Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

& 403/2014 & CRA(V).

forensic experts examined the vehicle, PW165 seized the vehicle and the articles in it.

4.1. The investigation of the case was then transferred to the Crime Branch, where the case was re-registered as CBCID Crime No.406/CR/HHW-

III/KKD/2012, and a Special Investigation Team was constituted. The first arrest was on 15.05.2012 of A31 Pradeepan M. K @ Lambu, and based on the information furnished by the said accused PW164 Dy.SP recovered five swords (MO1 Series) from a well. Later, the accused who had allegedly committed the murder, the conspirators and the persons who aided, abetted, and harboured the main accused were all arrested. The investigation was thereafter completed, and PW166 Dy.SP Crime Branch CID, HHW-III, Kozhikode laid the final report before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vatakara, against 76 accused, under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302 read with 149 IPC and Sections 465, 471, 118, 201, 212, 120B, 109 IPC and also under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The Trial Court Proceedings:

5.1. After hearing the prosecution and the defence, the trial court vide its order dated 19.12.2012 discharged accused nos.54 and 61 under Section 227 Crl.P.C after finding that there was no sufficient ground for proceeding against them. Charges were thereafter framed against the remaining 72 accused under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302 read with 149 IPC and Sections 465, 471, 118, 201, 212, 120B, 109 IPC and also under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. All the accused pleaded not guilty to the charges.

2. A16 Shibu P.C., A17 Sreejith K., A22 Sanoop M.P., A28 P.M. Rameesh and A30 Raveendran M.K. were found not guilty of the offences punishable under Section 302 read with 115 IPC and Crl.A.Nos.172, 174, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 339 :: 33 ::

& 403/2014 & CRA(V).

under Section 118 IPC and were accordingly acquitted under Section 235 Cr.P.C.

3. A19 Aswanth C.K. was found not guilty of the offences punishable under Section 465 and 118 IPC and under Section 302 read with 109 IPC and was accordingly acquitted under Section 235 Cr.P.C.

39.1. The learned counsel for A18 would argue that in view of the use of phones by A1 and A3 not being proved, the said corroborative evidence could not be relied upon to sustain the finding of guilt against A18. While we find some force in the said argument, inasmuch as we too have excluded the CDR data pertaining to the phones used by A1/A3 by finding the said Crl.A.Nos.172, 174, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 339 :: 139 ::

& 403/2014 & CRA(V).

evidence to be inadmissible, we are nevertheless inclined to agree with the finding of the trial court on a different line of reasoning. We are of the view that the entrustment of the Innova vehicle to A18 having been proved and A18 not having given any explanation as to how the vehicle entrusted to him came into the possession of A1, the ingredients to support a finding of conspiracy stood established against A18. However, in the absence of a specific charge of conspiracy against him, he cannot be found guilty under Section 120B of the IPC. That, however, does not prevent us from considering the ingredients of conspiracy established against him for the purposes of finding him guilty under Section 109 of the IPC since the offence defined in Section 107 of the IPC is deemed committed if "a person engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing". We are, therefore, in complete agreement with the finding of the trial court that holds A18 guilty of the offence under Section 302 read with 109 of the IPC. However, we find that the said evidence, without anything more, cannot be used to find that A18 had voluntarily concealed the existence of a design to commit murder of T.P. Chandrasekharan to establish a charge under Section 118 IPC. We also find no reason to interfere with the finding of the trial court that acquits A18 for the offence under under Sections 465 and 471 of the IPC.