged that after
rushing to the spot on seeing PW2 in a pool of blood, the first question
that would have been asked by PW5 would be what happened or who did
it. According to him, the same is the thing that an ordinary human being
will do. The counsel further urged that PW5 spent around ten minutes at
the place of occurrence after the incident along with PW2, the injured. If
that is so, it is highly suspicious why PW2 did not disclose the names of
the assailants to PW5 and why PW5 did not ask PW2 who are the
assailants. Evidently, PW5 does not have a case that, PW2 had disclosed
the names of the assailants to him either when he reached the place of
occurrence or while he took PW2 to the hospital. While considering the
question whether the non-disclosure of the names of the accused by PW2
to PW5, the nature of the injuries sustained to PW2 and his health
condition, etc. cannot be overlooked. As already stated around 10 cut
injuries were inflicted on him. The injuries are certainly grievous and
44 2025:KER:30106
Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018
life-threatening in nature, though he survived luckily. The evidence of
PW19, the Doctor, who medically examined PW2 clearly shows that death
would have been caused unless proper and timely medical treatment had
been given to PW2. Absolutely, there is no evidence to show that PW2
was then in a condition to speak. We are cognizant of the fact that,
immediately after the incident, PW2 contacted his wife as well as PW7 to
secure their assistance. Moreover, the evidence clearly indicates that he
said only a few words to them. It was thereafter, that PW5 came to the
scene. There is absolutely no evidence to show that after the arrival of
PW5, PW2 had spoken anything to anyone. Moreover, the evidence of
PW19, the Doctor, clearly shows that when she examined PW2 after the
incident, PW2 was not in a position to respond to the questions put to him
and he was drowsy. The evidence further indicates that after giving first
aid from Indira Gandhi Co-operative Hospital, Thalassery, PW2 was
referred to Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode for better management.
The medical evidence adduced in this case further reveals that PW2
regained consciousness only on 17.08.2007. Therefore, it is apparent that
though immediately after the incident PW2 was in a position to make a
phone call with his wife and PW7, thereafter, his condition worsened with
the passage of time. It was after PW2 contacted his wife and PW7, PW5
45 2025:KER:30106
Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018
came to the scene. Therefore, the fact that PW2 had not stated the
names of the assailants to PW5 is not a reason to conclude that PW2 was
unaware of the identity of the assailants who attacked him and the names
of the accused were incorporated later with ulterior motives due to
political reasons.
35. The evidence of PW2 is assailed by the learned counsel for
the appellants mainly on the ground that there are some improvements in
his evidence, to what he stated to the Police. According to the counsel,
the evidence of PW2 shows that, when he along with his friends reached
the place of occurrence, the accused encircled the deceased Pramod with
dangerous weapons and it was after hacking the deceased and inflicting
severe injuries on him, the accused turned towards PW2 and hacked him.
According to the counsel, quite contradictory to the said evidence, what
PW2 stated to the Police is that, the accused encircled all his friends
including him and Pramod. We do agree that such a contradiction was
proved when the investigating officer who recorded the statement of PW2
was examined. However, this contradiction is not of such significance as
to undermine the credibility of an injured witness's testimony. Some minor
contradictions are quite natural to occur. Moreover, merely because PW2,
46 2025:KER:30106
Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018
while interrogated by the Police, made a casual expression in colloquial
language that the assailants encircled all of them, the same does not
mean that they were all detained within a circle formed by them.
Moreover, the same is not a reason to disbelieve PW2's testimony before
the court that the accused initially encircled Pramod, the deceased in this
case alone. Moreover, the evidence of PW2 that Pramod was initially
encircled and attacked by the assailants and it was thereafter, that they
turned towards him when he attempted to flee from the spot is well
corroborated by the evidence of PW3 and PW4. The evidence of PW3 and
PW4 in the above regard remains unchallenged in the cross-examination
and their entire evidence is free from material contradictions and
omissions. Therefore, we are of the view that the minor contradictions in
the statement of PW2 will in no way affect the credibility of the evidence
of PW2. It is true that some omissions were also proven in the evidence
of PW2. But those omissions are insignificant omissions and are not with
respect to core matters of the incident. An omission is significant only
when the same is with respect to an important aspect of the incident,
which should have been stated by a witness at the time when the
statement was given to the Police. Moreover, such omissions must amount
to contradiction. Therefore, in the case at hand, none of the omissions
47 2025:KER:30106
Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018
highlighted from the side of the defence are with respect to the core
aspects of the incident and hence those omissions are only liable to be
discarded.
36. Another contention taken by the learned counsel for the
accused is that, the evidence of PW2 as well as that of other eyewitnesses
that the deceased Pramod and PW2 were attacked not simultaneously, is
absolutely false. The counsel further urged that the evidence of PW2 and
other occurrence witnesses to the effect that PW2 was not attacked at the
same location, but a short distance away from the place where Pramod
was attacked is also false. In order to substantiate the above contentions
the learned counsel heavily relied on the evidence of the investigating
officer as well as the scene mahazar prepared by him in this case.
According to counsel, a bare perusal of the scene mahazar, along with the
evidence of the investigating officer who prepared it, clearly indicates that
bloodstains were found only in one location. Counsel argues that this fact
alone demonstrates the falsity of PW2, PW3, and PW4 evidence, which
suggests that PW2 sustained injuries at a location slightly distant from
where Pramod sustained injuries. We do agree that the evidence of PW5
and PW7, who came to the scene of occurrence after the commission of
48 2025:KER:30106
Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018
the offence, clearly shows that the deceased Pramod as well as PW2, the
injured were found lying in a pool of blood when they reached the place of
occurrence. If the evidence of PW5 and PW7 that the deceased and PW2
were found lying soaked in blood is believed, certainly blood stains could
have been detected from the places where they were found lying.
Similarly, if they had sustained injuries at different locations blood stains
could have been found in two locations. However, as rightly pointed out
by the learned defence counsel a bare perusal of Ext.P9 scene mahazar
shows that blood stains were found at two spots in the crime scene but
the distance between the two spots is only 30 cm. If that be so, the said
minimal distance necessarily leads to an inference that the blood stains are
found only in one spot. When the investigating officer was examined as
PW24 and when confronted with the Ext.P14 site plan prepared by a
village officer (PW20), he deposed that in the Ext.P14 site plan also, blood
stains were noted only in one spot. However, PW24 added that it was on
the basis of the scene mahazar, that the site plan was prepared.
Furthermore, PW24 admitted that in Ext.P9 Mahazar, though it is stated
that blood stains were found in two places, the distance between the said
places is only 30 cm.
49 2025:KER:30106
Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018
37. However, we are of the considered view that the evidence of
the investigating officer as well as the scene mahazar prepared by him
alone is not sufficient to enter into a conclusion that PW2 and the
deceased had sustained injuries at the same location. The ocular evidence
adduced in this case clearly shows that when the injured and the deceased
reached the place of occurrence, the accused first attacked the deceased;
and, upon PW2 seeing this and attempting to escape, he stumbled,
whereupon the accused attacked him. The evidence of the eyewitnesses in
the above regard is well corroborated by the evidence of PW5, the witness
who came to the scene immediately after the incident. The evidence of
PW5 shows that when he reached the crime scene, Pramod the deceased
was found lying there soaked in blood. Looking around, PW5 spotted PW2
lying a short distance away from the place where Pramod was found lying.
Likewise, the evidence of PW7 also shows that when he reached the place
of occurrence, PW2 was lying there soaked in blood, at approximately 7 to
8 meters away from there Pramod the deceased was found lying in a pool
of blood. Thus, evidence of PW5 and PW7 clearly indicates that there is a
short distance between the places where Pramod, the deceased, and PW2
sustained injuries. The evidence of PW5 and PW7 in the above regard is
not even challenged in the cross-examination. Therefore, the fact that
50 2025:KER:30106
Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018
blood stains were found by the investigating officer only at one location is
not sufficient to discredit the ocular evidence adduced in this case. Lapses
on the part of the investigating officer in preparing the scene mahazar do
not, by themselves, justify disbelieving the evidence of eyewitnesses to
the occurrence.
38. The defence counsel has raised a further contention that even
in Ext.P17, the initial report submitted before the jurisdictional magistrate
subsequent to the First Information Report, the names of all the assailants
were not mentioned. The learned counsel further submitted that in Ext.
P17 report, though it is mentioned that accused Nos.1 to 3 entered into a
criminal conspiracy inside the house of the 3rd accused to murder Pramod
and Prakashan it is not mentioned that they also took part in the actual
perpetration of the offence. According to him, the omission of names of
the accused in the Ext.P7 report itself throws light on the fact that no one
had any idea about the identity of the actual assailants. While considering
the said contention, it is noteworthy that the FIR in this case is one
registered suo motu by the SHO, Kannavam Police Station. The said FIR
was not registered based on the statement of any occurrence witnesses.
Similarly, it is true that the Ext.P17 report was submitted on the next day
51 2025:KER:30106
Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018
of the incident, and in the said report, the names of all the accused were
not mentioned, although it did mention the names of accused Nos.1 to 3
as conspirators. However, it is pertinent to note that there is no evidence
to suggest that any of the occurrence witnesses were examined by the
time the Ext.P17 report was submitted. It is true that the statement of
PW2 was recorded on 17.08.2007 at 4 p.m. and the statement of the other
occurrence witnesses were recorded on 21.08.2007. While the report and
the examination of the occurrence witness occurred on the same day there
is no conclusive evidence to determine which one happened first.
However, a reading of Ext.P17, suggests that it was prepared by the
investigating officer prior to the recording of the statement of PW2 and
the occurrence witnesses. Had the witnesses been examined earlier, their
names would likely have been included in the Ext.P17 report, particularly
considering that the report only reached the court on 25.08.2007.
Moreover, a perusal of Ext.P18, report shows that, thereafter on
20.08.2007, the investigating officer filed a report before the court
incorporating the names and addresses of accused Nos.1 to 7. Therefore,
we are of the view that the non-mentioning of the names of all the
assailants in Ext. P17 report is immaterial particularly when there is no
evidence to show that the said report was prepared after recording the
52 2025:KER:30106
Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018
statement of occurrence witnesses by the investigating officer.
39. From the nature of contentions raised from the side of the
appellants, it is discernible that the attempt of the appellants is to
establish that the names of the accused happened to be not mentioned in
the FIR as well as in Ext. P17 report solely because of the reason that
neither the Police nor the occurrence witnesses had any knowledge of the
names or identities of the assailants. As already stated, the
aforementioned contention is unsustainable, as it has been established
that the FIR and Exhibit P17 report were not generated based on the
statements of the occurrence witnesses. None of the witnesses had been
examined by the time the said reports were prepared. Anyhow, the
action of the Sub Inspector of Police who registered the FIR in this case
and examined as PW1 raises serious suspicion regarding his bonafides. His
evidence shows that after getting the telephonic information, he initially
entered the said information in the general diary maintained in the police
station. Thereafter, he proceeded to the crime scene along with the police
party. Subsequently, he made enquiries but he could not find anyone who
witnessed the incident. Thereafter he rushed to the hospital where the
deceased as well as the injured were taken after the incident. It was only
53 2025:KER:30106
Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018
thereafter he returned to the police station and registered the FIR suo
motu. We are acknowledging the law that upon receiving information as
to the commission of a cognizable offence, it is incumbent upon the police
officer to register an FIR forthwith. However, in the case at hand, the
precipitate action of the police in registering a suo motu FIR, despite the
availability of an opportunity to record eyewitnesses' testimony prior to the
registration, raises concerns regarding the propriety of the process
particularly when it is a murder case motivated by political rivalry where
the accused are allegedly loyalists of the C.P.I.(M), the ruling party.
Therefore, no blame could be attributed if it is found that PW1 had an
interest in ensuring the assailants' names were not included in the FIR.
Similarly, if the investigating officer was quick in his action in recording the
statement of the occurrence witnesses and submitting the reports adding
the names of the accused before the jurisdictional Magistrate in time, the
contentions sticking on the identity of the accused and doubting their
participation in the commission of the offence raised from the side of the
defence would have been avoided. Anyhow, laches in the investigation
cannot be considered a ground to discard the convincing ocular evidence
tendered in this case. If laches in the investigation are given undue
importance, the same will create a situation where police rule the roster in
54 2025:KER:30106
Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018
the criminal justice delivery system.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Yarappa
Reddi [1993 KLT 496 (SC)] held as follows:-
"Conclusion of the court in a case cannot be allowed to
depend solely on the probity of investigation. It can be a guiding
principle that, as investigation is not the solitary area for judicial
scrutiny in a criminal trial, the conclusion of the court in the case
cannot be allowed to depend solely on the probity of investigation".
It is well settled that, even if the investigation is illegal or even
suspicious, the rest of evidence must be scrutinised independently
of the impact of it. Otherwise criminal trial will plummet to the level
of the investigating officers ruling the roost. The court must have
predominance and pre-eminence in criminal trials over the action
taken by investigating officers. Criminal justice should not be made
the casually for the wrongs committed by the investigating officers
in a case. In other words, if the court is convinced that the
testimony of a witness to the occurrence is true the court is free to
act on it albeit in investigating officer's suspicious role in the case."
Therefore, we are of the view that the faults and lapses in the
investigation that occurred in this case need not influence the mind of this
Court while acting on the overwhelming evidence adduced in this case.
40. Another important material relied on by the prosecution to
give corroboration to the ocular evidence adduced in this case is the
recovery of weapons allegedly effected on the strength of the disclosure
55 2025:KER:30106
Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018
statements made by the accused. When the investigating officer who
effected the recovery of the said weapon was examined as PW24, he
deposed that after obtaining the police custody of all the accused when he
interrogated them, accused Nos.4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10 had given separate
confession statements and on the strength of the disclosure statement
made by those accused and as led by them he reached a place called
Morolicham and recovered weapons used in the commission of the offence
which was found in a concealed state from different places in and around
the place of occurrence in this case. The mahazars prepared
contemporaneously with the said recovery were marked in evidence as
Ext.P2, Ext.P3, Ext.P4 Ext.P5, Ext.P7, and Ext.P8. The relevant portions of
the confession statements of the accused which led to the recovery and
proved through PW24 were separately marked as Ext.P2[a], Ext.P3[a],
Ext.P4[a], Ext.P5[a], Ext.P7[a], and Ext.P8[a]. The weapons allegedly
recovered on the strength of the disclosure statements made by the
accused were also identified by PW24 before the court.
41. The learned counsel for the appellant strenuously assailed the
above-said recovery by contending that the same is a fabricated one.
According to the learned counsel, the alleged recovery was artificial and
56 2025:KER:30106
Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018
not at all believable. Moreover, it is contended that the place of
concealment was not mentioned in any of the so-called disclosure
statements, and that itself indicates that the recovery was not effected on
the strength of the information gathered from the accused, but rather a
fabricated one. While considering the contention of the learned counsel
for the appellants in the above regard, first of all, it is to be noted that
there is no law that the place of concealment must be specifically
mentioned by the accused in the disclosure statement made by him. In
view of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, it is not strictly necessary
for an accused to mention the exact place of concealment for the recovery
to be admissible in evidence. On the other hand, what is required is that
the discovery of a fact must exclusively be on the strength of the
disclosure statement given by the accused. Only when a fact is discovered
exclusively on the strength of the disclosure statement given by the
accused, the said statement can be proved against the accused. Reverting
back to the case at hand, it can be seen that, as rightly pointed out by the
learned counsel for the appellants, the exact place of concealment was not
mentioned by any of the accused. However, the evidence of PW24 reveals
that he effected recovery from the places to which he was led by the
accused, and it was the accused who took and handed over the weapons
57 2025:KER:30106
Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018
to him. In view of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, the statement
given by an accused gets relevancy when the said statement gets
confirmation by the subsequent recovery. Therefore, the non-disclosure
regarding the exact place of concealment will definitely pale into
insignificance particularly when the recovery was effected from the places
to where the investigating officer was led by the accused and taken and
handed over to the investigating officer by the accused.
42. Another contention pressed into service by the learned
counsel for the appellants to assail the recovery is that the same is an
artificial one. According to the counsel, all the recoveries were effected
from places near to the place of occurrence and the same is not at all
believable. Moreover, the learned counsel urged that prior to the recovery,
the Sub Inspector of Police visited the crime scene and deputed a
Policeman for guard duty. Thereafter, PW24, the investigating officer also
visited the crime scene and prepared a scene mahazar. MO1 weapon
which was found at the crime scene was allegedly recovered by him after
describing it in Ext.P9 scene mahazar. Thereafter, on 01.09.2007, the
investigating officer again visited the scene of occurrence and allegedly
recovered a weapon on the strength of the disclosure statement given by
58 2025:KER:30106
Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018
the 4th accused. Hence highlighting the repeated presence of the Police
Officer at the scene of the crime, prior to the recovery, the learned counsel
submitted that there is every possibility of fabricating things, and
recoveries made thereafter from near the place of occurrence is highly
unbelievable. We do agree that prior to the effecting of the recoveries,
the presence of Police at the scene of occurrence was established.
Similarly, it is evident that the recoveries were effected from places near
the scene of the crime. However, it cannot be undermined that, the
weapons were recovered from a concealed state. Therefore, it could not
be said that the recovery is vitiated or is the result of some manipulations
and fabrications. Moreover, the FSL report which is marked in evidence as
Ext.P24 shows that the chopper recovered from the crime scene (MO1)
which is shown as item No.4 in the report, MO2 series swords which is
shown as item Nos.10, and 11 and MO3 series choppers shown as item
Nos.9, 12, and 13 contained human blood. Therefore, we have no
hesitation in holding that the recovery evidence, as well as the scientific
evidence adduced in this case, will lend sufficient corroboration to the
ocular evidence adduced in this case. Even otherwise, as stated earlier,
the substantive evidence of the eyewitnesses adduced in this case is
convincing and reliable. Therefore, the same can form the basis for a
59 2025:KER:30106
Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018
conviction in this case, even without corroboration from other sources.
43. The upshot of the above discussion is that the prosecution
has fully succeeded in proving the charge levelled against the accused by
the direct evidence of PW2 to PW4 who are the eyewitnesses to the
occurrence. Notably, PW2, being an injured witness, his evidence has to
be accorded a special weightage. He had given cogent and acceptable
evidence and had accounted for the death of the deceased as well as the
injuries found on him. The evidence of PW2 is well corroborated on
material aspects by the evidence of PW3 and PW4, the other
eyewitnesses. The medical as well as scientific evidence adduced in this
case also will lend support to the prosecution to a large extent.
44. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the
prosecution has succeeded in proving the commission of the offences
punishable under Sections 143, 341, 307, 302 r/w 149 of the IPC against
accused Nos. 2 to 11, Section 147 r/w 149 of the IPC against accused Nos.
2, 3 & 11, and Section 148 r/w 149 of IPC against accused Nos. 4 to 10.
The sentences imposed in this case for the said offences are also in
consonance with the nature and gravity of the offence committed.
60 2025:KER:30106
Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018
Resultantly, we confirm the finding, conviction, and sentence passed
by the learned Sessions Judge in S.C No. 421/2009 on the file of the
Sessions Court, Thalassery and hence, Criminal Appeal Nos. 685/2018,
722/2018, 740/2018, 775/2018, and 790/2018 stand dismissed.
Sd/-
P.B. SURESH KUMAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ncd/ANS
61 2025:KER:30106
Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD DATED
30.07.2024 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF
COMMISSIONER OF ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS
Annexure 2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03.11.2023 IN
CRL.M APPLN NO.3/2023 IN CRL.A 740/2018 OF
THIS HONOURABLE COURT
Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF ALLOTMENT MEMO OF THE
APPLICANT DATED 11/10/2024
62 2025:KER:30106
Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 3 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF MARKS OF THE
PETITIONER IN MASTER OF ARTS (SOCIOLOGY)
DATED 06.05.2022 ISSUED BY THE INDIRA GANDHI
NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY
Annexure 4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL CERTIFICATE
CERTIFYING THAT THE PETITIONER HAS
SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED MASTER OF ARTS
(SOCIOLOGY), DATED 06.05.2022 ISSUED BY THE
INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY
Annexure 5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NUMBERED
G2-17019/2023/PRHQ DATED 06.06.2023
Annexure 6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED
13.07.2023 ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER FOR
ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE
ENTRANCE EXAMINATION RESULT PERTAINING TO THE
PETITIONER
Annexure A8 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST PHASE ALLOTMENT
27.09.2023 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF ENTRANCE
EXAMINATIONS, KERALA
Annexure A9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.09.2023 IN
SLP (CRI) NO. 11688/2019 PASSED BY THE
HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
63 2025:KER:30106
Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure-G THE TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLISHED
BY NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY DATED 20-9-2022
Annexure-A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FORM SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER FOR PH.D ENTRANCE
EXAMINATION SEPTEMBER 2022 SESSIONS
(APPLICATION NO.E22091201002) DATED
14/10/2022
Annexure-B TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION FOR PHD.
ENTRANCE EXAMINATION 2022 DTD.17-9-2022
ISSUED BY UNIVERSITY OF KERALA
Annexure -A TRUE COPY OF THE PASS MEMO PUBLISHED BY
UNIVERSITY OF KERALA DARTED 4-1-2023
Annexure-C TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER SENT BY THE
SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON AND
CORRECTIONAL HOME, KANNUR
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE
DISCHARGE SUMMARY DATED 19-5-2023 IS ISSUED
IN THE NAME OF THE MOTHER OF THE PETITIONER
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE TEE REPORT ISSUED IN THE
NAME OF THE WIFE OF THE PETITIONER FROM
GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, KANNUR
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE OUT-PATIENT RECORD ISSUED IN
THE NAME OF THE WIFE OF THE PETITIONER FROM
GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, KANNUR
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15-5-2023 IN
SLP(CRI).NO.1620-1621/2023 PASSED BY THE
HON'BLE SUPREME COURT INDIA
Annexure- A1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15-05-2023 IN
SLP (CRL)NO.1620-1621/2023 PASSED BY THE
HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
64 2025:KER:30106
Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018
Annexure -C COPY OF THE DISCHARGE CARD DATED 7-9-2023
ISSUED FROM GOVT.MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL,
KANNUR.
Annexure-D COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 13-9-2023
ISSUED FROM INDIANA INSTITUTE OF CARDIAC
SCIENCES, MANGALURU.
