Important Point
Disclosure of the names or identities of the offenders in the FIR, if known, by a person who figures as an eye-witness is one of the most material facts and such a fact cannot be equated with narration of graphic details.

Judgment

M.K. Mukherjee, J.-17 accused persons, including the six appellants before us, (who were arraigned as A1 to A4, A10 and A11 respectively in the trial Court and will hereinafter be so referred to), were tried by the Court of Session, Kozhikode Division for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 449, 452, 307, 302/149 I.P.C. and under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. While convict­ing and sentencing all the appellants under Sections 143, 147, 148, 449, 452 and 302/149 I.P.C. and A3 under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act also, the trial Court acquitted the others. Assailing their convictions and sentences the appellants preferred an appeal which was disposed of by the High Court by setting aside the convic­tion of A3 under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act and affirm­ing the common convictions recorded against the six appellants. The above judgment of the High Court is under challenge before us in this appeal.

2. According to the prosecution case, the appellants owe allegiance to the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and the complainant party to Muslim League. There was political rivalry between the two parties which resulted in occasional clashes. A few days before the incident (with which we are concerned in this appeal) one Pakran, who belonged to Muslim League, sustained a gun-shot injury for which he was admit­ted in the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode. On October 23, 1988, C.P. Abdulla (the deceased), Moidu (P.W. 1), Kannan (P.W. 2) and Kunhabdulla Haji (P.W. 3) went to see him in the hospital. After visiting him, they first went to Vadakara by a bus and from there boarded another bus to go to Kakkad. On the way, when the bus reached Chelakkad they found a crowed there. Sensing some trouble the bus driver refused to proceed further. Finding no other alternative they alighted there and started walking. After covering some distance they found Pariyarathu Chandran (A-11) and Pandiampurathu Chandran (A-2) standing on the road. A little later, when they were nearing the village Naripatta they heard a sound of explosion. Apprehending trou­ble they ran to the nearby house of Kunhikannan (P.W. 5) and took shelter. They then saw a mob armed with various weapons, coming to­wards his house. In the meantime P.W. 5 had bolted the front door of the house from inside. The mob broken open the door and, after enter­ing, caught hold of Abdulla and dragged him to the verandah. To save their own lives P.W. 2 ran away and took shelter in his own house in that village, and P.Ws. 1 and 3 went to the top of the house of P.W. 5. P.W. 1 then climbed on a tree and perched himself there. When P.W. 3 tried to escape he was caught hold of by some miscreants. He, howev­er, extricated himself and ran to the house of one Pokkar of that village. After about 15 minutes when the mob left he came to the courtyard of Kunhikaran and saw Abdulla lying near the gate of his house in a pool of blood with multiple injuries on his person. While P.W. 1 was inside the house of Kunhikaran police reached there. They took P.W. 1 to Kuttiyadi Police Station where his statement was re­corded and a case was registered. The Circle Inspector of Police, Kottiyadi took up investigation of the case and came to the scene of occurrence. He held inquest upon the dead body of Abdulla and sent it for post-mortem examination. On completion of the investigation the police submitted charge-sheet.

3. The appellants pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against them and their defence was that they were falsely implicated due to political rivalry. It was their further case that the investigation was not properly done, in that, the Investigating Officer falsely roped in the members of their party.

4. To give an ocular version of the incident the prosecution relied, principally, upon the testimonies of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and Kunhi Koya (P.W. 6). In convicting the appellants the trial Court found that their evidence was trustworthy