1. Conviction for murder and rioting under Sections 302/149, 143, 147, 148, 449, and 452 of the IPC and the Explosive Substances Act. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1998 Supreme(SC) 243
1998(5) Supreme 135
Supreme Court of India
(From Kerala High Court)
M.K. Mukherjee & S.S. Mohammed Quadri, JJ.
K. Ashokan & Ors. -Appellants
versus
State of Kerala -Respondent
Crl. A. No. 132 of 1997
Decided on 19-2-1998
Important Points
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.
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.
Subject
Criminal Law - Murder
Act Referred
Headnote
Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 147, 148, 341, 449, 452, 307, 302/149-Conviction for offences under-Testimony of eye-witness-Re-appreciation of-Mob armed with weapons resulting in riots-Contention by accused that they are not miscreants as they have not been named as miscreants in FIR-Negatived by Trial Court which convicted them on ground that FIR is not a catalogue and an informant, disoriented in mind and in distress not expected to give graphic details and that eye-witness was under perplexity and fear-Not proper as disclosure of names of offenders known by a person who figures as an eye-witness is one of most material facts and such a fact cannot be equated with narration of graphic details and that plea of fear and perplexity not tenable as FIR was lodged by eye-witness after 3 hours of incident at police station giving all details except naming miscreants which was done purposely on basis of facts adduced-Defence of accused regarding false implication due to political rivalry -Not without any substance-Accused entitled to benefit of reasonable doubt-Order of conviction -Liable to be set aside. (Paras 5 & 6)
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Appellants contended false implication due to political rivalry and improper investigation by the police. (Para 3 )
3. The court found the failure to name accused in the FIR and subsequent interpolations in the investigation report created reasonable doubt regarding the appellants' identities. (Para 5 )
4. Failure to disclose known identities of offenders in the FIR, coupled with subsequent interpolations in investigation reports, entitles the accused to the benefit of reasonable doubt. (Para 5 )
5. Appeal allowed, convictions and sentences set aside, and appellants ordered to be released. (Para 6 )
6. Does the failure to name specific accused persons in a First Information Report (FIR) necessarily invalidate the prosecution's case?
Not necessarily, but the disclosure of known identities is a material fact. If the informant is not in distress or perplexity and fails to name known offenders, it may create reasonable doubt, especially if names are added later via interpolations. (Para 5 )
7. How does the court treat subsequent additions or interpolations in investigation reports regarding the identity of accused persons?
The court views subsequent insertions of names in investigation reports—especially those written in different ink or squeezed in—as interpolations that support the defense of false implication and contribute to reasonable doubt. (Para 5 )
8. When is the benefit of reasonable doubt granted in cases involving identification and political rivalry?
It is granted when material omissions in the FIR and evidence of interpolation in police reports make the prosecution's claim of identification unreliable, rendering the defense of false implication plausible. (Para 5 )
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
