Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. A statement was recorded by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Cherpu from Sajeev at 10.30 p.m. on the same day while he was undergoing treatment in the hospital and a case was registered at 11.30 p.m. on the basis of the information furnished by Sajeev under Sections 324, 307 and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The case was in fact against four recognizable persons. The investigation in the case revealed that a few activists of the political party, Socialist Janatha Dal (SJD) attempted to murder the sixth accused namely, Sivadas on an earlier occasion and the sixth accused believed that Deepak Crl.A.No.355 of 2020 & con. case 2025:KER:30323 was behind the attempt made on his life. It was also revealed that on account of the said reason, accused 1 to 10 hatched a conspiracy to commit the murder of Deepak, and it is in pursuance of that conspiracy, accused 1 to 5 came to the scene on the relevant day in a Maruti Omni Van bearing registration No.KL-08-N-7252 and accused 1 to 4 among them attacked Deepak and others, while fifth accused was remaining in the van and thereafter fled from the scene in the same van. The investigation also revealed that among accused 1 to 4, the second accused stabbed Deepak, with the knife carried by him, on the right side of his neck and also on his left hand and the third accused hacked Deepak with the sword carried by him, on his left hand. The investigation further revealed that three persons namely, Sajeev, Stalin and Sunil were then standing near the scene and it was they who attempted to prevent the attack on Deepak. The investigation further revealed that the second accused is the person who attacked Sajeev also by stabbing him on his back and the fourth accused is the person who hacked Stalin with the sword carried by him. The final report was accordingly filed against the accused alleging Crl.A.No.355 of 2020 & con. case 2025:KER:30323 commission of offences punishable under Sections 120B, 109, 201, 324, 326, 307 and 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. It is alleged in the final report that the Maruti Omni Van in which accused 1 to 5 came to the scene of occurrence was one that was purchased by the sixth accused with the help of the seventh accused and the accused abandoned the said Van after the occurrence and proceeded further in a Santro Car bearing registration No.No.KL-14-G- 4060. The allegation against accused 8 to 10 in the final report is that they collected from accused 1, 3 and 4 the swords used by them while they were switching vehicles near Kottangode Bridge and entrusted the same to the tenth accused. It was also alleged in the final report that the tenth accused, in turn, concealed the same in a river.

9. The witness examined as PW1 in the case is Sajeev. PW1 was the driver of a goods vehicle operating from Pazhuvil Centre. The version of PW1 as regards the occurrence was that on 24.03.2015 while he was engaged in conversation Crl.A.No.355 of 2020 & con. case 2025:KER:30323 with Stalin and Sunil in front of the shop situated on the opposite side of the ration shop of Deepak, PW1 saw four persons proceeding to the ration shop at about 8.30 p.m., after crossing the road from the east; that one among them was then carrying a knife and others were carrying swords; that the person who was carrying the knife suddenly ran towards Deepak who was standing in front of his shop and stabbed on his neck forcefully and that thereupon, even though the said person stabbed Deepak again aiming at his chest, the stab fell only on his left hand. PW1 identified the second accused as the person who stabbed Deepak. According to PW1, he then rushed towards Deepak to help him and when he did so, the second accused turned towards him and stabbed him also aiming at his neck and that the said stab fell on the back side of his neck. It was the version of PW1 that he then moved back a little and at that time, he saw another person hacking on the left hand of Deepak with a sword. PW1 identified the third accused as the person who hacked Deepak then. It was also the version of PW1 that in the meanwhile, Stalin made an attempt to save Deepak and another person then hacked Crl.A.No.355 of 2020 & con. case 2025:KER:30323 Stalin also on his neck with the sword carried by him and the said hack, when warded off by Stalin with his left hand, caused a serious injury on his left hand. PW1 identified the fourth accused as the person who hacked Stalin. It was also the version of PW1 that one among the four persons then brandished a sword carried by him uttering that if anyone approaches Deepak, he would also be done away with. PW1 identified the first accused as the person who brandished the sword. It was deposed by PW1 that the above four persons thereupon, ran towards east and even though PW1 and Sunil followed them, they got into a green coloured Maruti Omni Van parked nearby and fled therefrom. It was deposed by PW1 that they then rushed back to Deepak and took him to Elite Mission Hospital, Thrissur in the car of Deepak. It was explained by PW1 in his evidence that he entered into the back seat of the car along with one Noushad, a staff of Deepak and held Deepak on his lap; that Stalin sat in the front seat of the car and Sunil drove the car to the hospital. PW1 affirmed that it was he who gave Ext.P1 First Information Statement on the basis of which the case was registered. It was clarified by PW1 Crl.A.No.355 of 2020 & con. case 2025:KER:30323 in his evidence that there were two street lights and lights from the nearby shops at the relevant time. It was also deposed by PW1 that test identification parades were conducted later, on 31.03.2015 and 01.04.2015 at Viyyur Jail and he identified the second accused who stabbed Deepak and him, the third accused who hacked Deepak, the fourth accused who hacked Stalin, the first accused who brandished the sword and the fifth accused who drove accused 1 to 4 away from the scene of occurrence, each from among a group of about ten persons, in more than one instance. PW1 identified MO1 as the sword brandished by the first accused, MO2 as the sword used by the third accused to hack Deepak and MO3 as the sword used by the fourth accused to hack Stalin.

11. The witness examined as PW2 was Stalin. As regards the occurrence, PW2 gave evidence more or less on similar lines as the evidence given by PW1. It was specifically stated by PW2 that the person who stabbed Deepak was a dark lean person. PW2 identified the second accused as the said person and deposed that it was he who stabbed PW1 also. PW2 also identified the third accused as the person who hacked Deepak on his left hand. It was deposed by PW2 that thereupon, one among the assailants hacked him also aiming at his neck and the same fell on his left hand when warded off. PW2 identified the fourth accused as the person who hacked Crl.A.No.355 of 2020 & con. case 2025:KER:30323 him. PW2 also identified the first accused as the person who brandished the sword to frighten them. It was clarified by PW2 also that there was light at the scene from two street lights as also from the nearby shops. As deposed by PW1, PW2 also deposed that they went to the hospital in the car of Deepak, driven by Sunil and that PW2 was sitting in the front seat of the car. It was deposed by PW2 that he was admitted and treated in the hospital for three days. As in the case of PW1, PW2 also deposed that he identified, correctly, the second accused who stabbed Deepak and PW1, the third accused who hacked Deepak, the fourth accused, who hacked him and the first accused who brandished the sword, in the test identification parades, each from among a group of about ten persons in more than one instance. As in the case of PW1, PW2 also identified MO4 as the knife used by the second accused to stab Deepak and MO1 as the sword brandished by the first accused. Similarly, PW2 identified MO2 as the sword used by the third accused to hack Deepak and MO3 as the sword used by the fourth accused to hack him. In cross-examination, PW2 also denied the suggestion put to him that the assailants were Crl.A.No.355 of 2020 & con. case 2025:KER:30323 wearing masks.

38. The case of the prosecution as against accused 1 to 5 is that accused 1 to 4 among them went to the scene of occurrence on the relevant day at about 8.30 p.m. in the Maruti Omni Van driven by the fifth accused and that the second accused stabbed Deepak with the knife carried by him, Crl.A.No.355 of 2020 & con. case 2025:KER:30323 on the right side of his neck and also on his left hand; the third accused hacked Deepak on his left hand and that when PW1, PW2 and Sunil attempted to prevent the attack on Deepak, the second accused stabbed PW1 on his back and the fourth accused hacked PW2 on his left hand. It is also the case of the prosecution that the first accused created a scene of terror at the relevant time by brandishing the sword carried by him. The accused do not dispute the fact that PWs 1 and 2 sustained injuries in the occurrence and to prove the same, the prosecution examined PWs 1 and 2. Both PWs 1 and 2 gave evidence consistent with the case of the prosecution as regards the occurrence and the said witnesses identified accused 1 to 4 as also the weapons used by them in Court. Even though PWs 1 and 2 were cross-examined at length, nothing was brought out to discredit their evidence. Admittedly, a few discrepancies were present in the evidence of the said witnesses, and the accused also brought on record a few contradictions. But, the said discrepancies and contradictions were not on the core aspect of the evidence tendered by the accused as regards the occurrence and would Crl.A.No.355 of 2020 & con. case 2025:KER:30323 not, therefore, be an impediment for this court in accepting the evidence tendered by PWs 1 and 2. The fact that the witnesses sustained injuries would show that they were present at the place of occurrence and saw the same by themselves and convincing evidence is, therefore, required to discredit injured witnesses. It was held by the Apex Court in Brahm Swaroop v. State of U.P., (2011) 6 SCC 288 that where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the occurrence, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with an in-built guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailants in order to falsely implicate someone. In the light of the said principle, we do not find any reason to reject the evidence tendered by PW1 and PW2.