Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The prosecution case in brief is as follows:-

Dileepan, the deceased in this case, was the Secretary of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) of the Chakkad branch and PW1 and PW2 were the workers of the said political party. The accused were the workers of another political party, namely, the National Development Front (NDF). As one of the workers of NDF, namely, Sainudheen was murdered by CPI(M) activists, there arose a political rivalry between these two parties, and the accused Nos. 1 to 16, who were the workers of NDF, on 24.08.2008, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons in a coconut plantation of one Hamza situated at Chakkad and in prosecution of the common object of the said assembly to murder Dileepan, the accused wrongfully restrained Dileepan, who was enroute to CRL.A No.399/2019 & CRL.A No.409/2019 :6: 2026:KER:10700 his house, accompanied by PW1 and PW2 and attacked him with dangerous weapons. The 1st and 14th accused allegedly hacked Dillepan with axes on his face and head, the 2 nd accused hacked on his leg and shoulder with a sword, and the other accused, who were holding dangerous weapons like sword and axe, also inflicted injuries on Dillepan. When PW1 and PW2 attempted to escape by running from the spot, the 4 th accused, who followed them, beat them on their back with a stick and hence inflicted injuries on them. After the incident, though Dillepan was taken to Amala Hospital, Iritty and thereafter for better management to Co-Operative Hospital, Thalassery, he succumbed to the injuries. Hence, the accused are alleged committed the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324 and 302 r/w 149 of the IPC and Section 5(1)(a) r/w Section 27 of the Arms Act.

8. We heard Sri. P.Vijayabhanu and Sri. Renjith B.Marar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri. T. R. Renjith, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

9. This is a case in which a 32-year-old man named Dileepan, a local-level leader of CPI(M), a political party, was brutally killed due to political rivalry. The accused, who faced the charge for the murder of Dileepan belong to NDF, another political party, and according to the CRL.A No.399/2019 & CRL.A No.409/2019 :9: 2026:KER:10700 prosecution, the said murder was a retaliation for an incident in which one Sainudheen, an NDF activist, was allegedly killed at the hands of CPI(M) activists. The incident that led to the death of Dileepan occurred on 24.08.2008 at 9.00 p.m. According to the prosecution, in the very same incident, two other CPI(M) workers, who were then accompanying Dileepan, also sustained injuries at the hands of the assailants.

11. When PW1, the first informant, who is allegedly an injured in the incident, was examined, he deposed that he is a resident of Muzhakkunnu, Chakkad. He was acquainted with the deceased Dileepan from childhood onwards, as both of them belonged to the same locality. The deceased was the Secretary of CPI(M), Chakkad branch, and he was a loyalist of the said party. The incident in this case occurred on 24.08.2008 at 9.00 p.m. On the said day, at 3.00 p.m., he, along with deceased Dileepan and PW2, was near the Chakkad Ovappally area and was engaged in joining subscribers for Desabhimani Daily. They were so engaged till CRL.A No.399/2019 & CRL.A No.409/2019 :10: 2026:KER:10700 8:30 p.m. At 8:30 p.m., they reached Ovappally and Dileepan purchased tomato, onion and a packet of biscuits from the shop of one Murali (PW8). Thereafter, he, along with PW2 and Dileepan, proceeded to the house of Dileepan, and they were holding torch lights in their hand. They accompanied Dileepan as there existed a life threat to Dileepan. Initially, all of them proceeded through a pathway which passes near Chakkad mosque and thereafter entered the property of one Hamza so as to go to Dileepan's house. There was an old toilet in the said property. While they were proceeding to the house of Dileepan through the said property, around 10 to 16 NDF activists suddenly encircled them and attacked Dileepan. Out of the assailants, he had an acquaintance with 5 to 10 assailants. The 1st accused, Latheef, uttered "സ ന ദ നന ന ന ന" യ നന മകള ട and approached Dileepan with an axe. Then, Dileepan said that "എട ലത ഫഫ ഞ ന ട ദ ല യ ട" ". Then the 1st accused replied that "ന നന തനനയ ട ഫടണത " and hacked on the head and face of Dileepan using the axe. At that time, Basheer (A7) and Farook(A9) caught hold of Dileepan. Then Siddique (A2) hacked at the leg and shoulder of Dileepan using a sword. At the time when A2 hacked, Dileepan attempted to evade the attack. Then Yakoob (A8) also assisted in restraining Dileepan. A8 was also holding an axe in his hand. Then Dileepan asked him, as well as PW2, to escape. Afraid of the accused, when he, along with PW2, was escaping from the spot and when he turned back, he saw Gafoor (A14) hacking Dileepan with an axe. While running from the spot, Unnais (A4) beat on his as well as PW2's back with a wooden stick. He witnessed the incident in the torchlight held by him as well as PW2. Apart from that, A3 and A5 were lighting torches from both sides of Dileepan. After escaping from the spot, when he, along with PW2, reached the road near a CRL.A No.399/2019 & CRL.A No.409/2019 :11: 2026:KER:10700 mosque, they met Prakashan (PW3). When PW3 asked what happened, he told him that NDF activists had hacked Dileepan and requested to save Dileepan. Thereafter, they went to a hospital at Peravoor in an autorickshaw and met a doctor. Both of them were admitted in the said hospital. Then the police came and recorded his statement. Ext.P1 is the said statement. PW1 identified A1 to A9 and A14 before the court. However, in the chief examination itself, PW1 deposed that the names of the other accused were stated by him to the Police as told by others who came to see him in the hospital. When PW1 was confronted with two axes, he identified the same as the weapons used by A14 and A1, and they were marked as MO1 and MO2, respectively. The Lungi, shirt and chappal worn by the deceased Dileepan at the time of the incident were marked as MO3 to MO5, respectively. According to PW1, the murder of Dileepan was a retaliation for the murder of one Sainudheen.

31. Apart from the above, PW3 deposed that when he reached near the Chakkad Madrasa, he saw PW1 and PW2 running in panic and shouting that NDF workers were killing Dileepan. However, PW3 has no case that PW1 and PW2 stopped upon seeing him or sought his assistance to take the injured to the hospital. Likewise, PW1 and PW2 also do not claim that they stopped and assisted in taking the injured to the hospital. Such conduct is highly unnatural and contrary to ordinary human behaviour, especially when the prosecution case is that PW1 and PW2 were accompanying Dileepan due to the threat he was facing from NDF workers. In the normal course of human conduct, they would have stopped and rendered assistance. Therefore, the testimony of PW3 that he saw PW1 and PW2 immediately after the incident cannot be believed. In a recent judgment in Nimai Ghosh v. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) - [2025 SCC Online SC 2337], the court observed that in cases where an eye-witness to an incident takes no steps whatsoever to save the life of the deceased and leaves the place of the incident wihout furnishing any information to the Police or intimating the relatives or friends of the deceased, then his conduct cannot be seen as that of a normal human being, and his conduct would be relevant fact while testing his evidence for credibility.