Sinu Varghese @ Sinu vs State Of Kerala on 18 February, 2022

[Cites 21, Cited by 2]

Kerala High Court

Sinu Varghese @ Sinu vs State Of Kerala on 18 February, 2022

Stalked, surrounded and brutally attacked by a group of seven, one was killed and the other maimed. The grievously injured survived to tell the story, according to the prosecution, along with another whose nimble feet saved him. The motive alleged is prior enmity but with major variations on facts, as projected in the charge based on the final report and the one coming out in evidence led before Court.

2. The seven accused who stood trial were charged under Sections 120B, 143, 144, 147, 148, 140, 341, 324, 326, 302, 307,r/w S.149 IPC and S.20 r/w S.27 of the Arms Act. Accused are convicted under S.235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and each of them are sentenced to, undergo imprisonment for life, rigorous Crl.Appeal Nos.850/2016 and Connected cases - 7 -

imprisonment for 7 years, simple imprisonment for one month, respectively under Ss. 302, 307 & 341 read with S.149 IPC, with fine under each heads and default sentences. The accused No.2 to 7 are also sentenced to undergo R.I for 6 months each under S.144 and 148 IPC, A1 to R.I for 3 months each, under S.143 and 147 IPC. The substantive sentences of imprisonment are to run concurrently and the default sentences consecutively. The accused are in appeal.

3. Sri.B. Raman Pillai, Senior Counsel appearing for A1 contended that the case was set up merely to malign A1, who is a respectable person of the locality and an A class contractor. The prosecution case is that A2 to A7 are the employees of A1, for which there is no shred of evidence produced. The motive projected by the prosecution is a gang war regarding which no witness has spoken. The FIS is seriously assailed with respect to the testimony of PW1, who made it. PW1 in the FIS said that he saw three-four persons running away, which he embellished in his testimony. PW1 said that he first reached the spot, but in his deposition speaks of having Crl.Appeal Nos.850/2016 and Connected cases - 8 -

seen other locals gathered at the scene of occurrence when he reached there. PW1 in the FIS stated that he could identify the persons running away from the scene of occurrence, but the Investigating Officer (I.O) did not attempt such an identification by PW1. PW22, the I.O categorically stated that he questioned the witnesses on the 17th. The remand report filed on the arrest of A1, D12 does not name the other accused; despite all the eye witnesses, except PW2, having given statement to the I.O on the 17th itself. Even Ext.P13 affidavit filed for custody speaks of the identity of the other accused not having been revealed. PW22 in cross-examination admitted that he filed no report to the Court naming the accused.

4. Ext.P14 and P15 mahazars of recovery are not believable and the witness is the same, though the first recovery is in the afternoon and the second in the evening. The witness, PW19 is a regular witness of the police who is not even a local. There is no clarity as to whether MO1 weapon recovered at the instance of A1 was used by A2 or A3. Though MO8 scooter and MO11 mobile phone were recovered on the confession of A1, there is no Crl.Appeal Nos.850/2016 and Connected cases - 9 -

concealment confessed of and the ownership of both the M.Os have not been proved. The final report and the first remand report, D12 speak of a gang war between two named goonda gangs; which the I.Os, PW22 and PW23 disown before Court. The motive spoken of by the witnesses, of a dispute regarding a construction contract entered into between A1 and PW2 was never stated to the Police and is a totally new story projected by the witnesses before Court.

5. The artificial story spun by the prosecution is very evident from the fact that A1 is not seen to have carried a weapon. The assailants and victims are locals and there was no reason for A1 to accompany the other accused. PW2 & PW3 omitted to tell the Police that it was PW15, who dropped the deceased in front of the shop of PW2. Again the difference in time as noted from the testimonies of PW2, PW3 & PW15 assumes relevance in the context of PW2 & PW3 having spoken of the time to be 9 O'Clock when PW15 speaks of having started from his house with the deceased only at 10.30 p.m. The identical version of PW2 & PW3 indicates the tutoring they were Crl.Appeal Nos.850/2016 and Connected cases - 10 -

subjected to. PW22, the I.O, admitted to have come to the scene of occurrence in the night itself and also spoke of having seen people in the locality. However, he does not question anybody immediately after the incident. On the next day, the I.O's activities started with the inquest, recording of S.161 statements of the witnesses, including the eye-witnesses and also search of the houses of all the accused, which by the narration itself is improbable. Ext.P12 is the Wound Certificate of the injured, which shows the history as 'lying unattended on the road'; could have been any place. Ext.P3 Scene Mahazar does not indicate the exact place where the bodies were found and there is no pool of blood detected in the scene of occurrence. The injured, in all probability, would have been lying at some other place and his presence in the spot, where the deceased was found dead is very suspect. It is also pointed out that there is no sodium vapour lamp or mercury lamp indicated in the scene mahazar as spoken of by the witnesses. Kailash Gour v. State of Assam [(2012) 2 SCC 34] is relied on to urge that the benefit of a faulty investigation should go the accused. Crl.Appeal Nos.850/2016

and Connected cases                    -   11   -



          6.    Learned         Senior          Counsel     Sri.P.Vijayabhanu

appearing for A2, A3 and A5, while adopting the arguments of A1, emphasize that the motive on which the charge was framed and the one testified by the witnesses, drastically differ. It was argued that the same cannot be brushed aside as a mere change in motive, since the entire case based on the conspiracy, as charged by the prosecution was built up on the prior incident on which a crime was registered in the very same Police Station. The I.O is alleged to have taken the statement of all the eye witnesses, barring PW2 on the next day and intimation of search of the house of all the accused were also said to have been forwarded to the Court. Though the search was conducted, nothing incriminating was recovered. Interestingly, the search intimations reached the Magistrates Court only on 11.02.2009; which coupled with the fact that the names of the accused were not stated by the I.O in the reports filed before Court cast a serious suspicion on the identification of the assailants. Appreciated in the above background, it is clear that the accused were arrayed after deliberation, with conscious Crl.Appeal Nos.850/2016 and Connected cases - 12 -

intend to nail them and the witnesses tutored accordingly. The recoveries again were of planted weapons and through untruthful witnesses. The witnesses for recovery were not locals and were residing elsewhere. The material objects recovered even as per Ext.P69 FSL report showed only signs of human blood in some of them. Madhav V. State of M.P [AIR 2021 SC 4031] and Balwan Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh [(2019) 7 SCC 781] were relied on. It was pointed out that on the involvement of A5 to A7, only omnibus statements were made by the witnesses and they were not accused of any specific overt act.

7. Sri.P.K.Varghese, learned Counsel appearing for A6 points out the anomaly in the FIS and the testimony of PW1. PW1 does not speak of the presence of the witnesses despite they being neighbouring residents. The FIS at 2.30 a.m did not contain any details of the accused. The inquest report on the next day morning contained the recital 'not known' in column A where the names of the accused had to be entered. PW3's presence is also challenged on the ground that though he accompanied the injured and the deceased, before the attack, he Crl.Appeal Nos.850/2016 and Connected cases - 13 -

speaks of having run away, never to return. PW2 does not identify the accused from the dock and A6 has not at all been identified. The case of the prosecution was that A1 followed in a scooter and the accused emerged from thick shrubs adjacent to the scene of occurrence. Ext.P5 does not speak of any shrubs existing in the scene of occurrence. The time stated by PW15 and PW2 does not tally and there could never have been a prior incident as spoken of by PW15. It is also pointed out that PW3, according to PW8 was taken by the Police on the very same day. PW5 and PW6, though residents of the locality and the friends of the deceased, did not accompany the deceased to the hospital. Quite suspicious conduct casting doubt on their very presence in the locality. None of them went to the Police Station to make a complaint. The recovery mahazar MO4 is specifically pointed out to argue that the eye witnesses were said to have been shown the weapon immediately on its recovery. The property list Ext.P59 was received in the Court much later, with delay, on 23.01.2009. PW14 is a regular witness, attesting Exts.P8 to P10. The testimony of the Crl.Appeal Nos.850/2016 and Connected cases - 14 -

Doctor who conducted the post-mortem is specifically pointed out. The allegation of the prosecution is that injuries 6 to 9 were caused by the weapon used by A6 and recovered on his confession. But these injuries were mere abrasions and if a person is beat with a weapon in the nature of MO4, there would definitely be visible contusions, the absence of which renders the allegation against A6 false. The learned Counsel places reliance on Deo Narain vs. State of U.P [(2010) 12 SCC 298] and Onkarnath Singh vs. State of U.P [(1975) 3 SCC 276] to further buttress his contention.

8. Sri.C.K.Sajeev, learned Counsel appearing for A7 raised various questions on the prosecution case of a prior incident and its development, which culminated in the death and injury of two persons. There is no perceivable reason why the attack was not unleashed on the deceased while he was waylaid along with PW15 on the earlier occasion. Then again immediately as PWs.2 and 3, along with the deceased, came out of the shop, the accused is said to have converged in the location when too there was no attack carried out. It is emphasized Crl.Appeal Nos.850/2016 and Connected cases - 15 -

that the accused have been acquitted under S.120B, 114 IPC as also under the Arms Act. State of U.P v. Hari Prasad [(1974) 3 673] is relied on to contend that when motive is inextricably linked with the prosecution case, it has to be proved and when there is a total volte-face, it cuts at the root of the prosecution case. The recovery of MO9 alleged to be on the confession of A7 was carried out on 01.12.2016 at 8.30 a.m from a compound, where the recovery of the weapon by A6 was also carried out at 8.00 a.m. However the witness to the recovery of A6, unequivocally stated that there were no other accused present in the locality at that time. PW14 also, to a specific question, answered that he did not see PW15 who is known to him. Both the witnesses cannot be believed and even PW2 does not have a clear case against A7. All the eye witnesses were close friends of the deceased and the injured, who were planted by the Police to bring home a conviction. PW4's testimony has to be completely eschewed since the graphic details of the weapons noticed, is clearly artificial. Sri.Mohamed Jameel, learned Counsel appearing for A4 points out that there is Crl.Appeal Nos.850/2016 and Connected cases - 16 -

no explanation as to how PW15 and the deceased, escaped from the prior incident spoken of by PW15. PW15 in his deposition clearly admits that A4 was not known to him. PW15 also had spoken of the persons who had waylaid himself and the deceased, wherein the name of A4 was not stated. There is no clarity as to the recovery of the weapon made at the instance of A4. The recovery is also seriously put to peril by reason of Ext.P54, the property list forwarding the weapon to the Court, having been signed by PW22 on 25.12.2008, after his transfer and take over of investigation by PW23.

9. Learned Senior Public Prosecutor Alex M Thombra appeared for the State and supported the judgment both on the conviction and the sentence. This is a case of direct evidence by PW15, of the prior incident and the conspiracy and the subsequent attack itself having been witnessed by PWs.2 to 6. There is nothing to discredit PWs.3 to 6, whose presence as locals, is only natural. The mere fact that they are friends of the deceased and the injured, does not make them untrustworthy, especially when there is no allegation of any prior enmity with A2 Crl.Appeal Nos.850/2016 and Connected cases - 17 -

to A7. PW2 was grievously injured and he was admitted to the hospital between 16.11.2008 and 28.11.2008. Even the evidence of the Doctor, who treated him at the Lakeshore Hospital clearly indicates that he just escaped from death. There is no valid reason projected to disbelieve the testimony of the injured person, which has a definite weight; as declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The injured witness would definitely speak the truth and he would want the persons who attacked him to be punished. Though there is some change in the motive alleged and that established, in the teeth of the direct evidence led by the prosecution, the motive takes a back seat and becomes irrelevant and insignificant. The accused and the deceased were brutally attacked and left abandoned by the assailants. The direct evidence coupled with the medical evidence, as also the recovery of the weapon pin the guilt of the accused unerringly on them. Yunis @ Karia v. State of M.P [(2003) 1 SCC 425] is relied upon to urge the irrelevance of motive. To canvass the charge under S.149 IPC, reliance is placed on Surendra v. State of U.P [(2012) 4 SCC 776], Vinubhai Ranchhodbhai Patel v. Crl.Appeal Nos.850/2016

and Connected cases - 18 -

Rajivbhai Dudabhai Patel [(2018) 7 SCC 743].

10. Ext.P1 is the FIS and Ext.P1(a), the FIR, registered by PW22, who is the SHO, Alappuzha North Police Station. As per the FIS, while PW1 was sleeping with his family inside his house, he was woken up by persistent barking of dogs. He came out of the house and saw three or four persons running away from near the 'Thoppuveli Temple'. On keen observation, he saw a person lying on the sand. PW1 and his son went near and saw the person lying on his face. Together they turned him over to recognise his sister's son. Frightened, they screamed aloud, when the neighbours including Natesan came out. PW1 ran to the nearby house to summon the autorickshaw parked there and on his way, saw another person lying on the sand. On verification, it was found that it was his friend's son, PW2. He alerted the persons who gathered there about the injured and took his nephew in the first autorickshaw, which came there. PW2 was taken in another autorickshaw, which came later. Both were taken to the Medical College Hospital [MCH], Alappuzha, where PW1's nephew was declared brought dead and PW2 was found to Crl.Appeal Nos.850/2016 and Connected cases - 19 -

have suffered grievous injuries. PW2, on the instructions of the Doctor at the MCH, was shifted to the Medical Trust Hospital. He affirmed that PW2 and the deceased were friends and that they were attacked by three or four persons, whom he saw running away from the scene of occurrence. The incident occurred around 11 p.m. on 16.12.2008 and PW1 witnessed it from the light around the Temple and that on the northern side of his residence. PW1 also said that he saw the persons running away from the scene of occurrence and could identify them on sight.

11. PW1 more or less deposed in tune with the FIS. There were some embellishments as pointed out by the defence. PW1 said that when he came out of his house, he saw five to six persons running away, that he saw a scooter going in the northern direction and that some people were running outside and he followed them. He spoke of having seen people screaming when he reached the scene of occurrence. Despite a lengthy cross-examination, PW1 stood unshaken. The so called embellishments, according to us are not very material. The maker of the FIS had just returned from the hospital, where his Crl.Appeal Nos.850/2016 and Connected cases - 20 -

relative was declared dead and his friend's son was taken to a higher Medical Centre for better treatment. Whether he saw three-four or five-six persons running away, and whether he had reached the spot first or he followed the other neighbours to the scene of occurrence are all immaterial. These aspects would not be noticed specifically by a person, who, woken up in the night, witnessed two known persons lying grievously injured as a result of a brutal attack on them. We find no reason to doubt the testimony of PW1. True, he had at the time of FIS, spoken of being able to identify the persons by sight. All the accused are locals and there was no reason why they should be identified by PW1, especially when he did not see the incident.

12. PW2 to PW5 are said to be ocular witnesses, PW6 saw the preparation of A2 to A7 and PW15 spoke of a prior incident. The motive as projected in the charge was not proved in the trial and as argued by the defence, the evidence led, put forth a totally different motive. Before we deal with that aspect, we look at the evidence of the witnesses to understand the events on the night of Crl.Appeal Nos.850/2016 and Connected cases - 21 -

the murder. PW15, a friend of the deceased, took the victim-deceased to his residence. The deceased had come to the house of PW15 at around 8.30 p.m on 16.11.2008 and remained till 10.30, when PW15 took the deceased in his bike. From Sasthripuram junction they turned right and on reaching in front of Athira Club, the accused, standing on the dock, waylaid them. PW15 identified each of the accused standing in the dock. The accused had iron pipes in their hands and A1, pointing to the deceased, who was riding pillion, specifically said that 'he is the one we have decided upon'. Then A2 placed an iron pipe on the front of the bike and A3 placed another on the body of the deceased. At that point, an autorickshaw came from the opposite direction, when the accused and PW15, along with the deceased, escaped from the said place. On enquiry, the deceased told him that there was a dispute regarding a contract work and the deceased intervened to help PW2. PW15 also said that they were waylaid between 10.30 and 10.45 p.m. He identified MO1 & MO2 weapons held by A2 & A3.

Crl.Appeal Nos.850/2016

and Connected cases - 22 -

13. PW2 is the injured witness, who was with the deceased and PW3, when they were stalked by the accused and later attacked. PW2, along with his father, runs a provision shop at Kalath Junction. He was in his shop at around 9.30 p.m, when PW3 joined him. Then the deceased was dropped in front of his house, which is opposite to the provision store, by PW15. The deceased came back after he changed his dress and by around 10 O'clock, he joined PW2 & PW3. He told them about the incident when he was waylaid by the accused, who had weapons in their hands. The deceased also said that it was a narrow escape. Later, PW2 closed his shop and gave the key to his father. The deceased wanted to accompany PW3 to his house and PW2 joined them. They walked towards east when they heard the sound of a scooter and turning back they saw A1 on the scooter, talking into a mobile phone. Immediately they saw all the accused emerging from the property of PW6 and they had iron pipes and other weapons in their hands. The accused were talking amongst themselves and pointing in their direction, upon which Crl.Appeal Nos.850/2016 and Connected cases - 23 -

they walked further east. When the accused followed them, they took to their heels and on reaching Thoppuveli junction, the deceased and PW2 paused. The accused and PW3 were not seen anywhere.

14. The deceased and PW2 waited for PW3, on the way to PW3's house, when again a scooter approached them from the southern side. A1, who was riding the scooter, told them that they had escaped earlier, but now there is no escape. Then PW2 asked what mistake they committed, when A1 took a telephone and immediately from the shrubs to the west of the road the other accused emerged. They surrounded PW2 and the deceased and A2 exhorted the others to beat them to death and struck the deceased on his head and forehead with an iron pipe. A3 too hit PW2 with an iron pipe and also on the deceased. All the accused together, with the wooden pieces and iron pipes, brutally beat them all over the body. Both fell down and PW2 lost consciousness. PW2 said that the incident occurred around 11-11.30 p.m and he was maimed from the brutal attack. His left eye suffered reduced vision and his sense of smell was lost. He had to replace his front Crl.Appeal Nos.850/2016 and Connected cases - 24 -

teeth and he suffered grievous injuries on his forehead and open-skull surgeries were conducted twice or thrice at Lakeshore Hospital. He identified MO1 to MO5 weapons respectively in the hands of A1 to A5. He spoke of having seen the weapons in the hands of the accused at Kalath junction. At the scene of occurrence, the witness said that, there was light from the nearby houses and the Temple. He also identified the footwear worn by him, MO6, recovered from the scene of occurrence and the dhoti worn by the deceased, MO7.

15. PW3 spoke in tune with PW2's deposition and spoke of having run faster than the others, especially since he was a sprinter in School and University, with the distinction of being the fastest sprinter in the District. He stopped at the end of the road and not seeing the others, waited for sometime and proceeded back. He heard a cry and he turned into another road and hid there. After 2-3 minutes he again heard a cry and he ran through the Temple compound. He heard the sound of an autorickshaw and he was told that PW2 and the deceased were attacked and they were injured grievously. He was Crl.Appeal Nos.850/2016 and Connected cases - 25 -

brought back by his cousin Rajeev and PW5. PW3 identified all the accused specifically. He said that he will not be able to identify the weapons brandished by each of the accused, but still identified the weapons as MO1 to MO5. He identified the black Activa scooter in which A1 came to the spot, but did not remember the number.

16. PW4, who has his residence near the scene of occurrence, at around 11.30 pm, while watching television, stepped out to relieve himself and saw A1 on a scooter, talking to PW2 and the deceased in the Temple compound. He stepped out to join them, when he saw the other accused coming from the western side, who he identified as persons working with A1. A2 is said to have exhorted to beat them to death, when A3 beat the deceased on the head. The accused together mercilessly attacked the victims and PW2 fell down. The deceased limped towards the pond, slipped on his dhoti and fell down. All the accused had weapons with them, which were identified as a thick pipe with A2, a lean one with A3, a wooden piece and a pipe with A4, a flat piece with A6, an iron pipe with A6 and a pipe with a bent in A5's hands. He Crl.Appeal Nos.850/2016 and Connected cases - 26 -

identified all the accused from the dock and spoke of having witnessed the incident in the light from the house of Rajesh and the mercury light at Thoppuveli junction as also the tube-light of the Temple and bright moon-light. He affirmed the presence of PW1. He spoke of his mother having swooned by reason of which he returned home. He witnessed the seizure of the scooter and the mobile phone, from under its seat and identified both.

17. PW5 is another ocular witness; who regularly spends the night in the house of PW3, where PW3 and his father were alone. He reached PW3's house around 10.30 p.m, where, himself and PW3's father watched TV for sometime. Later, on the request of PW3's father, PW5 went in search of PW3 and took the company of Rajeev. While Rajeev and PW5 were proceeding to the southern portion of Thoppuveli Temple, they saw the accused A2 to A6 surrounding PW2 and the deceased inside the Thoppuveli compound. He also saw A1 sitting on a scooter on the roadside. He too spoke of the attack in tune with what was stated by the other witnesses. He identified the witnesses from the dock and affirmed the fact that A2 to Crl.Appeal Nos.850/2016 and Connected cases - 27 -

A6 were the employees of A1. He identified the scooter in which A1 was sitting.

18. PW6 is a person residing near Kalath junction. At around 11.00 p.m, he heard the sound of people speaking inside his property and he saw about five people with weapons walking north to east, who were identified as A2 to A6. They were found to be hiding near the road proceeding to Thoppuveli near the eastern boundary wall of the witness. A1 came in a scooter, stopping which, he talked over the phone, when A3 stepped out and the other accused followed. He saw A1 pointing towards the east and speaking to the other accused. He spoke of having seen the accused in the light of the sodium vapour lamp and though he said he could recognise the weapons, he was unable to identify the ones in the hands of each of the accused for reason of passage of time.

19. PW7 accompanied PW15 earlier in the evening to the house of the deceased and had returned since deceased was not available. He speaks of having seen the accused near the Athira Club on his way to the deceased's Crl.Appeal Nos.850/2016 and Connected cases - 28 -

house and on the way back. PW15 did not speak about the said incident and hence we eschew the evidence of PW7. PW8 is a Ward Councillor, who was available at the time of inquest and witnessed the report at Ext.P2. In cross-examination, she said that she had seen PW3 being picked up from the scene of occurrence and taken in a Police jeep. She went to the hospital in the night itself and on the next day also, she spoke of having constituted an Action Council to expedite the arrest of the accused.

20. PW9, a loading and unloading worker, attested Ext.P3 scene mahazar, by which MO3 (weapon), a wooden plank, MO6 a pair of footwear, MO7 a Kaili and MO13, sample soil were seized. PW10 and PW11 respectively witnessed Ext.P4 and Ext.P5 scene mahazars. Ext.P4 is the mahazar identifying the place where PW6 found them hiding and Ext.P5, the mahazar identifying the place where the accused converged before chasing the victims. PW12 witnessed the recovery of MO2 as per Ext.P6 recovery mahazar, which recovery was by A3. PW13 likewise identified A5 and the weapon recovered by him as per Ext.P7 mahazar. PW14 is the mahazar witness to Exts.P8 & Crl.Appeal Nos.850/2016 and Connected cases - 29 -

P9, the first, the dress of the deceased and then MO4 pipe, both recovered by A6. PW14 also witnessed Ext.P10 mahazar by which MO10 weapon was recovered by A2. PW16 witnessed P11 recovery by A7 of MO9 pipe. PW19 witnessed Ext.P14 recovery mahazar, by which MO1 pipe was recovered by A1. He also witnessed seizure of MO8 scooter and MO11 mobile phone. PW20 is the Village Officer who prepared scene plans Ext.P16 to P19.

21. PW17 is the Doctor at the M.C.H., who marked Ext.P12 wound certificate of PW2. He deposed that when PW2 was first examined, though he was conscious, he was not oriented or moving his limbs. He spoke of the injuries as noticed in Ext.P12 and specifically said that injury No.1, a lacerated wound of size 8x3x2 cms on the forehead with a depressed fracture in the frontal bone, at the mid-frontal region, was sufficient in the ordinary course to occasion death. He affirmed that MO2 could cause such an injury. Injury No.5, over the left temporal scalp was also sufficient to endanger a life, since it was sustained on a vital part controlling bodily movements. PW2 hence barely escaped the jaws of death. He Crl.Appeal Nos.850/2016 and Connected cases - 30 -

also attested to the fact that the injuries sustained by the person could be caused by the weapons produced as MO1, MO3 to MO5 and MO9. The patient was in a critical stage and was discharged to be transferred to a higher hospital at the request of the bystanders. He affirmed that the alleged history as shown in Ext.P12 was 'having been found on the road at Thoppuveli'. There was another person brought dead, who was also attended to by PW17; obviously the deceased in this case.

22. PW18 is the Doctor who treated PW2 at the Lakeshore Hospital, Ernakulam and issued Ext.P12 Wound Certificate. He too spoke of the patient being conscious but disoriented, the wounds sustained as seen from Ext.P13 and the treatment procedures. As per Ext.P13, the patient suffered severe head injury with compound fracture and multiple skull and facial fractures. He spoke of the injuries being possible by the weapon shown to him, which were marked earlier. The patient was discharged on 28.11.2008.

23. PW21 is the Doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination and he marked report as Ext.P20. Crl.Appeal Nos.850/2016

and Connected cases - 31 -

Blood stains were detected on the body along with white sand particles sticking to the body. There were 15 injuries on the body, abrasions, contusions and lacerated wounds validating the allegation of a brutal attack on the victim. Death was opined to be due to the blunt injury sustained to the head, injuries No.2 & 3, which were independently capable of causing death. The Doctor identified each of the injuries, which could be caused by MO1 to MO5 weapons. It was also opined that injuries Nos.1 & 2, which were lacerated injuries on the scalp, could be misunderstood as cut injuries inflicted with a sharp weapon, by a layman. Her opinion was that they could be caused by the blunt weapons shown by the I.O and such lacerated injuries mimicking as incised wounds are classified as 'incised looking lacerated wounds'. She admitted that in the report, only three weapons were referred, since those alone were shown to her by the I.O. Even in cross-examination, she asserted that the injuries on the head could be caused by a hard blunt object. A suggestion that injuries 1 to 3 could be caused in a hit and run motor vehicle accident was stoutly denied. Crl.Appeal Nos.850/2016

and Connected cases - 32 -

Another suggestion that since most of the injuries are on the right side, there could be no attack on the left side was also denied. It was pointed out that when a person is beaten up, he would not remain static and would change his position to ward off the blows thus resulting in injuries all over the body. Despite lengthy cross- examination by each of the accused, the testimony of the Doctor remained the same and we find that homicide is established unequivocally, that too in a brutal attack in which a number of persons together showered blows on the victim with blunt objects causing fatal injuries. That the injured PW2, barely escaped death is also proved by the injuries sustained by him from the wound certificate as issued at the first instance and the treatments carried out on him, as deposed to by the respective Doctors. Sections 302 and 307 of IPC are definitely attracted.

24. The recoveries are seriously challenged by the defence specifically on the aspect of delay in forwarding the recovered material objects to the Court. The recoveries attributed to A1 were witnessed by PW19. Crl.Appeal Nos.850/2016

and Connected cases - 33 -

Ext.P14 is the recovery mahazar, by which MO1 pipe was recovered. The confession was on 22.11.2008 at 1.30 p.m. The recovery was on 23.11.2008 at 10 a.m. Ext.P15 is the mahazar, by which a scooter was recovered near the house of Mathai @ Babu and from under its seat, a mobile phone. The said recovery was at 4.30 on 23.11.2008. This definitely raises a suspicion, since both the witnesses in Exts.P14 & P16 mahazars are one and the same. Further, the ownership of the scooter or the subscriber of the SIM card, which was in the mobile, was not established by the prosecution.

25. We have specifically referred to each of the recoveries herein above. MOs were recovered on 17.11.2008 (MO3), 02.12.2008 (MO9), 02.12.2008 (MO4), 14.12.2008 (MO5), 17.12,2008 (MO2), 23.12.2008 (MO1) and 25.12.2008 (MO10). But the same were submitted before Court by Property Lists; Ext.P54 (MO10 - A4's weapon recovered by A2), Ext.P55 (MO2-A3), Ext.P56 (MO5-A5), Ext.P57 (MO1- A2's weapon recovery by A1), Ext.58 (MO3 wooden piece by Scene Mahazar) and Ext. P59 (MO4 & MO9-A6 & A7), dated 23.01.2009. The explanation of PW22, the first I.O., is Crl.Appeal Nos.850/2016 and Connected cases - 34 -

that he had entrusted the weapons, on recovery, to the Writer in the Police Station, which is not a satisfactory explanation. Further, it has to be noticed that MO10 recovery was made by PW23 on 25.12.2008. PW22 was transferred on 17.12.2008 and PW23 took charge on 18.12.2008. The property list, Ext.P54 dated 25.12.2008, by which MO10 weapon was forwarded to Court was signed by PW22. There is no satisfactory explanation for the same. Considering the entire circumstances of the recovery, we are not satisfied that any of these can be relied upon. The scientific evidence of presence of blood on the recovered weapons, wherever seen, also hence cannot be relied on to find the guilt of the accused.

26. The recoveries though not to be found as an incriminating circumstance against the accused, we cannot but notice the ocular evidence led in the case, which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held does not depend upon the number, but on the credibility, even if there be, only a solitary eye-witness. Umar Mohammad v. State of Rajasthan [(2007) 14 SCC 711] held that 'non-recovery of incriminating material from the accused cannot be a Crl.Appeal Nos.850/2016 and Connected cases - 35 -

ground to exonerate them of the charges when the eyewitnesses examined by the prosecution are found to be trustworthy'(sic). PW2 was in the eye of the storm and was grievously injured, which injuries, according to the Doctor, who examined him first and subsequently treated him, could have turned fatal. The presence of PW2 in the locality, cannot at all, be doubted since his father runs a shop opposite to the residence of the deceased. His testimony that usually he downs the shutters of his shop at 11 p.m also cannot be doubted. Himself and PW3 were talking just before the shop was being closed, when the deceased came in a bike. There is some discrepancy with respect to the time since PW15 speaks of having started from his house at 10.30 p.m and both PW2 & PW3 speaks of the deceased having come to PW2's shop after changing his dress at 10 O'Clock. The witnesses are speaking about an incident which occurred long back and it cannot be assumed that every activity will be clocked with precision; looking at a time-piece. It can be safely found that PW2 & PW3 were present in the night of 16.11.2008 in the shop of PW2 when the deceased was Crl.Appeal Nos.850/2016 and Connected cases - 36 -

dropped near his house.

27. The deceased joined them and together they proceeded to PW3's residence. PW2's evidence indicates that his provision store is to the north of Kalath junction on the eastern side of the road. From the shop, the three friends walked east when they heard a scooter stopping on the Kalath junction. They turned around to see A1, who was on the rider's seat speaking over a mobile phone, when the other accused emerged from the property of Baburaj, ie. PW6. PW6 spoke of having seen the accused walking through his property and hiding near the northern boundary wall. The inconsistencies brought out from his testimony, regarding the exact boundaries in his prior statement to the police, is inconsequential. His testimony that A1 stopped in the road and then the other accused emerged from the shadows to join A1 and then A1 pointed in the direction of the three friends cannot be doubted. PW2 & PW3 spoke of the accused carrying weapons, the identification of which from the MOs produced, we ignore, since the recoveries were not proved. But the description of the weapons held by A2 to Crl.Appeal Nos.850/2016 and Connected cases - 37 -

A7, has been spoken of by PW 6 and PWs.2 to 4; which were iron pipes, flats and a wooden piece. That the deceased and PW2 were attacked with hard and blunt weapons is fairly proved by the medical evidence, which was specifically on examination of the injuries sustained by the victims. There is nothing to disbelieve the testimony of PW2 & PW3 that the assailants had weapons in their hand.

28. There is a question raised as to whether there existed a sodium vapour/mercury lamp, which the I.O categorically stated that none of witnesses disclosed. From (i) Ext.P4, the place where the accused were found hiding by PW6, (ii) Ext.P5, the junction where the accused converged and chased PWs.2 & 3; as spoken of by them and PW6 and (iii) the scene mahazar, Ext.P3; it is clear that there are a number of houses on both sides of the road. In addition to the light of sodium vapour lamp, all the witnesses spoke of there being sufficient light from the neighbouring houses as also the light from the nearby Temple. It was also asserted that it was a moonlit night. The witnesses who saw the assailants on Crl.Appeal Nos.850/2016 and Connected cases - 38 -

that night committed no error in the identification made of them.

29. On seeing the accused converging at the Kalath junction and A1 threateningly, pointing in their direction, the three friends first walked briskly and then broke into a run. This could only have been due to the earlier incident spoken of by PW15, of himself and the deceased being waylaid by the very same persons. On reaching the Thoppuveli junction, PW2 and the deceased stopped running, in the hope that they have given the slip to the assailants; who were not visible. PW3 also had sprinted fast and was not visible. At that precise moment, again A1 came in the scooter and specifically threatened them that they would not be allowed to escape. PW2 having queried as to what crime they committed, A1 picked up the telephone and summoned the others who emerged from the nearby shrubs. This was witnessed by PW4 who had stepped out of the nearby house and seen A1 along with PW2 and the deceased. A2 exhorted the others to beat them to death and then the accused together incessantly showered blows on the two, killing one and maiming Crl.Appeal Nos.850/2016 and Connected cases - 39 -

the other, as spoken of by PW2 and PW4. PW3 did not speak of having witnessed the incident, but corroborates the version of PW2 till the friends took to their heels, on seeing the assailants converging at the Kalath junction. PW8 has a contention that PW3 was picked up on the same day by the Police and she saw him being taken in the Police jeep. The said contention has relevance with respect to PW22 having not disclosed the name of the accused to Court, even on the 23rd when A1's remand application was made.

30. Even going by PW8's testimony, PW3 was present in the locality and was a neighbourhood resident, who had very friendly relationship with PW2 and the deceased. The allegation of the defence is that despite

(i) PW3, being in police custody on the same night, (ii) the eyewitnesses, except PW2, having been questioned on the very next day, (iii) the house of all the accused searched on the same day, the I.O did not report the details of the accused to the Magistrate's Court. It was also argued that even in the affidavit accompanying the application for custody of A1, marked as Ext.D13, the Crl.Appeal Nos.850/2016 and Connected cases - 40 -

I.O spoke of eight accused. PW22, the I.O specifically deposed that he did not report the name of the accused, since he wanted to carry out further investigation and ascertain their involvement. It is also pertinent that he carried out search of the residence of the accused, wherefrom, the I.O admits he received no incriminating material. True, the intimations of search were received at the Court with delay, but in the circumstance of nothing incriminating having been projected as seized on the search, the delay is not relevant. The explanation that the I.O wanted to ascertain the true facts and that the reference to 8 accused instead of 7, in Ext. D13, was an inadvertent error is satisfactory. As for PW3, he admits in his deposition that there was a press conference convened, in which he had attempted to distance himself from the incident, due to pressure from his family, since they apprehended that his plans to go abroad for employment would be hampered, if he is involved in the investigation as an eye-witness.

Crl.Appeal Nos.850/2016

and Connected cases - 41 -

31. PW4 is another ocular witness, who spoke of having seen the incident when he stepped out of his nearby residence at around 11.30 p.m, to relieve himself. In fact, his specific case is that on seeing A1 on the scooter walking to PW2 and the deceased, he was stepping out of his house to join them, when he saw the other accused emerging from the western side and surrounding the two victims. He also spoke of A2 having exhorted the others to kill the two persons, who were surrounded by the accused. Again PW4 spoke of having seen the incident in the light from Rajesh's house; which was spoken of by PW2 also. PW4 too spoke of the moonlight and the light from the Thidappalli of the Temple.

32. PW5 claimed to be a regular in the house of PW3, spending the night with PW3 and his father. He also spoke of having seen the incident. His testimony was that he went to PW3's house on that night and on the request of PW3's father, went in search of PW3. He, along with a cousin of PW3, Rajesh, went in search of PW3 when he witnessed the incident. We find the testimony to be not Crl.Appeal Nos.850/2016 and Connected cases - 42 -

trustworthy. Though he claimed to be the friend of PW3, who had been regularly keeping PW3's father company, at night, before and after the incident, he feigned ignorance about PW3's affairs, specifically PW3's marriage and divorce. In cross examination he said that PW3 used to come home by 8 or 9 in the night. On the day of the incident, before Court he spoke of having reached the house of PW3 at 10.30 pm and having watched television with PW3's father after which he went in search of PW3 at the request of the father. However, none of these things were stated to the Police, which were put to him as omissions and proved through PW22. Another major omission was with respect to the statement before Court that while himself and Rajesh went in search of PW3, and were walking through the temple compound, they saw the deceased and PW2 surrounded by the accused, which was not stated before the Police. He admitted that he had not described the scooter in which A1 was sitting, when he gave his first statement on 17th and that it was stated only when he was summoned to the station after about one and a half days. He Crl.Appeal Nos.850/2016 and Connected cases - 43 -

prevaricated with respect to the number of days after his statement, when the scooter was shown to him.

33. Before Court, it was deposed that the statement earlier recorded was not read over to him on 23.11.2008; which he had categorically admitted in his second statement before the Police, which was marked as Ext.D4 contradiction. His testimony regarding his conduct after the incident also does not inspire confidence. PW3's statement was that after he heard cries from the temple compound, he was accompanied by PW5 and Rajesh back to his house. According to PW5, he reached PW3's house around 12 O'Clock and made no enquiries about PW3, when he reached back after witnessing the incident. He said that he did not make any such enquiry since he did not feel that it was warranted. Ext.D5 was another contradiction about the light in which he saw the incident. He denied his statement to the Police that he accompanied the injured to the MCH Hospital, marked as Ext.D6. PW5 hence does not inspire confidence as an eye witness. He would have gone in search of PW3 and returned with him, as deposed by PW3; but he cannot be believed on Crl.Appeal Nos.850/2016 and Connected cases - 44 -

his version of having witnessed the attack.

34. The contradictions marked of the other witnesses are not relevant and inconsequential in the light of the overall facts, as discernible from the testimonies which are fairly corroborated. The testimonies of PW2 to PW4 and PW6, according to us, are trustworthy. PW6, from his house, saw A1 coming in a scooter and stopping at the junction, to speak on the phone, when the other accused hiding near his property, emerged from the shadows. This was witnessed by PW2 and PW3, who also spoke of the earlier incident, as did PW15; of PW15 and the deceased being waylaid and threatened the two travelling in a bike. The witnesses, PWs.2, 3 & 6 also spoke of A1 having pointed his finger in the direction of the deceased, PW2 and PW3. PW2 and PW3 along with the deceased having taken to their heels stopped a little further when the assailants and PW3 were not to be seen. Corroborating the version of PW2, PW4 a nearby resident, saw A1 in a Scooter talking to PW2 and the deceased. PW4 was about to step outside when he saw the other accused emerging from the darkness Crl.Appeal Nos.850/2016 and Connected cases - 45 -

and surrounding PW2 and the deceased. Naturally, PW4 retraced his steps, presumably out of fear; but he witnessed the incident. Though there is a discrepancy about the sodium vapour lamp, having not been specifically mentioned to the police, as deposed by PW22; there was sufficient light at the junction and in the scene of occurrence. The nearby residences were lit and so were the temple premises. All the witnesses testify that it was a moon-lit night. We find no reason to discard the testimony of the eye witnesses.

35. The next question arising is on the different motive established in the evidence. Admittedly the Court taking cue from the final report spoke of an injury inflicted on one Tony on the same day at 10 p.m. PW2 and the deceased were alleged to be members of Thoppuvely Sangham and the attack on them, being a retaliation of the earlier incident. The motive so projected was disowned by the prosecution witnesses and the I.Os, PW22 and PW23. Before Court, the testimony of the witnesses were that, A1 had taken a building contract from PW2's father, which led to some disputes in Crl.Appeal Nos.850/2016 and Connected cases - 46 -

which the deceased intervened on behalf of PW2. Motive as is trite is something remaining in the inner recesses of the mind of persons and often the investigators would be incapacitated in ferreting out the same.

36. In Hari Prasad (supra) the prosecution alleged motive of enmity, but the person against whom the ire was directed escaped with his entire family and mistakenly a priest who was a guest, his mother and an innocent servant were killed. It was held: 'For the matter of that, it is never incumbent on the prosecution to prove the motive for the crime. And often times, a motive is indicated to heighten the probability that the offence was committed by the person who was impelled by that motive. But, if the crime is alleged to have been committed for a particular motive, it is relevant to inquire whether the pattern of the crime fits in with the alleged motive' (sic). Their Lordships held that, the accused therein, were entitled to the benefit of the perplexity arising for reason of the many answers coming reasonably to the mind. In the case we are dealing with, no such perplexity arise and though gang war was Crl.Appeal Nos.850/2016 and Connected cases - 47 -

alleged in the final report; there was no such long standing enmity, but a dispute which motivated A1 to round up a few of his employees to gang up and unleash an assault on the two who dared to stand up to him. The pattern of crime in this case fits either of the motives and it does not give rise to a doubt of an inextricable link between the motive and crime being totally absent. Yunis @ Karia (supra) also found failure to prove motive for a crime, to be of no consequence.

37. Even in a case built on purely circumstantial evidence, motive is not imperative and if established, it only provides a link in the chain of circumstances. However when direct evidence is available, absence of motive takes a back seat and it turns out to be inconsequential and irrelevant, as rightly argued by the learned Prosecutor. True, the final report and the evidence led, projected a different motive for the crime; which does not digress from the fact that two persons were attacked, grievously injuring one and killing the other. The assailants were the accused as specifically spoken of by the witnesses. We also have Crl.Appeal Nos.850/2016 and Connected cases - 48 -

to emphasize that one of the eye witnesses is the injured who, as held by the Honourable Supreme Court, can have no perceivable reason to implicate another for the injuries caused to him. The records of investigation and the final report only indicates a suspicion harboured by the I.Os as to the attack being a retaliation of the earlier incident and one arising from a gang war. The witnesses however, categorically denied even the existence of the two named gangs spoken of in the suggestions made at the time of cross examination.

38. A6 & A7 alleged that there are no specific overt acts alleged against them and omnibus allegations have been thrown in their face. A6 also pointed out from the medical evidence, the absence of serious injuries caused by the weapon purportedly carried by him. Onkarnath Singh (supra) was a case of private defence, which held that the non-explanation of the injury on the accused would not invariably establish a prima facie case of private defence, thus shifting the burden on to the prosecution to prove that the injuries were caused in self defence. Deo Narain (supra) reiterated that when Crl.Appeal Nos.850/2016 and Connected cases - 49 -

S.149 was attracted the factum of whether any of the accused caused an injury or not would not always be relevant. On the facts of that case the injuries inflicted by one of the accused, after the victim was first shot, were held to be not significant to rope him in, for an offence under Section 302 especially in the context of the others having been attributed with significant roles in the murders. Yunis @ Karia (supra) also held that: 'Even if no overt act is imputed to a particular person, when the charge is under Section 149 IPC, the presence of the accused as part of an unlawful assembly is sufficient for conviction.' (para 9). In a case where the charge is under section 149: 'The legal position is well established that inference of common object has to be drawn from various factors such as the weapons with which the members were armed, their movements, the acts of violence committed by them and the result.' [sic- Surendra (supra)]. This was reiterated in Vinubhai Ranchhodbhai Patel (supra). We find the accused having converged at three places, near Athira Club, at the Kalath junction and the scene of occurrence with the Crl.Appeal Nos.850/2016 and Connected cases - 50 -

objective of attacking the injured and killing them and carried it out together, brutally with blunt weapons.

39. We also do not attach any value to the contention raised by A1 that the wound certificate of PW2 indicated that he was taken from the road side. Admittedly, the incident occurred between 11.00 and 11.30 p.m, when the scene of occurrence was deserted, but for the victims and assailants and also PW4, a nearby resident, whose presence cannot be doubted. After the attack both the victims were left lying on the ground. None of the people who converged on the scene of occurrence, after the attack, saw the incident. Both the victims were picked up from the temple compound grievously injured and bleeding and taken to the hospital. One was declared dead and the other was grievously injured with no orientation. Obviously a by-stander gave the history, which is true, if we look at the circumstances in which the injured were picked up from the compound of the temple and taken to the Hospital. PW1 the first informant spoke of running to summon an auto, on recognising the deceased to be his Crl.Appeal Nos.850/2016 and Connected cases - 51 -

sister's son. While he was running, he detected another person lying on the wayside, who on close observation was his friend's son. He alerted the others gathered there about PW2, lying injured, literally by the wayside; who was also taken to the hospital after the deceased. The history spoken of in the wound certificate, juxtaposed with the detection of the injured, does not at all give rise to any suspicion whatsoever.

40. The absence of any pool of blood in the scene of occurrence to even clearly pin point the place where the victims were lying, emphasized by the defence, is natural for the scene being the temple compound having white sand; the particles of which were detected from the body of the deceased at the time of post-mortem examination. PW22, the I.O had spoken of having gone to the scene of occurrence between 3.00 and 3.30 a.m after the incident when there were people moving around; presumably for reason of the terror instilled by the concerted attack on two young men of the locality. Though there was a scene guard, the footfalls in the compound of the Temple also would have contributed to the absence of Crl.Appeal Nos.850/2016 and Connected cases - 52 -

pools of blood; which anyway would have been absorbed in the sandy terrain. The defence also called to question the conduct of the I.O in not having questioned any of the locals, when he went to the spot; which we find to be untenable. The I.O specifically said that he read the FIR, registered at 2.30 a.m, before he came to the spot. There were apprehensions of a gang war and hence it was only proper that the Officer in Charge carry out a surveillance of the area. It was also categorically deposed by PW22 that he formally took over the investigation in the morning of 17.11.2008.

41. One another contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for A1 is that, he is an 'A' Class Contractor, whose muster roll produced before the Labour authorities would have established the factum of the other accused being his employees. The prosecution having failed to establish the same, it cuts at the root of the prosecution case, is the compelling argument. We do not see the status of A1 having been established by the defence. The prosecution case is only that A1 is a contractor and A2 to A7 are his employees. It has been Crl.Appeal Nos.850/2016 and Connected cases - 53 -

spoken of by all the local witnesses; not seriously disputed also. In building contract work carried out by individuals, there is no reason to assume regular workers in the employment of the contractor. The evidence led by DW1 and DW2, purportedly to exonerate A5 and A2, fails to impress us. DW1 is the Principal of an Industrial Training Centre, who deposed that A5 had completed a course in Automobile Engineering. As rightly found by the trial court, A5 has not been shown to be engaged in the employment for which he has a qualification. Further, merely because of A5 having acquired a qualification in Automobile Engineering, it cannot be assumed that he would not be working with a building contractor. DW2 claimed to be an Electrical Contractor, who deposed that A2 was in his employment having been recommended by a senior electrician. However, there is nothing to evidence the employment, produced before Court. The fact that A2 to A6 were employed by A1, who is a building contractor, is not a relevant fact, and is an ancillary fact which has been spoken of by the witnesses who are all acquainted with the accused. Crl.Appeal Nos.850/2016

and Connected cases - 54 -

42. There were flaws in the investigation like timely submission of, intimations of search and production of recovered weapons having not been made. A motive projected; which was not evident even from the prior statements of witnesses. Kailash Gour (supra) was a case in which there was an attack on a house by a mob, in a surcharged communal atmosphere; where the Police reached the scene immediately, but failed to record the first information of the eye-witness. The FIR was registered after the inquest and the post-mortem; which prompted the Court to accuse the I.O of being either stupid, ill-trained and ignorant of law and procedure or there being no clue available as to the actual perpetrators. The Court, in the circumstances coming forth in that case, held the second explanation as more probable of the two. The fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent till proved guilty was restated and caution reiterated that 'suspicion howsoever strong can never take the place of proof'. Allarakha K. Mansuri v. State of Gujarat (2002) 3 SCC 57 held :

Crl.Appeal Nos.850/2016

and Connected cases - 55 -

"The defects in the investigation holding it to be shaky and creating doubts also appears to be the result of the imaginative thought of the trial court. Otherwise also, defective investigation by itself cannot be made a ground for acquitting the accused."

The dictum was followed in Prithvi (Minor) v. Mam Raj, (2004) 13 SCC 279 and it was held that faulty investigation can hardly be a ground to reject the testimony of eye-witnesses which had a ring of truth in it. We have found the eye-witnesses except one to be credible, trustworthy and believable.

43. On the strength of the ocular testimony of PW2, who was grievously injured in the incident, PW3, who corroborated the incident just prior to the attack unleashed and the presence of all the accused who pursued them, we find no reason to doubt the guilt of the accused. PW6, a resident of the locality, had seen the initial preparation made by the accused and PW4, residing near to the scene of occurrence, had also witnessed the attack unleashed. PW15 spoke of a prior incident when the Crl.Appeal Nos.850/2016 and Connected cases - 56 -

very same accused threatened the deceased. The testimonies offered by the above witnesses, corroborate each other and convince us that the alleged acts were committed by the accused themselves. We have doubted the recoveries made of the weapons; but, however, the medical evidence categorically establish the injuries having been inflicted by blunt and hard objects; which were seen in the hands of the accused by the eye-witnesses. The ocular witnesses spoke of such weapons having been carried by A2 to A6, with A1 supervising and controlling the attack. A1 though did not carry a weapon, had the common intention along with the six others and is equally responsible for the murder of one person and the near fatal injuries suffered by the other. The recoveries were carried out in a shabby manner and the material objects were not forwarded to the Court in a timely manner. As rightly observed by the trial court, every mistake of the investigators do not help the accused; nor can they claim exoneration based on a faulty investigation. Basing reliance on the testimony of the injured witness, Crl.Appeal Nos.850/2016 and Connected cases - 57 -

corroborated by the other witnesses, we uphold the conviction and affirm the sentences imposed on the accused. We reject the appeals.

Sd/-

K. Vinod Chandran Judge Sd/-

C. Jayachandran Judge jma/sp/lgk/vku.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court