Kerala High Court
Rahul vs State Of Kerala on 24 November, 2025
Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :1: 2025:KER:89967
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR
TH
MONDAY, THE 24
DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 /3RD AGRAHAYANA, 1947
CRL.A NO. 511 OF 2020
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED IN SC NO.373 OF 2017 OF
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-I, MAVELIKARA DT.11.02.2020.
APPELLANTS
/ACCUSED Nos.2 to 6:
1 RUN @ AMBILI,
A
AGED 26 YEARS
S/O.SISUPALAN, MOONNUMANAKKAL VEETIL, KARUVATTA,
NORTH MURI, KARUVATTA VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA-690503
2 RUNCHAND @ ARUN
A
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O.RAMACHANRAN NAIR, KARUVATTA, NORTH MURI,
KARUVATTA VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA-690503
3 ANU, AGED 29 YEARS
S
S/O.SUNNY, PARUTHIKKADU VALUPARAMBIL VEETTIL,
KARUVATTA, NORTH MURI, KARUVATTA VILLAGE,
ALAPPUZHA-690503
4
RADEEP, AGED 27 YEARS
P
S/O.RAJAN, KAVUMTHARAYIL VEETIL, KARUVATTA,
NORTH MURI, KARUVATTA VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA-690503
5
AHUL, AGED 28 YEARS
R
S/O.RAJAN, RAKHI BHAVANAM, HASKAPURAM,
Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :2: 2025:KER:89967
ARUVATTA, NORTH MURI, KARUVATTA VILLAGE,
K
ALAPPUZHA-690503
Y ADVS.
B
SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.)
SRI.P.K.VARGHESE
SRI.P.M.RAFIQ
SRI.V.C.SARATH
SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN
SRI.AJEESH K.SASI
SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN
SRUTHY N. BHAT
SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY
SMT.PRAVEENA P.K.
RESPONDENT
/COMPLAINANT:
TATE OF KERALA
S
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031
BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SMT. T.V.NEEMA
HIS
T CRIMINAL
APPEAL HAVING COME
UP
FOR FINAL
HEARING
ON
24.11.2025,
ALONG
WITH
CRL.A.Nos.
554/2020,
244/2020
AND 510/2020,
THE COURT
ON
THE SAME
DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :3: 2025:KER:89967
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR
TH
MONDAY, THE 24
DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA, 1947
CRL.A NO. 554 OF 2020
AGAINST
THE
JUDGMENT
DATED
IN
SC
NO.373
OF
2017
OF
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-I, MAVELIKARA DT.11.02.2020.
APPELLANT
/ACCUSED NO. 6:
AHUL, AGED 28 YEARS
R
S/O.RAJAN, RESIDING AT 'RAKHI BHAVANAM',
HASKAPURAM, KARUVATTA NORTH MURI,
KARUVATTA VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA-690503
Y ADVS.
B
SRI.RENJITH B.MARAR
SMT.LAKSHMI.N.KAIMAL
SRI.KESHAVRAJ NAIR
SHRI.BIJU VIGNESWAR
SHRI.ARUN POOMULLI
SMT.MEERA JOPPAN
SHRI.ABHIRAM.S.
SMT.GAADHA SURESH
SHRI.VISWANATH JAYAN
SMT.AKHILA RADHAKRISHNAN
SHRI.AKSHAY SHIBU
SHRI.ANANTHAPADMANABHAN
SHRI.ASHISH PAUL
SMT.LAXMISREE JAYANTHA KUMAR
Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :4: 2025:KER:89967
RESPONDENT
/COMPLAINANT:
TATE OF KERALA
S
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031
BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SMT. T.V.NEEMA
THIS
CRIMINAL
APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
FINAL
EARING
H ON 24.11.2025,
ALONG WITH CRL.A.511/2020 AND
CONNECTED
CASES,
THE
COURT
ON
THE
SAME
DAY
DELIVERED
THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :5: 2025:KER:89967
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR
TH
MONDAY, THE 24
DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA, 1947
CRL.A NO. 244 OF 2020
AGAINST
THE
JUDGMENT
DATED
IN
SC
NO.373
OF
2017
OF
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-I, MAVELIKARA DT.11.02.2020.
APPELLANT
/ACCUSED No. 7:
ANU @ KANCHAPPAN
M
AGED 26 YEARS
SURENDRAN, ANJALI VEETTIL, KARUVATTA
NORTH MURI, KARUVATTA VILLAGE.
Y ADVS.
B
SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI (SR.)
SRI.R.ANIL
SHRI.M.SUNILKUMAR
SHRI.SUJESH MENON V.B.
SRI.T.ANIL KUMAR
SHRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM (NILACKAPPILLIL)
SRI.THOMAS SABU VADAKEKUT
SHRI.MAHESH BHANU S.
SMT.S.LAKSHMI SANKAR
Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :6: 2025:KER:89967
RESPONDENT
/COMPLAINANT:
TATE OF KERALA
S
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 031.
BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SMT. T.V.NEEMA
THIS
CRIMINAL
APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
FINAL
EARING
H ON 24.11.2025,
ALONG WITH CRL.A.511/2020 AND
CONNECTED
CASES,
THE
COURT
ON
THE
SAME
DAY
DELIVERED
THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :7: 2025:KER:89967
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR
TH
MONDAY, THE 24
DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA, 1947
CRL.A NO. 510 OF 2020
AGAINST
THE
JUDGMENT
DATED
IN
SC
NO.373
OF
2017
OF
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-I, MAVELIKARA DT.11.02.2020.
APPELLANT
/ACCUSED NO.8:
KHIL ASHOK @ SWARNAPPAN
A
AGED 29 YEARS
S/O.ASHOKAN PUTHUVILAYIL VEETTIL,
KARUVATTA NORTH MURI, KARUVATTA
VILLAGE.
Y ADVS.
B
SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI (SR.)
SRI.R.ANIL
SHRI.M.SUNILKUMAR
SHRI.SUJESH MENON V.B.
SRI.T.ANIL KUMAR
SHRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM (NILACKAPPILLIL)
SRI.THOMAS SABU VADAKEKUT
SHRI.MAHESH BHANU S.
SMT.S.LAKSHMI SANKAR
Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :8: 2025:KER:89967
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
TATE OF KERALA
S
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682031
BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SMT. T.V.NEEMA
THIS
CRIMINAL
APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
FINAL
EARING
H ON 24.11.2025,
ALONG WITH CRL.A.511/2020 AND
CONNECTED
CASES,
THE
COURT
ON
THE
SAME
DAY
DELIVERED
THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :9: 2025:KER:89967
J U D G M E N T
Raja Vijayaraghavan, J.
These Appeals have been preferred by the accused Nos. 2 to 8 in S.C.No.373of2017onthefileoftheAdditionalSessionsJudge-IMavelikkara.Crl.A. No.511of2020hasbeenpreferredbyaccusedNos.2to6,Crl.A.No.554of2020 hasbeenpreferredbythe6thaccused, Crl.A.No.244of2020hasbeenpreferred by the 7th accused, and Crl.A. No. 510 of 2020 has been preferred by the 8th accused.The1staccusedremainedabscondingallthrough,andhencedidnotface the trial. 2. By the judgment impugned, the appellants/accused, except the 7th accused, were foundguiltyandsentencedtoundergoimprisonmentforlifeandto pay afineofRs.1lakheachfortheoffenceunderSection302r/w.Section149of the IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 449 of the IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay afineofRs.5000/-each for the offence punishable under Section 148 of the IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each for the offence punishableunderSection149oftheIPCandtoundergorigorousimprisonmentfor 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- each for the offence punishable under Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :10: 2025:KER:89967 Section143oftheIPC,allwithadefaultclause.TheaccusedNo.7wassentenced to undergo RI for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- for the offence punishableunderSection307oftheIPC,withadefaultclause.Thesentenceswere ordered to run concurrently. The accused Nos. 9 to 17 were acquitted of all charges. Gist of the Prosecution Case: 3. The prosecution case, in essence, is that the accused persons harboured deep-seated animosity towards Jishnu (the deceased), underthebelief thathehadplayedanactiveroleinthemurderoftheirfriend,Ullas.Hehadfurther aggravated their resentment by allegedly celebrating Ullas's death by bursting crackers. Drivenbyadesireforvengeance,theappellantshatchedaconspiracyto retaliate and do away with Jishu on the previous day of the incident. 3.1 Pursuanttothesaidcriminalconspiracy,on10.02.2017,accusedNos. 11, 14, 16,and17followedJishnuandcontinuouslyrelayedinformationregarding hismovementstotheotheraccusedthroughmobilephonecommunication.Onthe basisoftheinputsreceivedfromtherestoftheaccused,accusedNos.1to10,12, and 13, armed with dangerous weapons, pursued Jishnu on their motorbikesand scooters.Atthattime,Jishnuwastravellingasapillionrideronamotorbikebearing Registration No. KL-29/K-6921, ridden by PW1, his brother. PW2,aclosefriendof the deceased, was also accompanying them on another motorbike bearing Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :11: 2025:KER:89967 Registration No. KL-29/K-7750. 3.2 At about 11:45 a.m., while Jishnu, PW1, and PW2 were waiting on theirrespectivemotorbikesattheOottuparambuRailwayCrossontheirwayhome, accusedNos.1to10,12,and13chasedthemandshouted,todoawaywithhim. Hearing this, Jishnu and PW1 attempted to flee on foot to save themselves, but accused Nos. 1 to 6 followed them, brandishing deadly weapons. PW2, in his attempt to escape, took a metal road leadingtowardsKurichikkalKadavu,located on the western side of the Karuvatta Vazhiyambalam-Ootupurambu public road. However, accused No. 8 struck PW2onhisbackwiththebluntsideofanaxe-like weapon. Accused No. 7 inflicted a grievous injury on the lefthandofPW2witha sword,causingPW2tocollapsewithinthepropertyofoneRaveendran,situatedon the western side of thesaidmetalroad.AccusedNo.7furtherattackedPW2with thesword,inflictinganadditionalinjuryonhislefthip.TheaccusedNos.9,10,and 13assaultedPW2usingsteelpipes,whileaccusedNo.12struckhimwiththeblunt side of an axe-like weapon and also committed mischief by smashing PW2's motorbike. 3.3 Meanwhile,Jishnu,inadesperateattempttosavehislife,ranintoa nearby residence known as 'Manjathappally House' at Karuvatta Vadakkum Muri, wherein PW3 was residing with her child and mother-in-law. The said house was situatedapproximately500metresfromtheOotuparamburailwaygate.Withaview Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :12: 2025:KER:89967 tosavehislife,helockedhimselfinsidearoomonthefirstfloorofthesaidhouse inanefforttoconcealhimselffromhispursuers.However,accusedNos.1to6and 8 followed him to the house, forcibly entered the premises, and broke open the door to the room where Jishnu had taken refuge. The prosecutionfurtheralleges thataccusedNos.1to6and8,actinginconcertandarmedwithdeadlyweapons, brutallyassaultedJishnu,inflictingmultiplegrievousinjuriesonvariouspartsofhis body, which ultimately resulted in his death. Registration of Crime and Investigation: 4. At2:00p.m.onthesameday,thestatementofVishnu,thebrother of the deceased, was recorded by the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Haripad andonitsbasis,CrimeNo.234of2017oftheHaripadPoliceStation(Ext.P89)was registeredinteraliafortheoffencespunishableunderSections143,147,148,307, 302 r/w. Section 149 of the IPC at 4:18 p.m. on the same day. In the FIR, Sudheesh (A1), Ambili (A2), Arun (A3), Sarath (later found to be Sanu (A4)), Pradeep (A5), and Rahul (A6) were named, and insofar as the others are concerned, it is stated that there were ten others, who could be identified at sight. 4.1 TheFirstInformationStatementwasrecordedbyPW87,theGradeSI attached to the Haripad Police Station. He stated that he received telephonic informationthatanincidentinvolvingtheinflictionofstabinjuryhadtakenplaceat Oottuparambu,andheimmediatelyconveyedthemessagetotheSub-Inspectorof Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :13: 2025:KER:89967 Police, Haripad. As directed by the Sub-Inspector, he went to the MedicalCollege Hospital, Vandanam. PW1, the brother of the deceased, was thereatthehospital and his statement was recorded. PW2, Suraj, who was also injured in the same incident, was also admitted in the hospital. Whenhemadeanattempttoprepare the body note of Suraj, he was informed that PW2 was in the Operation Theatre. 4.2 The Sub-Inspector of Police, Haripad,whowasexaminedasPW95, onreceiptoftelephonicinformationofthehackingincidentatOottuparambu,went tothespotalongwithhisparty.Hereachedthespotat12:15p.m.Onreachingthe spot, he noticed some young men fleeing from the spot on seeing the police. However, as the assailants had run helter-skelter, he was not able to apprehend them. The Assistant Sub-Inspector produced the FI Statement, on the basis of which Crime No. 234 of 2017 was registered. 4.3 PW96, the Inspector of Police Kayamkulam, took over the investigation on the basis of the orders passed by the District Police Chief, Alappuzha, who had constituted a Special Investigation Team. He reached the MedicalCollegeHospital,Vandanam,andconductedaninquestoverthedeadbody of thedeceasedandpreparedtheInquestReport(Ext.P13).MO16underwearand MO17sheet,usedtocoverthebody,wereseizedandforwardedtotheCourt.The body was sent to the Forensic Surgeon for conducting the autopsy. 4.4 On11.02.2017,atabout8:30a.m.,theInvestigatingOfficersecured Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :14: 2025:KER:89967 thepresenceoftheScientificExpertandvisitedthesceneofcrime.Ext.P19Scene Mahazar was prepared. Trace evidence was collected from the road and fromthe scene of the crime. The bike bearing Registration No. KL-21-K-6921, owned by PW1,wasfoundinthehouseofoneRaveendraninadamagedcondition.Fromthe propertyofoneBijiof"MadavVilasam",situatedontheeasternsideoftherailway cross, a rose-colored Lungi, which hadcomeofffromthedeceasedatthetimeof fleeing from the spot, was found. He noted blood stains on the kitchen floor, the vessels, the fridge, the walls of the house, the stairs andthehandrailsleadingto thefirstfloor.Onthelandingareaofthefirstfloor,hefoundasolidconcretebrick, a boundary stone, and a coconut scraper without the tongue. He noted that the door leading to the bedroom had been broken open using a heavy stone. The samples of blood, nail clippings, and bone marrow samples, handed over by the Investigating Officer, were seized for the purpose of analysis. On the basis of information that the accused Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6 were travelling in a bus from Ernakulam-KottayamviaAlappuzha,thebuswasinterceptedatAlappuzha,nearto the General Hospital, and the accused were taken into custody at 8:45 p.m. on 11.02.2017,andtheirarrestwasrecordedat10:00p.m.Later,Ext.P111reportwas submitted beforetheCourt,incorporatingSections427and449oftheIPC.Asthe arrested accuseddisclosedthattheclotheswornbythemweretheonesthatthey werewearingatthetimeofarrest,thesamewereseizedasperExt.P112Property List. Ext.P114 report was then submitted before the Court, incorporating Section Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :15: 2025:KER:89967 120B of theIPC.Later,onthebasisofsourceinformationthattheaccusedNos.8 and 9 were travelling bytraintoKayamkulam,theywereinterceptedandarrested at1:00p.m.on15.02.2017.Inthecourseoftheinvestigation,itwasrevealedthat theactualnameofthe4thaccusedwas"Sanu"andafteridentifyingtheidentityof accusedNos.7and10,Ext.P126reportwassubmittedbeforetheCourt,statingall these aspects. 4.5 On 18.02.2017, the accused Nos. 7 and 10 were spotted at the KSRTC Bus Stand, Kayamkulam, and they were arrested. On the basis of the informationfurnishedbythe11thaccused,aWagon-RCarbearingRegistrationNo. KL-29-F-8310 was found parked in thecarporchofthehouseofthe7thaccused, and the said car was seized as per Ext.P35 Mahazar. 4.6 On the basis of the disclosurestatementgivenbythe7thaccused, andasledbyhim,ahalf-sleeveT-shirtandabluejeanswereseized,asperExt.P24 Mahazar, in the presence of the attestors at 9:45 a.m. on 19.02.2017. 4.7 The accused Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11 were taken in police custody.Onthebasisoftheconfessionalstatementofthe2ndaccused,andasled by him, a sword (MO5) was seized from the "Chira" near to the property of one Mujeed, on 23.02.2017, as per Ext.P11 Mahazar. On the basis of theconfessional statementofArunchandh(A3),andasledbyhim,asword(MO9)wasseizedfrom the "Chira" near to the property of one Ibrahim Kutty, on 24.02.2017, as per Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :16: 2025:KER:89967 Ext.P25 Mahazar. On the basis of the confessional statement of the 6th accused, and as led byhim,asword(MO8)wasseizedfromthepropertyofoneSukumara Pillai, on 24.02.2017, as per Ext.P30 Mahazar. On the basis of the confessional statement of the 5th accused,andasledbyhim,asword(MO7)wasseizedfrom the property of one Yashodharan, on 24.02.2017, as perExt.P10Mahazar.Onthe basisoftheconfessionalstatementofthe3rdaccused,andasledbyhim,theKaily (MO21) worn by him at the time of the occurrence was seized from a Cemetery near to the Malankara Ice Plant as per Ext.P26 Mahazar. On the basis of the confessional statement of the 5th accused, and as ledbyhim,theT-shirt(MO23) wornbyhimwasseizedfromtheCemeteryneartotheMalankaraIcePlantasper Ext.P27 Mahazar. On the basis oftheconfessionalstatementofthe2ndaccused, and as led by him, a half-sleeve T-shirt (MO19) worn by him was seized from a property near to the Cemetery as per Ext.P28 Mahazar. On the basis of the confessional statement of the 6th accused, and as ledbyhim,theT-shirt(MO25) worn by him was seized from the "Rakhi Bhavanam" House as per Ext.P29 Mahazar. Onthebasisofthedisclosurestatementgivenbythe8thaccused,andas ledbyhim,ashirt(MO39)wornbyhimatthetimeofoccurrencewasseizedfrom the property of one Krishna Kumar as per Ext.P31 Mahazar. On the basis of the disclosure statement given by the 10th accused, and as ledbyhim,aYamahaFZ bikebearingRegistrationNo.KL-29-F-5714(MO12)wasseizedfromtheshedinside the Chandhu Bhavanam House as per Ext.P23 Mahazar on 26.02.2017. The said Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :17: 2025:KER:89967 bikewasallegedlyusedbytheaccusedNo.3toreachtheplaceofoccurrence.The investigationrevealedthatitwasonthismotorbikethataccusedNos.1and2were brought to the scene of crime by the 3rd accused. While in custody, Akhil Ashok (A8)isallegedtohavedisclosedthatonepipe(MO3)andasword(MO10)handed overtohimbySudheesh(A1)hadbeenconcealedbyhimamongthebushesnear totheGovernmentLPSchool,andbasedonthesaidconfession,thesteelpipeand the sword was recovered in the presence of witnesses, as per Ext.P32 Mahazar. Theinvestigationrevealedthattheweaponwashandedovertothe8thaccusedby the 1st accused after the incident. The items recovered as per the disclosure statementgivenbyaccusedNos.2,3,5and6wereforwardedtotheCourtasper Ext.P152 Property List. 4.8 The7thaccused,whileincustody,isstatedtohavedisclosedthatthe bikebearingregistrationNo.KL29K7750waskeptinthebacksideofahousenear to Padavalyam Junction, and as led by him, MO 14 Passion Pro bike bearing registration No. KL 29K 7750 was seizedasperExt.P33Mahazar.Inthecourseof investigation it was revealed thatMO14BikewasoneinwhichPW2wastravelling onthedateofincidentandafterattackinghim,thebikewastakenawaybythe7th accused to flee from the spot. While in custody, Manu (A7) is alleged to have disclosedthatonesword(MO11)hadbeenconcealedbyhiminthepropertyofone Radhakrishna Pillai, and based on the above disclosure, the the sword was recovered in the presence of witnesses, as per Ext.P43 Mahazar. The weapons Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :18: 2025:KER:89967 whichwereseizedonthebasisofthedisclosurewereshowntothewitnessesand identified.Theweaponswerealsoshowntothedoctorwhoconductedtheautopsy and his opinion was sought. 4.9 WhenPW1wasfurtherquestioned,heisstatedtohavesaidthatthe nameofthe4thaccusedwaswronglymentionedasSarathwhilefurnishingtheFI statement, and that his actual name is Sanu. 4.10 Though an attempt was made tolocatetheActivascooterusedby the 5th accused, in which the accused Nos. 4 and 6 had come to the Oottuparamabu Railway cross, it was not successful. 4.11 Thereafter, the investigation was taken over by PW97, the Circle InspectorofPolice,Chengannur,onthestrengthoftheorderpassedbytheDistrict PoliceChief,Alappuzha.On21.2.2017,hetookchargeasCircleInspectorofPolice, Harippad. On4.3.2017,theofficerreceivedinformationaboutthepresenceofthe 4thaccusedatVandanamandat7pmonthesameday,hewastakenintocustody. His arrest was recorded at 8.10 pm as per Ext.P163 arrest memo. In addition to arrestandrecoveryattheinstanceoftheacquittedaccused,healsoseizedthePN Exchange register revealing the happenings at the Oottuparambu Railway Cross. The sketch of the scene was prepared by the Village Officer and the same was forwarded to Court. He stated that the auto driver who had shifted thedeceased fromthesceneofcrimetotheHospitalcouldnotbelocatedoridentified.Hestated Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :19: 2025:KER:89967 thattheseizeditemswereforwardedtotheForensicScienceLabforthepurposeof analysis and the report was later forwarded to him along with a covering letter. Ext.P212(a) is the report of analysis. After theconclusionoftheinvestigation,the final report was laid before the jurisdictional Magistrate. Committal proceedings 5. Committal proceedingswereinitiatedbythelearnedMagistrateasC.P. No. 61 of 2017. The case was subsequently committed to the Sessions Court, Alappuzha, and later made over to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Mavelikkara,fortrialanddisposal.The1staccusedwasabscondingfromthestage of investigation itself; hence, the trial proceeded against accused Nos. 2 to 16. Trial 6. Onthesideoftheprosecution,98witnesseswereexaminedasPWs1 to98,andthroughthem,ExhibitsP1toP215wereproducedandmarked.Material Objects (MO1 to MO71) were also identified and marked in evidence. After the closeoftheprosecutionevidence,theincriminatingcircumstancesarisingtherefrom wereputtotheaccusedunderSection313(1)(b)oftheCodeofCriminalProcedure, 1973. All the accused denied the incriminatingmaterialsallegedagainstthem.On the side of the defence, seven witnesses (DW1 to DW7) were examined, and Exts.D1 to D29 were produced and marked in evidence. Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :20: 2025:KER:89967 The Findings of the Trial Court 7. The learned Sessions Judge arrived at the finding of guilt by relying extensively on the testimony of PW1 and PW2, the eyewitnesses, the oral dying declaration made by the deceased to PW1, the applicationofthedoctrineof"last seen together," and the corroborative scientific and physical evidence. 7.1 The Court placed implicitrelianceontheevidenceofPW1,particularly his identification of A1 to A6 and A8 as the persons who chased his brother,and found his version that he later discovered Jishnu grievously injured inside the Manjathappally house to be credible. The testimony of PW1 was held to be corroborated by the evidence of PWs 3, 11, and 13. 7.2 The oral dying declaration in which Jishnu named A1 (Sudheesh), A2 (Ambili), A4 (Sanu), A5 (Pradeep), A6 (Rahul), and A8 (Swarnappan) as his assailants to PW1 was found to be voluntary and reliable. To conclude that the deceasedwascapableofmakingsuchadeclaration,theCourtreliedonthemedical evidence of PWs 84 and DW2, who confirmed that despite sustaining severe injuries, the victim could have remained conscious and spoken. 7.3 The "last seen together" doctrine was also applied,asJishnuwaslast seen fleeing from the railway crossing with A1toA6andA8pursuinghim.Itwas held that the brief interval between the chaseandhisbeingfounddeadrendered Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :21: 2025:KER:89967 the possibility of another perpetrator impossible. The accused's failure to explain these circumstances was held to further strengthen the presumption of guilt. 7.4 The weapons used in the crime were recovered based on voluntary disclosure statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, MO5 (A2's sword), MO9 (A3's sword), MO6 (A4's sword), MO7 (A5's sword), MO8 (A6's sword), and MO3(A8'saxe-likeweapon),eachbearinghumanbloodofgroup'O,'matchingthat of the deceased, as confirmed by the FSL report (Ext. P212) and DNA analysis. Bloodstained clothes worn byA2,A3,A5,A6,andA8werealsorecovered,further linking them to the murder. 7.5 It was held that the evidence established that after Jishnu sought refuge inside the Manjathappally house, the accused forcibly entered by breaking openthedoorwithstonesandotherobjects,constitutinghousetrespassinorderto commit an offence punishable with death, thereby attracting Section 449 IPC. 7.6 The Court rejected the defence contention regarding omissions in the FIR,holdingthatPW1,beinginastateoftrauma,couldnotbeexpectedtofurnish exhaustive details, and found no credible evidence supporting the claim that the assailants wore masks. 7.7 As regards A7, the Court found independent proof of his guilt for the attempted murder of PW2 (Suraj). PW2, an injured witness whose testimonywas Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :22: 2025:KER:89967 held to carry weight, was relied upon to hold that A7 hacked him twice with a sword, a version corroborated by medical records (Ext.P57) showing grievous injuriesconsistentwithanintenttokillunderSection307IPC.Theweaponusedby A7 (MO11) was recovered pursuant to his disclosure, and FSL analysis confirmed that it bore human blood of group 'A,' matching the blood type of PW2. Contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants 8. Sri.P.Vijaya Bhanu, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the accused Nos. 2 to 5 submitted that the reliance placed by the learned Sessions Judge on the evidence tendered by PWs1and2,whoareprojectedaswitnesses and had occasion to see the first part of the incident, is clearly erroneous. Accordingtothelearnedcounsel,aproperappreciationoftheevidenceofthesaid witnesses would reveal that their testimony was riddled with embellishments, improvementsandimprobabilities.ByreferringtoExt.P1FIStatementandExt.P89 FIR, it is submittedbythelearnedcounselthattherearenumerousinterlineations and additions which would make the alleged prompt lodging of the statement improbable. ThoughthePoliceStationadmittedlywassituatedjust25metersaway fromthecourtpremises,theFIRwhichwasregisteredat4.18p.m.hasreachedthe court only at 7.30 p.m. The learned Senior counsel would then pointoutthatthe defence was able to bring out numerous inconsistencies and omissions through PW87, the Officer who had recorded the First Information. The learned counsel Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :23: 2025:KER:89967 would then point out that in the remand applications, which were marked as Exts.D13 to D15, there is absolutely no mention of the alleged dying declaration. Relying on the observations of this Court in Golden Satheesan v. State of Kerala1, it is submittedbythelearnedcounselthatitcannotbebelievedthatthe deceased wouldhavegivenavividdescriptionoftheassailantsandthemannerin which the injuries were inflicted. It is further submitted that in Ext.P57 wound certificate of PW2 (Suraj) prepared by PW75, the Medical Officer attached to the Taluk Headquarters Hospital, Harippad, stated that the alleged cause of injury is that a group of persons had attacked using swords. PW2 was well aware of the identity of the accused and that being the case, the non-mention of their names first in point of time to the Doctor is fatal. It is submittedbythelearnedcounsel thattheprocedureadoptedbythelearnedSessionsJudgeingettingtheweaponas well as the clothes identified by the witnesses is erroneous. He has also raised seriousexceptionstotheevidenceofrecoveryattheinstanceoftheaccusedandit is urged that no reliance can be placed on the same. According to the learned counsel, the 2nd accused was arrested on 11.02.2017 and recovery of his jeans waseffectedon12.2.2017. However,MO5swordandMO19T-shirtwererecovered only on 23.02.2017 and 25.02.2017 after a substantial lapse of time. This, according to the learned counsel, would reveal that the recovery has not been effected in a truthful manner after complying with the procedure. He has also 1 2012 KHC 25 Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :24: 2025:KER:89967 referredtotheevidenceofPW37(Vishanth)anditisurgedthattheevidenceofthe said witness be beset with inconsistencies. Insofar as PW72 is concerned, it is submitted that the said witness was questioned only in the month of April, 2017 and that being thecase,thecourtoughttohaveheldthatthecitingoftheabove witness was to fill up the lacunae in the prosecution case. 8.1. Sri. B. Raman Pillai, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the accusedNos.7and8submittedthatthelearnedSessionsJudgehadconvictedthe said accused without any legal evidence. He would point out that the version of PW1 in the FI statement furnished on 10.2.2017 was grossly embellished at the stage of evidence and this aspect of the matter was overlooked by the Sessions Judge.Hewouldpointoutthattheversionoftheprimewitnessesisthattheyhad previous acquaintance with all the accused and if that be the case, there wasno reason why the names and otherdetailsoftheaccusedwerenotfurnishedatthe initialstageitself.Hewouldminutelytakeusthroughtheevidenceandhighlightthe inconsistencies and the embellishments and argued that the witnesses who improved their version at the stageofevidencecannotbereliedupon.Relianceis placed on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Yudhishtir v. State of Madhya Pradesh2 and it wasarguedthatwhentheevidenceofthewitnesswas substantiallyatvariancewiththeversiongivenbythemtothepoliceattheearliest occasion,theevidenceoughttobereckonedasfalseandunacceptable.Relianceis 2 [(1971) 3 SCC 436] Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :25: 2025:KER:89967 also placed on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in State of Orissa v. BrahmanandaNanda3 anditisarguedthatthenon-disclosureofthenameofthe assailants at the earliest opportunity is a serious infirmity and woulddestroythe credibility of the witness. The learned Senior counsel would then refer to the observations of the Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v.RaghuvirSingh4 anditisarguedthattheomissionofthefirstinformanttonamealltheassailantsis an important aspect and such omission would render the account of the witness highly improbable. The learned counsel urged that a proper evaluation of the evidence of PW1 would reveal that he hadnooccasiontowitnessanypartofthe incident nor he had any occasion to witness the infliction of injuries. The identification by the said witness of the clothes worn by the accused and the weapons used by themareconcoctedversionsdevelopedmuchaftertheincident. The learned counsel submits that even at the time of inquest, the name and presence of accused Nos. 7 and 8 were not mentioned. Insofar recovery is concerned, the learned Senior counsel submitted that the accused No. 7 was arrested on 18.02.2017 and the 8th accused was arrested on 15.02.2017. Their custodywasobtainedfrom23.02.2017to25.02.2017anditwasduringthiswindow period that recovery of weapons allegedtohavebeenusedbyA2,A6,A5andA3 were made. However, insofar as A7 and A8 are concerned, though their clothes were recovered, the weapons were not. Later, the custody of A7 and A8 were 3 [(1976) 4 SCC 288] 4 2018 SCC 13 732 Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :26: 2025:KER:89967 obtained from 25.02.2017 to 02.03.2017 and it was during this period that bikes andweaponswererecovered. Itissubmittedthattherecoverywasplantedbythe prosecution to falsely implicate the accused Nos. 7 and 8. Insofar as the injury inflicted on PW2 by A7 is concerned, the learned counsel invited the attention of this Court to the evidence of PW75 (Dr. Shyla), who had examinedPW2at12.20 pmon10.02.2017. InExt.P17treatmentcertificate,allthatismentionedisthata group of persons inflicted injuries with a sword. ItissubmittedthatthoughPW2 was discharged from the hospital on 24.10.2017,hisstatementwasrecordedonly after much delay. Itissubmittedthatonthatcountalone,theevidencetendered byPW2istobeignored. Finally,itissubmittedthattheinjurysufferedbyPW2isa cutonthecommonextensormusclewhichcannotattracttheoffenceunderSection 307 of the IPC. 8.2. Sri. Renjith B. Marar, the learned counsel appearing for accused No.6 supported the submissions advanced by the learned senior counsel appearing for theotheraccused.Hewouldpointoutthattheprosecutionhascomeforwardwith the contention that Jishnu had stated the cause of death to PW11 (Ratheesh). However, all that he had stated to Ratheesh was that Sudheesh (A1) and Ambili (A2) were responsible for the injuries. According to the learned counsel, this version of PW11 is inconsistent with the version of PW1 which incidentally is at variancewiththeversionintheFIStatement.Hepointedoutthatthe6thaccused wasarrestedon11.02.2017buttherecoveryofMO8 (Sword)andMO27(Kaily)at Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :27: 2025:KER:89967 the instance of theaccusedwereeffectedonlyon24.02.2017and25.02.2017.He urgedthatPW49(Rahul)whostoodasanattestortoExt.P29Mahazarpreparedat the time of seizure of the T-shirt is a stock witness. The learned counsel would further submit that the sample of blood and bone marrow of the deceased was taken by the Doctor who conducted the postmortem and the same was in the possession of the Investigating Officer till15.02.2017.Thelearnedcounselfurther contended that the prosecution has miserably failedtoprovethechainofcustody andhence,noreliancecanbeplacedonthebloodanalysisandtheDNAanalysison which, profuse reliance was placed by the learned Sessions Judge. The learned counselreliedonthejudgmentoftheApexCourtinHarbeerSinghv.Sheeshpal andOrs.5 andarguedthatmaterialomissionswhichmayamounttocontradictions wouldcreateseriousdoubtsaboutthetruthfulnessofwitnesstestimony.Relianceis also placed on Sibu @ Thampi v. State of Kerala6 and it is argued that the unexplained delay in recording the statement of a key witness renders testimony unsafe for reliance. The learned counsel would then refer to the judgment ofthe Apex Court in Prakash Nishad @ Kewat Zinak Nishad v. State of Maharashtra7, and it is submitted that the necessity of maintaining chain of custody and avoiding delay in sending samples for analysis would diminish the evidentiary value. 5 [(2016) 16 SCC 418] 6 [ 2024 KHC OnLine 713] 7 [2023 SCC 16 357] Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :28: 2025:KER:89967 Contentions advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor: 9. Smt. T.V.Neema, the learned Public Prosecutor, submitted that in the caseonhand,thefirstinformationstatementwaslodgedpromptlywithintwohours ofthecommencementoftheincidentandtheFIRwasregisteredat2.30p.m.The FIR reached the Court at 7.30 p.m., on the same day. There is no reason to disbelievetheeye-witnesstestimonyofPW1whohasnarratedinmeticulousdetail the manner in which the incident had commenced and how it ended. PW1 has identified the persons who had chased his brother with weapons.Hispresenceat theManjathappallyHouseimmediatelyaftertheincidentwascorroboratedbyPW3, PW11,PW13,andDW6.Itissubmittedthatthedeceasedhadmadeanoraldying declaration to his brother wherein he has named the assailants. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly found the dying declaration true and voluntary, particularlyinviewofthemedicaltestimonyofPW84andDW2,whohadconfirmed that despite sustaining severe injuries, it was possible for the victim to remain conscious, remember the event and speak, which supports the credibility of the dying declaration. It is further submittedthattheevidenceofPWs1and2clearly established that Jishnu was last seen running away from the railway crossing immediately followed by A1 to A6 and A8, who were all armed. It is further submitted that the recovery of weapons used by the accused based on their disclosure statement and the FSL Report which confirmed that the recovered objects contained human blood belonging to the same group as that of the Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :29: 2025:KER:89967 deceased is yet another strong piece of evidence linking the accused with the murder of Jishnu. It is submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has properly evaluated the evidence and has rightly entered into a finding of guilt and no interference is warranted. 10. Wehavecarefullyconsideredthesubmissionsadvancedandhavegone through the entire records. We have also perused the impugned judgment. The death of Jishnu- Whether homicidal 11. The first question is whether the prosecution has establishedthatthe death of Jishnu was a case of homicide. It would be worthwhile to note at this juncturethatthedefencedoesnotdisputethatJishnumetanhomicidaldeathafter being chased and attacked inside the home of PW3. Their only contentionisthat the appellants are not the assailants. 11.1 Inordertoprovethatthedeathwasacaseofhomicide,inadditionto PWs1to 3,theprosecutionhasexaminedtheDoctorwhoconductedtheautopsy examinationonthebodyofJishnu.WhenexaminedasPW84,theForensicSurgeon testified that on 11.02.2017, while serving as Professor of Forensic Medicine and Police Surgeon at the GovernmentMedicalCollege,Alappuzha,shehadconducted the post-mortem examination on Jishnu's body. Ext.P73 is the post-mortem certificate. She noted 36 incised injuries on the body of the deceased. On Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :30: 2025:KER:89967 examination, PW84 opined that death was due to the multiple injuries sustained, specifically injury Nos. 1 to 19, which were cumulatively sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. When MO3, MOs 5 to 11, being the weapons recovered in the case based on the disclosure statements of the accused, were showntotheDoctor,sheexaminedthemandopinedthattheante-morteminjuries observed could indeed have been caused by weapons of such nature. From a conjointreadingoftheevidenceofPW1andPW84,theDoctorwhoconductedthe autopsy, the only irresistible conclusion that can be drawn is that the death of Jishnu was clearly and undoubtedly homicidal. No serious contentions were advanced before us to conclude otherwise. Evaluation of the evidence 12. In order to prove the occurrence,theprosecutionmainlyreliesonthe evidence of PWs 1 to PW3, PW11, 13 and PW37. The recovery of weapons and clothes worn by the accused at the timeoftheoccurrence,attheinstanceofthe accused and the detectionofthepresenceofbloodofthedeceasedonitarealso strong pieces of evidence relied on by the prosecution to connect the appellants with the offence. 12.1. Wefindthatthelawwassetinmotioninthiscaseonthestrengthof the FirstInformationStatement(FIS)givenbyPW1totheAssistantSub-Inspector ofPolice,Haripad,at2:00p.m.ontheverydateoftheallegedoccurrence.During Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :31: 2025:KER:89967 examination before the Court, PW1, the elder brother of the deceased, and who waspresentwithhimimmediatelypriortotheincident,hasnarratedthesequence of events with meticulous detail and precision. 12.2. PW1statedthatthedeceased,Jishnu,washisbrother.Hestatedthat every year, Jishnu used to undertake a 21-day vritham and participate in Kavadiyattom(aritualprocession)conductedinconnectionwiththeannualfestival of Sree Subrahmanya Swamy Temple, Haripad. On 10.02.2017, he had similarly performed the Kavadiyattom. Aftercompletingtheritual,Jishnutookabathinthe temple pond, offered prayers, and thereafter, alongwithPW1andhisfriendSuraj (PW2), proceeded to KaruvattaGokulaAshramamtocollecttheirbikes,whichhad been parked near the waiting shed in front of the L.P. School adjacent to the Ashramam. PW1 and Jishnu then mounted the Avenger motorbike bearing registrationNo.KL-29/K-6921whichwasriddenbyPW1.SurajrodehisPassionPro bike bearing registration No. KL-29/K-7750. When they reached near the Oottuparamburailwaygatearound11:40a.m.,thegatewasclosed.PW1switched off his bike and began browsing Facebook on his mobile phone while Jishnu playfully tapped his back rhythmically. Suraj too stopped his bike on the left side andwaslookingathisphone.Atthattime,PW1conversedwithoneSanthosh,who was waiting on another bike stopped on the right side. Suddenly, PW1 heard a commotionfrombehind.Turningaround,hesawaroundtwelvepeopleapproaching on four motorbikes. The first vehicle,aYamahabike,wasriddenbyArunchand@ Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :32: 2025:KER:89967 Arun(A3),withSudheesh(A1)andAmbili(A2)aspillionriders.Thesecondvehicle, aHondaActivascooter,wasriddenbyPradeep(A5)withRahul(A6)andSanu(A4) aspillionriders.APulsarbikeriddenbyVishnulal(A12)followed,carryingManu@ Kanchappan(A7)andAkhilAsok@Swarnappan(A8).Finally,anotherHondaActiva scooter ridden by Vaisakh (A13) arrived, carrying Prabhath Zacharia (A9) and Jayajith(A10).Allofthemwerearmedwithdeadlyweaponssuchasswords,steel pipes, and axe-like implements. Upon arrival, the 1st accused, Sudheesh (A1), shouted an exhortation to "hack and kill." Alarmed, JishnupushedPW1asideand urged him to flee. PW1 fell along with his bike, while Jishnu ranontotherailway trackheadingeast.PW2Surajfledsouthwardalongthetrack.PW1,whileescaping, fellontoaheapofstonesbutsawRahul(A6)andPradeep(A5)pursuinghimwith swords. He also saw Jishnujumpingoverafence,wearingonlyunderwear.Jishnu was signaling him to continue running and make good his escape. At the same time, Sudheesh (A1), Ambili (A2), Arunchand (A3), and Sanu (A4) were chasing Jishnu with swords in hand. 12.3. PW1thencontactedhisuncleSasioverthephonebutcouldnotreach him. He called another relative, Manu Annan, and informed him of the attack. ActingonManu'sadvice,hewentinsearchofJishnu.WhenPW1reachedbehinda house named "Manjathappally House," he heard Jishnu's screams from itskitchen area. He immediately telephoned his uncle again and reported that a group had chased and attacked Jishnu, and that he was now inside Manjathappally House, Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :33: 2025:KER:89967 grievously injured. On reaching the front of the house, PW1 saw two women standing on the northern sideofthecourtyard,terrifiedandweeping,withachild besidethem.Heenteredthehouseandnoticedbloodstainsonthesit-outandhall walls, shattered windowpanes, and blood oozing down the staircase. Inside the kitchen lay a pool of blood, and Jishnu was found slumped on the floor with multiplesevereinjuries,includingoneonhislefthand.PW1sawhisbrothertrying tolifttheinjuredhandusinghisrighthand.OnseeingVishnu,Jishnupleadedthat the blood from his face be wiped off andtoldhimthathewouldnotsurvive.The injured asked PW1 to record his statement using his mobile phone but since the phone had no charge, he could not do that. Jishnuthenproceededtonarratehis version to Vishnu. He told PW1 that herantothefirstfloorofthehouseandthe assailants chased him. They broke open the door and entered the house. After breakingin,A1(Sudheesh)cuthimonhisrightshoulderwithasword.Heagaincut onthesameareawiththeweapon.WhenheaskedA1astowhyhewasattacking him and they could settletheissues,A1respondedstatingthathehadnothingto say to him and that he only wanted to see him dead. When hefelldown,allthe accusedcuthimwithweapons.HesaidAmbili(A2)inflictedacutinjuryonhishand and Arun hacked him on his leg. He also added that Rahul (A6), Pradeep (A5), Sanu(A4)andSwarnappan(A8)inflictedcutinjuries. PW1thenrushedouttoseek help.Alocalresidentapproached,andPW1requestedavehicle,butthemanopted to call the Police. Shortly thereafter, Ratheesh, a neighbour, arrived, followed by Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :34: 2025:KER:89967 PW1's uncle Sasi on a scooter.Together,theyenteredthehouseandliftedJishnu, who was barely conscious,toasittingpositionbeforelayinghimbackdownwhen he began to collapse. Soon, other relatives, Sanoosh, Vinod (brother-in-law), and Vishnu arrived. They wrapped Jishnu inabedsheetfromthesofaandtransported him to the Medical College Hospital, Vandanam, in an autorickshaw. By then, a large crowd and the Police had gathered at the scene. 12.4. At the hospital, PW1 learned of his brother's death and that Suraj(PW2)hadalsobeenattackedbythesamegroup.PW1statedthatthemotive behindthecrimestemmedfromapriorincident:oneUllas,afriendoftheaccused, had been murdered, and rumours spread that Jishnu had celebratedhisdeathby burstingcrackers.Additionally,Jishnuandhisfriendshadpreviouslyquarrelledwith Ambili (A2) near Vijaya Bank, Karuvatta, during which A2 sustained a stab injury. There had also been an earlier altercation where A1, A2, and Ullas attempted to create disturbances during a temple music program, which Jishnu had opposed. PW1allegedthat,toavengetheseincidents,theaccusedconspiredandcommitted the present offence. During testimony, PW1 affirmed thathewasacquaintedwith all the accused except A12 and A13, as most were his neighbours or former schoolmates.HeidentifiedaccusedNos.1-10,12,and13inCourtanddetailedthe specific weapons each held. The material objects (MOs 1-29) were identifiedand markedaccordingly,includingtheweapons,motorbikes,clothesoftheaccused,and the attire worn by the deceased at the time of the incident. Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :35: 2025:KER:89967 12.5 Incross-examination,PW1admittedthatheandhisbrotherhadearlier beenaccusedincriminalcasesandhadbeeninjudicialcustody.Heacknowledged knowing certain local DYFI leaders and having visited one Anas Ali, the District Secretary, prior to giving his statement. He also conceded that some details, includingthenumberofvehiclesinvolved,certainidentifications,anddescriptionsof clothing,werenotincludedinhisinitialFISduetopanicandconfusionatthetime. However,hemaintainedunequivocallythathehadclearlyseenA12andA13atthe Oottuparambu railway crossing, later identifying thematthePoliceStation,during photo identification by the Tahsildar,andagainduringthetrial.Healsoreaffirmed his eyewitness account that the accused arrived armed with deadly weapons, attackedJishnu,andthatnoneofthemwerewearingmasks.Wewilldealwiththe contentions raised by the defence to assail the version of PW1 at a later stage. 12.6 The next witness examined by the prosecution is Suraj (PW2). He statedthatthedeceased,Jishnu,andhisbrotherVishnuwerehisclosefriends.On 10.02.2017, the Haripad Sree Subrahmanya Swamy Temple was celebrating its annual festival,duringwhichJishnuparticipatedinKavadiyattom,areligiousritual. PW2 assisted Jishnu in performing the same. After completing the Kavadiyattom, Jishnu, PW1, and PW2 went toGokulaAshramamtotaketheirmotorbikesparked in the waiting shed in front of the L.P. School nearby. Vishnu (PW1) took his AvengermotorbikewithJishnuseatedonthepillion,whilePW2tookaPassionPro bike belonging to Jishnu's friend. While proceeding home through the Karuvatta Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :36: 2025:KER:89967 Vazhiyambalam - Oottuparambu road, they reached the southern side of the Oottuparamburailwaycrossing,whichwasclosedatthetime.Astheywaited,they noticedoneSanthoshstandingontheeasternsideoftheroad,andJishnuengaged him in conversation, while PW1 was looking at his mobile phone. Suddenly, PW2 heard a commotion and the sound of accelerating bikes from behind. When he turned around, he saw about twelve persons arriving on two motorbikes andtwo Activa scooters, all armed with deadly weapons such as swords, steel pipes, and axe-like implements. 12.7. The first vehicle, a Yamaha bike, was riddenbyArunchand(A3)with Sudheesh(A1)andAmbili(A2)aspillionriders.Behindthem,cameaHondaActiva scooter ridden by Pradeep (A5), carrying Rahul(A6)andSanu(A4)onthepillion. Following them was a Pulsar bike ridden by Vishnulal (A12) with Manu @ Kanchappan (A7) and Akhil @ Swarnappan (A8) seated behind. The last was another Activa scooter ridden by an unidentified person, with Prabhath (A9) and Jayajith (A10)onthepillion.PW2statedthathedidnotknowtheriderofthelast scooterorA12priortotheincidentbutwasacquaintedwithallotheraccused.PW2 categoricallyidentifiedalltheaccused,includingA12andA13,beforetheCourt.He testified that upon seeing the group, Jishnu immediately got down from the bike and ran eastward, while Vishnu (PW1) also fled. The accused Nos. 1to6chased them with weapons. PW2 moved towards the eastern side of ametalroad,when A8(Akhil@Swarnappan)struckhimonthebackwiththebluntsideofanaxe-like Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :37: 2025:KER:89967 weaponbeforecontinuingtochaseJishnu.ThenA7(Manu@Kanchappan)hacked below his left knee with a sword, causing him to fall into a nearby property. Subsequently, A9 (Prabhath), A10 (Jayajith), and A13 (Vaisakh)struckhimonthe back and shoulder, while A12 (Vishnulal) beat him with thebluntsideofasimilar weaponandthenstruckPW1'sbikewithit.A7againattackedPW2onthehipand also damaged the Passion Pro bike before riding awayonit,followedbyA9,A10, A12, and A13. 12.8. Soonafter,PW2'srelativeSanthosharrivedandtiedatowelaroundhis wound.Anotherfriend,Visanth,alsoreachedthespot,andSanthoshinformedhim that Jishnu had been chased bymenwithweapons.Visanththenraninthesame direction to look for Jishnu. An autorickshaw initially refused to take PW2 to the hospital,butsoonthereafteranotherautodrivenbySunilwhowasknowntoPW2, took him to hospital. When someone nearby shouted that the assailants were returning, PW2 became terrified and heaskedthedrivertotakehimhome.While near the post office, heavy bleeding began from his hand, and Sunil turned the autorickshaw towards the Government Hospital, Haripad. From there, PW2 was referred to the MedicalCollegeHospital,Vandanam,wherehewasadmittedasan inpatient. On the way, he came to know that Jishnu had been murdered. 12.9. PW2 stated that he underwent surgery as the fingers of his lefthand had lost mobility. He was later referred to Medical College Hospital, Kottayam, Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :38: 2025:KER:89967 where the mobility of his hand was restored. During treatment at Vandanam, he was unable to speak. PW2 testified that he bore no personal enmity toward the accusedandthathewasattackedsolelyforbeingafriendofJishnu,againstwhom theaccusednurseddeepanimosity.HestatedthattheaccusedbelievedJishnuwas involvedinthemurderoftheirfriendUllasandhadcelebratedhisdeathbybursting crackers. There had also beenaquarrelbetweenJishnuandtheaccusedduringa templefestivaltwoyearsearlier.HeidentifiedaccusedNos.2to13incourtduring trial.Healsoidentifiedtwoaxe-likeweapons,MO3andMO4,usedbyA8andA12, respectively, and the sword used by A7, MO11, as the weapon that caused his injuries. He identified MO1 and MO2, the steel pipes used byA9andA10tobeat him. PW2 statedthatatthetimeoftheincident,hewaswearingakavidhotiand shirt, though the black dhoti shown to himinCourt,MO29,wasthesamehehad worn.HeexplainedthathisbloodstainedshirtwastornandremovedbytheDoctor and he was unaware of its whereabouts. He also identified MO18 as the rose-coloured dhoti worn by Jishnu. PW2 further testified that A7 was wearing a yellow T-shirt and blue jeans (MOs 30 and 31), A12, a greyT-shirtandtracksuit (MOs 32 and 33), A10, a green T-shirt and blue jeans (MOs 34 and 35), A9, an ash-coloured shirt and black dhoti (MOs 36 and 37), and A8, a saffron dhoti and multi-coloured shirt (MOs 8 and 9). 12.10. Despite rigorous cross-examination, nothing was elicited to discredit PW2's version. He confirmed that he had been friends with JishnuandVishnufor Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :39: 2025:KER:89967 over23years.Hedeniedhavingtoldthepolicethathewasunabletospeakduring his treatment at Vandanam Hospital. When asked whether he had toldthemedia that the assailants wore masks or covered their faces with kerchiefs, he denied giving any such statement, thoughlatersaidhecouldnotremember.Headmitted that his police statementwasrecordedsixdaysaftertheincidentandthathehad no prior animosity toward A7. He also admitted not having described the specific features of the weapons or clothing of A7 in his earlier statement. When a suggestion was made that PW2 had not sustained injuries from the spot he described, he vehemently denied it. 12.11 Revathi (PW3), the resident of the Manjathappally House was examined asPW3.HerhusbandwasservingintheIndianArmyatthetimeofthe incident. During the relevantperiod,shewasresidingintheManjathappallyhouse along with her mother-in-law and her four-year-old son. The incident in which Jishnu was murdered occurred inside her house. According to her, on thedateof theincident, shewasathomeasitwasaholiday.Whileshewaspreparingforthe PSCexaminationinthebedroomonthewesternsideofthegroundfloorataround 11:45 a.m., sheheardthesoundofsomeonerunningthroughthepropertyofone Jyothi, situated on the western side of her house. Initially, she thought it was causedbyanimalsandwenttoherson,whowaswatchingtelevisioninthehall,to ensure he did not go outside. Moments later,sheheardaloudnoiseandsawthe glass panes of the window near the sit-outshatter.Suddenly,amanwearingonly Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :40: 2025:KER:89967 underwearenteredthehouseandtriedtolockthefrontdoorfrominside.Someone outside was simultaneously attempting to pushthedooropen.Themanmanaged tosecurethedoorusingthekeyhangingfromit.Frightened,PW3retreatedtothe western bedroom with her child. From there, she saw the man standing in the kitchen. As she tried to calm her child, she saw about six tosevenmenstanding outsidethewesternsideofthebedroom,armedwithswordsandaxe-likeweapons. One of them came near the window and asked, "Where is he?" Under the impression that the man who had entered her house had left, PW3 replied that therewasnobodyinsideandpleadedwiththeweapontotingstrangersnottoharm them.Shethenheardhermother-in-lawcryingfromthewesternsideofthehouse, saying that only PW3 and her childwereinside.Theintrudersmovedtowardsthe northern side of the house. Looking through the window, PW3 saw one man holding a sword and her mother-in-law lying on the car porch. Neighbours SubaidammaandRadharushedtoassisthermother-in-law.Believingtheassailants had left, PW3 opened the front door, but six to seven armed men immediately entered again. She then ran outside to her mother-in-law, where Subaidamma, Radha, and one Sudheer were present. Sudheer took the child from her and escortedbothPW3andhermother-in-lawtoherhusband'sancestralhouse,about 20 feet away. While proceeding there, PW3 heard loud noises from her house. Whensheturnedback,shesawtwopeopleenteringthehouseandheardsomeone shout,"Openthedoor,"followedbyaloudcry.Shetriedcontactingthepolicefrom Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :41: 2025:KER:89967 Sudheer'smobilephonebutcouldnotconnect.Shethencalledthepoliceusingher own phone and Radha's phone. Shortly thereafter, someone said that those who had entered thehousehadgone.Whilestandingnearatamarindtreeontheway tothefamilyhouse,shesawamanemergefromtheManjathappallyhousecrying, "It'smybrother!"Fromtheconversationofotherspresent,sheunderstoodthatthe injuredpersonwasJishnu,brotherofVishnu(PW1).Soonafter,apersonarrivedon an Activa scooter, identified by onlookers as Jishnu's uncle, and later an autorickshaw came in which Jishnu was taken to the hospital, covered with a bedsheet taken from the sofa in her house. The police arrived soon after and instructed her to vacate the houseaftercollectingessentialbelongings.Whenshe re-entered, she noticed extensive bloodstains. She then left with her child and mother-in-lawtoheruncle'shouse.Shealsoobservedthatthelocksonthedoorof the eastern first-floor room had been broken. Later, she learned that Jishnu had succumbed to his injuries. PW3 identified the bedsheet (MO17) used to cover Jishnu, a stone pillar (MO40), a hollow brick (MO41), a coconut scraper (MO42) with its blade (MO43),apieceofwindowglass(MO44),andatowel(MO45)used for her child, all belonging to her household. She also identified MO4 and MO5 (swords)asthoseseeninthehandsoftwooftheintruders.PW3testifiedthatthe menappearedtobebelow30yearsofagebutstatedshecouldnotidentifythem. She had seen the intruders from a distance of about five feet and remembered most distinctly theonewhoaskedher,"Whereishe?"However,sheadmittedthat Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :42: 2025:KER:89967 shecouldnotrecallhisidentifyingfeatureswhengivingherinitialpolicestatement. During cross-examination, PW3 confirmed that she was taken for a test identification parade but could not identify any of the accused. When asked whether the assailants had covered their faces, she replied thatoneamongthem waswearingamaskandthatitwasthepersonwhoaskedher,"Whereishe?"She later contradicted herself, stating that she had not seen six or seven persons. In re-examination,PW3admittedthatthepolicehadrecordedherstatementthreeor fourtimesandthatshehadnotmentionedthepresenceofanymasksinherearlier statements underSection161Cr.P.C.,nortotheMagistrateorTahsildarduringthe identification proceedings. 12.12. PW4isaKSRTCDriverwhowasresidingonthenorth-westernsideof thehouseofPW3. Hestatedthathearingthenoiseandscreamsfromthehouseof PW3,hewentthereandfoundthemother-in-lawofPW3lyingonthecarporch.At thattime,hismotherSubaidaandRadhamanicametothespot. Hesawabout6-7 persons standing in the property of PW3. They were carrying swords. He asked themtoleave. Oneofthemswungaswordathimandaskedhimtoleave. Then hesawPW3comingoutofthehouse. Immediatelythereafter,thepersonstanding outside rushed inside her house and then he heard loud cries and screams of a person. Hedidnotenterthehouseashewasovercomebyfear. HetookPW3,her child and mother-in-law to his property. He continued to hear the screams from PW3's house. Aftersometime,thepersonswhohadenteredthehousecameout Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :43: 2025:KER:89967 and they left the place. After they had left, he went to PW3's house and went inside. Therewasbloodalloverthehouseandhefoundapersonlyinginapoolof blood in the kitchen. He identified the person as Jishnu. There was no one else present at that point of time. He then went outandcalledthepoliceandhanded over the phone to PW3. PW3 talked to the police and informed them of the incident. Thereafter, the personswhohadassembledtherecoveredthedeceased inasheetandtookhimtothehospitalinanautorickshaw. Later,hecametoknow that Jishnuhaddied.Hestatedthatthepersonswhohadenteredthehousewere wearing masks and only their eyes werevisible.Healsostatedthatheisnotina position to identify the weapons used by them. Since he did not support the prosecution, permission was granted to the Prosecutor to put questions in the nature ofcross-examinationbyinvokingSection154oftheIndianEvidenceAct.It was broughtoutthatinhisearlierstatementhehadnotstatedthattheassailants were wearing masks. He denied that he had stated to the police that he could identify the accused at a later stage. He also denied that PW1 had come to the houseandhewascontradictedbyhisearlierstatementthatVishnuhadcomeand was seen crying while coming out of the house, which portion was marked as Ext.P4. 12.13 PW5(Shajeela)wasthegatekeeperatOottuparambuRailwayCross on 10.02.2017. She stated that her duty time was from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. The PrivateNumberRegistermaintainedinherofficewasputtoherandthesamewas Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :44: 2025:KER:89967 identified and marked as Ext.P7. She stated that she vividlyrememberswhathad happenedon10.02.2017onwhichday,theThaypooyafestivalwascelebrated. She statedthatshewasondayduty. At11.40a.m.,therailwaycrosswasclosedasit was the time during which the Ernakulam - Kayamkulam Passenger train passed through the area.Whileshewassittingintherestroom,sheheardthesoundofa bike falling down from the southern side of the railway cross. When she looked towardstheareafromwherethesoundhadcome,shefoundonepersonstanding on the side of a bike and the other person running towards the east. About 4-5 people were chasing him and they had arms in their possession. Some persons were carrying a stick-like weapon and others were carrying a curved sword seen onlyinthemovies.Shestatedthatimmediatelyshecontactedthepolicebycalling 100. Since the line was busy, she called the Haripad Police Station and informed them about the armed persons and asked them to come immediately to prevent violence. Shestatedthatthepersonswhohadassembledtheredidnotreact.After the train had left, she opened the Railway gate. At about 12.30 p.m., she again closedtherailwaygatetoenableanothertraintopassthrough.Afterthegatewas closed, she saw the armed persons returning back with weapons. The personin frontwaswearingjeansandaT-Shirt.Theywerefoundwalkingthroughtherailway track.Fromtheirbodylanguage,PW5noticedthattheywerebetweentheagesof 20and25. Sheagaincalledthepoliceandinformedthemofthearmedassailants. She stated that she heard the sound of the assailants beating onthebike.When Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :45: 2025:KER:89967 sheopenedthegate,sheheardpeoplesayingthatsomepersonwasinflictedwith cut injuries. Later she saw the police personnel going towards theeast.Shethen sawonepersonwhowasfoundtobebleedingbeingtakeninanautorickshaw.She also stated that she was informed that the person who was taken in the autorickshaw passed away and that the persons who were attacked by the assailants were brothers.SheidentifiedMO5astheweaponfoundinthehandsof one of the assailants. She was however not in a position to identify any of the accused standing in the dock. 12.14. PW6 to PW9 were neighbours of PW3, who according to the prosecution had reached the spot in the course oftheincident.Howevertheydid notsupportthecaseoftheprosecution.PW9isoneSivarajanKurupwhoisstated to be running a tea shop situated near the Oottuparambu railway crossing. According to him, hehadprioracquaintancewiththedeceased,Jishnu,aswellas with PW2, the injured witness. He deposed that on 10.02.2017, at approximately 11.30 a.m., while he was preparing snacks in his shop, he heard a commotion outside. On hearing the clamour, he stepped out of the shop and observed 6-7 individuals running behind another person. He further stated that the group was seen running towards the eastern side of the railwaycrossing,alongthepathway leading to the Manjathappally house. He also noticed that the assailants were armed with lethal weapons. PW9 stated that he could not identify any of the individualsinvolvedastheyranpast.Afterwitnessingthis,hereturnedtohisshop Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :46: 2025:KER:89967 to continuepreparingsnacks.Ashortwhilelater,uponsteppingoutagain,hesaw thesameindividuals,whohadearlierruntowardstheeast,returning.Atthattime, they were holding weapons, and on reaching near the railway crossing, they ran towards the western side on noticing the police. PW9 further testified that he subsequently came to know that Jishnu had been attacked inside the Manjathappally house and later succumbed to his injuries. He also learned that another person had been assaulted on the southern side of the railway crossing. According to PW9, he later saw Jishnu being brought in anauto-rickshaw,buthe looked only once, as the sight was too distressing. However, he did not state anything about the accused. 12.15 The next witness of some relevance is Vishnu. While examined as PW13, he deposed that on the date of the alleged incident, one Manu had telephonedhimandinformedhimthatcertainpersonswererunningbehindJishnu. Upon receiving this information, PW13 proceeded to the Oottuparambu railway crossing and observed several individuals heading towards the Manjathappally house. According to his testimony, he followed them to the said house, and on entering,hesawJishnulyingonthekitchenfloorinagrievouslyhackedcondition. PW13statedthatalthoughheattemptedtoliftJishnu,hewasunabletodoso.He then stepped outside the house and called his friends, Vinod and Sanosh, and together they transported Jishnutothehospitalinanauto-rickshaw.Ontheirway tothehospital,whentheyreachedneartherailwaycrossing,oneKumararrivedin Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :47: 2025:KER:89967 a car; Jishnu was then transferred into the saidvehicleandtakentothehospital. AccordingtoPW13,untiltheyreachedPurakkadJunction,Jishnucontinuedtoshow signs of movement. However, upon reaching the Medical College Hospital, the attending doctor examined Jishnu and declared him dead. PW13 further testified thatshortlythereafter,anotherinjuredperson,Suraj,wasalsobroughttothesame hospital.PW13addedthatwhenhereachedtheManjathappallyhouse,Vishnu,the brother of the deceased Jishnu, was present at the entrance of the house. 12.16 PW19, is one Sanosh. He stated that he reached the Manjathappally house immediately after hearing about the incident. According to him, several people had gathered in and around the courtyard of the house. He stated that Vishnu, thebrotherofJishnu,wasfoundstandinginthecourtyard,andcrying.He alongwithhisneighborVinod,wentinsidethehouseandfoundJishnulyingonthe kitchenfloorwithcutinjuriesonhisbody.HealongwithVishnuandVinodcovered thebodywithasheetandtookthebodyoutsidethehouse.Anautorickshawcame and Jishnu was taken to the hospital in the said vehicle. When they reached the Railway cross, Kumar brought his car and the body was shifted to the car to be taken to the hospital. When he asked PW1 what had happened to Jishnu, PW1 replied that "they had attacked Pappaji," PappajibeingthenicknameofJishnu.In cross examination, he stated that several persons had assembled at the Manjathappaly house, where the incident occurred. Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :48: 2025:KER:89967 12.17 PW21 (Sasikumar), is a taxi driver by profession . He stated that he has previous acquaintance with the deceased Jishnu as well as the injured Suraj. PW21 stated that he operates a Mahindra Verito car bearing Registration No. KL-29/F-2623 as a taxi in Ernakulam. On the date of the allegedincident,hehad travelledtotheAlappuzhaSpecialBranchOfficeformattersrelatingtohispassport verification. From there, he was directed to appear before the Haripad Police Station for further verification, and accordingly, he proceeded from Alappuzha towards Haripad.WhenhereachedVazhiyambalam,henoticedhisfatherstanding atabusstop,andseeinghimhestoppedthevehicle.Hisfatherinformedhimthat some issues were taking place at Oottuparambu. PW21immediatelyproceededto Oottuparambu. When he reached Oottuparambu railway crossing, he found the gate closed and he was informed by people gathered there that an unfortunate incidenthadoccurredonthenorth-easternsideofthecrossing.PW21thenwalked towards the crossing area and noticed Vishnu's motorcycle lying on the ground. Shortly thereafter, he saw Santhosh, Vinod, andVishnu@KannanbringingJishnu in an auto-rickshaw. Jishnu's body was covered with a bed sheet when he was taken to hospital. PW21 stated that he instructed them to transferJishnuintohis car,followingwhichJishnuwastakentotheVandanamMedicalCollegeHospitalin his vehicle. After examination, the doctor declared Jishnu dead.PW21statedthat while being placed in the car,Jishnuwascryingandmakinghummingsounds.He further stated that Jishnu continued toshowbodilymovementsuntiltheyreached Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :49: 2025:KER:89967 Ambalappuzha. He stated that when they reached Vandanam MCH, the doctor examinedJishnuandpronouncedhimdead.Hisevidenceremainsunchallengedas none of the counsel cross examined him. 12.18 PW22 is an autorickshaw driver by profession. According to him, on 10.02.2017, he got a trip to Vazhankeri Bhagom fromnearHaripadtemple.While proceeding along with hispassengersandonreachingnearOottuparamburailway cross, he saw some persons gathered on the southern side of Oottuparambu railway gate.There,hesawSurajsittingwithhackinjuries.Oneoftherelativesof Suraj, namely Santhosh(PW23),requestedhimtotakeSurajtothehospitalinhis autorickshaw. Accordingly, the passengers who were travellinginhisautorickshaw alighted,andSurajenteredthevehicle.Atthattime,somebodystandingtheresaid that some people were coming along the railway line holding lethal weapons. On hearing this, PW22 became frightened and drove the autorickshaw towards the northern side and stopped near apostoffice.ThenSurajcriedandrequestedhim to take him to thehospitalimmediately.PW22thereuponturnedtheautorickshaw towards the south and took PW2 to the hospital. On the way, near the railway cross, he saw an acquaintance, Sajith, who also entered the autorickshaw. Thereafter,ontheway,oneSandeepandoneAbhirajalsoenteredtheautorickshaw and they together took Suraj to Haripad Taluk Hospital. 12.19 In order to prove the eventsthattranspiredatOottuparamburailway Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :50: 2025:KER:89967 cross, theprosecutionexaminedSanthoshasPW23.OnexaminationbeforeCourt, PW23testifiedthathehadprioracquaintancewithJishnu.Hefurtherdeposedthat, on the alleged date of occurrence, while he was talking withoneVeerappannear Oottuparamburailwaycross,hesawSuraj(PW2),Vishnu(PW1)andJishnuarriving there on two motorbikes. JishnuandVishnucametogetherononemotorbikeand Suraj came on anothermotorbike.Vishnuthenspoketohimand,whiletheywere talking, about 10-12 persons came in 3-4 motorbikes, holding weapons and makingutterances.Onseeingthis,VishnuandJishnuabandonedtheirbikeandran towards the eastern side of the railway cross. Those who came with weapons followed Vishnu and Jishnu. Suraj (PW2) also got down from his bike and ran towardstheeasternside.Onwitnessingthis,PW23becamefrightenedandentered the pan shop of one Gopi. According to PW23, he had not seen anyone running behind Suraj. PW23 further deposed that, while he was standing in Gopi's petty shop,onepersoncameandinformedhimthatapersonwaslyinghackednearthe railway cross. On hearing this, he went to the spot and saw Suraj lying with cut injuriesatadistanceofabout4metresfromthesouthernsideoftherailwaygate. AccordingtoPW23,Surajhadsustainedinjuriesonhishandandhipregion.PW23 then tied thewoundonSuraj'shandwithatowel.Thereafter,whilehewastaking Suraj to an autorickshaw to shift him to a hospital, he saw some people coming from the eastern side of the railway cross. He got frightened and ran away from there. SurajwasthentakentoHaripadhospital.PW23statedthathealsowentto Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :51: 2025:KER:89967 Haripad hospital on his motorcycle. From Haripad hospital, Suraj was referred to Vandanam MedicalCollegeHospital.SurajwastakentoVandanamMedicalCollege Hospital in an ambulance and PW23 accompanied him. From the hospital, PW23 came to know that Jishnu had been hacked by some persons who came to Oottuparamburailwaycrossarmedwithweapons.FromVandanamMedicalCollege Hospital, Suraj was referred for further treatment to Medical College Hospital, Kottayam. However, according to PW23, he could not identify the assailants who followed Vishnu and Jishnu, as, according to him, they had covered their faces. Duringcross-examination,whenadefinitequestionwasputtoPW23astowhether he had seen Suraj (PW2) talking to media personnel, PW23 replied that he had heard Suraj telling media persons that the assailants were wearing masks. The evidenceofPW23supportstheprosecutiontotheextentthat,ontheallegeddate of occurrence, he had seen Jishnu, Vishnu and Suraj waiting at Oottuparambu railway cross and had seen about 10-12 persons arriving there behind them, holding lethal weapons and making utterances. His evidence further helps the prosecution in establishing that Suraj was hacked near the railway cross itself. 12.20. ThenextwitnessofrelevanceexaminedbytheprosecutionisVishanth (PW37). He stated that he had prior acquaintance with PW1, PW2, and the deceased.Accordingtohistestimony,on10.02.2017,hewenttothemedicalstore neartheOottuparambuRailwayCrossingtopurchasemedicine,ashewassuffering from a headache. When he reached the turning towards Nalukandam, he saw Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :52: 2025:KER:89967 members of the Kannukalippalam team--namely Kanchappan, Manu, Jayajith, Prabhath, Jibru, and Vishnulal--approaching on motorbikes and scooters and turning towards Nalukandam. He also observed that swords and iron pipes were being carried on the bikes. Becoming frightened, he returned home. After some time, he received a phone call from a friend informing him that an incident had occurredatOottuparambuandthatSuraj(PW2)hadsustainedinjuries.Onlearning this, PW37 proceeded to Oottuparambu on his motorcycle and foundSurajsitting ontheroadonthewesternsideoftherailwaycrossing,withcutinjuriesonhisleft hand.Santhosh(PW23)andthreeotherswerepresent,andPW23wastyingacloth aroundSuraj'swound.AccordingtoPW23,"Pappaji"(anamebywhichJishnuwas also commonly known) had been chased by certain individuals who had moved towardstheeasterndirection,andtheassailantswhoattackedSurajhadtakenhis motorcycle. PW37 then ran eastwards towards the Manjathappally house. Upon reaching the area, he saw Sudheesh, Arun Chand, Ambili @ Arun, Sanu, Swarnappan, Akhil, Rahul, and Pradeep coming from the direction of the Manjathappally house. They were carrying swords and axe-like weapons. PW37 stated that he knew these men previously, as they were residents of the same locality.Onseeingtheaggressors,PW37ranbacktowardsOottuparambu,tookhis motorcycle, and returned home. Later, he went to the Vandanam Hospital, where he learned that Jishnu had succumbed to his injuries. He further stated that the accusedbelongedtoagangknownastheKannukalippalamTeam,andheidentified Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :53: 2025:KER:89967 theaccusedwhowerepresentinthedock.Duringcross-examination,itwaselicited thatbothheandthedeceasedweremembersoftheDYFI.Itwasalsobroughtout that PW37 had not informed the police during investigation that the accused belonged to any gang. Precedents and analysis 13. Beforewedealwiththeevidenceitwouldbeappositetokeepinmind theobservationsmadebytheApexCourtinZahiraHabibullahSheikhv.State of Gujarat8. It was observed that a criminal trial is a judicial examinationofthe issuesinthecaseanditspurposeistoarriveatajudgmentonanissueastoafact or relevant facts which may lead to the discovery of the fact in issue and obtain proofofsuchfactsatwhichtheprosecutionandtheaccusedhavearrivedbytheir pleadings; the controlling question being the guilt or innocence of the accused. Since the object is to mete out justice and to convict the guilty and protect the innocent,thetrialshouldbeasearchforthetruthandnotaboutovertechnicalities, and must be conducted under such rules as will protect theinnocent,andpunish the guilty. The proof of charge which has to be beyond reasonable doubt must depend upon judicial evaluation of the totality of the evidence, oral and circumstantial, and not by an isolated scrutiny. 13.1. InStateofPunjabv.JagirSingh9, itwasobservedthatacriminal 8 (2006) 3 SCC 374 9 [(1974) 3 SCC 277] Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :54: 2025:KER:89967 trialisnotlikeafairytalewhereinoneisfreetogiveflighttoone'simaginationand fantasy.Itconcernsitselfwiththequestionastowhethertheaccusedarraignedat thetrialisguiltyofthecrimewithwhichheischarged.Crimeisaneventinreallife and is the product of interplay of different human emotions. In arriving at the conclusionabouttheguiltoftheaccusedchargedwiththecommissionofacrime, the court has to judge the evidence by the yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic worth and the animus ofwitnesses.Everycaseinthefinalanalysiswouldhaveto depend upon itsownfacts.Althoughthebenefitofeveryreasonabledoubtshould be given to the accused, the courts should not at the same time reject evidence which is ex facie trustworthy on grounds which are fanciful or in the nature of conjectures. 13.2 Insofar as appreciation of the evidence of the eye witnesses are concerned, it would be apposite to bear in mind the time tested observations in Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State Of Gujarat10, wherein it was observed as under: "5. ... We do not consider it appropriate or permissible to enter upon a reappraisal or reappreciation oftheevidenceinthe contextoftheminordiscrepanciespainstakinglyhighlightedbythe learnedcounselfortheappellant.Overmuchimportancecannotbe attached to minor discrepancies. The reasons are obvious: 10 (1983) 3 SCC 217 Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :55: 2025:KER:89967 (1)Byandlargeawitnesscannotbeexpectedtopossessa photographicmemoryandtorecallthedetailsofanincident.Itis not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen. (2) Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details. (3)Thepowersofobservationdifferfrompersontoperson. What one may notice, another may not. An object ormovement might emboss its image on one person's mind, whereas itmight go unnoticed on the part of another. (4) By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversationandreproducetheverywordsusedbythemorheard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to beahuman tape-recorder. (5) In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time durationofanoccurrence,usually,peoplemaketheirestimatesby guess work on the spur of the moment at the time of interrogation.Andonecannotexpectpeopletomakeveryprecise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the time-sense of individuals which varies from person to person. (6) Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which takes place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on. Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :56: 2025:KER:89967 (7) A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross-examination made by the counsel and out of nervousness mixupfacts,getconfusedregardingsequenceofevents,orfillup details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The subconscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fearoflookingfoolishorbeingdisbelievedthough the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him--perhaps it is a sort of a psychological defence mechanism activated on the spur of the moment. 13.3 In more or less similar lines as in Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai (supra), in Appabhai v. State of Gujarat11, the Apex Court had occasion to delineate the manner in which evidence of witnesses are to be appreciated. It was observed as under in paragraph 13 of the judgment: 13. ... The court while appreciating the evidence must not attach undue importance to minor discrepancies. The discrepancies which do not shake the basic version of the prosecution case may be discarded. The discrepancies which are due to normal errors of perception or observation should not be given importance. The errors due to lapse of memory may be given due allowance. The court by calling into aid its vast experience of men and matters in different cases must evaluate theentirematerialonrecordbyexcludingtheexaggeratedversion given by any witness. When a doubt arises in respect of certain facts alleged by such witness,thepropercourseistoignorethat 11 [1988 Supp SCC 241] Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :57: 2025:KER:89967 fact only unless it goes into the root of the matter so as to demolishtheentireprosecutionstory.Thewitnessesnowadaysgo on adding embellishmentstotheirversionperhapsforthefearof their testimony being rejected bythecourt.Thecourts,however, should notdisbelievetheevidenceofsuchwitnessesaltogetherif they are otherwise trustworthy 13.4 InSohrabv.StateOfM.P.12,itwasobservedasunderbythe Apex Court '8. ... This Court has held that falsus in uno, falsus in omnibusisnotasoundruleforthereasonthathardlyonecomes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggeration, embroideries or embellishments. In most cases, the witnesses when askedabout details venture to give some answer, not necessarily true or relevant for fear that their evidence may not be accepted in respectofthemainincidentwhichtheyhavewitnessedbutthatis nottosaythattheirevidenceastothesalientfeaturesofthecase after cautious scrutiny cannot be considered.... 13.5 Bearing in mind the law and the observations laid down as above, we shall now consider the contentions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. 13.6 One of the principal contentions advanced by the learned counselfortheappellantsisthattheevidencetenderedbytheprosecutionthrough 12 (1972) 3 SCC 751 Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :58: 2025:KER:89967 the testimonies of PW1 (Vishnu), the brother of the deceased, and PW2 (Suraj), lacks credibility. It is urged that their presence at the scene of occurrence is doubtful,anditisfurthercontendedthatbothwitnessesembellishedtheirversions when examined before the Court. On that sole ground, it is argued, their testimonies ought to be discarded in their entirety. 13.7 While appreciating the saidcontention,itbecomesnecessaryto note the fact that PW1, PW2, and the deceased were travelling together on two motorcycles and had halted at the Oottuparambu railway crossing stands firmly established. PW1, PW2, and PW23 (Santhosh) have consistently stated that the motorcycles were parked near the railway crossing when the armed assailants arrived on separate motorcycles and the incident commenced. Significantly, even DW6 (Amaljith), a defence witness, admitted beforetheCourtthatthefirstphase of the incident involving Jishnu, Vishnu, and Suraj occurred at the Oottuparambu RailwayStationandthattheassailantsreachedthesceneonfourmotorcycles.This admission by a defence witness further fortifies the prosecution case rather than undermining it. 13.8 The evidence of PW1, PW2, PW5, PW9, and PW23 (Santhosh) provides a clear and chronological account of the events that unfolded at the Oottuparamburailwaycrossing.Itwasuponseeingtheaccusedthatthedeceased fled eastward and sought refuge in the Manjathapally house, pursued closely by Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :59: 2025:KER:89967 assailantswieldingweapons.ThissequenceofeventsstandscorroboratedbyPW1, PW2, PW3, PW6, and PW9. As regards the attack inside the Manjathapallyhouse and the events thereafter, the testimonies of PW3, PW4, PW19, and PW37 (Vishanth) offer a coherent picture of what transpired within the house. On an overall reading of the evidence, it becomes clear that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing an uninterrupted chain of events, from the initial confrontation at the railway crossing to the fatal assault inside the Manjathapally house and the involvement of the appellants. 13.9 It is true that not every witness specifically named all the accused.PW3statedthattheassailantstrespassedintoherhouseandinflictedcut injuries on Jishnu,thoughshedidnotidentifythembyname.PW23'stestimonyis similarinthisrespect.PW5,arailwayemployee,andPW9,theteashopowner,also describedtheassailantswithoutnamingthem.However,PW37categoricallystated that, upon hearing of the incident and reaching the Manjathapally house, he saw Sudheesh (A1), Arun Chand (A2), Ambili @ Arun (A3), Sanu (A4), Swarnappan (A8), Rahul (A6),andPradeep(A5)emergingfromthedirectionofthehousewith weapons in hand. An overall evaluation of the testimonies reveals a consistent narrative:Jishnu,Vishnu,andSurajhadhaltedneartherailwaystation;agroupof assailants arrived on motorcycles; they chased the victims; and they inflicted injuries on Jishnu inside the Manjathapally house. On the crucial aspect of identification,PW1andPW2haveprovidedclearandconsistenttestimonyastothe Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :60: 2025:KER:89967 presenceoftheaccusedatthesceneandthattheyweretheoneswhohadchased the deceased leading Jishnu to seek refuge in the house of PW3. 13.10 ThecontentionthatPW1hadnodefinitecaseattheinceptionis without substance. The incident occurred at 11:45 a.m. on 10.02.2017. The F.I. Statement (Ext. P1) was recorded without delay at 02:00 p.m., the FIR was registeredat04:18p.m.,anditreachedtheCourtby07:30p.m.thesameday.In Ext.P1,lodgedwithinapproximatelytwohoursoftheincident,PW1,thedistraught and terrified elder brother of the deceased, gave a detailed version of the occurrence and specifically named A1, A2, A3, A5, and A6. As regards A4, he initiallymentioned"Sarath"insteadof"Sanu."Inadditiontonamingsixaccused,he furtherstatedthattenothers,identifiablebysight,werealsoinvolvedinchasinghis brotherandinflictinginjuries.Bothnamesbeginwiththeidenticalsyllable"Sa"and are phonetically similar, making an inadvertent interchange highly probable. It is equally possible that the police officer recording the statement misheard or incorrectlynotedthename.Moreover,on16.02.2017itself,ExhibitP126reportwas forwarded to the Court furnishing the correct address and details of A4, A7, and A10. 13.11 It is also pertinent to note that PW1, in hisF.I.Statement,has spokenofthedyingdeclarationmadebythedeceasednamingA1,A2,andothers. ItcannotbeoverlookedthatPW1wastheelderbrotherofthedeceased,hadspent Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :61: 2025:KER:89967 the morning with him, and was the person who discovered Jishnu grievously wounded in the kitchen of the Manjathapally house after being chased by the assailants. One cannot reasonably expect such a person, confronted with a shocking and traumatic situation, to furnish a perfectly meticulous or error-free narrativetothepolicewithinhoursoftheincident.Noindividual,leastofallonein PW1'sposition,canbeexpectedtopossessphotographicmemoryortorecallevery detail of a violent and chaotic incident as though he were a recording device. 13.12 In Latesh alias Dadu Babirao Karlekar v. State of Maharashtra,13 the Apex Court hadoccasiontoconsidertheevidentiaryvalueto be attached to an FIR. It was held that the weight to be accorded to an FIR depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The Hon'ble Court observed that the capacity to accurately reproduce events varies from person to person. Some individuals possess a sharper ability to recall and narrate events precisely, whereas others may not. Moreover, persons who have witnessed or experiencedaviolentincidentmay,whileinastateofshock,omitimportantdetails, as different people react differently under extreme stress. Therefore, merely because the names of some of the accused are not mentioned or specifically detailedintheFIRcannotbeaground,byitself,todoubtitsveracityortodiscard the prosecution case. 13 AIR 2018 SC 659 Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :62: 2025:KER:89967 13.13 Inthepresentcase,theversiongivenbyPW1intheFIRstands corroborated by other witnesses with respect to the mannerinwhichtheincident unfolded.Afterthecrimewasregisteredonthebasisofhisinitialstatement,further statements of PW1 were recorded once he regained composure. In those subsequent statements, he was able to furnish a more detailed narration of the gruesome events. It is well-settled that an FIR is not expected to be an encyclopedia of the incident, containing every minute fact or circumstance as to how the crime was committed. Its primary purpose is to set the criminal law in motion, not to present an exhaustive account. 13.14 In the case on hand, we notice that PW3, the resident of the house where the incident occurred, the neighbours who rushed to the scene immediatelythereafter,andeventhewitnesswhotendedtothedeceasedwhilehe lay grievously injured, all spoke about the incidentbutdidnotspecificallysupport the prosecution regarding identification of the accused. This is, in the circumstances, only to be expected,asthewitnesseswereevidentlyapprehensive and afraid of naming the assailants openly in Court. The prosecutor confronted these witnesses with their earlier statements, and the relevant contradictions and omissionsweredulyprovedthroughtheInvestigatingOfficer.Merelybecausethese witnesses did notnametheaccusedindividuallyastheassailantsdoesnotdetract from the factthattheyconsistentlynarratedtheoccurrence.Themannerinwhich the accused trespassedintothehouse,chasedJishnu,brokeopenthedoortothe Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :63: 2025:KER:89967 roominthefirst-floor,andultimatelyhackedhimtodeathafterpursuinghimtothe kitchen. These critical facts stand firmly established through their testimonies. In addition, the scientific and forensic evidence and the presence of blood and the damage caused inside the house also discloses the brutal manner in which the assailantsexecutedtheattack,therebycorroboratingtheocularversionputforward by PW1, PW2, and other supporting witnesses. 14. The next contention concerns the admissibility and probative value of the dying declaration. In Ext. P1and PW1statedthatthedeceasedtold him that the injuries were inflicted by accused No.1, accused No.2 and others. When examined before the Court, PW1 elaborated on certain details narrated by thedeceased,whichdonotappearintheFIR;however,thecoredisclosureremains wholly consistent. The principles governing dying declarations are well settled. In Laxman v. State of Maharashtra14, the Apex Court reiterated that a dying declaration is admitted on the juristic theory that such a statement is made in extremis, when all hope of recovery is lost and the motive to speak falsely is extinguished. Yet, Courts must exercise great caution, as various circumstances may affect its truthfulness. Mental fitness, voluntariness, absence oftutoring,and the declarant's opportunity to observe the assailants are essential considerations. Althoughmedicalcertificationisaruleofprudence,itisnotanindispensablelegal requirement. A dying declaration may be oral, written, or communicated through 14 (2002) 6 SCC 710 Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :64: 2025:KER:89967 signs,provideditisclearanddefinite.ItneednotberecordedbyaMagistrate,and no statutory form is prescribed; its evidentiary weight ultimately depends on the facts of each case. What is essential is that the recorder is satisfied about the mentalfitnessofthedeclarantandthattheCourtfindsthestatementvoluntaryand truthful. Though the appellants argue that the dying declaration in this case is unreliable, the legal position is clear, once the Court is satisfied regarding the voluntariness and reliability of the declaration, a conviction can be based on the same as held in P.V. Radhakrishna v. State of Karnataka15. Corroboration, though desirable, is a matter of prudence, not a legal mandate. 14.1 In thecaseonhand,PW1wentlookingforhisbrotherandsaw him lyingwithcutinjuriesinthekitchenofthehouseofPW3.Thedeceasedlifted hisrighthandwithhisleft,PW1wipedthebloodfromhisface,andonlythereafter did the deceased disclose the names of the assailants. Of course at the time of tendering evidence, PW1 has embellished his earlier version. However as held by the Apex Court in Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai (supra), a witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawedbythecourtatmosphereandthepiercing cross-examination made by the counsel and out of nervousness mix upfacts,get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill up details from imagination on the spurofthemoment.Thesubconsciousmindofthewitnesssometimesoperateson account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the witness is 15 (2003) 6 SCC 443 Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :65: 2025:KER:89967 giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him. 14.2. Furthermore,PW84,whoconductedtheautopsy,wasspecifically asked whether a person with the injuries sustainedbythedeceasedcouldremain conscious and capable of communication. He unequivocally affirmed that both consciousness and speech were possible, explaining that the presence of air embolism ruled out instantaneous death. His testimony remained unshaken in cross-examination. PW21, the taxi driver who transported the injured to the hospital, also stated that the deceased was crying and making movements throughoutthejourneytoAmbalapuzha.EvenDW2,theexpertdoctorexaminedby the defence, conceded that although oxygen deficiency may impair complex cognitivefunctionsbutbasicspeechandmemoryrecallremainpossible.Inhischief examination, DW2 stated that the prefrontal cortex plays a major role in the thinking process of an adult human being. He, however, acknowledged that it is onlyonepartofthebrainandthatvariousotherregionsalsocontributetocognitive functioning. According to DW2, although the prefrontal cortex is critical for judgment and higher-order reasoning, deprivation of oxygen would initially affect only complex cognitive functions, whilememoryretentionwouldremainintact.He clarified that it is the higher-order problem-solving abilitiesthatareimpairedfirst. Duringcross-examination,whenspecificallyaskedwhetherapersoncouldthinklike an ordinary human being iftherewereadeficiencyinoxygenatedbloodsupplyto thebrain,DW2concededthatbrainfunctionswouldindeedbeaffected.Hefurther Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :66: 2025:KER:89967 explainedthattheimpairmentwouldfirstmanifestinhighercerebralfunctions,such as intelligent problem-solving,while simpler functions, including basic speech and memory recall, would still be possible. Thus, the testimony of DW2 does not support the defence contention that the injuries sustainedbythedeceasedwould havecausedinstantaneousdeathorrenderedhimincapableofspeech,recollection, or coherent expression. On furtherexamination,afterreferringtoExhibitP73(the post-mortem certificate), DW2 confirmed that although the victim may havebeen incapableofengagingincomplexreasoning,hecouldstillrecollectandnarratethe events immediately preceding the infliction of the fatalinjuries.Thesetestimonies collectively lend strong support to the version of PW1 that Jishnu was capable of making a dying declaration. The combined evidence of PW84, PW21, and DW2 convincingly establishes that, despite the severity of the injuries, the deceased retained the ability to speak and recollect at the relevant time. In light of the consistent testimony of PW1, corroborated by the medical evidence, we find no reasontodoubtthatthedeceaseddidinfactdisclosethenamesofhisassailantsto PW1. 14.3 The defence next contends that PW3andPW23referredtothe assailantsaswearingamasktocovertheirface.Theprosecutionneverallegedthat the accused were masked, nor didPW1,PW2,PW3,PW5,orPW9statesoatany earlier stage. During cross-examination, the prosecution established that these references were embellishments. The defence sought to rely on DW1, DW3, and Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :67: 2025:KER:89967 DW4 (news personnel) to suggest influence from media reports, but none could substantiate the theory. There is thus no material to support the claim that any accused wore masks. 14.4 The argument that the presence of PW1 and PW2 near the scene of occurrence is doubtful is equally untenable. PW3, PW13 (Vishnu), PW19 (Sanoosh),andPW23allstatedthatPW1emergedfromtheManjathappallyhouse immediatelyaftertheincident.PW3specificallydeposedthatPW1toldherthathis brother had been "done away with." Even DW6 (Amaljith), a defence witness, admitted that Vishnu waspresentwithJishnuonthedateoftheincident.Whena defence witness corroborates the prosecution onthiscriticalaspect,theargument disputing PW1's presence becomes wholly unsustainable. The learned Sessions Judgealsoconsideredthe"lastseentheory,"relyingontheconsistenttestimonyof PW1,PW2,PW5,andPW9thattheaccusedhadassembledattherailwaycrossing, chased the deceased, and inflicted injuries at the Manjathappally house. 14.5 The nextcontentionistheallegedillegalityinnotregisteringan FIR based on the telephonic information received.PW71,PW87,andPW95stated that the messages received were vague, merely indicating that "an incident" had occurred at Oottuparambu. The Apex Court in Tapinder Singh v. State of Punjab16 has held that a cryptic, incomplete, or vague telephonic message does 16 (1970) 2 SCC 113 Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :68: 2025:KER:89967 notconstituteanFIR.Theinformationinthepresentcaselackeddetailsregarding the nature of the offence, the assailants, or the gravity of the incident. It was purelycryptic.Hence,thenon-registrationofanFIRonthatbasisisnotfataltothe prosecution. 15. We shall now deal with the recovery of clothes andweaponsatthe instance of the accused. The investigation was primarily conducted by PW96 and later by PW97. On 11.02.2017, PW96 inspected the entire scene of occurrence, including the Oottuparambu railway crossing, the route through which Jishnuwas chased, and the Manjathappally house (Anoop Nivas), where he was ultimately hacked. The scene mahazar was prepared as Ext. P19. At the railway crossing, PW96noticedbloodstainsonthetarredroad,brokenglasspieces,andadamaged motorcyclebearingNo.KL-29/K-6921lyinginthepropertyofoneRaveendran,with fragments of its headlight and indicator found nearby. Bloodstained dried leaves were also collected. A rose-coloured dhoti, identified as MO18, that came off the body of Jishnu while fleeing, was recovered from the eastern sideofthecrossing and seized under Ext.P19. PW96 further deposed that inspection of the Manjathappally house revealed broken windows, fromwhichaglasspiece(MO44) wasseized.Bloodstainswerefoundinthehall,alongwithtwobloodstainedtowels (MO45 and MO46). Blood was also detected in the kitchen, including on the refrigerator and on vessels. On the staircase leading to the first floor, PW96 recoveredastonepillar(MO40),ahollowbrick(MO41),andacoconutscraperwith Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :69: 2025:KER:89967 its detached blade (MO42 and MO43). The door of the first-floor bedroom was found broken open, with damagedclampsandbloodstainsonthedoor,walls,and floor.Allarticlesrecoveredduringthescenemahazar,alongwithsamplescollected by the scientific officer, were forwarded to the Court under Ext. P96propertylist. PW96 also produced the nail clippings, bone marrow, and a tooth that had been handed over by the doctor who conducted the post-mortem. 15.1 On the evening of 11.02.2017, at about 8.45 p.m., PW96 arrested A2, A3, A5 and A6 near the General Hospital, Alappuzha, and got them identified by PW1. Their clothes,whichtheyadmittedtobe wornbythemduring the commission of the offence, were seized under Exts.P47toP50andproduced before Court under Ext. P112. A8 and A9 were arrested on 15.02.2017 near the Kayamkulam railway station, and a train ticket (Ext. P117) and currency notes (MO54 series) were recovered from A8. The dhoti worn by A8 at the time of the incident was seized under Ext. P51 (MO38). On 19.02.2017, clothes of A7 were recoveredfromhishousepursuanttohisdisclosurestatement,underExt.P24(MO 31 T-shirt and MO30 Jeans), later produced before Court under Ext. P140. 15.2 Pursuant to the disclosure statements of the accused, several recoveries wereeffectedunderSection27oftheEvidenceAct1872.Theswordof A2(MO5)wasrecoveredon23.02.2017underExt.P11,withPW50astheattesting witnesswhofullysupportedtheprosecution.TheswordofA3(MO9)wasrecovered Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :70: 2025:KER:89967 on 25.02.2017 under Ext. P25, though both attestors, PW47 and PW48, turned hostile. The sword of A4 (MO6) wasrecoveredon17.03.2017underExt.P38,but PW62, the attesting witness, turned hostile and the other attestor was not examined. The sword of A5 (MO7) was recovered on 24.02.2017 under Ext. P10, withbothattestors,PW12andPW19,supportingtheprosecution.TheswordofA6 (MO8) was recovered on 24.02.2017 under Ext. P30, where PW51, one of the attesting witnesses, supported the prosecution while PW55 turned hostile. The sword of A7 (MO11) was recovered on 28.02.2017 under Ext. P43, attested by PW67 and PW70, both of whom supported the prosecution. The steel pipe and swordattributedtoA8(MO3andMO10)wererecoveredon26.02.2017underExt. P32, with PW53 supporting the prosecution, while the second attestor was not examined.Additionally,theclothesallegedlywornbyA2,A3,A5,andA6atthetime of the offence were marked as MO19, MO21, MO23, and MO25 which were recovered on 25.02.2017 under Exts. P26 to P29 and later produced before the Court under Exts. P112 and P152. PW96alsorecoveredashirtwornbyA8atthe time of the incident on 26.02.2017 under Ext. P31 (MO39). PW97,whotookover the investigation on 04.03.2017 (Ext. P94), arrested A4 from Vandanam on the basis of secret information. A4's body search yielded two train tickets (Ext. P167 series),oneRs.20currencynote(MO60),andamobilephone(MO59),whichwere seizedunderExt.P166.OnPW97'sdirections,PW95obtainedpolicecustodyofA4 andrecoveredhisclothesandtheswordusedintheoffence,producingthemunder Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :71: 2025:KER:89967 Ext. P171. 15.3 TheevidenceofPW96assumessignificantimportanceinlending credibility to the recoveries effected in this case, particularly theweaponsusedin thecommissionoftheoffenceandtheclotheswornbytheaccusedattherelevant time. Although a few witnesses to the recovery mahazars turned hostile, such hostility does not, by itself, vitiate or underminetheentireprocessofrecovery.In ModanSinghvs.StateofRajasthan17,itwasobservedbytheApexCourtthat where the evidence oftheinvestigatingofficerwhorecoveredthematerialobjects isconvincing,theevidenceastorecoveryneednotberejectedonthegroundthat seizure witnesses did not support the prosecution version. A similar view was expressed in Mohd. Aslam vs. State of Maharashtra 18. In Anter Singh vs. State of Rajasthan 19, it was further held that even if panch witnesses turn hostile,whichhappensveryoftenincriminalcases,theevidenceofthepersonwho effected the recovery would not stand vitiated. 15.4 PW96, the Investigating Officer, deposed that accused No.s 2,3,5,6,7,8,10 and 11 were in judicial custody and were formally handed over to him in police custody from 23.02.2017 to 25.02.2017 for the purposeofeffecting recoveries.Histestimonyisclear,consistent,andcogent,anditprovidesadetailed account of how the recoveries were duly carried out. During cross-examination, 17 ( 1978) 4 SCC 435 18 (2001 SCC 9 362 19 (2004) 10 SCC 657 Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :72: 2025:KER:89967 PW96 further clarified that all witnesses who had attested the recoverymahazars were individuals who were present at the scene during the recoveryproceedings. He also explained thatcertainwitnesseswereinitiallyreluctantorapprehensiveto actaswitnessesduetothefearandintimidationgeneratedbythegruesomenature of the incident. This explanation adds further weight to the reliability of his testimonyandtheproceduralintegrityoftherecoverieseffected.Havingconsidered the entire facts we find no reason to doubt the evidence of recovery of the weapons. 15.5 The appellants have raised a contention that the chemical analysis report showing the presence of blood ought to be disregarded on the groundthatthechainofcustodyoftheseizedmaterialobjectswasnotestablished asblemishfree.However,theappellantshavenotbeenabletoestablishbeforethe Court any flawinthemannerinwhichtheseizurewaseffectedorinthedateson whichtheseizedmaterialsreachedtheCourt,norhavetheydemonstratedthatthe investigating officer acted with malicious intent or manipulated or concocted evidence. Therefore, the contention that the recovery should be disbelieved for want of a proper chain of custody is without merit. 16. The result of FSL examination pertaining to the weapons recoveredattheinstanceoftheaccusedwould,accordingtous,bolsterthecaseof theprosecution.MO5Sword,allegedlyusedbyA2,whichisshownasitemNo.4in Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :73: 2025:KER:89967 theFSLreport,showsthatthesamecontainedhumanbloodbelongingtogroup'O', which is the same blood group as that of Jishnu. The result ofDNAexamination, whichisseparatelymarkedasExt.P212(c),showsthatthebloodstainsinitemNo.4 belong to the deceased person Jishnu, to whom the bone marrow in item No.1 belongs. 16.1 TheresultofFSLexaminationpertainingtoMO9swordallegedly used by A3, which is shown as item No.5 intheFSLreport,showsthatthesame contained human blood belonging to group 'O', which is thesamebloodgroupas that of Jishnu. TheresultofDNAexamination,markedasExt.P212(c)showsthat the bloodstains in item No.5 belong to the deceased person Jishnu, to whomthe bone marrow in item No.1 belongs. 16.2 TheresultofFSLexaminationpertainingtoMO6swordallegedly used byA4,whichisshownasitemNo.10intheFSLreport,showsthatthesame contained human blood belonging to group 'O', which is thesamebloodgroupas that of Jishnu. The result of DNA examination separately marked as Ext. P212(c) showsthatthebloodstainsinitemNo.10belongtothedeceasedpersonJishnu,to whom the bone marrow shown as item No.1 in the FSL report belongs. 16.3 TheresultofFSLexaminationpertainingtoMO7swordallegedly used by A5, which is shown asitemNo.6intheFSLreport,showsthatitemNo.6 contained human blood belonging to group 'O', the same blood group as that of Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :74: 2025:KER:89967 Jishnu.TheresultofDNAexamination,whichisseparatelymarkedasExt.P212(c), shows that the bloodstains in item No.6belongtothedeceasedpersonJishnu,to whom the bone marrow in item No.1 belongs. The result of FSL examination pertainingtoMO8swordallegedlyusedbyA6,whichisshownasitemNo.7inthe FSL report, shows that the same contained human blood belonging togroup'O', the same blood group as that of Jishnu. The result of DNA examination,whichis separatelymarkedasExt.P212(c),showsthatthebloodstainsinitemNo.7belong to the deceased person Jishnu, to whom the bone marrow in item No.1 belongs. 16.4 The result of FSL examination pertaining to MO11 sword allegedly used by A7, which is shown as itemNo.23inthereport,showsthatthe samecontainedhumanbloodbelongingtogroup'A',thesamebloodgroupasthat of Suraj (PW2). The result of FSL examination pertaining to MO3, the axe-like weapon built on a pipe and allegedly usedbyA8,whichisshownasitemNo.8in theFSLreport,showsthatthesamecontainedhumanbloodbelongingtogroup'O', the same blood group as that of Jishnu. The result of DNA examination,whichis separatelymarkedasExt.P212(c),showsthatthebloodstainsinitemNo.8belong to the deceased person Jishnu, to whom the bone marrow in item No.1 belongs. 16.5 Thus, the evidence of PW96 and PW97, supported by the testimony of independent attesters andcorroboratedbytheFSLandDNAreports, clearly establishes an unbroken chain of circumstancesconnectingaccusedNos.2 Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :75: 2025:KER:89967 to 8 with the weapons and clothes used in the commission of the offences. The recoveries were effected pursuant to disclosure statements, duly recorded under law, witnessed by independent panch witnesses and scientifically verified. The investigation in this regard, therefore, rests on firm legal and evidentiary foundations. 17. The next issue for consideration concerns the extent of involvementofA7andthecorrectnessofthefindingofthelearnedSessionsJudge holding him guilty for the offence under Section 307 of the IPC. PW2 has consistentlyassertedthathehadprioracquaintancewithA7,andthisfoundational assertion remained completely unchallenged during cross-examination, thereby enhancing its evidentiary weight. PW2 categorically deposedthatA7attackedhim with a sword, hacking him twice. The medical evidence provides clear corroboration.PW75,theDoctorwhoexaminedPW2immediatelyaftertheincident at the TalukHeadquartersHospital,Haripad,deposedthaton10.02.2017at12.20 p.m., while serving as Casualty Medical Officer, he examined Suraj (PW2) and issuedthewoundcertificate,whichismarkedasExt.P57.PW75notedthefollowing injuries: a) Large lacerated cut injury on the left hand measuring 10 x 5 x 3 cm b) Lacerated wound in the left iliac region Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :76: 2025:KER:89967 17.1 PW75furtherstatedthatInjuryNo.1involvedtendonandvessel damage, clearly indicating the severity of the blow. The nature, dimension, and depthoftheseinjuriesfullycorroboratethespecificovertactsattributedtoA7and lend strong, independent support to the testimony of PW2. To attract an offence under Section 307 IPC, it is necessary to establish that the act committedbythe accused,ifithadresultedinthevictim'sdeath,wouldhaveamountedtoanoffence punishable under Section 302 IPC. For a conviction under Section 307 IPC, the prosecution must prove the presence of intent to cause death, coupled with an overt act inexecutionofthatintention.Itisnotessentialthattheinjuriesinflicted becapableofcausingdeath,norisproofofgrievousorlife-threateninghurtasine qua non for sustaining a conviction under Section 307 IPC. The intention of the accused must be gathered from thetotalityofcircumstances,includingthenature oftheweaponused,themannerofattack,theforceemployed,andthepartofthe body targeted. Applying these principles to thepresentcase,itisevidentthatthe weapon used was a sword, a deadly weapon capable of inflicting fatal injuries. 17.2 A7 hacked PW2 not once, but twice, and the multiplicity and nature of the wounds clearly established repeated blows with considerable force. The act itself is sufficiently proved, and the manner in which it was carried out unmistakably indicates an intention to cause death. These circumstances clearly attract the second part of Section 307 IPC. Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :77: 2025:KER:89967 17.3 We are of the view that the above finding of the learned Sessions Judge does not warrant any interference. The Investigating Officer (PW96),whoeffectedthearrestofA7,deposedthatwhileA7wasinpolicecustody on 28.02.2017, he gave a disclosure statement. Acting on this disclosure, the Investigating Officer recovered the sword (MO11) from a location pointed out by A7. The recovery mahazar is marked as Ext.P43, and the relevant portion of A7's disclosureisrecordedasExt.P43(a).PW67,anindependentwitnesstotherecovery, supported the prosecution version. He admitted his signature on Ext.P43 and testified thathewitnessedA7takingaswordfromabushyareanearathoduand handing it over to the police. The recovery, therefore, stands on firm footing. 17.4 Further, the Forensic Science Laboratory report (Ext.P212), wherein MO11 is item No. 23, confirms the presenceofhumanbloodofGroupA, the same blood group as that of thedeceased,Suraj.Thisscientificcorroboration significantlystrengthenstheprosecutioncaseagainstA7.Inshort,thetestimonyof PW2, supported by medical evidence, recovery evidence, and forensic findings, convincinglyestablishestheinvolvementofA7.PW2,beinganinjuredwitnesswith no proven animosity towards A7, inspires full confidence. There exists no circumstance to doubt his version. 18. In view of the foregoing discussion, we hold that the learned Sessions Judge did not err in relying on the evidence of PW1 and PW2, as their Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :78: 2025:KER:89967 testimoniesinspiretheconfidenceofthisCourtandbearaclearringoftruth.Their depositions,togetherwiththeevidenceofPW3,PW4,PW5,PW9,PW23andPW37, convincingly establish the sequence of events commencing from the arrival of a groupofassailants,armedwithdeadlyweapons,whocameinmultiplebatcheson motorcycles and scooters and mounted abrutalassaultinbroaddaylightnearthe Oottuparambu railway cross. The evidence clearly discloses that among these assailants,accusedNos.1to6and8chasedJishnu,whohadfledforhislife.The testimony ofPW2,aninjuredeyewitness,unambiguouslyshowsthataccusedNos. 2 to 6 and 8 followed Jishnu with dangerous weapons. PW1 corroborates this sequence by stating that, shortly thereafter, Jishnu was found lying in a pool of blood inside the kitchen of the Manjathappally house. The brief interval between themomentJishnuwaschasedbytheaccusedandthemomenthewasdiscovered grievously injured inside the Manjathappally house effectively eliminates the possibility of any third person being the author of the crime. The chain of circumstances stands complete and points unerringly to the involvement of the accused who pursued him.ThedyingdeclarationmadebyJishnutoPW1narrating the cause of the injuries that led to his death is eminently believable. There is nothingonrecordtosuggestthatthisdyingdeclarationwastutored,fabricated,or theresultofprompting.ThedeclarationclearlyimplicatesaccusedNos.1to6and 8.Thereisabsolutelynomaterialtodiscreditordoubtitsreliability.Additionally,the recovery of weapons allegedlyusedintheoffence,effectedpursuanttodisclosure Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :79: 2025:KER:89967 statements made by the accused, further strengthens the prosecution case and corroborates their complicity. PW1, being the brother of the deceased, would ordinarily be the last person to shield the actual culprits and falsely implicate innocent persons. The promptlodgingoftheFIS,hispresencewiththedeceased, andhisconsistentnarrationoftheeventsofthatdaydeserveconsiderableweight. In light of the entire evidence, we have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has successfully established that accused Nos. 1 to 6 and 8 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the common object of committing the murder of Jishnu, and that Jishnu was indeed murdered in prosecution of that common object.A7didnotparticipateintheassaultonJishnu,astheevidenceof PW2 clearly shows that after inflicting a cut injury on PW2, A7 proceeded northwards and did not join the group that pursued Jishnu. 19. Having appreciated the entire evidence, we dismiss these appeals by holding as under: a) The finding of guilt, conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, MavelikarainS.C.No.373/2017onaccusedNos.2to8 does not warrant any interference. b) Crl.A. No. 511 of2020,Crl.A.No.554of2020,Crl.A.No.244of2020 and Crl.A. No. 510 of 2020 will stand dismissed, confirming the finding of guilt, conviction and sentence. Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :80: 2025:KER:89967 c) TheappellantinCrl.A.No.244of2020beingonbail,hisbailbondwill stand cancelled and he is directed to appearbeforetheTrialCourton25.11.2025 and if he fails to appear, he shall be taken into custody to serve out the sentence. d) The appellants shall be entitled to the set off allowed by the learned SessionsJudgeandthesame,needlesstosay,shallbesubjecttotheorderspassed by the appropriate authority under Sections 432 and 433 Cr.P.C. sd/- RAJAVIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, JUDGE sd/- K.V.JAYAKUMAR, JUDGE PS/24/11/25 Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :81: 2025:KER:89967 APPENDIX OF CRL.A 511/2020 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1 HE T TREATMENT CERTIFICATE AS WELL AS THE TREATMENT RECORDS ISSUED BY THE PROFESSOR & HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT OF NEPHROLOGY, GOVT. T.D.MEDICALCOLLEGE, ALAPPUZHA Crl. A Nos. 511 , 544, 244 and 510 of 2020 :82: 2025:KER:89967 APPENDIX OF CRL.A 510/2020 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure-A RUE T COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM REGIONAL CANCER CENTRE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 17-12-2022 Annexure-B RUE T COPY OF THE DISCHARGECARD DATED 29-12-2022 ISSUED FROM MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, KOTTAYAM Annexure-C RUE T COPY OF MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM DEPARTMENT OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY, MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, KOTTAYAM DATED 18-1-2023