IMPORTANT POINTS
Producing call details from mobile phone service providers for a few days close to the incident alone may be of no use, since there could have been contacts between known persons on any given day and that will not give an indication of conspiracy. But, if the records produced indicated that the accused persons were not contacting each other on a regular basis for a long time and they contacted each other many number of times just prior to the incident, a conspiracy could have been inferred. Testimony and documents are insufficient to hold the accused liable for conspiracy.

JUDGMENT :

A. HARIPRASAD, J.

Instances of bigotry resulting in assassination of political opponents are legion in this State. But this case unfolds a different saga. Internal dissensions and factional feud among members of the youth wing of an old political party, that too founded on non-violence, are the root cause for a murder in the day light. Long and short of the prosecution case is that deceased Madhu was an active worker of Youth Congress, an organization under Indian National Congress. 1st accused Prem is yet another worker in the same party. In April 2013, there were bickerings between them and their supporters in connection with the election of office bearers to the Youth Congress Mandalam Committee, Ayyanthole. It is alleged that deceased Madhu and his associates had attacked 1st accused Prem in April, 2013.

Later, deceased Madhu became the Secretary of the Youth Congress Unit, Ayyanthole. It has come out through evidence that deceased Madhu along with others had committed a crime wherein the 1st accused sustained injuries. On account of bitter hostility nurtured by each against the other, all the accused conspired together on various occasions to do away with Madhu. Finally on 31.05.2013 the accused persons gathered in a field adjacent to the residence of PW4 Sathi and hatched the final plan. There is an incongruity in the prosecution case regarding time of their meeting on that date, which we shall consider later. Again on 01.06.2013 at 8.10 a.m., accused Nos.2 and 7 met the 1st accused in front of his house. It is also alleged that accused Nos.1 and 2 abetted accused Nos.3 to 6 to commit the murder and for that the 1st accused paid money to them. On 01.06.2013 at about 9.35 a.m., accused Nos.3 to 6, in furtherance of their common intention to kill Madhu, came to the precincts of Karthiyani Temple, Ayyanthole in an autorickshaw, driven by the 5th accused, knowing that Madhu had gone to the temple with his wife PW2. Autorickshaw driven by the 5th accused knocked Madhu down and immediately thereafter accused 3, 4 and 6 jumped out of the autorickshaw. 3rd accused attacked the deceased with a sword inflicting cut injuries on his head and other vital parts. When Madhu fell down, 4th accused pounced on him and sat on his body. Thereafter he held Madhu by neck and stabbed him with a knife incessantly on chest and other vital parts. Madhu died at about 10.25 a.m. on the same day. After committing the crime, accused Nos.3 to 6 fled from the crime scene in the same autorickshaw.

2. PW1 Sajeesh, nephew of the deceased, on knowing about the incident reached West Fort Hospital, Thrissur, to which the deceased was admitted and on finding the deceased dead, he went to the police station and furnished Ext.P1 first information statement (FIS). Investigation then commenced and it was completed without much delay. Finally, on closing the investigation, a charge was laid before the Magistrate concerned. And the Magistrate, on finding that the case was exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions, committed it to the Sessions Court, Thrissur. Learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges against the accused persons. After examining 30 witnesses and marking 96 documents on the side of the prosecution and marking 12 documents on the side of the defence and also considering MOs.1 to 8, he found all the accused persons guilty of various offences. After convicting accused Nos.1 to 7 for offences of criminal conspiracy to commit murder under Sections 120B of 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, “IPC”), imprisonment for life and fine of `30,000/-were imposed on each of them. Likewise, accused Nos.1 and 2 were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of `30,000/-for abetment of murder under Section 109 of Section 302 IPC. Accused Nos.3 to 6 were again sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of `50,000/-under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Accused 3 to 6 were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment