N. Nijil vs State Of Kerala - Represented By Public on 6 August, 2019

[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

N. Nijil vs State Of Kerala - Represented By Public on 6 August, 2019

Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 KER 256, 2019 CRI LJ (NOC) 527

This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 22/3/2014 in SC No.138/2010 of the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam by which accused 1 to 5 were convicted for having committed the offence u/s 143, 147, 148, 341 and 302 of I.P.C. and 302 r/w section 149 of I.P.C. 9th accused has been convicted for offence u/s 120B r/w 302 of I.P.C. First accused is sentenced to undergo imprisonment of life and to pay fine of `50,000/- for offence u/s 302 of I.P.C. Accused 2 to 5 are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of `50,000/- for offence u/s 302 r/w 149 of IPC. A9 is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine `50,000/- u/s 120B r/w 302 of I.P.C. Accused 1 to 4 were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for offences u/s 143, 147 and 148 of I.P.C. 5 th accused is also sentenced for offence u/s 143, 147 and 341 I.P.C.

2. The prosecution alleged that accused 1 to 11 were activists of Communist Party of India (Marxist), [CPI(M) for short]. Crl.Appeal No.615/14 -:4:- In the year 2003, National Democratic Front (NDF) influenced Muslim youngsters into their fold and some of the CPI(M) workers also joined NDF which resulted in constant conflicts between activists of NDF and CPI(M). On 23/6/2008, accused 1 to 5 attacked one Sainudheen who was sitting in a shop known as Salala Chicken Centre. To avoid the attack, Sainudheen ran towards a nearby shopping complex known as Lexi Complex. Accused 1 to 5 followed him with swords and knife. Sainudheen reached the first floor of Lexi complex. The assailants caught him. He was dragged to the floor and several injuries were inflicted on him with the weapons they had. Thereafter the assailants escaped from the scene in a Maruthi Omni van. Though Sainudheen was taken to Amala Hospital, Iritty in a jeep, he was referred to Government Hospital, Thalasserry. By the time, he was taken to the Indira Gandhi Co-operative Hospital, Thalasserry, he was declared dead. The First Information Statement was given by PW4 at 7.00 p.m before the Sub Inspector of Police Iritty Police Station, pursuant to which Crime No.373/2008 was registered. Investigation was conducted by the Circle Inspector of Police, Iritty. The officer who initially conducted Crl.Appeal No.615/14 -:5:- investigation was later suspended and his successor continued the investigation. In the meantime, mother of the deceased filed WP(C) No.20767/2008 before this Court for a direction to hand over the investigation to CBI and the said petition came to be allowed. CBI took over investigation on 27/9/2008 and final report was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam which was committed to the Court of Sessions and made over to the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge for trial.

3. The accused denied the charges. To prove the case, prosecution examined PWs 1 to 35 and placed reliance on Exts.P1 to P70. MO1 to MO14 were the material objects that were produced and identified. After completing the procedural formalities and after hearing the accused, the trial Court convicted accused Nos.1 to 5 and 9. Others were acquitted.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant Sri.J.Jose argued that there is absolutely no evidence to prove that the accused were involved in the crime. There are several infirmities in the evidence and the version of the so called eyewitnesses are improbable. He placed reliance upon certain materials to indicate that even the so called eyewitnesses were not in the scene at the Crl.Appeal No.615/14 -:6:- relevant time and their evidence does not demonstrate any confidence for a Court to convict the accused to the crime. The alleged recoveries were also manipulated and cannot be relied upon. The trial Court had convicted the accused without any material whatsoever and the case against the accused have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

5. On the other hand, learned Special Prosecutor for CBI while supporting the judgment of the Sessions Judge argued that when eyewitnesses have spoken about the incident, and the attack by a few persons was on account of political enmity, Court below was justified in convicting the accused and therefore he sought for sustaining the judgment.

6. As far as death of Sainudheen is concerned, there cannot be any dispute about the fact that it is a homicide. Ext.P51 is the inquest report prepared by PW31, the Circle Inspector of Police. PW26 had conducted post-mortem on the dead body of Sainudheen and Ext.P46 is his report. Following are the ante- mortem injuries noticed by the Doctor.

"1. Incised penetrating wound 2.5x1 cm at front of abdomen, oblique, right upper sharp cut end was 5 cm outer to midline, Crl.Appeal No.615/14 -:7:- the lower left end was blunt. It was 5 cm below and parallel to costal margin. The wound track continued by cutting the abdominal wall, transfixed the lower border of left lobe of liver (1.2x0.2 cm) and transfixing the stomach (front wall showed a cut 1.2x0.2 and back wall 1x0.5 cm) wound terminated in the retroperitoneal tissues by passing above pancreas and cutting the splenic artery. Perinephric hematoma present at left side 20x10x5 cm. The peritoneal cavity contained 1.2 litre blood. The wound track had a total minimum depth of 12 cm and directed to back, slightly downwards and to the right with edges showing minimal contusion.

2. Incised wound with downwards bevelling 4x1x bone (skull) deep over left mastoid, margins contused. Front lower end 1.5 cm behind middle of root of left ear and upper back end 4.5 cm outer and 2 cm above the occiput. Scalp hair seen divided at edges in depth, the skull bone showed a cut fracture (involving the outer table of bone). The brain 1300 gm was normal.

3. Transverse linear contused abrasion 7 cm x 0.2 cm outer aspect of right upper arm 15 cm below tip of shoulder.

4. Incised wound 4x1.5x bone deep almost vertical at back of right forearm. The upper end showed a tapering for 1 cm reaching the elbow. The lower end showed a tailing of 4 cm. Ulna underneath showed a cut fracture. There was a contused abrasion 1x1 cm, 2 cm outer to its upper end.

5. Incised wounds 3 in number each 1x0.2x0.2 cm, one each on the back of ring middle index fingers of right hand at middle of proximal phalax placed transversely.

6. Contusion 4x4x0.5 cm at back of right wrist and hand.

7. Contused abrasion 0.5x0.5 cm at inner aspect of root Crl.Appeal No.615/14 -:8:- of little finger (right).

8. Curved contused abrasion 6x0.5 cm at back of left upper arm with convexity directed to outwards, upper inner end was at tip of back of left shoulder.

9. Contused abrasion 5x2 cm at outer aspect of left forearm 9 cm above wrist.

10. Avulsion of skin 0.5x0.3 cm x0.1 at inner aspect of root of left big toe.

11. Linear contused abrasion 5.5x0.2 cm, oblique, at back of left shoulder; upper inner end 8 cm below top of shoulder and 9 cm away midline. The other end was 13 cm below top of shoulder.

12. Incised wound 2.5x1x1 cm, muscle deep at left shoulder blade, oblique, upper inner end 9 cm outer to midline and 18 cm below top of shoulder. Lower outer end 19 cm below top of shoulder and touched the inner border of scapula 3 cm above its inferior angle. The inner-upper end showed a tapering for 3 cm. The lower-outer end showed tailing for 1 cm.

13. Linear contused abrasion 7 cm transverse over left of back of trunk 9 cm outer to midline and 29 cm below top of shoulder.

14. Abrasion 0.5x0.5 cm over outer malleolus of right ankle. Injury No.10. of inquest was PMS (Post Mortem Staining)."

He opined that death was due to the stab injury to abdomen involving stomach and liver. It is also stated that some of the injuries could be caused by MO4 to MO6.

7. The only other question that remains to be considered is Crl.Appeal No.615/14 -:9:- regarding the assailants. As already mentioned, FIS was given at 7.00 p.m. on 23/6/2008 by PW4. He is also an NDF worker. So was Sainudheen. Sainudheen used to take classes in the meetings arranged by NDF and Campus Front. He refers to an incident in June, 2008 wherein there was a conflict between CPI(M) and a local leader of Students Federation of India (SFI). That apart, there was a conflict between activists of SFI and Campus Front on 20/6/2008. The Campus Front members took shelter in Salala Chicken Centre. Though the SFI and DYFI activists had asked them to send the students out from their chicken centre, they refused to do so. There was an attempt to trespass into the chicken centre, but he warded them off with a knife, and they were threatened.

8. The prosecution case as revealed from the evidence is that, on the fateful day, ie. three-four days after the above incident, PW17 Rayees who was working in the Salala Chicken Centre, contacted PW4 over phone and informed that he was being attacked by CPI(M) activists. PW4 went to the house of Sainudheen and they together went to Kakkayangad, the place where Salala Chicken Centre is functioning. PW17 was found Crl.Appeal No.615/14 -:10:- sitting in the shop with injuries. The furniture and chicken were found scattered. PW4 took PW17 to a private Hospital and since it was a medico legal case they had to go to the Community Health Centre. In the meantime Sainudheen and PW24, the owner of the chicken centre remained there. By around 12.15 pm PW4 received a call from Sainudheen stating that certain persons are roaming around the locality and he apprehended danger. PW4 immediately came back to Kakkayangad. PW4 along with PW24 went to have lunch and Sainudheen remained there. While they were coming back they saw a gathering in front of the chicken centre. Sainudheen was seen cornered by the accused. Sainudheen however wriggled out from them and ran towards Lexi complex. The assailants followed him. PW4 and PW24 also ran towards them. When Sainudheen reached the first floor of Lexi Complex, the accused who followed him with weapons inflicted fatal injuries on him, came down with the blood stained weapons, got into a Maruti Omni vehicle and fled from the scene. PW4 and PW24 carried the injured Sainudheen to the steps of a nearby mosque and they went in search of a vehicle. By the time they came back Sainudheen was already taken to Amala Hospital, Crl.Appeal No.615/14 -:11:- Iritty in a jeep, from where he was referred to Government Hospital, Thalasserry. Though they proceeded to the nearby hospital, they were informed that he was taken to the hospital at Thallasery. Later they heard that Sainudheen was dead. Defence contention is that PW4 and PW24 were not in the scene of occurrence as alleged and their evidence should not have been relied upon by the Court below. That apart several infirmities are patent from the evidence of PW5 and PW15, which was completely ignored by the trial court.

9. Let us now briefly scan through the evidence of prosecution witnesses. PW1 is the mother. PW2 is the brother and PW3 is the father of deceased Sainudheen. They deposed that PW4 called Sainudheen, who was sleeping in their house and went to Kakkayangad along with PW4. PW4 is an eyewitness. PW5 PW12 and PW24 stated that they saw the assailants chasing Sainudheen and coming out of Lexi complex, with blood stained weapons. PW15 stated that he saw accused 1 to 5 coming out of Lexi complex, with blood stained weapons, and that the 9 th accused hired the Omni van which he was driving and the accused escaped in the said vehicle. According to these Crl.Appeal No.615/14 -:12:- witnesses those assailants had escaped from the spot in the van driven by PW15. PW15 has supported the versions of these witnesses on this point. PW6 to PW9 were declared hostile to the prosecution.

10. PW10 is an active worker of CPI(M). He deposed that A10 to A11 are the local leaders of CPI(M) at Kakkayangad area and A1 to A5 are sympathizers of that political party. PW13 is the owner of a tailoring shop on the first floor of Lexi Complex. She deposed that, on 23/6/2008 at about 1.30 pm while she was in her tailoring shop, she heard a sound from the ground floor of Lexi complex and she came to know that somebody is coming towards the shop. Immediately she left the place with her employees. PW14 is the owner of Maruthi omni van bearing No.KL-58/A 5832 and PW15 was the driver of that taxi. PW16 deposed that he found A1 and A3 to A11 assembled in front of the CPI(M) office building. PW18 Abdul Shaheed, PW19 Abdul Gafoor and PW20 Shafeek are the attestors in the seizure mahazars for MO4 to MO7. PW21 was also declared hostile to the prosecution. PW22 is an attestor to Ext.P36 seizure mahazar prepared by PW32, when PW14 produced omni van bearing No. Crl.Appeal No.615/14 -:13:- KL-58-A 5832 in the police station. PW25, who is working as Assistant Chemical Examiner, Regional Chemical Examiner's Laboratory, Kozhikode deposed that she examined 13 items of material objects forwarded to her from the court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mattannur and prepared a report. Ext.P45 is the said report. She identified MO9, a packet containing sand, MO10 series containing hair pieces and cotton gauze, MO8 series and MO11 series foot wears, MO13 shirt and MO14 underwear. She identified MO4 to MO6. On all the material objects examined by her, except on MO8 series and MO11 series foot wears, she found human blood. PW27 is the Doctor who had examined PW17 from the Community Health Center, Iritty. He identified the wound certificate in the name of PW17 and proved the relevant page in the IP register. The wound certificate is Ext.P47 and the relevant page in the I.P. register is marked as Ext.P48. PW28 Dr. Shyamala identified the I.P. sheet issued by her, while she was working at Indira Gandhi Co-operative Hospital, Thalassery and that I.P. sheet in the name of PW17 Rayees was marked as Ext.P49.

11. PW29 was working as Orthopedic Surgeon at Co- Crl.Appeal No.615/14 -:14:- operative hospital, Thalassery. He proved the discharge certificate issued in the name of A3 Riyas as Ext.P50. According to him, A3 was treated for fracture of 2 nd metacarpal right hand with extensor tendon injury and superficial injury on left hand. PW33 who is working as the Secretary of P.T. Chacko Memorial Hospital, Iritty produced the OP register maintained in the hospital during 2008 and was marked as Ext.P61. It would show that PW17 Rayees was treated in that hospital as an outpatient. The entry in that regard was marked as Ext.P61(a) and the details of the treatment was marked as Ext.P61(b).

12. PW30 is the Sub Inspector who registered this case. He deposed that on 23/6/2008 at 7 p.m. he recorded the statement given by PW4. On the basis of the FI statement he registered Crime No.373/2008. Ext.P1 is the FI statement given by PW4 and Ext.P1(a) is the FIR.

13. PW31, the Circle Inspector of Police deposed that on 24/6/2008 he undertook the investigation, went to Government Hospital, Thalassery and conducted inquest on the dead body of Sainudheen. Ext.P51 is the inquest report prepared by him. MO43 series are the photographs of the dead body and MO44 series are Crl.Appeal No.615/14 -:15:- its negatives. MO1 to MO3, MO13 and MO14 were recovered by him from the dead body. He had gone to the scene of occurrence, examined the scene as shown by PW19 Gafoor and one Afsal and prepared Ext.P32 scene mahazar. From the scene, he recovered MO8 series slippers and MO11 series slippers. The Scientific expert collected blood stained scrap from the floor for examination. The finger print expert had collected some specimen for the purpose of examination. Thereafter he questioned some of the witnesses, recorded their statements and made enquiries about the accused whose names were shown in the FIR. He filed Ext.P52 report furnishing the addresses of accused Nos. 2 to 4, 6 and 8. On 28.6.2008, he arrested accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 8. Ext.P53 series are the inspection memos and Ext.P54 is the arrest memo prepared by him. On the basis of the disclosure statements given by them he proceeded to Myladumpara bus stop along with those accused. Then, as led by the first accused Nijil and in the presence of two independent witnesses namely Sajid and Shaheed, he recovered MO7 knife which was concealed under bushes near Athithattu road junction as per Ext.P29 seizure mahazar. The relevant portion of the Crl.Appeal No.615/14 -:16:- disclosure statement in Ext.P29 was marked as Ext.P29(a). Then, as led by A2 Biju and on the basis of his statement, he proceeded to a place just about 30 meters away from the Athithattu junction. A2 Biju took MO4 sword which was concealed in bushes and handed over the same to him. Accordingly he prepared Ext.P31 mahazar and got the signature of PW19 Gafoor and one Faizal, two independent witnesses. Ext.P31(a) is the relevant portion of the disclosure statement given by A2. Thereafter, A4 Vineesh led him from the place where the jeep was parked to a place near the spot from where MO4 was recovered, took a sword and gave it to him. He prepared Ext.P30 seizure mahazar for the recovery of that sword and got the signature of Shaheed and Faizal in the said mahazar. Ext.P30(a) is the relevant portion of the disclosure statement given by A4. This witness identified MO6 as the sword recovered by him as shown by A4. On 30.6.2008 he filed Ext.P55 report furnishing the name and address of A5 Sumesh and one Ratheesh and Ext.P52 report mentioning the relevant provisions of law. Thereupon he arrested Ratheesh (PW9) with his autorickshaw and after questioning he produced that accused before Court. By this time PW4 and PW24 Crl.Appeal No.615/14 -:17:- identified MOs 4, 6 and 7 weapons. On 2.7.2008 he was placed under suspension.

14. PW32 is the Circle Inspector who had succeeded PW31. On 4.7.2008, PW14 M.C.Narayanan came to his office with PW15 Sujesh and produced Omni van bearing No.KL.58A-5832. He took that vehicle in custody as per Ext.P36 mahazar and made arrangements for the examination of the vehicle by an expert. On 7/7/2008 he was informed about the discharge of A3 Riyas from the hospital and accordingly he went to Thalassery and arrested that accused, questioned and recorded his statement. On the basis of the statement given by the 3 rd accused, he proceeded to Myladumpara and recovered MO5 sword which was concealed under a cashew tree as shown by A3 as per Ext.P33 seizure mahazar. Ext.P33(a) is the relevant portion of the disclosure statement given by this witness. On the basis of the statement of witnesses he filed Ext.P58 report to incorporate the name and address of A9 Basheer and to add Section 120B of IPC. Thereupon he arrested A5 and A9 and produced them before the Court. On 26.7.2008, A6 Mohanan and A7 Manu surrendered before the concerned Court. Then, pursuant to an order passed by this court Crl.Appeal No.615/14 -:18:- in W.P.(C).No.20787/2008, investigation was handed over to CBI and accordingly PW34 undertook the investigation and a case was registered in the CBI, Kochi unit as RC 7(S)/2008. Ext.P62 is the FIR. He questioned some of the witnesses and recorded their statements. Subsequently the investigation was handed over to Inspector Sri.C.S. Kaimal, who continued the investigation upto 5/4/2009. PW35 is the Inspector who completed the investigation and filed the final report.

15. The trial Court in fact placed reliance on the evidence of PW4, PW5, PW12, PW15 and PW24 to convict accused 1 to 5 and

9. Therefore, primarily it has to be considered whether the evidence rendered by these witnesses can be reckoned as sufficient proof to convict the appellants in the case for which a detailed examination of their deposition is required.

16. PW4 has given FIS. The incident occurred at 1.30 p.m. on 23/6/2008 and FIS was seen recorded at 7.00 p.m on the same day based on the statement of PW4. Ext.P1 is the FI statement and Ext.P1(a) is the FIR. In the FI statement, it is recorded that, on 23/6/2008, by about 11.30 noon, PW4 got information that his friend Rayees who was working in Salala Chicken Centre was Crl.Appeal No.615/14 -:19:- assaulted by CPI(M) followers. Therefore, he along with his friend Sainudheen proceeded to Kakkayangad to enquire about the same. Rayees was injured and he sent Rayees in an autorickshaw for necessary treatment. At that time, Muhammed, (PW24) the owner of chicken centre came there. Sainudheen was asked to remain in the chicken centre and PW4 along with PW24 proceeded to the nearby hotel. After having food, while they were coming back by around 1.30 p.m, they saw some persons restraining Sainudheen on the road in the front of chicken centre. Immediately, Sainudheen wriggled out of their clutches and ran. About 5 to 8 persons with sword, knife and other weapons ran behind Sainudheen. Sainudheen ran into Lexi Complex. The assailants also followed. PW4 and PW24 also followed them. PW4 climbed the steps and he saw a few persons holding Sainudheen in the platform of the first floor. At that time, Nijil (A1) inflicted a stab on the left abdomen of Sainudheen with a knife. Biju and Riyaz who were also with them attacked Sainudheen with the swords available with them. Sainudheen cried aloud and at that time, the assailants came down to the road, entered into a blue Omni van bearing Regn.No.KL-58 A 5832 and proceeded towards Crl.Appeal No.615/14 -:20:- Iritty. He saw Sainudheen becoming unconscious and was unable to speak. Immediately PW4 along with PW24 brought Sainudheen down. By the time several people gathered there. Somebody bought a jeep. Sainudheen was taken in the same by K.V.Kunju Mayin and some others to Iritty Amala Hospital. PW4 and PW24 followed them in an autorickshaw. They heard that Sainudheen was taken to Thalasserry, by Razak and a few others. They got information that Sainudheen was declared dead when they reached the hospital. According to him, the assailants were Nijil (A1), Biju (A2), Riyaz (A3), Vineesh (A4), Mohanan (A6), Manoharan (A7) and Nazar (A8). There was also another person whom he could identity. He also stated that they were holding knives and swords. It was further stated that few days before the above incident, the Campus Front had distributed certain leaflets and there was a confrontation with CPI(M) workers. It might be on account of the political enmity CPI(M) had with NDF workers that Sainudheen was attacked.

17. Before Court, he stated about the incident in which Rayees was injured and that he along with Sainudheen had come to the chicken centre. He deposed that he took Rayees in an Crl.Appeal No.615/14 -:21:- autorickshaw to the hospital and Sainudheen remained there. Rayees was taken to P.J.Chacko Hospital. He was not admitted there and they were advised to take him to a Government Hospital. Therefore, Rayees was taken to Community Centre. At that time, Sainudheen called him and told him that some CPI(M) followers are roaming around and he was asked to come back. In the Community Centre, Basheer and A.P.Mohammed were also there. On receiving the call of Sainudheen, he proceeded back to Kakkayangad. He reached there by 1.00 p.m. When he came to the chicken centre, the owner A.P.Mohammed was also there along with Sainudheen. They rearranged the scattered things in the shop. Thereafter he went to have a tea. Though Sainudheen was invited, he did not come and he said he is going to mosque. PW4 along with PW24 proceeded to hotel New Life for taking food. When the prosecutor had asked him whether he had seen anybody on the way in CPI(M) Office, he deposed that he saw Narayanan (A10), Bhaskaran (A11) Basheer (A9), Mohanan (A6), Manu (A7) and Nasar (A8). He identified A6 to A9. By about 1.30 p.m., they finished their food and was walking back. They saw several persons gathered in front of the chicken centre. They Crl.Appeal No.615/14 -:22:- saw Sainudheen in their middle. They also saw the accused Nijil, Biju, Vineesh, Manu, Mohanan, Nazar, Sumesh and Riyaz around him. They were also carrying knife and swords. Sainudheen suddenly wriggled out and ran towards Lexi complex and the assailants also ran behind him. Sainudheen reached the first floor. When he reached the road, Sainudheen was attempting to jump from the handrail. There was a parapet. Nijil, Biju, Vineesh, Riyaz and Sumesh went up. Other three were waiting down. Sumesh caught hold of Sainudheen and pulled him down and he was dragged to the verandah. By the time, PW4 reached half of the stair case. He was standing down the steps. He could see the place where Sainudheen was dragged and brought. Riyaz, Biju, Vineesh and others attacked Sainudheen with their sword and Nijil inflicted an injury on the left side of abdomen of Sainudheen with a knife. Thereafter they came down with the bloodstained weapons and uttered that this will be the situation of the persons who work for NDF. Thereafter they got into a blue Omni van bearing No. KL-58A/5832 and proceeded towards Kakkayangad. He also identified accused 1 to 5. Sainudheen was trying to come down holding to his injury. They carried him and he was seated on Crl.Appeal No.615/14 -:23:- the step leading to the mosque. Sainudheen was getting unconscious and he was unable to speak. PW4 and PW24 went to hire a vehicle. At that time, a jeep came with K.V.Kunjumayin and a few others. Sainudheen was taken to Amala Hospital. PW4 along with PW24 proceeded to Amala hospital in a bike. Doctor at Amala Hospital asked the patient to be taken to Thalasserry. He was taken to Thalassery. He later knew that Sainudheen died. He proceeded to Iritty police station and the matter was informed. FIS is Ext.P1. He also identified the swords MO4 and MO5 and the knife MO7.

18. During cross-examination of PW4, the main crux of the defence was that he was not present in the locality and he was not an eyewitness at all. In Ext.P1 FIS, he had stated about an incident in which Rayees was injured at Salala Chicken Centre. PW4 and Sainudheen had come to verify the said incident. In Ext.P1, the statement was that Rayees was sent for treatment in an autorickshaw and PW4 along with chicken centre owner Muhammad remained there. But while being examined as PW4, he stated that he took Rayees to the hospital in an autorickshaw. That was at about 11.30. Rayees was taken to P.J.Chacko Crl.Appeal No.615/14 -:24:- Hospital from where he was directed to be taken to Government Hospital and accordingly he took Rayees to the Community Centre. At that time, Sainudheen called him stating that CPI(M) followers were roaming around the area and he was asked to come back. Immediately he came back to Kakkayangad and reached there at 1.00 p.m. The defence version is that at the relevant time, when the incident happened, he was at Community Centre along with Rayees and has not reached Kakkayangad as deposed. When he was questioned based on Ext.P1 and the statement given to local police, he stated that he had not given a statement as shown in Ext.P1. Further, he stated that there were bloodstains in his shirt and pants. But before going to the Police Station, he had washed it away. In his FIS, he stated that he along with PW24 had gone to Amala Hospital in an autorickshaw whereas before Court, he deposed that they proceeded to Amala hospital in a motorbike. He further deposed that from Iritty to Uliyal town, the distance is about 6 to 7 kms. Exts.D4 to D7 are the contradictions which were projected by the defence. According to the defence, PW4 was not at all in the locality at the relevant time as he had proceeded to the hospital Crl.Appeal No.615/14 -:25:- with Rayees. He had come to know about the incident later and after discussing with NDF activists, he had gone to the Police Station to give a statement. According to the defence, even that statement was recorded much later after falsely implicating the accused in the case.

19. PW5, Abdul Khader identified accused 1 to 9. He deposed that on the relevant day, ie., on 23/6/2008 when Sainudheen died, he saw all the accused in front of their party office. He knew that they were all CPM activists. He further saw A1 to A5 going towards Salala Chicken Centre in an autorickshaw. They were proceeding in an auto run by a person named Gundu. Behind them, accused 6 to 8 followed them in a rush. All of them encircled Sainudheen. He wriggled out from them and ran towards Lexi complex. When Sainudheen ran away, the accused also followed them. He also saw A.P.Mohammed and P.V.Mohammed running behind them. He also ran behind. When he reached the place, he saw Basheer (A9) in a blue Omni van and a door was kept opened. Behind it was Gundu's autorickshaw. He saw A3, A1, A2, A4 coming with weapons followed by A5 and got into the vehicle. Basheer was asking them Crl.Appeal No.615/14 -:26:- to come. He saw swords and a knife with them. A3 had tied a red cloth in his hand. The weapons were bloodstained. He did not see A6, A7 and A8. He got into the compound of Lexi complex. At that time, P.V.Mohammed and A.P.Mohammed were coming towards the road holding Sainudheen. Sainudheen was injured on his head and abdomen. He was bleeding. They made Sainudheen sit on the steps. PW4 and PW24 proceeded to call a vehicle. He went even before they came back. Ismail, Jaseem and Kunju Mayin came and took Sainudheen in a vehicle to the hospital. The vehicle in which Basheer was traveling proceeded towards Iritty. In cross-examination, he stated that he is the accused in which CPM Branch Secretary Dileepan was murdered. That was a case in which Dileepan was murdered as a retaliation for murder of Sainudheen. When he was asked whether he used to sell fish in his two wheeler, he denied, but he was contradicted with his earlier statement Ext.D8. He further stated that while Sainudheen was running, it is not the accused 1 to 5 who ran behind. There were about 8 persons. But he did not say that all of them climbed up the stairs of Lexi complex. About five persons alone ran. Nothing much had been brought out during cross-examination Crl.Appeal No.615/14 -:27:- other than contending that he is also an activist of NDF.

20. In the evidence of PW5, certain contradictions had been brought out. The first contradiction is regarding his previous statement that he used to sell fish by carrying it in a two wheeler, which he denied. Another contradiction is regarding his previous statement that after a few minutes of secret discussion, Nijil, Biju, Riyaz, Vineesh and Sumesh went towards Iritty side in an autorickshaw. "Within a few minutes, all of the above said persons came back to Kakkayangad in the autorickshaw driven by Ratheesh @ Gundu of Iritty. On reaching in front of Salala Chicken Centre, all of them got down from auto and rushed towards Salala Chicken Centre carrying swords, knife etc. At Salala Chicken Centre, they surrounded Sainudheen shouting on him." His answer was that he had not stated in the said manner. In fact, in his chief examination itself, he had stated that he saw Nijil, Riyaz, Biju, Sumesh and Vineesh going to Salala Chicken Centre in the autorickshaw of Gundu @ Ratheesh. There is no much contradiction as suggested by the defence. Ext.D10 is yet another contradiction wherein the witness had given a previous statement as follows: "I could notice Sainudheen running away Crl.Appeal No.615/14 -:28:- from the Chicken Centre to Lexi Complex and he climbed up to the first floor verandah of the building. The above mentioned Nijil Biju, Riyaz, Vineesh and Sumesh followed Sainudheen with the weapons in their hand and I could also notice Sainudheen trying to jump down from the first floor by crossing the railings." When he was questioned regarding the same, he said that he saw 8 persons running. He also admitted that he saw 5 persons running behind Sainudheen. But according to him, he did not say that 5 persons alone was running behind Sainudheen. Ext.D11 is yet another contradiction regarding the fact that on the said day he had gone to the shop of one Ashraf. The contradictions which the defence had projected are not at all material which would affect the prosecution case in any manner. The witness had only stated that he saw accused 1 to 5 chasing Sainudheen into the Lexi Complex. In his evidence, he did not say he had seen the incident by which Sainudheen was attacked by any of the assailants.

21. PW6 though a witness who turned hostile to the prosecution deposed during cross-examination that people in the locality were afraid of CPM members and people are afraid to give evidence against them and they will move away from the scenes Crl.Appeal No.615/14 -:29:- to avoid giving evidence if at all any such incident happens.

22. PW12 is another occurrence witness. He also deposed that he saw Sainudheen being cornered by 5-8 persons at the Salala chicken centre on the fateful day. He saw Sainudheen running away to the Lexi Complex and he saw few persons with swords and another person with a knife running behind Sainudheen. According to him, 4 persons were running behind Sainudheen. Sainudheen climbed on the first floor of Lexi Complex. He was trying to jump down from the first floor and somebody caught him from behind. All the four persons attacked him. They got down and threatened that the NDF workers will have the same fate. The swords and knife which they were wielding, were blood stained. They got into an Omni vehicle in which Basheer (A9) was sitting, and he was asking them to hurry, and the vehicle proceeded towards Iritty. There was an autorickshaw behind the vehicle which followed the Omni Van. Thereafter, P.V. Mohammed (PW4) and A.P.Muhammed (PW24 ) brought Sainudheen to the steps of the mosque and they proceeded in search of a vehicle. At that time, a jeep came. PW12 along with Kunjumayin and Ismail took Sainudheen in the jeep Crl.Appeal No.615/14 -:30:- and proceeded to Amala Hospital. Thereafter they were asked to take him to Thalassery. PW12 therefore came back. He also identified the accused, A1 to A5 as the persons who were chasing Sainudheen. Certain contradictions were brought in by the defence. Exts.D15 to D18 are the contradictions. Ext.D15 is a statement given to CBI wherein he stated to CBI that 23/6/2008 was a holiday in his college, whereas during evidence, he stated that he did not go to College on that day. In Ext.D16 statement given to the police, he had stated that on 23/6/2008, he had gone to College and while he was coming back, he got down in a bus after his classes by around 1.15 p.m. In Ext.D18 statement given by him to the police, he stated that from among the persons who got into the Omni van he could identify Nazar, Mohanan, Manu, Riyaz and the others could be identified by him. In Ext.D19, he stated that Sainudheen was unconscious and was carried by P.V.Muhammed and A.P.Muhammed. These contradictions according to us is not material enough to discard his evidence.

23. PW15 Sujeesh was the driver of Omni van KL-58A/5832. The owner was M.C.Narayanan. The vehicle was being run as a taxi at Kakkayangad taxi stand. The taxi stand was near New Life Crl.Appeal No.615/14 -:31:- hotel. He identifies the vehicle which was parked in front of the Court. He knew that Sainudheen was killed on 23/6/2008. On that day, he was in the taxi stand waiting for a trip. He was sitting in the barber shop reading newspaper. A tall, fat person came to the barber shop to call the vehicle to proceed towards Iritty. Both of them got into the vehicle. When he tried to bring down the glass as it was very hot, he was told that there is no necessity for the same. He proceeded towards Iritty. He was asked to drive the vehicle slowly. When they reached in front of Lexi complex, the passenger asked him to stop the vehicle. He stopped the vehicle on the left side of the road. He was asked not to off the engine, as there are people to come. He did not turn off the vehicle and remained in the driver's seat. The person sitting behind kept the door open. At that time, three-four-five persons came running from Lexi complex. The person inside the vehicle asked them to enter the vehicle soon. The persons who came running had weapons with them. One person had some injury and he had tied it with a cloth. All of them got into the vehicle. The person who hired the vehicle asked him to proceed towards Iritty. He identified A9 as the person who hired the vehicle. He also Crl.Appeal No.615/14 -:32:- identified A1 to A5, as persons who got into the vehicle. He said he cannot say who are all the persons who were holding the weapons. The person who hired the vehicle was asking whether they had inflicted any stab or injury and they replied that they have stabbed and inflicted injuries. He got afraid. He asked them whether they had created any problem and he told them that he is afraid, and he was told that there is no problem. They told that one person is injured and he had to be taken to hospital and asked him to proceed to P.J.Chacko hospital. While he was proceeding in the car, he started to shiver. He told them that he is unable to drive the vehicle. When they reached a place called Mailadumpara, they asked him to stop the vehicle. Even before he stopped, an autorickshaw overtook him and stopped in front of vehicle. They asked him to stop the vehicle and they said that they will proceed in the auto. Except the person who hired the vehicle, all of them got down. They took the weapons as well. The person who hired the vehicle asked them to throw away the weapons. The person who hired the vehicle asked him to turn the vehicle back and they proceeded back to Kakkayangad. Others got into the autorickshaw. He did not know the auto driver. When Crl.Appeal No.615/14 -:33:- he asked the other person why his vehicle was hired, he said, "you have not seen anything, you have not heard anything and nothing had happened. If NDF people will come to know, you and me will not be spared and that he himself was a Muslim". When they reached a place called Kurukkanmukku, he got down. Being afraid of the situation, PW15 took the vehicle to the owner. He did not receive any rent and he was afraid to ask. He told the vehicle owner about the incident. He was in a shock and he left the vehicle there and proceeded to his house and informed the matter to his aunt. Next day when he cleaned the vehicle, there was some stains which he cleared. He had informed this matter to the persons whom he knew. After some time, the police called him and he had given the statement. Thereafter CBI also called him and he had informed the same to CBI also. He had given a statement to the Magistrate and he identified the signature in the said statement and the statement was marked as Ext.P25. Though he was cross-examined at length, nothing material has been brought out by the defence to discredit the said witness. Exts.D21 to D24 are the contradictions marked.

24. PW24 is another eyewitness. He deposed that at 11.30 Crl.Appeal No.615/14 -:34:- am, Rayees was assaulted pursuant to which Rayees was taken to the hospital by PW4. Sainudheen remained in the shop. He remained there till 12.00 noon and thereafter he proceeded to Peravoor. He came back by 1.00 p.m. After some time, P.V.Muhammed (PW4) also came. PW4 came by about 1.05 p.m. The things that were kept outside were rearranged and he along with PW4 proceeded to the hotel for having lunch. Sainudheen said that he does not want to have lunch and wants to go to the mosque for prayers. On the way, the CPI(M) party office is there and he saw some of the accused assembled there. He thought that they were planning something. After food, they got out. When they were about to reach his shop, they saw a crowd in front of the shop and Sainudheen was cornered. Sainudheen ran away from the group and went inside Lexi Complex. Except accused 9 to 11, all others followed Sainudheen. He along with PW4 also ran behind them. He could not run fast as he was in a shock. Sainudheen ran towards the first floor of Lexi Complex followed by accused 1 to 5. Accused 6, 7 and 8 were standing down. He stood on the right side of Lexi Complex. PW4 was standing down the staircase looking towards the first floor. From Crl.Appeal No.615/14 -:35:- the first floor, they heard the sound. Four of the assailants were having weapons. Thereafter what they saw is that they were coming back. Nijil (A1) was having a knife and three others were having swords. Sumesh (A5) was not carrying any weapon. Immediately they got into the Omni van. They were uttering that if there are any NDF workers, their plight will also be the same. The van was parked on the other side. It was a blue van. Basheer (A9) kept the door opened. Driver was sitting in the driver seat. Basheer was asking them to enter the vehicle soon. They got into the vehicle and proceeded towards Iritty. He also identified the weapons MO4 to MO6. After they got into the vehicle, he went towards PW4. They climbed 3-4 steps and they saw Sainudheen coming with injuries. They caught hold of Sainudheen. He was asked to sit in the step of the mosque. They gave him some water and went in search of a vehicle. At that time, there were no other vehicles. They could not get a taxi and by the time they have come, he was taken to the hospital in a vehicle. They also proceeded to Amala Hospital and he along with PW4 proceeded in his bike to Amala hospital and when they reached the hospital, they were told that Sainudheen was taken to Thalasserry. Crl.Appeal No.615/14 -:36:- Attempt of the defence was to indicate that he was also an active member of NDF and that he was a suspect in the case in which Dileepan was murdered. He deposed that he did not apparently see the incident by which the accused had inflicted injuries on Sainudheen. He was standing outside Lexi Complex until the accused got into the vehicle and fled from the scene. Several contradictions in his evidence had been marked.

25. PW27 is the Doctor who examined Rayees and issued his wound certificate Ext.P47 dated 23/6/2008. He deposed that he got the details regarding the injuries from the patient himself and that the cause of injury was that about 20 persons attacked him in Kakkayangad town at about 11.00 a.m. He further deposed that he saw the patient on 1.10 p.m on 23/6/2008. Ext.P48 is the relevant page in the I.P. Register. On the same day, he was referred to Government Hospital, Thalassery. Rayees was admitted at 1.10 p.m and discharged at 2.30 p.m. He stated that the date of discharge noted as 24/6/2008 is a mistake.

26. PW30, who was at the relevant time Sub Inspector of Police, Iritty Police Station deposed that, in Ext.P1, PW4 did not state that he took Rayees to the hospital. He had only stated that Crl.Appeal No.615/14 -:37:- after sending Rayees to hospital, he along with the owner of the chicken stall proceeded to have their food. But PW4 has stated that he along with PW24 had seen the incident and that after suffering the injury, Sainudheen was crying and he fell down. That apart, he had stated that the Omni van had proceeded towards Kakkayangad town and that PW4 and PW24 had gone in an autorickshaw to Amala hospital. He further stated that he had information that an NDF worker was injured near Lexi complex. He had gone to Lexi complex. He had come to know about it at 1.30 p.m over telephone. Normally such information is recorded in the G.D entry, but he does not remember whether any such record was there. He reached Lexi complex by about 2.00 p.m. There were 5-8 persons assembled in front of the Lexi Complex. But he did not know who was injured and who was responsible for it. He knew that the assailants had escaped, but he did not know any details. During re-examination he stated that, on the said day, after noon, he was on law and order duty. He had not conducted any investigation into Sainudheen's murder case. He did not see any person who had witnessed the incident. Kakkayangad is an area where there is CPM domination. He Crl.Appeal No.615/14 -:38:- further deposed that when party-men of Marxist are involved in cases, witnesses are afraid to give statement. That answer was given to a leading question during re-examination. He further stated that 2 months and 1 day after Sainudheen was killed, there was an incident in which Chakkad Branch Secretary Sri.Dileepan was murdered and he had prepared the FIR. In that case, PW4 along with 16 others are accused.

27. PW31 was the Circle Inspector of Police during the relevant time. He stated that while preparing the scene mahazar, the scientific expert had collected the bloodstains from the scene. Pieces of blood stained concrete pieces from the floor was collected in a packet. Ext.P32 is the mahazar and MO12 is the packet containing bloodstains in a piece of cement floor. During cross-examination, he stated that he was at Kakkayangad town from 2 p.m onwards till evening. He got a copy of the FIR by 5.30 a.m on 24th.

28. One main argument raised by the counsel for appellant is regarding the presence of PW4 who is the sole eyewitness to the incident. The evidence of PW27, the Doctor, who examined Rayees and had issued the medical certificate, deposed that he Crl.Appeal No.615/14 -:39:- had examined Rayees at 1.10 p.m. PW4's consistent case is that he reached back at Kakkayangad at 1.00 p.m. after receiving a call from Sainudheen. While giving 164 statement, his version is that he does not remember whether he had stated before the Magistrate that he had come back by 12.15 p.m. to Kakkayangad. However, while being cross-examined, he deposed that when they reached the Community Centre, Rayees was conscious. He was able to tell the Doctor about the incident and he heard the same. The Doctor examined Rayees only at 1.10 p.m and if PW4 had heard Rayees speaking to the Doctor at 1.10 p.m, apparently his presence in the scene of occurrence at about 1.15.p.m is doubtful. During re-examination the Prosecutor asked him PW4, about the conversation he heard at the hospital. The question was from which hospital, he heard Rayees speaking to the Doctor, and his answer was that he heard Rayees speaking to the Doctor of P.J.Chacko Hospital. Apparently, the re-examination was conducted after the lunch session. The Court below however placed reliance upon the explanation given during re-examination and proceeded on the basis that it could only be a mistake.

29. PW17 is Rayees. He deposed that after going to Crl.Appeal No.615/14 -:40:- P.J.Chacko hospital, since it was a medico-legal case, they were asked to proceed to the Community Health Centre. He was sitting in the casualty. At that time, Sainudheen called PW3 stating that some CPM members have assembled in Kakkayangad area. Muhammed therefore proceeded to Kakkayanagad. At the Community Health Centre, PW4 was along with Rayees only for 10 minutes. He went back by 12.15-12.30 noon. At that time, few other persons came and PW4 entrusted him with them and proceeded to Kakkayangad. Since he had severe injuries, Doctor referred him to Thalassery Hospital and Basheer took him to Government Hospital, Thalasserry in his car. During cross- examination, the defence version was that PW4 and PW24 were along with Rayees while he was taken to hospital and they were not present at the scene of occurrence at the time when Sainudheen got injured. The presence of PW4 in the locality at the relevant time has to be considered in the light of other evidence as well. PW5 and PW24 had categorically stated the presence of PW4 at the relevant time. But it appears that they are all activists of NDF. At this point, the evidence of DW1, the retired Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, requires to be Crl.Appeal No.615/14 -:41:- considered. He is examined to prove the final report in Crime No.374/2008 wherein Rayees, PW17 was injured. Ext.D42(b) is a statement given by PW4 to the police, wherein he is cited as a witness who had seen the attack on PW17. Similarly, PW24 had given a statement to the police u/s 161 in the said case that he had gone to visit Rayees in the hospital at Iritty and while being there, he received a phone call stating that Sainudheen was attacked by some miscreants and he succumbed to the injuries on the way to hospital. The trial Court did not place reliance on the evidence of DW1 stating that he is not a reliable witness as there were several disciplinary proceedings against him during the relevant time and he had faced several departmental enquiries. Further, from the evidence of PW17, it was clear that he knew A1, A2 and A9 even prior to the incident and at no stretch of imagination, he would say that they were involved in the crime against him. That apart, during the relevant time, he was the Assistant Sub Inspector of Iritty Police Station. He recorded Ext.P28 on 23/6/2008 at 10.00 p.m. The crime in the present case Ext.P1, was registered at 7.00 p.m. as crime No.373/2008. When two incidents had happened on the same Crl.Appeal No.615/14 -:42:- day which had come within the jurisdiction of the very same police station, preparing statements of witnesses which are self contradictory itself is an indication to help the accused involved in the crime. Even in this case, we have come across a situation that when an officer was conducting investigation and most of the accused were arrested, he was suspended from service. Later the investigation had to be entrusted to CBI on the basis of the orders passed by this Court. Therefore, interference in the investigation is evident and attempts on the part of some police officers to help the accused involved in the crime is also evident. Otherwise, such contradictory statements will not be reflected in 161 statements of the witnesses. Therefore, the Court below was justified in disbelieving DW1.

30. From the materials placed on record and from the scene of occurrence which is marked as Ext.P32, Lexi complex is a three storied building. The building is 'U' shaped, facing towards south. Southern side is open and all the other sides are closed. There are shop rooms facing east and west. On the north-western end, there is a stair case with 12 steps proceeding towards the western side and then the step turns to the northern side. There Crl.Appeal No.615/14 -:43:- are 12 steps in that direction also facing towards east through which one can reach the first floor. In the first floor, there is a verandah (platform). A pathway is provided through the verandah having a width of 160 cms which is an entry to the other shop rooms on the first floor. It is noticed that in the stair case and in the floor of the building, there were bloodstains and a portion of the bloodstain found in the floor, along with the concrete piece was collected. Old paragon chappals were also taken from the said place. Ext.P43 series are the photographs produced in the case and Ext.P45 is the chemical examination report. It was found that the bloodstains collected from the scene of occurrence was human blood.

31. From these materials, what has to be considered initially is whether there is any evidence to implicate the accused in the crime. Prosecution was able to establish that an incident had happened in Lexi Complex on 23/6/2008. The scene of occurrence is established from the scene mahazar and recovery of incriminating materials from the scene. Even assuming that there are no eyewitnesses to the incident, to ensure that there is no miscarriage of justice, the Court is bound to consider the Crl.Appeal No.615/14 -:44:- available evidence, and see whether the prosecution could prove the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

32. The prosecution was able to establish one fact beyond reasonable doubt, i.,e., the fact that A1 to A5 had eloped from the scene immediately after the incident in a Maruthi van hired by A9. PW15 an independent witness, who has no connection whatsoever with NDF, testifies to the above extent. PW15 also says that among those persons, one was injured. All of them were coming out with blood stained weapons from Lexi complex. They entered into his vehicle, they got down at a particular place, got into an autorickshaw and fled from the scene. He also identified A9, who hired the vehicle at the relevant time. But he had not seen Sainudheen being chased by any of the accused or Sainudheen entering Lexi complex and he does not know what happened inside Lexi complex. That there was an incident in Lexi complex on the said date is proved by PW13. PW13 is a tailor conducting a shop in Lexi complex by name Henna Ladies Tailoring shop. She is conducting the shop room at the 2 nd level. At that time she was residing in the same building in another room. The tailoring shop normally opens at 10 a.m and closes by Crl.Appeal No.615/14 -:45:- around 5.30-6.00 p.m. She knew the incident by which Sainudheen got killed. When she was asked whether there was an incident in the Lexi complex by around 1.30 p.m., she stated that she heard the sound of 5-6 persons running through the staircase. Immediately she called her staff and proceeded to her quarters. The girl at the Akshaya centre also came along with her. All of them got inside her house and closed the door. After half an hour, they came down and saw blood in front of Akshaya Centre. Apparently she knew about the death of Sainudheen and refers to some incident and the bloodstain on the floor in front of Akshaya Centre.

33. In order to prove the prosecution case, the prosecution will have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Sainudheen got the injury in Lexi complex. If that fact is proved, the assailants coming down from Lexi complex with the weapons in their hand at or about the same time and the evidence of PW15, will become a strong circumstance to prove that accused 1 to 5 had committed the crime and there was a conspiracy to commit the crime involving the 9th accused.

34. Prosecution allege that Sainudheen was chased to Lexi Crl.Appeal No.615/14 -:46:- Complex by the accused. Even if we disbelieve the version of PW4, and PW24, taking into account the discrepancy in their testimonies and the doubt expressed by the defence, there is no such infirmity in the evidence of PW5 and PW12. Of course PW5 is also a sympathizer of NDF and is involved in various cases, but his presence in the area at the relevant time cannot be doubted. He had deposed that Sainudheen was chased by Accused 1 to 5 and a few others to Lexi Complex and he saw accused 1 to 5 coming out of Lexi Complex with blood stained weapon and eloping in a Maruti Van. Of course, PW5 also refers to the presence of PW4 and PW24. Even if we disbelieve, PW5 to that extent, his testimony proves that the accused 1 to 5 were among persons who chased Sainudheen into Lexi Complex. He also saw them coming out from Lexi Complex with blood stained weapons, which evidence is supported by PW15. Similar evidence is adduced by PW12. The evidence of PW12 and PW15 categorically proves the fact that Sainudheen was chased by accused 1 to 5. That an incident happened inside Lexi complex by which Sainudheen was injured is further proved by the testimony of PW5, PW12 and PW15. Even PW12 and PW15 also speaks about Crl.Appeal No.615/14 -:47:- the presence of PW4 and PW24. But even discarding that evidence and treating their presence in the scene of occurrence as an embellishment, still, evidence of PW5, PW12 and PW15 read with the recovery of the incriminating articles on the basis of the confession statement of the accused and the scientific evidence regarding the place of occurrence proves beyond all reasonable doubt the involvement of the accused in the aforesaid crime.

35. In the result, we do not think that the court below has committed any error in convicting the accused. No grounds are available for interfering with the conviction and sentence.

Appeal is hence dismissed.

Sd/-

A.M.SHAFFIQUE JUDGE Sd/-


                                          N.ANIL KUMAR

Rp               //True Copy//                JUDGE

                   PS to Judge

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court