Supreme Court of India
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B. SUDERSHAN REDDY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR
Myladimmal Surendran & Others
Versus
State of Kerala
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 839 OF 2006 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.840 OF 2006
Decided on : 01-09-2010
(1981) 2 SCC 752 – Relied upon
(b) Criminal trial – Chance witness – Deceased, a LIC agent – PW 2 seeking LIC housing loan – PW3 his friend – Both had gone to house of deceased and witnessed the crime – Such evidence cannot be brushed aside as chance witness. (Para 30, 31)
(2004) 11 SCC 410 – Relied upon
(c) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 9 – TI Parade – Not done instantly – Wife witnessing murder of her husband in broad day light – Coming face to face with assailants – No chance of forgetting the faces – A1 living in the neighbourhood – Non holding of the test identification parade not causing any prejudice to the accused. (Para 34)
(2000) 1 SCC 358 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
Five accused were charged for murder of the deceased. A2 absconded. The trial court convicted accused A1, A3 to A5 u/s 143, 147, 148, 341 and 302 r/w 149 IPC. They were sentenced to death u/s 302 along varying sentences under other provisions.
High Court confirmed the conviction of the accused under Section 302 read with 149 IPC but the sentence of death was converted to imprisonment for life.
Finding of the Court:
No interference is warranted in the impugned order.
Result:
Appeal dismissed.
Judgment :
SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.
1. These appeals have been filed against the common judgment passed by the High Court of Kerala, at Ernakulam in Criminal Appeal Nos. 214 and 159 of 2005 filed by the accused/appellant no.1 and accused/appellant no.3 to accused /appellant no.5 respectively whereby the High Court was pleased to confirm the conviction of the accused/appellants under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 302 read with 149 IPC, but partly allowed their appeals to the extent that the sentence of death imposed upon by the Sessions Court was converted to imprisonment for life.
2. Both the trial court and the High Court have concluded that the deceased was killed due to political vendetta. The conclusions reached by the two Courts do not seem to be without basis. The High Court has noticed that there were many political murders and other crimes in Kannur district of Kerala at the time when Sri Panniyannur Chandran was murdered. He was murdered to avenge the murder of an activist of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), Mamman Vasu within the limits of Checkli Police Station. At that time, the deceased, Sri Panniyannur Chandran was the Secretary of the District Committee of BJP. Following the murder of Mamman Vasu, death threats were often received by the deceased. He was thought to be the brain behind the murder of the CPM activist. It was said that such threats were made even in the Peace Committee Meetings that followed the killing of Mamman Vasu. The State Special Branch officials being satisfied about the possible threat to the life of deceased had conveyed the information to the local police station of the area in which the deceased resided. Consequently, a Police Picket was set up near the house of the deceased to provide security. Tragically, it appears that in spite of all the security measures, the assailants had their way. He was murdered on 25.5.1996 in broad day light, in front of his wife. He was literally hacked to death, by trained killers.
3. We may now notice the facts.
4. On 25.5.1996, between 2:30 and 3:00 p.m. Sri Panniyannur Chandran accompanied by his wife, Arundhuti (hereinafter referred to as PW1) went to the Thalassery Railway Station riding a motor bike to see off his brother-in-law to Madras. On their return, they met the father of the deceased, who told them that he was going to the ration shop to buy rice. On their way back, when they had almost reached home, they found that the road had been blocked by Arayakkamdy Sukumaran @ Suku (hereinafter referred to as A1), Thayyullathil Thazhekuniyil Pavithran @ Pavi (hereinafter referred to as A2), Myladimmal Surendran (hereinafter referred to as A3), Kaithayullaparambath Preman (hereinafter referred to as A4) and Kunhiparambath Purushothaman @ Purushu (hereinafter referred to as A5). They were all armed with deadly weapons. Though the deceased attempted to avoid them, he was unable to do so, as the engine of the motor cycle went dead. The wife jumped off the motorcycle just before it fell. She ran away. Then from a distance she saw that A1 assaulted the deceased with a billhook which injured his left hand. The deceased started running towards his house hotly chased by the accused armed with deadly weapons. The wife ran to the place where they had met CW1. But hearing her screams, CW1 was already coming towards the trouble spot. On meeting CW1, she informed him about the incident. She then ran to the house of her husband thinking that the deceased must have reached home. Finding that her husband was not in the house, she again ran back, with the sister of the deceased, to the place of assault. She found the deceased lying with his head on the lap of his father. According to the wife, the incident occurred at about 4:45 p.m. At that time, she did not know the names of the accused. She was told the names by CW1 after three days.
5. The Policemen on picket duty reached the spot and took Panniyannur Chandran to the general hospital where he breathed his la
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.