Kerala High Court
Reeshal vs State Of Kerala on 15 October, 2018
Author: P. Somarajan
Bench: A.M.Shaffique, P.Somarajan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 23RD ASWINA, 1940
CRL.A.No. 289 of 2013 (A)
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN SC No.328/2010 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
COURT (ADHOC-I), ERNAKULAM, DATED 14-02-2013
APPELLANT/5TH ACCUSED:
REESHAL, S/o JOSEPH,
PULIKAL VEEDU,
VELIYATHANPARAMBU KARA,
WEST OF MAHAVISHNU TEMPLE,
NAYARAMBALAM VILLAGE.
BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SABU
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM
BY SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. NICHOLAS JOSEPH
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.07.2018,
ALONG WITH CRL.A.1204/2013, CRL.A.598/2013, CRL.A.296/2013,
CRL.A.290/2013, CRL.A.264/2013 & CRL.A.699/2013. THE COURT ON
15.10.2018 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl. Appeal Nos.264, 289, 290,
296, 598, 699 & 1204 of 2013 2
JUDGMENT
P. Somarajan, J.
On 16.12.2007 at 2.30 p.m. a person who went for a compromise talk with accused No.1 met with a sad death in the hands of accused Nos.1 to 9, briefly, is the prosecution case. Crime No.900/2007 of Njarakkal Police Station was registered in connection with the alleged incident and accused Nos.1 to 9 were tried for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 324, 325 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act in Sessions Case No.328/2010 of Additional Sessions Court, Adhoc-I, Ernakulam. They were found guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 324, 325 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act read with Section 149 IPC and convicted thereunder and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- each, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another two years for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months for the offence punishable under Section 143 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.5,000/-, Crl. Appeal Nos.264, 289, 290, 296, 598, 699 & 1204 of 2013 3 in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 144 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.5,000/-, with a default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 147 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.5,000/-, with a default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 148 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 324 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 325 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, accused Nos.1 to 9 came up with these appeals.
2. The prosecution examined PW1 to PW23, got marked Exhibits P1 to P60 and identified MOs 1 to 12.
3. The allegation is that accused No.1, one Rajesh @ Appa Rajesh, entertained a grudge against the victim on account of registration of a case against him in connection with the illegal transaction of foreign currency and he believed that the information was supplied to the police Crl. Appeal Nos.264, 289, 290, 296, 598, 699 & 1204 of 2013 4 by CW9, a close friend of deceased Sreejith, the victim. There were some telephonic conversation between accused No.1 and the deceased and they decided to meet at the place of occurrence at Perumalpady. Accordingly, the deceased Sreejith along with CW4 and CW5 went to the place of occurrence in a car bearing registration No.KL-2/G-7383 by 2.30 p.m. CW4 and CW5 alighted near a seashore and the victim alone went to the place of occurrence. By that time, accused No.1 arrived there in a Maruthi van bearing registration No.KL-07/N-774 and waited at Njarakkal Jaihind ground, near the residence of accused No.3, along with accused Nos.2 to 9. On seeing Sreejith, accused No.1 approached him and they had some discussion. All on a sudden, accused No.1 caught hold on the neck of victim Sreejith and uttered, "Adichupolikkeda" (stands for "to smash and break open"). Thereon, accused Nos.3, 4, 6 and 7, who were waiting in the Maruthi van bearing registration No.KL-07/N-774, alighted from the vehicle and proceeded towards the victim with sword and brick pieces and attacked him violently. Though the victim tried to escape and ran away from the place, the assailants followed him and attacked. On getting information regarding the attack, the police came to the spot and removed the injured to the General Hospital, but he succumbed to the injuries on the same day.
Crl. Appeal Nos.264, 289, 290, 296, 598, 699 & 1204 of 2013 5
4. PW2, a near resident, a fisherman by profession, aged 57 years, is a star witness to the prosecution. He was on the way to purchase cattle feed and he had the occasion to see the incident and had narrated the entire sequence of the incident. Exhibit D1 contradiction was brought out that he was walking to the place by holding the bicycle. According to him, he was on the way to purchase some cattle feed in a bicycle. On seeing a crowd, he alighted from the bicycle and proceeded to the place by walking holding the bicycle and it is well evident from a strict scrutiny of the oral evidence tendered by him. Hence, Exhibit D1 contradiction has no much relevance, apart from the fact that it is only a minor one and quite probable in the course of lapse of time. Except the said minor contradiction, nothing was brought out to discredit his evidence. He had given a very detailed picture about what actually he had seen on the date of commission of offence. While he was on the way to purchase some cattle feed in his bicycle, he could see a crowd at Perumalpady Junction. He had also seen the Maruthi car parked there. He had seen the scuffle in between accused No.1 and the victim. According to him, it is during that scuffle one person uttered "Adichupolikkeda". He had also seen another Maruthi van having green colour parked on the western side. Four or five persons alighted from the Maruthi van on hearing the altercation. One person was carrying a sword. They proceeded towards the other person and the person who Crl. Appeal Nos.264, 289, 290, 296, 598, 699 & 1204 of 2013 6 was holding the sword inflicted a cut injury on the deceased all on a sudden. Though the victim tried to escape from the scene of occurrence by boarding on his vehicle, he could not achieve the same as there was further attack on him with the sword. The victim thereon crossed over the road and ran away towards the southwest and entered into a by-lane. Two or three persons who were standing near the parked van also joined with the person who was holding the sword and fisted on the victim. The victim again tried to escape from the attack, but the assailants chased after him and attacked him by inflicting cut injuries with sword and by hitting with bricks. While the incident was going on, somebody made a mention that policemen are coming. Hearing the same, the assailants went away from the place. He had also specified the injuries sustained to the hands of one of the accused. He was the person who drove the green Maruthi van. Police came there and removed the victim to the hospital. By 6.30 p.m. on that day, he came to know about the death of victim. He had also identified the person who was found with the deceased at first as accused No.1. Accused Nos.3 and 6 were also identified by him. The sword used was also identified as MO1 and the bricks used by the accused persons as MO2 series. The alleged incident happened during day time. PW2 had the opportunity to see the incident very closely, just 5ms away from the scene of occurrence. The victim, after receiving the injuries, tried to escape from the place by Crl. Appeal Nos.264, 289, 290, 296, 598, 699 & 1204 of 2013 7 boarding on his car, but the assailants chased after him and inflicted further injuries. Then he ran towards the other side of the road and entered into a small lane, but accused Nos.1, 3 and 6 followed him and inflicted several injuries on him. The other accused who were standing near the Maruthi van also joined with the assailants and fisted on him. Though the victim proceeded towards a parambu (property), the assailants continued their attack on the victim and ultimately he fell down in the parambu. PW2 had identified accused Nos.1, 3 and 6. Regarding the identity of accused Nos.1, 3 and 6 by PW2, no challenge was raised. On the other hand, during the cross examination of PW2, a suggestive question was put up admitting the presence of accused persons who were identified by PW2.
5. CW9, the person with whom accused No.1 entertained a grudge in connection with the police action against him, was examined by the prosecution as PW5. He had admitted that accused No.1 entertained a grudge against him doubting that he is the informer regarding the foreign money transaction of accused No.1. On the alleged day of incident, the victim Sreejith along with Subin met him and they consumed some liquor. He made a request to the deceased Sreejith to discuss the matter with Rajesh, the accused No.1, to prove his innocence. Thereon he made a telephone call to accused No.1 and they had some telephonic discussion. The deceased was asked by accused Crl. Appeal Nos.264, 289, 290, 296, 598, 699 & 1204 of 2013 8 No.1 to come at Perumalpady by 2.30 p.m. So, Sreejith, the deceased, went to Perumalpady in a car brought by him. Subin and PW5 remained in the seashore and the victim went to Perumalpady. By 4.00 p.m. he came to know about the incident through telephone from his brother. Immediately, he went to the hospital. By that time the deceased breathed his last. The identification of accused No.1 in the commission of offence by PW2, thus further stood as corroborated by the oral evidence tendered by PW5.
6. PW3 is another eye witness examined by the prosecution. She had seen the alleged incident. None of the accused persons were identified by her and no question was put up during chief examination in that behalf. PW4 is the shop owner. He turned hostile to the prosecution. But admitted that one of the glass bottles kept in the shop was found lying broken in front of his shop room and that it might be done by one of the accused persons. He had admitted the alleged incident though turned hostile to the prosecution.
7. The recovery of MO1 sword at the instance of accused No.3 on 6.1.2008 at 8.00 - 8.30 a.m. based on Ext.P7 mahazar was proved through PW9 and PW13, the two independent witnesses. The challenge raised against the recovery is that it was lying not concealed and it was recovered from an open space. Going by the oral evidence tendered by PW9 and PW13 and Ext.P7 mahazar, it is well clear that the weapon was Crl. Appeal Nos.264, 289, 290, 296, 598, 699 & 1204 of 2013 9 lying concealed in a shrubby area. The fact that PW9 is a relative of the victim will not vitiate the recovery when it was otherwise proved to be recovered based on the disclosure statement of the accused while in custody. Whether it was in a vacant land or in an open place does not make much difference when it was lying concealed in a shrubby area. The only requirement is that it was recovered from a place known to the accused alone, at his instance. The further contention that PW13 cannot be relied on, being a neighbour to the accused, cannot be sustained unless there is sufficient reason for falsely implicating the accused and no such reason was brought out during his cross examination and even no suggestion was put up. Both the witnesses identified MO1 as the sword with black coloured handle and testified its recovery through accused No.3. Ext.P51 certificate of chemical analysis reveals that item No.19, MO1 sword, was found to be stained with human blood though the grouping could not be done due to insufficiency. The fact that MO1 sword was identified by PW9 and PW13, who are the witnesses to its recovery, further stood as corroborated by the identification of the same weapon by the occurrence witness, PW2. The human blood stain found in MO1 sword would also give sufficient corroboration to the oral testimony of PW2 and his identification of the said weapon as the one used by accused No.3 for the commission of offence. No explanation was given by either accused No.3 or the other accused how the above said Crl. Appeal Nos.264, 289, 290, 296, 598, 699 & 1204 of 2013 10 weapon got stained with human blood.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused, on the other hand, submitted that the recovery of a weapon at the instance of accused alone is not sufficient to fasten liability against the accused and relied on the decisions drawn in Deva v. State of Rajasthan [AIR 1999 SC 214] and also in Bhupan v. State of M.P. [2002 SCC (Cri) 457]. But in the instant case, the evidence involved is not confined to the recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, but stood supported by the oral testimony of the occurrence witness, PW2, who had identified accused Nos.1, 3 and 6, among the assailants.
9. One of the contentions raised by the counsel for accused Nos.5 and 8 is that one of the material witnesses, CW12 Joppen, was not examined. If the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of accused otherwise without leaving any other hypothesis inconsistent with his guilt, the non-examination of other witnesses are not fatal.
10. The contention raised based on the sand particles found on the body of the deceased that the alleged incident had happened at Vilappupadinjaru and not at Perumalpady cannot be sustained simply for the reason that the eye witnesses to the incident, who were examined by the prosecution as PW2 to PW5, had categorically stated that they had witnessed the alleged incident at the place of occurrence. The incident unfurled through the prosecution witnesses did not happen at Crl. Appeal Nos.264, 289, 290, 296, 598, 699 & 1204 of 2013 11 a specific spot. It started in front of Perumalpady bus stop. The victim ran away from the place after receiving some injuries, he was chased after by the accused persons and in the meanwhile he had been attacked three times and ultimately he went up to a property situated in a distant place and fell down, wherein also the accused persons continued their attack on the victim over and again.
11. The medical evidence adduced reveals the following ante- mortem injuries which are not in conflict with what is deposed by PW2, the occurrence witness:
"1. Contused abrasion 10x3.5cm on the right side of front of chest 2cm to the right of midline and 21cm below collarbone overlying the lower coastal margin. Fracture of IIIrd to Xth ribs on the right side at their angles.
2. Fracture of body of sternum between the attachments of second and third coastal cartilages with a haematoma 10x6x1cm on anterior mediastinum. Heart was seen contused over an area 4x3x2cm on the front aspect and right border of right ventricle 2cm below atrioventricular junction.
3. Laceration 10x6x7cm involving the under surface of right lower liver extending on to its front aspect with a subcapsular haematoma 11x8x1cm on the top of right lobe. Abdominal cavity contained 2 litres of fluid blood.
4. Two abrasions 2x0.5cm and 5x0.5cm one below the other, parallel to one another 1cm apart, on the right side of front of neck the first one 2cm outer to adam's apple.
5. Multiple small abrasions over an area 2x0.5cm on the right side of front of neck. 1.5cm below the second injury of injury No.4. Crl. Appeal Nos.264, 289, 290, 296, 598, 699 & 1204 of 2013 12
6. Multiple small abrasions over an area 2.5x2cm on the front of middle of right arm.
7. Abrasion 0.5x0.5cm on the outer aspect of right elbow.
8. Multiple small abrasions over an area 11x6cm on the back of elbow and adjacent part of right forearm with a sutured lacerated wound 0.5cm long and 0.5cm deep at its middle.
9. Multiple small abrasions over an area 5x4cm on the back of right hand.
10. Abrasion 2x1cm on the back of right forefinger 1cm below its root.
11. Abrasion 0.5x0.5cm on the back of root of right thumb.
12. Two abrasions 2x1cm and 1.5x1cm, side by side 3cm apart on the outer aspect of right hip.
13. Multiple small abrasions over an area 12x3cm on the outer aspect of right thigh 6cm below the top of his bone.
14. Multiple small abrasions over an area 7x6cm on the front of right thigh 5cm above knee.
15. Multiple small abrasions over an area 10x7cm on the front of right knee.
16. Two abrasions 1x0.5cm and 1.5x0.5cm side by side 2cm apart on the top of right foot.
17. Abrasion 1x0.5cm on the outer aspect of right foot 4cm behind the root of little toe.
18. Abrasion 1x1cm on the top of left big toe.
19. Abrasion 1x0.5cm on the top of left little toe.
20. Abrasion 7x6cm on the front of left knee.
21. Graze abrasion 20x5cm vertical on the front of left thigh 11cm below the top of hip bone.
22. Abrasion 3x2cm on the outer aspect of left thigh 11cm below the top of hip bone.
Crl. Appeal Nos.264, 289, 290, 296, 598, 699 & 1204 of 2013 13
23. Multiple small abrasions over an area 6x2cm on the outer aspect of left hip.
24. Multiple small abrasions over an area 6x5cm on the back of left hand and wrist.
25. Multiple small abrasions over an area 16x5cm on the outer aspect of left forearm 3cm below elbow.
26. Multiple small abrasions over an area 8x5cm on the back of left elbow.
27. Multiple small abrasions over an area 5x4cm on the outer aspect of left shoulder.
28. Sutured lacerated wound 2.5cm long and 0.5cm deep on the left side of underchin horizontal just to the left of midline.
29. Abrasion 2x0.5cm on left side of forehead just above the middle of eyebrow.
30. Multiple small abrasions over an area 5x4cm on the back of trunk 2cm to left of midline overlying upper border of hip bone with a contusion 10x8x1cm underneath.
31. Abrasion 4x4cm on the back of trunk 10cm to right of midline overlying upper border of hip bone.
32. Multiple small abrasions over an area 10x6cm on the back of left shoulder 0.5cm below its top.
33. Incised wound 8x0.2x0.2cm on the outer aspect of right arm, oblique with its upper front end 6cm below top of shoulder.
34. Incised wound 2x0.5x1cm on the back of right little finger 2cm above its top.
35. Incised wound 6.5x0.2x0.2cm oblique on the outer aspect of middle of right thigh.
36. Incised wound 11x0.3x0.2cm horizontal on the outer aspect of left thigh 18cm below top of hip bone.
37. Incised wound 2x1x0.5cm oblique on the front of left little finger 4cm above its tip.
Crl. Appeal Nos.264, 289, 290, 296, 598, 699 & 1204 of 2013 14
38. Incised wound 11x0.2x0.2cm horizontal on the back of chest 2cm to left of midline and 21cm below top of shoulder.
39. Incised wound 9x0.2x0.2cm horizontal on the back of trunk 4cm to left of midline and 4cm above top of hip bone.
40. Incised wound 5x0.2x0.2cm on the right side of back of chest, oblique 5cm to right of midline and just below top of shoulder."
12. The number of injuries comes to 40. The Doctor who conducted autopsy on the body had given opinion regarding the cause of these injuries which is also not in conflict with the oral testimony of PW2.
13. The oral evidence tendered by PW2 that there was an utterance by accused No.1 inviting those who were sitting inside the van armed with weapon to the place of occurrence and the fact that on hearing the command/utterance from accused No.1, who is the leader, accused Nos.3, 4, 6 and 7 proceeded towards the victim and attacked him with sword and brick pieces would show that they were waiting for the signal/command from accused No.1 so as to attack the victim. The utterance made by accused No.1 that "Adichupolikkeda" stands for "to smash and break open" would be a clear indication of prior concert and pre-planning between the accused persons. Accused No.1 alone at first proceeded towards the victim and there was even a scuffle between them. The genesis of the scuffle started when accused No.1 caught hold on the neck of the victim by uttering a command to those who were waiting inside the van and on hearing the utterance/command, they Crl. Appeal Nos.264, 289, 290, 296, 598, 699 & 1204 of 2013 15 proceeded towards the victim with sword and brick pieces and attacked him. Their intention to do away the victim is well explicit from the words/ command given by accused No.1 to them. The further fact that they were waiting in the van and on getting the command they proceeded towards the victim and started attacking would be a further indication of pre-concert and pre-plan to do away the victim. The victim though tried to escape by boarding on his vehicle, he could not enter into the vehicle as the assailants continued their attack on him. Then he crossed over the road and ran towards the other side of the road, but the assailants followed him by continuing their attack. Though the victim tried to enter into a narrow lane, the accused chased after him and finally the victim entered into a property and due to the attack he fell down there, the accused persons then again attacked him with several blows and they left the place on hearing about the arrival of police. There was continuous attack which started from the bus stand to the place wherein the deceased ultimately fell down. He was subjected to continuous attack to a long distance by using deadly weapon like sword and bricks causing very serious injuries which are well evident from the ante- mortem injuries which comes to 40 in numbers and hence an intentional commission of homicide with full knowledge is well evident. The participation of more than five persons was also spoken by PW2. As discussed earlier, a pre-planning and a pre-concert with the common Crl. Appeal Nos.264, 289, 290, 296, 598, 699 & 1204 of 2013 16 object to do away the victim by more than five persons is well evident.
14. There is no identification of the other accused by any of the occurrence witnesses examined by the prosecution except accused Nos.1, 3 and 6. But, the learned Sessions Judge relied on the suggestive question put up during cross examination of PW2 admitting the presence of all the accused at the place of occurrence. In our considered view, it is not at all sufficient to convict the other accused persons simply on a suggestive question put up during cross examination. The suggestions, if any, made during cross examination contains admission may have its own implications. But the Court must exercise due diligence while relying on the admission, if any, made during cross examination on any suggestive question so as to rule out whether it was actually intended as an admission or whether it was occasioned either due to a mistake or on a misunderstanding. Mistakes committed during cross examination shall not be substituted in the place of admissions. To qualify an admission, it should be a one really intended by the party concerned. The conviction of other accused based on the suggestive question containing an admission cannot be sustained not only on the above said reasons, but also on the ground that the admission is limited to the extent of admitting their presence in the place of occurrence alone, does not speak anything about their participation or any overt act. Hence, the conviction of accused Nos.2, 4, 5, and 7 to 9 Crl. Appeal Nos.264, 289, 290, 296, 598, 699 & 1204 of 2013 17 either with the aid of Section 149 IPC or otherwise cannot be sustained.
15. But as discussed earlier, it has come out in evidence that more than five persons participated in the commission of offence based on a prior concert and common object to do away the victim, which is well evident from the manner in which the offence was committed and their respective involvement besides the user of weapon and continuous attack on the victim for a long time and for a long distance. The fact that some of the assailants had not been identified by the witnesses does not itself bring the accused, whose identifications were proved, outside the purview of liability under Section 149 IPC and as such, the conviction of accused Nos.1, 3 and 6 for the offence under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC deserves no interference by this Court. Further, even otherwise, the involvement of accused Nos.1, 3 and 6 in participating in the offence by inflicting serious injuries on the victim is well evident and as such, they are also liable for the respective overt acts leading to the death of the victim.
16. The prior concert with the common object to do away the victim being member of an unlawful assembly would satisfy the requirement under Section 141 IPC and hence, liable for punishment under Section 143 IPC. The ingredient which constitute an offence of rioting under Section 146 IPC, punishable under Section 147 IPC, and an offence punishable under Section 148 IPC also brought out and hence no Crl. Appeal Nos.264, 289, 290, 296, 598, 699 & 1204 of 2013 18 separate punishment for the minor offence under Sections 143 and 147 IPC need be imposed.
17. The weapon used is a sharp edged sword having an elongated blade about 59cms with a curved end and hence it would fall under the category of an 'arm' as defined under the Arms Act, 1959. Hence the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act read with Section 149 IPC can be fastened against accused Nos.1, 3 and 6. To that extent, the judgment of conviction of the Lower Court does not call for any interference from this Court.
18. The sentence awarded for the offence under Section 302 IPC as against accused Nos.1, 3 and 6 being the lesser one, does not call for any interference by this Court.
19. The learned Sessions Judge had imposed separate punishment for the offence under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 324, 325 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC and also under Section 27 of Arms Act. When a single act or a single transaction constitutes more than one offence, unless the offences are distinct and different by its nature, the limitation imposed under Section 71 IPC would come into play. When there is a major offence constituting a minor offence, the limitation embodied under the first part of Section 71 IPC would come into play and the offender shall not be punished with the punishment of more than one of such offences, unless it be so expressly provided. Section 324 IPC being Crl. Appeal Nos.264, 289, 290, 296, 598, 699 & 1204 of 2013 19 a minor offence to Section 325 IPC, and both Sections 324 and 325 IPC are minor offences to Section 302 IPC, separate sentence need not be imposed. Likewise, since the offence under Sections 143, 144 and 147 IPC are minor offence to Section 148 IPC, there is no necessity to award separate sentence for the minor offences. The sentence awarded for the offence under Section 148 IPC reflects a proper balance between the mitigating and aggravating circumstances and no interference is warranted. No separate sentence need be imposed for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 144 and 147 IPC, being the minor offence under Section 148 IPC. The sentence awarded for the offence under Section 27 of Arms Act also deserves no interference as it strikes a balance between the extenuating and mitigating circumstances under which the offence was committed.
In the result,
(i) Crl. Appeal No.264 of 2013, Crl. Appeal No.289 of 2013, Crl. Appeal No.290 of 2013 and Crl. Appeal No.296 of 2013 are allowed. The finding of guilt of accused Nos. 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9 for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 324, 325 and 302 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act and the conviction and the sentence thereunder are set aside. Accused Nos. 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9 are found not guilty of any offence and hence acquitted. They shall be released forthwith, if they are not in bail Crl. Appeal Nos.264, 289, 290, 296, 598, 699 & 1204 of 2013 20 and their presence is not required in connection with any other case.
(ii) Crl. Appeal No.699 of 2013 is allowed as against accused No.2. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 324, 325 and 302 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act are hereby set aside. Accused No. 2 is found not guilty of any offence and hence acquitted. He shall be released forthwith, if he is not in bail and his presence is not required in connection with any other case.
(iii) Crl. Appeal No.699 of 2013 is dismissed as against accused No.3. The judgment of conviction for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 324, 325 and 302 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act as against accused No.3 is hereby confirmed. The sentence awarded for the offence under Sections 302 and 148 IPC and under Section 27 of the Arms Act are hereby confirmed. No separate sentence is awarded for the offence under Sections 143, 144, 147, 324 and 325 IPC. Substantive sentences shall run concurrently. He is entitled to set off the period of pre-trial detention, if any, undergone.
(iv) Crl. Appeal No.598 of 2013 and Crl. Appeal No.1204 of 2013 are hereby dismissed. The judgment of conviction for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 324, 325 and 302 read Crl. Appeal Nos.264, 289, 290, 296, 598, 699 & 1204 of 2013 21 with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act as against accused Nos.1 and 6 is hereby confirmed. The sentence awarded for the offence under Sections 302 and 148 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act is hereby confirmed. No separate sentence is awarded for the offence under Sections 143, 144, 147, 324 and 325 IPC. Substantive sentences shall run concurrently. They are entitled to set off the period of pre-trial detention, if any, undergone.
Sd/-
A.M.SHAFFIQUE JUDGE Sd/-
P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE DMR/AHZ