VALODATH SASI @ PACHADI SASI v. STATE OF KERALA

2025:KER:30106

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN TUESDAY, THE 8 TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1947 CRL.A NO. 685 OF 2018 CRIME NO.94/2007 OF Kannavam Police Station, Kannur AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CP NO.53 OF 2008 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,KUTHUPARAMBA ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN SC NO.421 OF 2009 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - IV, THALASSERY

APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.8:

ANNERI VIPIN, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.PAVITHRAN, PAREKETTIL (H), KUTHUPARAMBA AMSOM, MOORIYAD, KUTHUPARAMBA.

BY ADVS.

SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI (SR.)

SRI.R.ANIL

SRI.T.ANIL KUMAR

SRI.M.SUNILKUMAR

SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B.

SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM NILACKAPPILLIL

SRI.THOMAS SABU VADAKEKUT

SRI.E.VIJIN KARTHIK

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

THE STATE OF KERALA

REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

2 2025:KER:30106

Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018

BY ADV. SRI. ALEX M THOMBRA, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.03.2025, ALONG WITH CRL.A.722/2018, 740/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 08.04.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

3 2025:KER:30106

Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN TUESDAY, THE 8 TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1947 CRL.A NO. 722 OF 2018 CRIME NO.94/2007 OF Kannavam Police Station, Kannur AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CP NO.53 OF 2008 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,KUTHUPARAMBA ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 04.04.2018 IN SC NO.421 OF 2009 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - IV, THALASSERY APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NOS.4 & 10 (IN JAIL):

1 ANNERI PAVITHRAN, AGED 59, S/O KUNHIRAMAN, PAREKKATTIL HOUSE,KUTHUPARAMBA AMSOM, MOORIYAD.

2 PALERI RIJESH @ RIJU, AGED 42, S/O VASU, KIZHAKKAYIL HOUSE, KUTHUPARAMBA AMSOM, MOORIYAD DESOM, MOORIYAD PARA.

BY ADVS.

P.K.VARGHESE

K.S.ARUN KUMAR(K/1588/2003)

M.T.SAMEER(K/3346/1999)

P.S.ANISHAD(K/560/2010)

DHANESH V.MADHAVAN(K/298/2006)

JERRY MATHEW(K/658/2015)

BIJU KUMAR(K/1085/2018)

4 2025:KER:30106

Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018

SOJAN K. VARGHESE(K/1611/2019)

REGHU SREEDHARAN(K/653/2020)

APARNA ANIL(K/968/2020)

RAMEEZ M. AZEEZ(K/001008/2022)

NAMITHA K.S.(K/2262/2022)

SUDARSANAN U.(K/2436/2022)

ANU ASHOKAN(K/1343/2023)

ARJUN KUMAR K.S.(K/1680/2019)

ATHUL.P(K/001590/2023)

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & FORMAL PARTY:

1 STATE OF KERALA TO BE REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

KANNAVAM POLICE STATION,

KUTHUPARAMBA-670643.

BY ADV. SRI. ALEX M THOMBRA, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.03.2025, ALONG WITH CRL.A.685/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 08.04.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

5 2025:KER:30106

Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN TUESDAY, THE 8 TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1947 CRL.A NO. 740 OF 2018 CRIME NO.94/2007 OF Kannavam Police Station, Kannur AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CP NO.53 OF 2008 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,KUTHUPARAMBA ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN SC NO.421 OF 2009 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - IV, THALASSERY

APPELLANT/9TH ACCUSED:

PATTAKKA SURESH BABU, AGED 46 YEARS

S/O.CHATHUKUTTY, CHAMALAYIL HOUSE,

KUTHUPARAMBA AMSOM, MOORIYAD.

BY ADV SRI.NANDAGOPAL S.KURUP

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

2 BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,21,ROUSE AVENUE INSTITUTIONAL AREA,NEAR BAL BHAWAN,NEW DELHI-110002

SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 25/10/2023 IN CRL.A.740/2018

6 2025:KER:30106

Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018

BY ADV. SRI. ALEX M THOMBRA, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.03.2025, ALONG WITH CRL.A.685/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 08.04.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

7 2025:KER:30106

Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN TUESDAY, THE 8 TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1947 CRL.A NO. 775 OF 2018 CRIME NO.94/2007 OF Kannavam Police Station, Kannur AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CP NO.53 OF 2008 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,KUTHUPARAMBA ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN SC NO.421 OF 2009 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - IV, THALASSERY

APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.11:

VALODATH SASI @ PACHADI SASI

S/O CHATHUKUTTY, AGED 51 YEARS, SHAKHIL

NIVAS,KOOTHPARAMBA AMSOM, MOORIYAD DESOM, KUTTIKATTIL-670643.

BY ADVS.

R.ANIL R

SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI (SR.)

M.SUNILKUMAR(K/926/1989)

SUJESH MENON V.B.(S-1613)

T.ANIL KUMAR(K/101/2006)

THOMAS ABRAHAM (NILACKAPPILLIL)(K/857/2011)

THOMAS SABU VADAKEKUT(KL/001082/2017)

MAHESH BHANU S.(K/1620/2018)

S.LAKSHMI SANKAR(K/001642/2018)

RESSIL LONAN(K/1251/2020)

8 2025:KER:30106

Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSEUCTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-31.

BY ADV. SRI. ALEX M THOMBRA, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.03.2025, ALONG WITH CRL.A.685/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 08.04.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

9 2025:KER:30106

Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN TUESDAY, THE 8 TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1947 CRL.A NO. 790 OF 2018 CRIME NO.94/2007 OF Kannavam Police Station, Kannur AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CP NO.53 OF 2008 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,KUTHUPARAMBA ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN SC NO.421 OF 2009 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - IV, THALASSERY

APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NOS.2,3, 5 TO 7:

1 KUNNAPPADI MANOHARAN, AGED 58, S/O.ACHUTHAN, MANHAMPARAMBATH (H), KUTHUPARAMBA, MOORIYAD.

2 NANOTH PAVITHRAN, AGED 68,

S/O.KUNHIKANNAN, MANIKYA PARAMBATH (H),

KUTHUPARAMBA, MOORIYAD.

3 PATTAKKA DINESAN, AGED 60, S/O.CHATHUKUTTY, CHAMALAYIL (H), MURIYAD, KUTHUPARAMBU.

4 KALATHUMKANDI DHANESH, AGED 42, S/O.BHASKARAN, KUTTIMAKKOOL (H), KUTHUPARAMBU AMSOM, MOORIYAD.

5 KELOTH SHAJI @ KOYI SHAJI

AGED 46, S/O.BALAN, JANAKI NILAYAM,

KUTHUPARAMBU AMSOM, MOORIYAD.

BY ADVS.

10 2025:KER:30106

Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018

SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI (SR.)

SRI.R.ANIL

SRI.T.ANIL KUMAR

SRI.M.SUNILKUMAR

SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B.

SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM NILACKAPPILLIL

SRI.THOMAS SABU VADAKEKUT

SRI.E.VIJIN KARTHIK

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

STATE OF KERALA

REPRESENTED BY PUBIC PROSECUTOR,

HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

BY ADV. SRI. ALEX M THOMBRA, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.03.2025, ALONG WITH CRL.A.685/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 08.04.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

11 2025:KER:30106

Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018

JUDGMENT

[CRL.A Nos.685/2018, 722/2018, 740/2018, 775/2018, 790/2018]

Jobin Sebastian, J.

Criminal Appeal Nos. 685/2018, 722/2018, 740/2018, 775/2018, and 790/2018 arose out of the judgment of conviction an d order of sentence passed in S.C. No.421/2009 on the file of Sessions Court, Thalassery, whereby the accused Nos. 2 to 11 were found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 341, 307, 302 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code. Apart from the above-said offences, accused Nos. 2, 3 & 11 were found guilty of offence punishable under Section 147 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code, and accused Nos. 4 to 10 were found guil ty of offence punishable under Section 148 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code and they were convicted and sentenced for the said offences as well.

2. Altogether ten accused faced trial in this case . The case against the 1st accused was abated as he died after the commitment of the case to the Sessions Division. Out of the five a ppeals mentioned above, Criminal Appeal No. 685 of 2018 has been pre ferred by the 8th accused, Criminal Appeal No. 722 of 2018 has been p referred by the 4th

12 2025:KER:30106

Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018

and 10th accused, Criminal Appeal No. 740 of 2018 h as been preferred by 9th accused, Criminal Appeal No.775 of 2018 has bee n preferred by the 11th accused and Criminal Appeal No. 790 of 2018 ha s been filed by 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th and 7th accused.

3. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows :

The accused are loyalists of the Communist Part y of India (Marxist) [C.P.I.(M)], and Pramod and Prakashan, the deceased and injured in this case, were workers of the Bharatiya Janata Party [B.J.P.].

Due to political rivalry, on 15.08.2007 at 6.00 p.m. , accused Nos. 1 to 3 hatched a criminal conspiracy in the house of accus ed No.3. In pursuance of the conspiracy, on 16.08.2007 at 7.00 a.m. accus ed Nos. 1 to 11 and other five identifiable assailants formed themselve s into an unlawful assembly, armed with dangerous weapons, on a propert y where cashew trees were planted and in the prosecution of the co mmon object of the said assembly, the accused attacked Pramod and Prak ashan, while both of them were proceeding to Vannathimoola Bhagam from Muriyad by walking through a pathway situating close to the cashew tre e plantation. Accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 11 raised exhortations to hack and kill Pramod and Prakashan. Meanwhile, the 4th accused hacked Pramod with a chopper while accused Nos. 5, 9, and 10 with choppers, and accused Nos. 6, 7, and

13 2025:KER:30106

Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018

8 with swords repeatedly hacked Pramod and the other five identifiable assailants, struck Pramod’s head, legs, and hands b y using iron sticks and murdered him. Furthermore, the accused attempted to murder Prakashan by inflicting multiple hack and stab wounds to his h ead, hands, and legs with swords. Hence, the accused are alleged to have c ommitted the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 143, 147 , 148, 341, 326, 307, 302 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code.

4. On completion of the investigation, the final r eport was submitted before the Judicial First Class Magistrat e Court, Kuthuparamba.

As the case was one triable exclusively by the Cour t of Session, the learned Magistrate after complying with all the nece ssary formalities committed the case to the Court of Session, Thalass ery. After taking cognizance, the learned Sessions Judge made over th e case for trial and disposal to Additional Sessions Court-IV, Thalassery.

5. On the appearance of the accused before the Addi tional Sessions Court-IV, Thalassery, both sides were heard under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. Upon hearing under Section 227 of Cr.P. C. and perusal of records, as it was satisfied that this was not a fi t case to discharge the accused, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, fra med a written charge against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 143,

14 2025:KER:30106

Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018

147, 148, 341, 326, 307, 302 r/w 149 of IPC. When the charge was read over and explained to the accused, all of them plea ded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. The prosecution thereupon examined 24 witnesses as PW1 to PW24 and Exts.P1 to P25 were exhibited and marked . MO1 to MO9 were the material objects identified by the prosecution witnesses and marked in evidence. The contradictions in the 161 statement o f the witnesses brought out by the defence were marked as Exts.D1 to D8. Exts.D9 and D9(a) were the other exhibits marked from the side of the defence through prosecution witnesses. After completion of p rosecution evidence, when the accused were questioned under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., they denied all the incriminating materials brought out against them in evidence. Since it was not a fit case to acquit the accused under Section 232 of the Cr.P.C., the accused were directed to ent er upon their defence.

But no evidence, whatsoever, was adduced from the side of the accused.

7. After trial, accused Nos.2 to 11 were found guilt y of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 341, 307, 3 02 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted. Apart from the ab ove-said offences, accused Nos. 2, 3 & 11 were found guilty of the offe nce punishable under Section 147 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code, and ac cused Nos. 4 to 10

15 2025:KER:30106

Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018

were found guilty of the offence punishable under Se ction 148 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code and they were convicted. The acc used Nos.2 to 11 were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees seventy-five thousand o nly) each with a default clause to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 149 of the IPC.

8. The accused Nos.2 to 11 were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- each for offence punishable under Section 307 r/w 149 IPC . In default of payment of the fine, the accused were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.

9. The accused Nos.2 to 11 were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each for the offence punishable under Section 143 r/w 149 IPC.

10. The accused Nos.2 to 11 were sentenced to unde rgo rigorous imprisonment for one month each for the offence pun ishable under Section 341 r/w 149 IPC.

11. The accused Nos.2, 3, & 11 were sentenced to un dergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each for the off ence punishable under Section 147 r/w 149 IPC.

16 2025:KER:30106

Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018

12. The accused Nos.4 to 10 were sentenced to underg o rigorous imprisonment for 2 years each for the offence punis hable under Section 148 r/w 149 IPC.

13. The accused Nos.2 and 3 were found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 120(B), and they were acqu itted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. Similarly, accused Nos.2 to 11 we re found not guilty of the offences punishable under Section 326 r/w 149 of IPC and acquitted.

14. The rivalry, that existed between loyalists of t wo political parties, viz, BJP and CPI(M) had allegedly led to t he incident in this case, resulting in the death of Pramod and grievous injur ies to Prakashan. The deceased Pramod as well as the injured Prakashan (PW 2) were BJP workers, whereas the accused were CPI(M) loyalists.

15. The Sub Inspector of Police, Kannavam Police Stat ion had set the law in motion in this case, by registering a su o motu FIR on the basis of the telephonic information that he had received from the Sub Inspector of Police, Kuthuparamba. The Sub Inspector, who registered this case suo motu, was examined as PW1. According to PW1, on 16 .08.2007 while he was working as Sub Inspector of Police, Kannavam, at around 7.30 p.m., he received telephonic information from his colleag ue, the Sub Inspector of Kuthuparamba Police Station, that somebody had at tacked and injured

17 2025:KER:30106

Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018

two BJP workers named Pramod and Prakashan inside th e property belonging to Ayisha Company situated at Mooriyad. Immediately then, he entered the said information in the general diary m aintained in the Police Station and proceeded to Mooriyad along with his Pol ice party in the department jeep. When he along with the police par ty arrived at the scene he found blood stains here and there on the r oad from Morolicham to Palaparamba. He also found blood stains on the northern side of the one-foot pathway that leads to Vannathimoola from P alaparamba - Morolicham road. Moreover, loose chappals and a ch opper were also found lying there. Although he made enquiries, he was unable to find anyone. As the incident occurred in an uninhibited cashew plantation, he deputed a Police Constable for scene guard duty and proceeded to Indira Gandhi Co-operative Hospital to gather more informa tion. Upon arrival at the hospital, he learned that two BJP workers namely Pramod and Prakashan had already been taken to the said hospital with severe injuries.

Further inquiry revealed that Pramod, one of the in jured had succumbed to the injuries at approximately 9 a.m., while the ot her injured person was undergoing treatment in the ICU. He then returned t o the Police Station and informed his superior officers about the incide nt. Immediately thereafter, at around 9.30 p.m. he registered a cas e suo motu as crime

18 2025:KER:30106

Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018

No.94/2007 of Kannavam Police Station. Ext.P1 is the FIR so registered.

16. Prakashan, who sustained serious injuries in the alleged incident was examined as PW2. According to PW2, dur ing the period of occurrence in this case, he resided at a place call ed Ayodhya Nagar near Mooriyad and worked as a mason. On 16.08.2007, at 6.30 a.m., he left his house along with his brother (CW3, not examined) to go to work, as usual.

When they reached the road in front of his house, P ramod, the deceased in this case, as well as Jinoy (PW4) and Ramesan (P W3), also arrived there to go to work. Usually, they go to Kuthuparamba for work through a route that passes through Mooriyad. However, about one and a half months back, a political clash occurred between BJP and CPM workers, resulting in escalating tension in the area. Furthe rmore, they faced threats from the CPM workers. The CPI(M) workers even cond ucted searches on buses passing through Mooriyad, armed with weapons. Scared of the CPI(M) workers he as well as his friends avoided tr aveling through Mooriyad to reach Kuthuparamba. Instead, they opte d to go to Vannathimoola first, taking the Chullikkunnu road a nd from there they would proceed to Kuthuparamba by bus. On the alleged date of the incident, when he and others reached in front of the house of Valanki Vinod (PW5), they found PW5 standing there and afte r talking with him,

19 2025:KER:30106

Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018

he proceeded further with others. Pramod, the decea sed in this case was walking ahead of him. When they reached the road le ading to Palaparamba, around 10 to 16 assailants approached them. Then accused Nos.1, 2, 3, and 11 uttered to hack and kill them. By that time, the accused repeatedly hacked Pramod. It was the 4th a ccused who hacked Pramod first. Following it, accused Nos.6, 7, and 8 hacked Pramod with swords, while accused Nos.5, 9, and 10 hacked Pramod with choppers.

Five other identifiable assailants also hacked and beat Pramod using iron sticks as well as with other weapons. He was standi ng about 5 meters behind Pramod. He was unsure of what to do, so he raised the alarm and ran about 5 to 6 meters. But he stumbled and fell down. When he raised from the ground, someone hacked, aiming his head. Then he blocked the attack with his hands. Thereafter, those who hacked Pramod, hacked him also, incessantly. When he cried aloud, the accuse d fled from the spot to ‘Valiyavelicham Bhagam’. Immediately thereafter, h e contacted his wife over the phone and informed her that he had been as saulted and asked her to come urgently. He also contacted Shyju (PW7) . Approximately five or six minutes after the incident Valanki Vinod (PW5 ), Murali, and two or three ladies approached him. Then he asked for som e water, and one of them gave him water. After 20 minutes, a Tata sum o vehicle came and

20 2025:KER:30106

Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018

he as well as Pramod were taken inside the said vehi cle. Thereafter, he lost consciousness. It was on the next day while he was in the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode he regained memory. The assailants belong to his locality. PW2 identified all the accused befor e the court with their names. According to PW2, both he and the deceased, Pramod were BJP workers, while the accused were CPI(M) workers. It w as due to political rivalry the accused attacked him as well as Pramod. According to PW2, although he could identify the weapons used by the accused in the commission of the offence, he is unable to specify which accused used particular weapons. However, PW2 identified a ‘Chop per’ as the weapon used by the 4th accused. He also stated that the a ccused attacked him as well as Pramod with MO2 series swords and MO3 series Choppers.

17. Another occurrence witness, when examined as PW3, deposed that on 16.08.2007 at 6.30 a.m., he left hi s house to go for concrete work. When he reached Chulli Bhagam he met the deceased Pramod, Prakashan (PW2), Jinoy(PW4), and one Pradee pan. All of them walked together towards Vannathimoola, to catch a b us to go to work.

Except Pramod he as well as the others were going to work at Kolassery and Pramod was going to work at Vellachal. While w alking so, on the way he met Vinod (PW5) and his sister Nalini, and after exchanging a few

21 2025:KER:30106

Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018

words, all of them proceeded further. Pramod was th en walking ahead of all of them and Prakashan was walking behind him. H e as well as Pradeepan and Jinoy were walking behind Prakashan. Thereafter, while all of them crossed the road near Ayisha Company, sudde nly around 10 to 16 persons encircled Pramod, the deceased in this case , and Accused Nos.1, 2 3, and 11 uttered “ െവെടാ…െടാ…െകാെടാ…”. Then the 4th accused hacked Pramod using a chopper and accused Nos.6, 7, and 8 hacked Pramod with swords, and accused Nos.5, 9, and 10 hack ed Pramod with choppers incessantly. Thereafter, the accused turned toward s Prakashan.

When Prakashan attempted to take to his heels, he s tumbled down. Then the accused attacked Prakashan with weapons. The a ccused Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 10 hacked PW2 with swords and choppers re peatedly. Seeing that the accused are approaching PW3 and others, he as well as his friends Jinoy and Pradeepan ran away from the spot through the cashew tree plantation belonging to Ayisha Company. After half an hour he returned back to Chulli Bhagam and learned that bot h Prakashan and Pramod had been taken to hospital. PW3 identified all the accused before the court with their names. PW3 identified MO1 as the chopper used by A4. PW3 also identified MO2 series swords as the wea pons used by A6, A7, and A8. However, he admitted that he could not identify which specific

22 2025:KER:30106

Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018

accused used each of the weapons in the MO3 series. According to PW3, his statement was recorded by the investigating off icer after three days of the incident.

18. Another witness to the occurrence, when examined a s PW4, deposed that the deceased and the injured in this c ase were his neighbours and residents of his locality. The inci dent in this case happened on 16.08.2007, while he was walking towards Vannathimoola bus stop to catch a bus to go for his job. He was accompanied by Prakashan(PW2), Pradeepan(CW3), Ramesh (PW3), and P ramod the deceased, who were also heading to work. On the way they met Vinod (PW5), who was residing on the side of the road, an d after making a casual talk with him, all of them proceeded further. The deceased Pramod and injured Prakashan were walking ahead of the grou p. After passing Chullikkunnu Heights, when Pramod crossed ‘Palaparamba Valiya Velicham’ road, the accused Nos.1 to 11 approached Pramod by shouting “െവെടാ…െകാെടാ…”. Thereafter, all the accused encircled Pramod and hacked Pramod with weapons. After hacking Pramod they rushed towards Prakashan (PW2) and hacked him down. Even after Pra kashan fell down, the accused continued to hack at him. According to PW4 fearing that the accused would attack him and his friends, they ran towards Palapramba

23 2025:KER:30106

Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018

Bhagam and he then rushed to his house. Thereafter when PW4 was about to inform the neighbours about the incident, his father said that all the injured had been taken to hospital. Moreover, his father said he heard somebody giving directions to inform the matter to police. Afraid of the accused, PW4 as well as others remained near his ho use. According to PW4, he is acquainted with all the accused in this c ase as they belong to his locality. Apart from the accused facing trial in this case, five other persons were also involved in this case. PW4 identi fied all the accused before the court. He also identified the weapons of the offence.

According to PW4, the MO1 chopper was used by the 4 th accused. When MO2 series weapons were shown to PW4, though he identi fied those weapons as the weapons used by the accused, he depos ed that he could not specify who used each one. However, he admitted that it was accused Nos.6 to 8 who used the swords in the commission of the offence.

According to PW4 accused Nos.5, 9, and 10 used chop pers to hack the deceased and the injured. He also identified MO3 series weapons, as those used in the commission of the offence. According t o PW4, it was due to political rivalry, that the accused unleashed viole nce and attacked Pramod and PW2. According to PW4, the deceased Pramod and the injured Prakashan are B.J.P./R.S.S. workers and the accused are C.P.I.(M) workers.

24 2025:KER:30106

Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018

19. Another independent witness, PW5, who rushed to the scene after the alleged occurrence, testified that he res ides at ‘Chullikkunnu’.

PW2, the injured in this case as well as the decease d were familiar to him.

The incident in this case happened on 16.08.2007. On the morning of 16.08.2007 at around 7.00 a.m. he saw PW2, PW3, PW4 , and CW3 heading to Vannathimoola Bhagam to catch a bus for going for their work.

On seeing him, Rameshan (PW3) exchanged friendly wo rds with him and left the place by saying that, he was going for work . Five minutes after they departed, he heard a huge cry from Vannathimoola Bhagam. Hearing the same he immediately contacted his friend named Ashokan (PW13)

over the phone and asked him to come quickly. Then he proceeded to the place from where the outcry was heard. His sister a s well as one Dineshan also followed him. Upon arriving at the sce ne, he found Pramod lying in a pool of blood. Looking around, he spott ed Prakashan (PW2)

lying a short distance away, from the place where Pramod was found lying.

While rushing towards the house of Ashokan to fetch him, he found Ashokan and one Mohanan coming along with two other p ersons.

Meanwhile, his sister brought some water. Then Asho kan asked both Pramod and Prakashan whether they wanted water and g ave water to them. By that time Shyju (PW7) and one Santhosh also arrived at the

25 2025:KER:30106

Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018

scene. After ten minutes, a vehicle arrived and he along with others took Pramod and Prakashan to Indira Gandhi Co-operative Hospital in the said vehicle. After examining Pramod, the doctor reporte d that Pramod is no more. Thereafter, Prakashan, the injured in this case was taken to Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode for better management.

20. When Shyju, who arrived at the scene after the i ncident, was examined as PW7, he deposed that on 16.08.2007 at ar ound 7.20 p.m., Prakashan (PW2) one of the injured in this case, co ntacted him over the phone and said that “ എെ അടി, െവി”. After saying so PW2 disconnected the phone. Then he called back PW2 and PW2 told th at “എനിം േമാദിം െവം അടിം കിി്. െപെ് വാ”. Immediately then, PW7 disconnected the phone call and rushed toward the scene of the occur rence, accompanied by Sujeesh, Satheesh, and Santhosh. As PW2 said that the incident occurred near the house of Vinod (PW5), he rushed t o the said place.

When he reached there, Vinod, Ashokan (PW13), and s ome others were also present at the scene. Then PW2 was lying, soa ked in blood, approximately 7 to 8 meters away from there, Pramod , the deceased was found lying in a pool of blood. Five minutes after PW7’s arrival, a TATA Sumo Jeep came there and he along with others took Pr amod and Prakashan in the said vehicle and took them to hosp ital. Then, Pramod

26 2025:KER:30106

Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018

and Prakashan were partially conscious. Then he hea rd Pramod, the deceased saying the names of one Anneri Pavithran ( A4), Koyi Shaji (A7), Rajesh (A10), Dhanesh (A6), Vipin (A8), and some oth ers. When reached near Palathinkara, the conversation of the deceased dwindled into mere murmurs. Then he along with others took Prakashan and Pramod to Indira Gandi Co-Operative Hospital, where it was later conf irmed that Pramod had succumbed to the injuries. After giving first aid, Prakashan was referred to Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode. A ccording to PW7, the attack on Prakashan and Pramod was motivated by political rivalry.

21. The Circle Inspector of Police, Kuthuparamba wh o conducted the initial part of the investigation in this case was examined as PW24.

According to PW24, he took over the investigation o n 16.08.2007, and as part of the investigation, he prepared an inquest a fter reaching the mortuary of Government Hospital, Thalassery where t he body of Pramod was kept. Ext.P6 is the inquest report prepared by him. Thereafter, on 16.08.2007 he visited the scene of occurrence and p repared a scene mahazar in the presence of independent witnesses. E xt.P9 is the scene mahazar prepared by him. According to PW24, one cho pper found at the crime scene was taken into custody by him after des cribing it in Ext.P9 scene mahazar. Moreover, the chappals and a ball p en found at the crime

27 2025:KER:30106

Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018

scene were also seized as per Ext.P9 scene mahazar. The scientific assistant collected blood-stained soil found at the crime scene in three packets and handed over the same to him. The same was also taken into custody. Thereafter, he interrogated and recorded the statements of PW5 and CW7 (not examined). Then he filed a report bef ore the jurisdictional magistrate and Ext.P17 is the said report. Subsequen tly, the additional Sub Inspector, Kuthuparamba (PW17) recorded the statement of PW2, the injured, from Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode, and produced the said statement before him. On the basis of the said sta tement, he submitted a report before the jurisdictional magistrate showing the correct name and address of accused Nos.4 to 11 and Ext.P18 is the s aid report. Thereafter, on 25.08.2007 he effected the arrest of the 11th ac cused. Subsequently, accused Nos.2 to 10 surrendered before the jurisdic tional magistrate, and thereupon, he submitted an application for getting those accused into police custody and the same was allowed.

22. According to PW24, after the arrest of the acc used he interrogated all, and out of them accused Nos. 4, 5 , 6, 7, 8, and 10 had given separate confession statements and on the str ength of the disclosure statements made by those accused and as led by them he reached a place called Morolicham and recovered wea pons used in the

28 2025:KER:30106

Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018

commission of the offence which where kept separatel y in a concealed state from different places in and around the place of occurrence in this case. The mahazars prepared contemporaneously with the said recovery were marked in evidence as Exts. P2, P3, P4, P5, P7, and P8 and the relevant portions of the confession statements of t he accused recorded in the above-said seizure mahazars which led to the rec overy and proved through PW24 were separately marked as Exts. P2(a), P3(a), P4(a), P5(a), P7(a) and P8(a). The weapons allegedly recovered on the strength of the disclosure statement made by the accused were also identified by PW24 before the court. Moreover, PW24 identified the tho ndi articles recovered from the place of occurrence as well as the items re covered at the time of inquest. According to PW24, the weapons as well as the other items recovered by him were produced before the court, af ter entering it in the Ext.P22 property list. The forwarding note prepare d by him for sending the thondi articles for FSL examination is marked as Ext.P23. The FSL report received after the examination of the thondi articles, in this case, was marked as Ext.P24 through PW24. According to P W24, a further part of the investigation was conducted by PW22, his successor in office.

23. The successor in office of PW24, who conducted t he remaining part of the investigation when examined as PW23 deposed that

29 2025:KER:30106

Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018

he took over the investigation on 18.01.2008. According to him, as part of the investigation, he perused the records in this c ase and submitted a report before the jurisdictional magistrate adding Section 326 IPC.

According to PW23, it was he who laid the final repo rt in this case after the culmination of the entire investigation.

24. This is a case in which two B.J.P. loyalists were allegedly hacked with swords and dangerous weapons by C.P.I.(M) loyalists, out of political rivalry. In the incident, one of the inju red died and the other one survived the grievous injuries. The prosecution mai nly relies on the ocular evidence of the said injured witness, who is the sur vivor of the attack as well as the evidence of two other occurrence witness es to prove the matters that transpired in this case. Being a case built upon direct evidence of the ocular witnesses, the main question to be considered is whether their oral account regarding the incident is convincing and reliable.

25. Before delving into a detailed discussion regar ding the reliability of the evidence of the occurrence witnesses, it is noteworthy that even the defence is not disputing the fact that the death of Pramod, the deceased in this case is a homicidal one. Now it is apposite to have a look at the evidence given by the doctor who conducted th e autopsy

30 2025:KER:30106

Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018

examination, who was examined before the court as PW1 5. On examination before the court, PW15 deposed that on 1 6.08.2007 at 1.40 p.m., while she was working as an Assistant Surgeon at General Hospital, Thalassery, she conducted a postmortem examination o n Pramod, the deceased in this case and issued a postmortem certi ficate. The postmortem certificate issued by her is marked as E xt. P11. Referring to Ext. P11 postmortem certificate, PW15 testified tha t she had noted the following antemortem injuries in the postmortem examination;

● Total amputation of both legs just above the ankle with only skin attachment on the medial aspect on left leg and lateral aspect on the right leg;

● Multiple lacerated wounds exposing muscles inner asp ect of middle third of right leg measuring 3½ “long and 2” wide;

● Linear wound partially cutting tibia and fibula meas uring 5” long just below the level of amputation;

● 2.5cm long and 1cm wide oval-shaped wound on dorsal aspect of left foot over middle aspect partially cutting unde rlying muscles and bones 2½ “ long and 1” wide wound dorsomedial as pect of left forearm 3” above left wrist cutting underlying muscles and radius and ulna;

31 2025:KER:30106

Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018

● Another incised wound 1cm wide and 2.5cm “long 2 abo ve the previous wound. 2½ “ long and 1” wide incised wound o n the scalp 2.5cm above the hairline the middle line;

● Another incised wound bone deep 2½ “long 1” wide just above the previous wound with track fracture of underlying skull bone 2” long and 1” wide incised wound bone deep back of head 2”

behind the upper level of the left ear.

26. After referring to the postmortem certificate, the doctor opined that the death was due to multiple injuries causing blood loss and shock. When confronted with MO1, MO2 series, and MO 3 series weapons, and after verifying the same, the doctor opined tha t the injuries noted in the postmortem examination could be caused using th e said weapons. A conjoint reading of the evidence of PW15, and the p ostmortem certificate issued by her clearly shows that the death of Pramo d was certainly and undoubtedly homicidal in nature.

27. While considering the question whether the pro secution has succeeded in proving the occurrence as well as in proving the complicity of the accused in the commission of the offence, first of all, it is to be noted that it is a case in which there is direct evidence to prove the occurrence.

In addition to the ocular evidence of eyewitnesses, there exists evidence

32 2025:KER:30106

Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018

of an injured witness, which significantly strength ens the prosecution's case in proving the occurrence. Now the crucial ques tion is whether the evidence of the injured witness as well as that of t he eyewitnesses is reliable to be acted upon. When the injured witness was examined as PW2, on unequivocal terms he testified that he was brutally attacked by the accused by using dangerous weapons. The eviden ce of PW2 further shows that when he along with his friends including the deceased reached the place of occurrence, Pramod, the deceased in th is case was walking ahead of him and it was then the accused Nos.1, 2, 3, and 11 approached them by uttering “ െവെടാ… െകാെടാ…”. Then accused Nos. 4 to 10 incessantly hacked Pramod with swords and choppers. According to PW2, on seeing the same, when he attempted to flee from t he spot, he accidentally stumbled and fell down, and in the mean time, the accused mercilessly hacked him with weapons and inflicted gri evous injuries on him. It is pertinent to note that PW2 identified al l the accused before the court by their names and also deposed about the ove rt acts committed by each and every accused while Pramod was under attack . However, it is true that PW2 had not deposed about each and every overt act of the accused while he was under attack, rather what he s tated is that all the accused who attacked Pramod also attacked him inces santly. The fact

33 2025:KER:30106

Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018

that all the accused were familiar to PW2 and other eyewitnesses in this case is not disputed. More pertinently, the offenc e was committed in the daylight. Therefore, we find no reason to suspect the identification of the accused made by PW2 and other eyewitnesses before the court.

28. When the doctor who examined PW2 immediately af ter the incident was examined as PW19, she deposed that on 1 6.08.2007 at 8.20 a.m., while she was working as a Casualty Medical O fficer in Indira Gandi Co-Operative Hospital, Thalassery, she examined PW2 and issued a wound certificate. The wound certificate prepared by PW19 is marked as Ext.

P12. Referring to Ext. P12 wound certificate, PW19 d eposed that the alleged history was assault, and the following injur ies were noted in the medical examination of PW2;

1. Stab wound 3 x 1 cms in left chin;

2. Stab injury 5 x 3 cms behind the left ear lobe;

3. Bone deep lacerated wound with bleeding on the le ft occipital area;

4. Swelling of right forearm upper 3rd portion fract ure present;

5. Clear cut stab injury dorsum of the left hand ex tending up to the ring finger. Tendon and vessels injured;

6. Bone cut stab wound 20 x 10 cms, above the left a nkle with bleeding. Absence of left foot movement;

7. Bone cut stab wound 2 x 10 cms with bleeding latera l lower 3rd

34 2025:KER:30106

Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018

of right leg;

8. Abrasions over right knee creptus - Rt. ankle fracture noted;

9. Bone deep lacerated wound Rt. side of occipital area;

10. Stab injury over left chin with bleeding.

When MO1, MO2 series, and MO3 series weapons were sho wn to PW19, after verifying the same she deposed that the injur ies mentioned in Ext.P12 could be caused with weapons of that nature. It is obvious that the injuries sustained by PW2 in the incident are l ife-threatening in nature and being an injured witness, the evidence of PW2 h as to be accorded a special status. Unless a compelling reason exists, his evidence is not liable to be discarded. In Brahm Swaroop And Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh [AIR 2011 SC 280] the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:

“Where a witness to the occurence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailants in order to falsely implicate someone. Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness”

Thus, the evidence of an injured witness should be relied upon

35 2025:KER:30106

Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018

unless there are grounds for the rejection of his e vidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein.

29. Therefore, the only conclusion that can be arri ved on is that the evidence of PW2 can indeed form a reliable basi s for proving the incident alleged in this case. Moreover, it is not eworthy that this is not a case in which the prosecution is relying on the sol itary evidence of PW2, the injured witness, rather there is clinching evidence of PW3 and PW4 the other eyewitnesses to the occurrence. As stated earl ier, on examination before the court PW3 and PW4 fully supported the ca se of the prosecution. PW2, PW3, and PW4 consistently testif ied that the incident occurred at 6:30 a.m. while they were on their way t o catch a bus to go for their regular work. All of them deposed that t he deceased Pramod as well as Pradeepan (CW3) were also with them. The fact that i mmediately prior to the incident, PW3, PW4, and Pradeepan accompanied the deceased and the injured in this case is further es tablished by the evidence of PW5, who resides near the place of occur rence and who allegedly met all of them together before the incid ent. The evidence of PW5 in the above regard remains unchallenged in the cross-examination.

Similarly, the evidence of PW2 to PW4 that prior to the incident, they met

36 2025:KER:30106

Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018

PW5 also remains unchallenged in the cross-examinati on. Therefore, there is nothing to doubt that PW3 and PW4 were also with the injured and deceased in this case at the time when the accu sed unleashed an attack on the deceased and PW2. As already mention ed, on examination before the court PW3 and PW4 had deposed in a convi ncing manner even about the minute details of the incident. PW3 depo sed that all the accused approached them while they were almost cross ing the Ayisha Company road, and at that time, Pramod was walking ahead of all of them and Prakashan was walking behind Pramod. According to PW3, he as well as PW4 and Pradeepan were walking behind Prakashan and were 10 to 20 meters behind Prakashan. According to PW3, initiall y all the accused encircled Pramod, and accused Nos.1, 2, 3, and 11 s houted “െവെടാ…െടാ…െകാെടാ…”. PW3 deposed that the 4th accused then hacked Pramod with a chopper, accused Nos.6, 7, and 8 hacked Pramod with swords and accused Nos. 5, 9, and 10 hacked Pram od with choppers incessantly. It was thereafter, the accused turned towards Praka shan.

When Prakashan attempted to take to his heels, he s tumbled down, and then the accused attacked Prakashan with dangerous weapons. According to PW3, the accused Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 hack ed PW2 with swords and choppers repeatedly. Upon seeing the accused a pproaching him and

37 2025:KER:30106

Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018

the others, he and PW4 fled the scene through the c ashew plantation belonging to Ayisha Company . PW4, the other occurrence witness also testified regarding the incident in similar lines as spoken by PW2 and PW3.

Although PW3 and PW4 were subjected to searching cro ss-examination, nothing was brought out to discredit their evidence . Their evidence is mutually corroborative and free from contradictions and improvements of even minor nature. The medical evidence adduced in this case clearly shows that injuries corresponding to the overt acts assigned to the accused in the testimonies of PW2 to PW4 were noted in the postmortem examination of the deceased as well as the medical ex amination of PW2, the injured in this case.

30. One of the main contention taken by the learne d counsel for the appellants to assail the identification of the accused made by PW2, the injured witness is that if he could have identified the assailants, he would have stated their names to his wife during the phon e call made immediately following the incident. While consider ing the said contention, it is to be noted that, as rightly pointed out by t he learned counsel for the appellants, PW2 admitted that immediately after the incident, he contacted his wife over the phone. From his evidenc e it is further

38 2025:KER:30106

Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018

gatherable that he had not disclosed the names of t he assailants to his wife. As revealed from his evidence, what he stated to his wife was that he had been assaulted. Moreover, he asked her to c ome urgently. His evidence further reveals that immediately thereafte r, he also contacted one Shyju (PW7). However, PW2 had not deposed about the matters which he had told Shyju, when he contacted him over the phone, before the court. However, when the said Shyju was examined a s PW7, what he deposed is that, on 16.08.2007 at around 7.20 a.m. i.e, immediately after the incident in this case PW2 contacted him over th e phone and said that “എെ അടി, െവി” and after saying so, PW2 disconnected the phone.

According to PW7 then he called back PW2 and PW2 to ld that “ എനിം േമാദിം െവം അടിം കിി്. െപെ് വാ”. Immediately then, PW7 disconnected the phone call and rushed towards the scene of occurrence.

Ofcourse, the evidence of PW2 clearly shows that oth er than informing his wife that he had been attacked and asking her to com e fast, he had not disclosed who attacked him. Similarly, a conjoint re ading of the evidence of PW2 and PW7 shows that after the incident, PW2 al so contacted PW7 and informed him that he was assaulted and asked PW7 to come fast.

31. According to the defence counsel, if PW2 had k nown the

39 2025:KER:30106

Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018

names of the assailants or had identified them at t he scene, he would have disclosed their names to his wife as well as to PW7 when he contacted them. The learned counsel for the appell ants urged that PW2’s failure to mention the names of the accused to his wife and PW7, whom he contacted over the phone, shortly after the inci dent suggests that he was unaware of their identity. While considering the above contention, we cannot lose sight of the fact that, evidently PW2 h ad sustained several serious injuries in the incident. The evidence of PW19, the Doctor, who examined PW2 immediately after the incident, and the wound certificate issued by her reveals that PW2 had sustained 10 ser ious injuries and almost all of them were cut injuries that required i mmediate medical attention. Given the traumatic nature of the attac k, it is understandable that PW2’s primary concern was to seek medical assi stance and ensure his survival. Therefore, it is not prudent to expect PW 2 to have provided a detailed account of the incident, including the nam es of the assailants to his wife or PW7 immediately after the attack. His failure to do so does not necessarily imply that he was unable to identify th e assailants. Rather, it highlights the severity of his injuries and the urg ency of his need for medical attention. When viewed in the given circum stances, it can be seen that he contacted his wife as well as PW7, his friend, with the sole

40 2025:KER:30106

Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018

intention of seeking their assistance. Therefore, the non-mentioning of the names of the assailants by PW2 to his wife and PW7 is not a ground to enter into an automatic inference that he could not identify the assailants, especially when the conversations over the phone la sted for a few seconds. At this juncture, it is noteworthy that n one of the accused are strangers to PW2 but rather acquaintances. Moreove r, the offence was committed in broad daylight. Therefore, we find no reason to suspect the identification of the accused made by PW2 before the court.

32. PW5 is the first person who allegedly arrived a t the crime scene, following the incident in this case. The ev idence of PW5 shows that he is residing near the place of occurrence an d immediately prior to the incident in this case he saw PW2 to PW4, CW3 (n ot examined), and the deceased in this case heading to Vannathimoola Bhagam to catch a bus by walking near to his house. He clarified tha t on seeing them he made a casual talk with them and thereafter they pro ceeded. After a short while, he heard an outcry, and upon hearing th e same, he rushed to the scene of the occurrence followed by his sister and one Dineshan. His evidence further shows that on reaching there, he fo und Pramod, the deceased in this case lying at the place of occurre nce soaked in blood.

41 2025:KER:30106

Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018

Similarly, when he looked around, PW2 was found lying in a pool of blood, a short distance away from the place where Pramod wa s found lying.

According to PW5, one Asokan who also reached by th at time at the crime scene had given water to Pramod and Prakashan. His evidence further shows that it took around 10 minutes to take the injured to the hospital as a vehicle could be brought only then. Furthermore, the wound certificate prepared by PW19 and marked in evidence as Ext.P12 shows that it was PW5 who brought PW2, the injured to the hospital. P W5 also admitted the said fact.

33. The evidence of PW19, the Doctor who medically e xamined the injured after the incident deposed that PW2 was bro ught to the hospital with alleged history of assault. A perusal of the E xt.P12 wound certificate shows that the alleged history was that “ രിയാട് വ് േമാമായി വോൾ െവി പരിേൽപിു”. However, during the examination before the court, PW 19 did not state who provided her with the patient histo ry. Moreover, to a definite question put during the cross-examination, PW19 answered that she is not duty bound to mention the name of the pe rson who provided/narrated the history and the alleged cause of injury. Anyhow, a close scrutiny of the evidence of PW19 as well as th e wound certificate

42 2025:KER:30106

Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018

prepared by her, shows that the patient was drowsy and not responding to the questions. Therefore, commonsense is not compre hending to believe that, it was the patient who stated the alleged his tory to the Doctor.

Therefore the non-mentioning of the names of the as sailants by the injured at the time of examination by the Doctor has no significance at all.

Now by a series of judicial pronouncements, it is t rite that, when an injured is brought before a doctor for urgent medical attention, his primary concern is to save the life of the person brought t o him and to inform the matter to the police in medico-legal cases. Moreov er, it is well settled that the mere failure of the eyewitness to disclose the n ames of the assailants to the Doctor would not discredit him as an eyewitnes s. Doctors are primarily not concerned with the culprit but with me dical aid to the deceased. In the above regard, we are fortified by the decision in Pattipati Venkaiah v. State of Andra Pradesh [1985 (4) SCC 80] .

Therefore, if at all the injured was oriented, cons cious, and capable of speaking, the non-mentioning of the name of the ass ailants to the Doctor is insignificant. Reverting back to the evidence i n the case, it can be seen that, PW2 was not in a position to answer the ques tions put to him.

Therefore, it is gatherable that the history was no t stated by PW2, but probably by the person who brought him to the hospi tal, who is none

43 2025:KER:30106

Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018

other than PW5.

34. The learned counsel for the appellants contend ed that if PW2, the injured had duly identified the assailants he wo uld have naturally told their name to PW5 who reached the place of the occu rrence immediately after the incident. Furthermore, the learned couns el urged that after rushing to the spot on seeing PW2 in a pool of bloo d, the first question that would have been asked by PW5 would be what happe ned or who did it. According to him, the same is the thing that a n ordinary human being will do. The counsel further urged that PW5 spent ar ound ten minutes at the place of occurrence after the incident along wit h PW2, the injured. If that is so, it is highly suspicious why PW2 did not disclose the names of the assailants to PW5 and why PW5 did not ask PW2 wh o are the assailants. Evidently, PW5 does not have a case tha t, PW2 had disclosed the names of the assailants to him either when he re ached the place of occurrence or while he took PW2 to the hospital. W hile considering the question whether the non-disclosure of the names of the accused by PW2 to PW5, the nature of the injuries sustained to PW2 and his health condition, etc. cannot be overlooked. As already s tated around 10 cut injuries were inflicted on him. The injuries are c ertainly grievous and

44 2025:KER:30106

Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018

life-threatening in nature, though he survived luck ily. The evidence of PW19, the Doctor, who medically examined PW2 clearly shows that death would have been caused unless proper and timely medi cal treatment had been given to PW2. Absolutely, there is no evidenc e to show that PW2 was then in a condition to speak. We are cognizant of the fact that, immediately after the incident, PW2 contacted his wi fe as well as PW7 to secure their assistance. Moreover, the evidence cl early indicates that he said only a few words to them. It was thereafter, t hat PW5 came to the scene. There is absolutely no evidence to show that after the arrival of PW5, PW2 had spoken anything to anyone. Moreover, the evidence of PW19, the Doctor, clearly shows that when she examined PW2 after the incident, PW2 was not in a position to respond to t he questions put to him and he was drowsy. The evidence further indicates t hat after giving first aid from Indira Gandhi Co-operative Hospital, Thala ssery, PW2 was referred to Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode for better management.

The medical evidence adduced in this case further r eveals that PW2 regained consciousness only on 17.08.2007. Therefo re, it is apparent that though immediately after the incident PW2 was in a position to make a phone call with his wife and PW7, thereafter, his co ndition worsened with the passage of time. It was after PW2 contacted hi s wife and PW7, PW5

45 2025:KER:30106

Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018

came to the scene. Therefore, the fact that PW2 ha d not stated the names of the assailants to PW5 is not a reason to c onclude that PW2 was unaware of the identity of the assailants who attac ked him and the names of the accused were incorporated later with ulterior motives due to political reasons.

35. The evidence of PW2 is assailed by the learned counsel for the appellants mainly on the ground that there are some improvements in his evidence, to what he stated to the Police. Acco rding to the counsel, the evidence of PW2 shows that, when he along with h is friends reached the place of occurrence, the accused encircled the deceased Pramod with dangerous weapons and it was after hacking the decea sed and inflicting severe injuries on him, the accused turned towards PW2 and hacked him.

According to the counsel, quite contradictory to th e said evidence, what PW2 stated to the Police is that, the accused encir cled all his friends including him and Pramod. We do agree that such a contradiction was proved when the investigating officer who recorded t he statement of PW2 was examined. However, this contradiction is not of such significa nce as to undermine the credibility of an injured witness’ s testimony. Some minor contradictions are quite natural to occur. Moreove r, merely because PW2,

46 2025:KER:30106

Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018

while interrogated by the Police, made a casual expr ession in colloquial language that the assailants encircled all of them, the same does not mean that they were all detained within a circle form ed by them.

Moreover, the same is not a reason to disbelieve PW 2’s testimony before the court that the accused initially encircled Pram od, the deceased in this case alone. Moreover, the evidence of PW2 that Pra mod was initially encircled and attacked by the assailants and it was thereafter, that they turned towards him when he attempted to flee from th e spot is well corroborated by the evidence of PW3 and PW4. The evidence of PW3 and PW4 in the above regard remains unchallenged in the cross-examination and their entire evidence is free from material con tradictions and omissions. Therefore, we are of the view that the minor contra dictions in the statement of PW2 will in no way affect the cred ibility of the evidence of PW2. It is true that some omissions were also p roven in the evidence of PW2. But those omissions are insignificant omiss ions and are not with respect to core matters of the incident. An omissi on is significant only when the same is with respect to an important aspect of the incident, which should have been stated by a witness at the ti me when the statement was given to the Police. Moreover, such omissions must amount to contradiction. Therefore, in the case at hand, none of the omissions

47 2025:KER:30106

Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018

highlighted from the side of the defence are with r espect to the core aspects of the incident and hence those omissions a re only liable to be discarded.

36. Another contention taken by the learned co unsel for the accused is that, the evidence of PW2 as well as that of other eyewitnesses that the deceased Pramod and PW2 were attacked not s imultaneously, is absolutely false. The counsel further urged that t he evidence of PW2 and other occurrence witnesses to the effect that PW2 wa s not attacked at the same location, but a short distance away from the p lace where Pramod was attacked is also false. In order to substantia te the above contentions the learned counsel heavily relied on the evidence of the investigating officer as well as the scene mahazar prepared by hi m in this case.

According to counsel, a bare perusal of the scene m ahazar, along with the evidence of the investigating officer who prepared it, clearly indicates that bloodstains were found only in one location. Counse l argues that this fact alone demonstrates the falsity of PW2, PW3, and PW4 evidence, which suggests that PW2 sustained injuries at a location slightly distant from where Pramod sustained injuries. We do agree that the evidence of PW5 and PW7, who came to the scene of occurrence after the commission of

48 2025:KER:30106

Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018

the offence, clearly shows that the deceased Pramod as well as PW2, the injured were found lying in a pool of blood when they reached the place of occurrence. If the evidence of PW5 and PW7 that th e deceased and PW2 were found lying soaked in blood is believed, certai nly blood stains could have been detected from the places where they were fo und lying.

Similarly, if they had sustained injuries at differe nt locations blood stains could have been found in two locations. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned defence counsel a bare perusal of Ext .P9 scene mahazar shows that blood stains were found at two spots in th e crime scene but the distance between the two spots is only 30 cm. I f that be so, the said minimal distance necessarily leads to an inference that the blood stains are found only in one spot. When the investigating off icer was examined as PW24 and when confronted with the Ext.P14 site plan prepared by a village officer (PW20), he deposed that in the Ext. P14 site plan also, blood stains were noted only in one spot. However, PW24 a dded that it was on the basis of the scene mahazar, that the site plan was prepared.

Furthermore, PW24 admitted that in Ext.P9 Mahazar, though it is stated that blood stains were found in two places, the dist ance between the said places is only 30 cm.

49 2025:KER:30106

Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018

37. However, we are of the considered view that the evidence of the investigating officer as well as the scene mahaz ar prepared by him alone is not sufficient to enter into a conclusion that PW2 and the deceased had sustained injuries at the same locatio n. The ocular evidence adduced in this case clearly shows that when the injured and the deceased reached the place of occurrence, the accused first attacked the deceased;

and, upon PW2 seeing this and attempting to escape, he stumbled, whereupon the accused attacked him. The evidence of the eyewitnesses in the above regard is well corroborated by the eviden ce of PW5, the witness who came to the scene immediately after the incident . The evidence of PW5 shows that when he reached the crime scene, Pram od the deceased was found lying there soaked in blood. Looking arou nd, PW5 spotted PW2 lying a short distance away from the place where Pr amod was found lying.

Likewise, the evidence of PW7 also shows that when he reached the place of occurrence, PW2 was lying there soaked in blood, at approximately 7 to 8 meters away from there Pramod the deceased was fo und lying in a pool of blood. Thus, evidence of PW5 and PW7 clearly in dicates that there is a short distance between the places where Pramod, the d eceased, and PW2 sustained injuries. The evidence of PW5 and PW7 in the above regard is not even challenged in the cross-examination. Ther efore, the fact that

50 2025:KER:30106

Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018

blood stains were found by the investigating office r only at one location is not sufficient to discredit the ocular evidence adduced in this case. Lapses on the part of the investigating officer in prepari ng the scene mahazar do not, by themselves, justify disbelieving the eviden ce of eyewitnesses to the occurrence.

38. The defence counsel has raised a further conte ntion that even in Ext.P17, the initial report submitted before the jurisdictional magistrate subsequent to the First Information Report, the nam es of all the assailants were not mentioned . The learned counsel further submitted that in Ext.

P17 report, though it is mentioned that accused Nos .1 to 3 entered into a criminal conspiracy inside the house of the 3rd acc used to murder Pramod and Prakashan it is not mentioned that they also to ok part in the actual perpetration of the offence. According to him, the omission of names of the accused in the Ext.P7 report itself throws light on the fact that no one had any idea about the identity of the actual assai lants. While considering the said contention, it is noteworthy that the FIR in this case is one registered suo motu by the SHO, Kannavam Police Stat ion. The said FIR was not registered based on the statement of any oc currence witnesses.

Similarly, it is true that the Ext.P17 report was su bmitted on the next day

51 2025:KER:30106

Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018

of the incident, and in the said report, the names of all the accused were not mentioned, although it did mention the names of accused Nos.1 to 3 as conspirators. However, it is pertinent to note th at there is no evidence to suggest that any of the occurrence witnesses were examined by the time the Ext.P17 report was submitted. It is true t hat the statement of PW2 was recorded on 17.08.2007 at 4 p.m. and the statement of the other occurrence witnesses were recorded on 21.08.2007. Wh ile the report and the examination of the occurrence witness occurred on the same day there is no conclusive evidence to determine which one hap pened first.

However, a reading of Ext.P17, suggests that it was prepared by the investigating officer prior to the recording of the statement of PW2 and the occurrence witnesses. H ad the witnesses been examined earlier, their names would likely have been included in the Ext.P17 report, particularly considering that the report only reached the court on 25.08.2007.

Moreover, a perusal of Ext.P18, report shows that, thereafter on 20.08.2007, the investigating officer filed a repor t before the court incorporating the names and addresses of accused No s.1 to 7. Therefore, we are of the view that the non-mentioning of the na mes of all the assailants in Ext. P17 report is immaterial particul arly when there is no evidence to show that the said report was prepared a fter recording the

52 2025:KER:30106

Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018

statement of occurrence witnesses by the investigating officer.

39. From the nature of contentions raised from the side of the appellants, it is discernible that the attempt of t he appellants is to establish that the names of the accused happened to be not mentioned in the FIR as well as in Ext. P17 report solely because of the reason that neither the Police nor the occurrence witnesses had any knowledge of the names or identities of the assailants. As already stated, the aforementioned contention is unsustainable, as it h as been established that the FIR and Exhibit P17 report were not generate d based on the statements of the occurrence witnesses. None of the witnesses had been examined by the time the said reports were prepared. Anyhow, the action of the Sub Inspector of Police who registered the FIR in this case and examined as PW1 raises serious suspicion regarding his bonafides. His evidence shows that after getting the telephonic inf ormation, he initially entered the said information in the general diary m aintained in the police station. Thereafter, he proceeded to the crime scene along with the police party. Subsequently, he made enquiries but he could not find anyone who witnessed the incident. Thereafter he rushed to the hospital where the deceased as well as the injured were taken after the incident. It was only

53 2025:KER:30106

Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018

thereafter he returned to the police station and re gistered the FIR suo motu. We are acknowledging the law that upon receivi ng information as to the commission of a cognizable offence, it is in cumbent upon the police officer to register an FIR forthwith. However, in t he case at hand, the precipitate action of the police in registering a suo motu FIR, despite the availability of an opportunity to record eyewitnesses’ testimony prior to the registration, raises concerns regarding the proprie ty of the process particularly when it is a murder case motivated by political rivalry where the accused are allegedly loyalists of the C.P.I.(M ), the ruling party.

Therefore, no blame could be attributed if it is fo und that PW1 had an interest in ensuring the assailants' names were not included in the FIR.

Similarly, if the investigating officer was quick in his action in recording the statement of the occurrence witnesses and submitting the reports adding the names of the accused before the jurisdictional Magistrate in time, the contentions sticking on the identity of the accused and doubting their participation in the commission of the offence rais ed from the side of the defence would have been avoided. Anyhow, laches in t he investigation cannot be considered a ground to discard the convin cing ocular evidence tendered in this case. If laches in the investigat ion are given undue importance, the same will create a situation where police rule the roster in

54 2025:KER:30106

Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018

the criminal justice delivery system.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Yarappa Reddi [1993 KLT 496 (SC)] held as follows:- “Conclusion of the court in a case cannot be allowed to depend solely on the probity of investigation. It can be a guiding principle that, as investigation is not the solitary area for judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial, the conclusion of the cou rt in the case cannot be allowed to depend solely on the probity of invest igation”.

It is well settled that, even if the investigation is illegal or even suspicious, the rest of evidence must be scrutinised independently of the impact of it. Otherwise criminal trial will plu mmet to the level of the investigating officers ruling the roost. The court m ust have predominance and pre-eminence in criminal trials over the ac tion taken by investigating officers. Criminal justice should not be made the casually for the wrongs committed by the investigating officers in a case. In other words, if the court is convinced tha t the testimony of a witness to the occurrence is true the court is free to act on it albeit in investigating officer's suspicious role in the case.”

Therefore, we are of the view that the faults and l apses in the investigation that occurred in this case need not i nfluence the mind of this Court while acting on the overwhelming evidence adduced in this case.

40. Another important material relied on by the pro secution to give corroboration to the ocular evidence adduced i n this case is the recovery of weapons allegedly effected on the streng th of the disclosure

55 2025:KER:30106

Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018

statements made by the accused. When the investiga ting officer who effected the recovery of the said weapon was examine d as PW24, he deposed that after obtaining the police custody of all the accused when he interrogated them, accused Nos.4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 1 0 had given separate confession statements and on the strength of the di sclosure statement made by those accused and as led by them he reached a place called Morolicham and recovered weapons used in the commission of the offence which was found in a concealed state from different places in and around the place of occurrence in this case. The mahazars prepared contemporaneously with the said recovery were marked in evidence as Ext.P2, Ext.P3, Ext.P4 Ext.P5, Ext.P7, and Ext.P8. Th e relevant portions of the confession statements of the accused which led to the recovery and proved through PW24 were separately marked as Ext.P 2[a], Ext.P3[a], Ext.P4[a], Ext.P5[a], Ext.P7[a], and Ext.P8[a]. The we apons allegedly recovered on the strength of the disclosure stateme nts made by the accused were also identified by PW24 before the court.

41. The learned counsel for the appellant strenuous ly assailed the above-said recovery by contending that the same is a fabricated one.

According to the learned counsel, the alleged recov ery was artificial and

56 2025:KER:30106

Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018

not at all believable. Moreover, it is contended t hat the place of concealment was not mentioned in any of the so-call ed disclosure statements, and that itself indicates that the reco very was not effected on the strength of the information gathered from the a ccused, but rather a fabricated one. While considering the contention o f the learned counsel for the appellants in the above regard, first of al l, it is to be noted that there is no law that the place of concealment must b e specifically mentioned by the accused in the disclosure statemen t made by him. In view of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, it is not strictly necessary for an accused to mention the exact place of concea lment for the recovery to be admissible in evidence. On the other hand, wh at is required is that the discovery of a fact must exclusively be on the strength of the disclosure statement given by the accused. Only when a fact is discovered exclusively on the strength of the disclosure state ment given by the accused, the said statement can be proved against the accused. Reverting back to the case at hand, it can be seen that, as r ightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, the exact place of concealment was not mentioned by any of the accused. However, the evidence of PW24 reveals that he effected recovery from the places to which h e was led by the accused, and it was the accused who took and handed over the weapons

57 2025:KER:30106

Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018

to him. In view of Section 27 of the Indian Eviden ce Act, the statement given by an accused gets relevancy when the said sta tement gets confirmation by the subsequent recovery. Therefore , the non-disclosure regarding the exact place of concealment will defin itely pale into insignificance particularly when the recovery was e ffected from the places to where the investigating officer was led by the ac cused and taken and handed over to the investigating officer by the accused.

42. Another contention pressed into service by the learned counsel for the appellants to assail the recovery i s that the same is an artificial one. According to the counsel, all the recoveries were effected from places near to the place of occurrence and the same is not at all believable. Moreover, the learned counsel urged that prior to the recovery, the Sub Inspector of Police visited the crime scene and deputed a Policeman for guard duty. Thereafter, PW24, the in vestigating officer also visited the crime scene and prepared a scene mahaza r. MO1 weapon which was found at the crime scene was allegedly rec overed by him after describing it in Ext.P9 scene mahazar. Thereafter, on 01.09.2007, the investigating officer again visited the scene of oc currence and allegedly recovered a weapon on the strength of the disclosure statement given by

58 2025:KER:30106

Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018

the 4th accused. Hence highlighting the repeated pr esence of the Police Officer at the scene of the crime, prior to the recovery, the learned counsel submitted that there is every possibility of fabric ating things, and recoveries made thereafter from near the place of o ccurrence is highly unbelievable. We do agree that prior to the effect ing of the recoveries, the presence of Police at the scene of occurrence w as established.

Similarly, it is evident that the recoveries were eff ected from places near the scene of the crime. However, it cannot be unde rmined that, the weapons were recovered from a concealed state. There fore, it could not be said that the recovery is vitiated or is the res ult of some manipulations and fabrications. Moreover, the FSL report which is marked in evidence as Ext.P24 shows that the chopper recovered from the cr ime scene (MO1)

which is shown as item No.4 in the report, MO2 serie s swords which is shown as item Nos.10, and 11 and MO3 series chopper s shown as item Nos.9, 12, and 13 contained human blood. Therefore , we have no hesitation in holding that the recovery evidence, a s well as the scientific evidence adduced in this case, will lend sufficient corroboration to the ocular evidence adduced in this case. Even otherwi se, as stated earlier, the substantive evidence of the eyewitnesses adduce d in this case is convincing and reliable. Therefore, the same can f orm the basis for a

59 2025:KER:30106

Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018

conviction in this case, even without corroboration from other sources.

43. The upshot of the above discussion is that the prosecution has fully succeeded in proving the charge levelled against the accused by the direct evidence of PW2 to PW4 who are the eyewit nesses to the occurrence. Notably, PW2, being an injured witness, his evidence has to be accorded a special weightage. He had given coge nt and acceptable evidence and had accounted for the death of the dec eased as well as the injuries found on him. The evidence of PW2 is well corroborated on material aspects by the evidence of PW3 and PW4, th e other eyewitnesses. The medical as well as scientific evi dence adduced in this case also will lend support to the prosecution to a large extent.

44. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding tha t the prosecution has succeeded in proving the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 341, 307, 302 r/w 149 of the IPC against accused Nos. 2 to 11, Section 147 r/w 149 of the IPC against accused Nos.

2, 3 & 11, and Section 148 r/w 149 of IPC against ac cused Nos. 4 to 10.

The sentences imposed in this case for the said off ences are also in consonance with the nature and gravity of the offence committed.

60 2025:KER:30106

Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018

Resultantly, we confirm the finding, conviction, and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge in S.C No. 421/2009 o n the file of the Sessions Court, Thalassery and hence, Criminal Appe al Nos. 685/2018, 722/2018, 740/2018, 775/2018, and 790/2018 stand dismissed.

Sd/-

P.B. SURESH KUMAR

JUDGE

Sd/-

JOBIN SEBASTIAN

JUDGE

ncd/ANS

61 2025:KER:30106

Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018

APPENDIX OF CRL.A 722/2018

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Annexure 1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD DATED 30.07.2024 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER OF ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS

Annexure 2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03.11.2023 IN CRL.M APPLN NO.3/2023 IN CRL.A 740/2018 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT

Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF ALLOTMENT MEMO OF THE APPLICANT DATED 11/10/2024

62 2025:KER:30106

Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018

APPENDIX OF CRL.A 740/2018

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Annexure 3 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF MARKS OF THE PETITIONER IN MASTER OF ARTS (SOCIOLOGY)

DATED 06.05.2022 ISSUED BY THE INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY

Annexure 4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL CERTIFICATE CERTIFYING THAT THE PETITIONER HAS SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED MASTER OF ARTS (SOCIOLOGY), DATED 06.05.2022 ISSUED BY THE INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY

Annexure 5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NUMBERED G2-17019/2023/PRHQ DATED 06.06.2023

Annexure 6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 13.07.2023 ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE ENTRANCE EXAMINATION RESULT PERTAINING TO THE PETITIONER

Annexure A8 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST PHASE ALLOTMENT 27.09.2023 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS, KERALA

Annexure A9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.09.2023 IN SLP (CRI) NO. 11688/2019 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

63 2025:KER:30106

Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018

APPENDIX OF CRL.A 790/2018

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Annexure-G THE TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLISHED BY NATIONAL TESTING AGENCY DATED 20-9-2022

Annexure-A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FORM SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR PH.D ENTRANCE EXAMINATION SEPTEMBER 2022 SESSIONS (APPLICATION NO.E22091201002) DATED 14/10/2022

Annexure-B TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION FOR PHD.

ENTRANCE EXAMINATION 2022 DTD.17-9-2022

ISSUED BY UNIVERSITY OF KERALA

Annexure -A TRUE COPY OF THE PASS MEMO PUBLISHED BY UNIVERSITY OF KERALA DARTED 4-1-2023

Annexure-C TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER SENT BY THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON AND CORRECTIONAL HOME, KANNUR

Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY DATED 19-5-2023 IS ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE MOTHER OF THE PETITIONER

Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE TEE REPORT ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE WIFE OF THE PETITIONER FROM GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, KANNUR

Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE OUT-PATIENT RECORD ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE WIFE OF THE PETITIONER FROM GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, KANNUR

Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15-5-2023 IN SLP(CRI).NO.1620-1621/2023 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT INDIA

Annexure- A1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15-05-2023 IN SLP (CRL)NO.1620-1621/2023 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

64 2025:KER:30106

Crl. A. No.685, 722, 740, 775 & 790 of 2018

Annexure -C COPY OF THE DISCHARGE CARD DATED 7-9-2023 ISSUED FROM GOVT.MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, KANNUR.

Annexure-D COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 13-9-2023 ISSUED FROM INDIANA INSTITUTE OF CARDIAC SCIENCES, MANGALURU.