Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
8. Sri.V.S.Sreejith, the learned Public Prosecutor, reads out the evidence of PW65 to project the prosecution case. It is argued that to instill fear in the mind of the society and to thus establish their Crl.Appeal Nos.883, 462 & 882/2016 formidable presence, the organization in which the accused were members decided to carry out killing of innocent people. To that end, the accused conspired together and set out in three vehicles to various parts of the District. A5, A6 & A7 went in MO1 bike, A8 & A9 in another bike and A10 & A11 in MO7 scooter. The scooter of A10 & A11 toppled and they could not proceed. As far as A8 & A9 are concerned, they attempted an attack on PW8 which was foiled on PW8 raising an alarm. The learned Public Prosecutor refuted the arguments of the appellants regarding the light, the recovery and the conspiracy. PW2 spoke of the street light, being a mercury lamp. Looking at the scene plan, Ext.P25, it is clear that the house-cum-shop of PW2 was very nearby to the junction in which the street light was put up. PW2 in cross- examination has stated that he opens the shop in the light available from the street lamp. A5 had stepped out from the bike and talked to PW2. A7 who was driving the bike, though sitting on the bike was facing east, Crl.Appeal Nos.883, 462 & 882/2016 since after the incident they proceeded towards the junction in the north-east location. The identification of A5 & A7 is very clear.
39. As far as the prior acquaintance and the entire incident having occurred in a flash; it is to be noticed that the victim who was subjected to a brutal attack would have been left with a lasting impression of the person who attacked him. As we noticed, it was at an odd hour that three strangers came to his shop and one of them approached him for tea. There was an interaction between them and when the eyes of the witness was riveted on the lock, which he was attempting to open, A5 attacked. Though the first attack happened in a flash, there were four cuts made on the body of the victim and the victim would have Crl.Appeal Nos.883, 462 & 882/2016 definitely noticed the features or at least the face of the man, who, without any cause or provocation attacked him. We also looked at the contention regarding the absence of light. Ext.P25 is the scene plan and there is an electric post very near to the crime scene. PW35, from the KSEB, has specifically referred to the post having No.E/JK/25 as indicated in the scene plan and produced the Certificate Ext.P21 to the effect that there was no complaint of power failure in the locality. He also deposed that there was no power cut by the employees of the KSEB. The proximity of the street lamp to the scene of crime would commend us to further hold the identification of A5 to be be proper and believable; that too when the witness is the injured victim. However, we are not convinced that PW2 would have identified A7, who was sitting at a distance, clad, head over in black, in the driver's seat of the bike.