A. Hariprasad, J.

Recurring overt acts by members of certain political parties at some parts of the State, especially in some northern districts, eloquently disseminate a message that human lives are less worthier than a political ideology. Annihilation of political opponents has become an order of the day, ignoring the fact that divergent political ideologies are natural in a democratic polity with a multiparty system. Besides, the proponents of the philosophy forget the reality that an ideology, worth its name, should exist for the upliftment, welfare and wellbeing of mankind. Political killings by using arms and explosives are acts of barbarity. This case unfolds yet another doleful story of a political savagery. In this brutal incident, the victim happened to be a worker of Communist Party of India (Marxit), commonly known as CPM and the alleged assailants are workers of Bharathiya Janatha Party (BJP) and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). Feud between these two sets of political outfits over a long period of time in Kannur district is a notorious reality.

2. 27 accused persons were charged in this case with offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 449 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, "IPC"). The 5th accused was found to be a juvenile at the time of incident and therefore his name was deleted from the array of accused as the court rightly found that he could not be tried along with other accused because of the embargo in the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. After an elaborate trial, the accused 1 to 4 were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for murder and appropriate punishments for other offences. They are in appeal before this Court.

3. Heard Sri P.S. Sreedharan Pillai, learned counsel appearing for the accused 1, 2 and 4 and Sri K.K. Dheerendra Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd accused. Sri. S.U. Nazar, learned Senior Public Prosecutor is also heard on behalf of the prosecution.

4. Brief facts necessary for appreciating the contentions are as follows: Appellants are RSS/BJP workers. They nurtured political hostility towards Areekkal Ashokan as he was an ardent supporter of CPM. With the common object of committing Ashokan's murder, appellants 1 to 4, along with other accused persons, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly on 05.12.2000, armed with deadly weapons like hatchet (wrongly shown as axe by the trial court), sword and chopper. At about 8.30 a.m. on that day, they criminally trespassed into the house of PW5 Andy (brother of deceased Ashokan) and brutally assaulted Ashokan with lethal weapons, who had taken shelter in the house of PW5 along with his four year old son, PW4 Akshay. The assailants hacked Ashokan with hatchet, chopper and sword right in front of the small child (PW4). The occurrence was in a room on the upstairs of PW5's house. Thereafter the assailants fled. It is also the prosecution case that a couple of hours before the incident, the same assailants had attacked Ambuvintavida Babu at his house, which is adjacent to the houses of PW5 and deceased Ashokan. Prosecution strongly contended that the political ill-will and hatred are motives for the killing.

5. The defence case is total denial of any complicity of the appellants in the crime. According to them, deceased Ashokan had enemies in his private life. He had an affair with Kallamparambath Sathi, who resides in the neighbourhood. In that relationship, a child by name Midhunlal was born. Sathi's brother Vinodan is a CPM worker. Sathi's family members pressurised Ashokan to marry her for which he was not amenable. Thereafter Sathi claimed maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, "Cr.P.C.") before the Magistrate having jurisdiction. Despite passing orders thereon, Ashokan failed to provide maintenance and on account of that, there were serious issues between the families. In connection with Ashokan's murder