Kerala High Court
Fazil vs State Of Kerala on 14 July, 2020
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2020 / 23RD ASHADHA, 1942
CRL.A.No.411 OF 1999(C)
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 76/1996 DATED 16-06-1999 OF I
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL ,KOLLAM
APPELLANT/THIRD ACCUSED:
FAZIL
S/O.NOOHUKANNU, HOUSE NO.170, H AND C COMPOUND,
PALLITHOTAM WARD, KOLLAM WEST.
BY ADV. VIPIN NARAYANAN
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ,HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ERNAKULAM
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR B.JAYASURYA
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.PP. D. CHANDRASENAN
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-07-2020,
ALONG WITH CRL.A.670/1999, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2
Crl.Appeal Nos.411/1999 & 670/1999
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2020 / 23RD ASHADHA, 1942
CRL.A.No.411 OF 1999(C)
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 76/1996 DATED 16-06-1999 OF I
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL ,KOLLAM
APPELLANT/1ST ACCUSED:
FAZIL
S/O.NOOHUKANNU, HOUSE NO.170, H AND C COMPOUND,
PALLITHOTAM WARD, KOLLAM WEST.
BY ADV. VIPIN NARAYANAN
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ,HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ERNAKULAM
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR B.JAYASURYA
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.PP. D. CHANDRASENAN
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-07-
2020, ALONG WITH CRL.A.670/1999, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
Crl.Appeal Nos.411/1999 & 670/1999
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 14th day of July 2020 The above two appeals are filed by accused Nos.1 and 3 in S.C.No.76/1996 on the file of the 1 st Additional Sessions Judge, Kollam. The appellants and others were chargesheeted by the Kollam West Police alleging the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, 427 and 302 r/w 149 IPC. This case was posted on 5.6.2020 with a note from the Registry. After going through the note, this Court passed the following order:
"These two appeals are filed by accused Nos.1 and 3 in Sessions Case No.76 of 1996 on the file of the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Kollam. These cases are posted today as 'to be spoken to' with a report of the Registry, which is extracted herein below:
"Crl.A.670/1999 and Crl.A.411/1999 were connected cases and were dismissed for non prosecution on 24.7.2007 by Hon'ble Mr.Justice K.R.Udayabhanu, but from the endorsements in the docket it is seen that the said judgment was recalled on 26.7.2007. The order of recalling the judgment is not available in the file. Both the cases were not posted thereafter. In the ripe 4 Crl.Appeal Nos.411/1999 & 670/1999 register both cases are seen as pending. As per computer data the cases are seen as dismissed on 24.7.2007, but the last date of posting is shown as 26.7.2007. The Sessions Court, Kollam was contacted over phone and they informed that they have not received any communication about the dismissal of these cases. Counsel for petitioner in Crl.A.670/1999 was also contacted, and it was informed that any document in this case is not available with them.
Submitted for orders."
2. Today the learned counsel for the appellant in Crl.Appeal No.670 of 1999 appeared before this Court and submitted that, he has no instruction from his client. Nobody appeared in Crl.Appeal No.411 of 1999. The learned counsel who filed the above appeal, is elevated as a Judge of this Court.
3. As per the report of the Registry, it is seen that, the appeals were dismissed for non-prosecution on 24.7.2007 and as per the endorsement in the docket of these two appeals, it is seen that the judgment was recalled on 26.7.2007. But the order of recalling the judgment is not available in the files. Since there is an endorsement in the docket of these two appeals to the effect that, the order dated 24.7.2007 is already recalled, it can be treated that, the above two appeals are pending.
4. The Registry will issue notice to the appellants in the above Crl.Appeals through the Circle Inspector of Police, Kollam West/Pallithottom Police Station informing the appellants that the Criminal Appeals are posted for final hearing.
5. The Circle Inspector of Police concerned will positively file a report before this Court within two weeks regarding the above direction.
6. As per paragraphs 3 and 4 of the impugned judgment in S.C.No.76 of 1996 dated 16.6.1999, it is stated that only two of the accused faced trial in Crime No.60 of 1994. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the impugned judgment in this case is extracted herein below:
"3. On the basis of the first information 5 Crl.Appeal Nos.411/1999 & 670/1999 furnished by PW1 the crime was registered by the police. After the close of the investigation charge sheet was laid before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, II, Kollam in respect of the offences. That court having found that the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions committed the case against A1, A2 and A4 vide C.P.64/95. The case against A3, A5 and A6 was refiled as C.P.18/96 by the committal court.
4. On appearance of A1, A2 and A4 who were on bail, the parties were heard and this court framed charge against them for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, 302 and 427 r/w 149 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty. During the course of the trial later the case against A3, which was committed to the Sessions Court and made over to this court for disposal as S.C.356/98 was clubbed with S.C.76/96. In S.C.76/96 on 5.2.99 charge against A3 also was framed. He also pleaded not guilty of the charges. A2 remained absent. A4 filed C.M.P.538/99 stating that he was a juvenile at the time of the commission of the offence. As such the case against A2 and A4 was split up and in S.C.76/96 the case against A1 and A3 alone was proceeded with. A1 and A3 remained on bail initially. Later, A1 was in judicial custody. A1 and A3 were defended."
7. The Registry will get a report from the Sessions Court, Kollam regarding the present stage of the trial of the other accused. The report should contain whether the accused surrendered or faced trial. If the case against the other accused are not committed, the Sessions Court will get a report from the committal court and the same also should be enclosed along with the report. Report also should contain the status of the trial of juvenile mentioned in the above paragraph."
2. Thereafter, the Inspector of Police, Pallithottam Police Station informed that notice is served to the appellants herein, who are the 1st and 3rd accused in this case. Advocate Vipin Narayan appeared for the appellant in Crl.A No.411/1999 6 Crl.Appeal Nos.411/1999 & 670/1999 who is the 3rd accused in this case. The appellant in Crl.A No.670/1999 who is the 1st accused in the case sent a letter through the Public Prosecutor that he is not in a position to engage a lawyer and hence a lawyer may be appointed to argue his case at the State expense. Accordingly, this Court appointed Advocate Ananthapadmanabhan as amicus curiae to argue that appeal.
3. The learned Sessions Judge reported that the 5 th accused in the case was arrested and produced before the committal court and his case was also committed. His case was disposed of as per judgment dated 8.2.2010 in S.C.No.343/2004. The trial court acquitted him. A copy of the judgment was also forwarded by the learned Judge. It will be part of this records. The learned Sessions Judge also reported that the case against 4th and 6th accused are referred to the Juvenile Justice Board because they were minor at the time of commission of the offence. The learned Sessions Judge also reported that the case against the 2 nd accused is still pending as L.P. No.24/2006.
4. The prosecution case is that on 23.9.1994 at about 11 pm. at Pallippalammodu Road in Kollam West Village, 7 Crl.Appeal Nos.411/1999 & 670/1999 the accused six in numbers formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with sword, iron rod etc. and in pursuance of the common object, accused Nos.1 to 6 surrounded the autorickshaw bearing number KL-2/651, in which PW1 Sasidharan and deceased Fatah were travelling. The further case of the prosecution is that the 1 st and 2nd accused shouted to kill Fatah. Accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 inflicted injuries on the Fatah by using sword. Fatah was inside the autorickshaw. Accused Nos.3, 5 and 6 used iron rod and inflicted injury on Fatah. The deceased sustained serious injuries. When PW1 Sasidharan intervened, the 2nd accused with a sword inflicted injuries on his right thigh. It is also the case of the prosecution that accused Nos.2, 5 and 6 attacked him by using iron rod. The prosecution case is that on 23.9.1994 itself Fatah succumbed to the injuries. It is also the prosecution case that the accused damaged the autorickshaw also. Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the offence.
5. The appellants who are the 1st and 3rd accused appeared before the court. The trial court framed charge. To substantiate the case the prosecution examined PW1 to PW12. Exts.P1 to P17 were marked on the side of the prosecution. 8 Crl.Appeal Nos.411/1999 & 670/1999 Exts.D1 to D6 are the exhibits marked on the side of the defence. Exts.X1 to X3 are marked as court exhibits.
6. After going through the evidence and the documents, the trial court found that the appellants who are the 1st and 3rd accused in this case are guilty. The appellant/1 st accused was found guilty under Section 304(1) IPC. The 3 rd accused is found guilty under Section 326 r/w 149 IPC. Accused Nos.1 and 3 are also found guilty of the offence under Section 148 IPC. The accused are found not guilty for the other charges. The trial court imposed the sentence on 1 st and 3rd accused in the following manner:
"1. In respect of offence punishable under Section 148 IPC, A1 and A3 are directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each.
2. In respect of the offence punishable under Section 304(1) IPC, A1 is directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.
3. In respect of the offence punishable under Section 326 r/w 149 IPC, A3 is directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1½ years.
4. The substantive sentence of imprisonment shall run concurrently.
5. A1 and A3 are allowed set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C in respect of the period of detention undergone by the respective accused in connection with the case.
6. The fine if realised, shall stand disbursed to the legal heirs of the victim Fatah to the tune of Rs.60,000/- and to PW1 to the tune of Rs.10,000/-.
7. The case against A2 and A4 to A6 shall stand split 9 Crl.Appeal Nos.411/1999 & 670/1999 up.
8. The records in this case shall stand incorporated to the split up case against the other accused."
7. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed, the 1st and 3rd accused filed Crl.A Nos.670/1999 and 411/1999.
8. Since both the appeals are filed by the accused in the same case, I am disposing of these appeals by a common judgment.
9. Altogether 12 witnesses were examined in this case. PW1 to PW4 are the occurrence witnesses. PW5 is examined to prove the motive and to prove Ext.P2 complaint. PW6 is the witness in Ext.P3 mahazar by which the sword is recovered based on the confession statement of the 1 st accused. PW7 is examined to prove Ext.P4 plan. PW8 is the doctor through whom Ext.P5 postmortem certificate is marked. PW9 is the Head Constable who conducted enquiry in Ext.P2 complaint. PW10 is the doctor through whom Exts.P6 and P7 wound certificates of the deceased and prosecution witness No.1 were marked. PW11 is the duty doctor and he was examined to prove the handwriting in Exts.P6 and P7 wound certificates. PW12 is the investigating officer.
10Crl.Appeal Nos.411/1999 & 670/1999
10. The trial court after going through the entire evidence and documents, found that the evidence of PW2 and PW3 are not reliable. The trial court considered the evidence of PW2 and PW3 in detail and found that they are not reliable witnesses. I see no reason to interfere with the findings of fact by the trial court as far as the reliability of the evidence of PW2 and PW3 because the trial court came to such a conclusion after going through their evidence and also after watching their demeanour in the court. Therefore the findings of the trial court as far as the reliability of PW2 and PW3 can be accepted. What remains is the evidence of PW1 and PW4.
11. PW1 deposed that he is an auto driver.
According to him, on 23.9.1994 at 11 p.m., he was returning to his house in his autorikshaw. He was driving the autorikshaw. When he reached near Pallithottam bridge, the deceased asked him to stop the vehicle. According to PW1 the deceased told him that Shaji went to Chinnakkada. Therefore, he also may be taken to there. Accordingly, the deceased boarded the autorikshaw and they proceeded further. When they reached 'H&C' compound, about 5 or 6 people stopped the autorikshaw and asked who is inside the autorikshaw. PW1 came out of the 11 Crl.Appeal Nos.411/1999 & 670/1999 autorikshaw and said that it is Sasi. Then A1 identified him. At that time, somebody informed that the deceased is sitting inside the autorikshaw. The further case of the prosecution is that at that time A1 and A2 shouted to kill the deceased. A1 and A2 came to the right side of the autorikshaw from the left side. A4 and others were on the right side of the autorikshaw. It is his further case that A1, A2 and A4 were in possession of sword and that other accused were having sticks. PW1 deposed that A1, A2 and A4 stabbed the deceased using sword. He identified A1, A3 and A4 from the spot. He deposed that, he has got prior acquaintance with these accused. He also identified that A2, A5 and A6 were also with the accused. PW2 deposed that when the deceased was attacked, he interfered them and A2 attacked him. It is the further case of the prosecution that after sustaining injury, the deceased fell towards the left side of the autorikshaw seat. Thereafter, the accused left the place with the weapons. According to PW1, he started the autorikshaw and went to Bensigar hospital. When he reached near Kochuplamoodu temple, he saw Sunil. Thereafter, Sunil and Babu came. At that time, PW1 was collapsed. Hence, Babu took the autorikshaw 12 Crl.Appeal Nos.411/1999 & 670/1999 and take all of them to the hospital. When they reached the hospital, the doctor suggested that the injured should be taken to Medical College Hospital. When PW1 went out to get an ambulance, the attender of the hospital call him back and said that 'Fatah' is no more. According to him, he gave Ext.P1 statement to the Sub Inspector of Police, Pallithottam at about 11.45 p.m. PW1 deposed that there was street light at the place of occurrence. PW1 was cross-examined by the accused in detail. During cross-examination, PW1 deposed that because of the mental struggle he was unable to name all the accused in Ext.P1 F.I.statement. According to PW1, he knows the names of all the accused. But he was able to name only A1 and A2 in Ext.P1. On the next day, the names of all the accused are mentioned by PW1 to the police. When the counsel for A3 cross-examined PW1, he deposed that, he knows A3 for about 16 years. He knows his name and address. But he conceded that he had not mentioned the name and address of A3 while giving Ext.P1 statement. According to PW1, A3 is residing near to his house and he knows him for the last 16 years. He submitted that there is no close relationship to him with A3. When he was further cross-examined, he 13 Crl.Appeal Nos.411/1999 & 670/1999 submitted that the name of A3 was understood from others.
12. PW4 is not an eye witness to the entire incident. He saw A1, A2, A4, A5 and A6 before the incident. He corroborated the evidence of PW1 to the effect that when PW1 came in the autorikshaw with the deceased, they together took the deceased and PW1 to the hospital.
13. Based on the evidence of PW1 and PW4, the trial court found that they are members of the unlawful assembly and they attacked the deceased using dangerous weapons.
14. The counsel for the appellants submitted that the evidence of PW1 and PW4 are not reliable. According to the counsel, the evidence of PW1 is unreliable because it is contradictory. The counsel for A3 submitted that no specific overt act is attributed to A3 by PW1 or PW4. The counsel for A3 submitted that the name of A3 was not mentioned in Ext.P1 F.I. statement. According to the counsel for A3, identification of PW1 is not reliable. The counsel submitted that the contradictions and omissions of PW1 are proved through PW12 investigating officer. The public prosecutor supported the judgment of the trial court.
15. I considered the contentions of the appellants and the Public Prosecutor. I perused the entire evidence adduced by the 14 Crl.Appeal Nos.411/1999 & 670/1999 prosecution along with the exhibits. A reading of the evidence of PW1, it is clear that he adduced evidence in accordance with Ext.P1 F.I.statement. In Ext.P1, the specific overt act of A1 and A2 are deposed by him. He identified A1, A2 and A4. It is true that PW1 mentioned the name of A1 and A2 only in Ext.P1 F.I.statement as assailants. But when he was examined, he deposed the name of A3 to A6. According to PW1, he had acquaintance with these persons who were residing at Attukal area. But he was not aware of the names and he came to know about the name of A3 from the visitors. It is true that, PW1 deposed that A3 was residing behind his house and A3 was his immediate neighbour for the last 16 years. But PW1 conceded that he do not know the name of A3. According to PW1, he collected the name of A3 from the visitors. The alleged occurrence in this case was on 23.9.1994 at 11 p.m. PW1 gave the F.I. statement within 45 minutes. The F.I. statement is recorded at 11.45 p.m on the same night. PW1 is the injured person. He sustained injury in this incident. He is a witness to the entire incident. He is giving Ext.P1 statement within 45 minutes after the incident. In such situation, non-mentioning the name of A3 or non-mentioning the details of A3 in Ext.P1 statement is not vital. Admittedly the defence has no case that there is any enmity to PW1 towards A3 to implicate him falsely in 15 Crl.Appeal Nos.411/1999 & 670/1999 a murder case. Such a case is not even suggested to PW1 by A3 while he was cross examined. As far as A1 is concerned, PW1 narrated specific overt act in Ext.P1 and the same is corroborated by him in his evidence. The counsel for A3 submitted that there is no overt act attributed to A3 by PW1. But it is a fact that all the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and some of the accused in the unlawful assembly attacked the deceased. Therefore simply because, no specific overt act is attributed against A3, it cannot be said that, he is not involved in this case. The presence of A3 is clearly mentioned by PW1. A reading of the evidence of PW1, it is clear that there was an unlawful assembly. It is also clear from the evidence of PW1 that, the accused were in possession of dangerous weapons. In such circumstances, it is clear that A1 and A3 who are appellants in these appeals were members of the unlawful assembly and they were in possession of deadly weapons. It is also clear that the evidence of PW1 is corroborated by the evidence of PW4 about rioting. Therefore, it is clear that A1 and A3 who are appellants in these appeals were present at the time of the incident and they were members of the unlawful assembly and they were guilty under Section 148 IPC.
16. The trial court convicted A1 under Section 304 (1) IPC and the A3 under Section 326 r/w Section 149 IPC. A1 is 16 Crl.Appeal Nos.411/1999 & 670/1999 convicted under Section 304 (1) IPC with the following reasons.
"110. So far as A1 is concerned it could be seen that he was armed with sword and he had made the assault along with A2 and A4 as per the evidence and the fatal injury was the injury on the thigh namely, injury No.9 in Ext.P5. It had cut the femoral artery and veins. According to the doctor, the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Nevertheless, it could be seen that the assailants had no intention to cause that particular injury, which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Nevertheless there is a nexus between the overtact of the accused and the cause of death of the victim. It could be seen that the victim was sitting inside the autorikshaw and incessant attack was made on him with swords and in all likelihood the death would have been in the result by the overt act of A1. If that is so A1 had acted in pursuance of the common object of the assembly and he along with A2 and A4 had made the deadly assault. Therefore, it could be seen that A1 could be pin pointed with liability for causing such bodily injury as was likely to cause death, punishable under Section 304(1) I.P.C. The court has arrived at this conclusion by placing itself in the situation of the accused and judging whether by the overt act of the accused the injury intended was likely to cause death. "
17. I cannot agree with this finding of the trial court as far as the conviction of the first accused under Section 304 (1) IPC is concerned. If A1 committed the offence under Section 304 (1) IPC., the other accused are also liable for the same offence. But the trial court convicted A1 alone under Section 304 (1) IPC. The trial court 17 Crl.Appeal Nos.411/1999 & 670/1999 found that A1 and A3 are members of the unlawful assembly and they are guilty under Section 148 IPC. Thereafter, there is no justification for convicting the first accused alone under Section 304 (1) IPC and convicting A3 under Section 326 r/w 149 IPC. According to the learned judge, A1 was armed with sword and inflicted the fatal injury on the thigh of the deceased. This is injury No.9 in Ext.P5. Therefore, A1 is convicted under Section 304 Part I IPC. I cannot agree with the same. A perusal of Ext.P5 postmortem certificate, it can be seen that, all the injuries are not on the vital parts of the body. The injuries noted in Ext.P5 are extracted hereunder.
"1. Incised wound 1 cm x skin deep above the (Rt) eye brow area.
2. An abrasion above that injury.
3. Incised wound ½ x ½ cm above the previous injury near the hair line.
4. Incised would 2 cm x 1 cm above the 3rd injury.
5. Incised wound 5 cm x 2.5 cm at the (Rt) elbow joint area.
6. Incised wound 5 cm x 2.5 cm x 3cm at the (Rt) wrist joint area at the medial border.
7. An incised wound 3 cm x 2 cm at the root of the (Rt) little finger, the finger hanging by a skin tag.
8. An incised wound 4 cm x 3 cm x 2 cm at the upper part of (Rt) thigh oblique in direction.
9. An incised would 4 cm x 3 cm at the lower 1/3 of the (Rt) thigh on the medial aspect, pertaining the exit wound 2 cm x 2 cm at the middle ½ of the (Rt) thigh on the posterior aspect, oblique in direction, dissecting wound No.9 showed deeper muscles and femoral artery and veins are cut:
10. Multiple abrasion present."18
Crl.Appeal Nos.411/1999 & 670/1999
18. After going through the above injuries, I cannot conclude that A1 committed the offence under Section 304 Part I IPC. Moreover, the cause of death mentioned in Ext.P5 is extracted hereunder.
" Hemorrhage and shock due to injury No.9."
19. In the light of the above facts, I think the offence under Section 304 Part I IPC is not made out in this case. But A1 and A3 who are the appellants in these two appeals are members of the unlawful assembly and they committed the offence under Section 148 IPC. They also voluntarily caused grievous hurt to the deceased with dangerous weapons. In such circumstances, according to me, A1 committed only an offence under Section 326 r/w Section 149 IPC and not on an offence under Section 304 Part I IPC.
20. The next question is what is the sentence to be imposed on the appellants who are A1 and A3 in these cases. The trial court directed to undergo imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) to A3 under Section 326 IPC. The incident in this case happened in 1994. Now 26 years elapsed. At this distance of time, it is improper to send the appellants in these cases to jail for five years. But I think substantive sentence is necessary in these cases because the appellants inflicted grievous 19 Crl.Appeal Nos.411/1999 & 670/1999 hurt to the deceased with dangerous weapons. Therefore, a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) under Section 326 r/w Section 149 IPC will be a proper sentence.
21. In the result, these Criminal Appeals are allowed in part.
(i) The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant in Crl.Appeal No. 670/1999 under Section 304 (1) IPC is set aside. The appellant/A1 is convicted under Section 326 IPC and he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only). In default of payment of fine, he is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.
(ii) The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants under Section 148 IPC by the trial court is confirmed.
(iii) The conviction of A3 under Section 326 IPC is confirmed. But the sentence imposed on him under Section 326 IPC is set aside and the appellant/A3 is directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only). In default of payment of fine, he is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.
20Crl.Appeal Nos.411/1999 & 670/1999
(iv) Set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C allowed.
(v) Sentence imposed on the appellants will run concurrently.
(vi) If the fine is realised, the entire amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) should be disbursed to the legal heirs of the deceased 'Fatah' in this case.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE amb/al/-.
21Crl.Appeal Nos.411/1999 & 670/1999 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE CRL.APPEAL Nos.411/1999 & 670/1999 JUDGMENT 14.07.2020 22 Crl.Appeal Nos.411/1999 & 670/1999