Point of law : normal discrepancies in the evidence are those which are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence and those are always there, however honest and truthful a witness may be. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected of a normal person. Courts have to label the category to which a discrepancy may be categorized

JUDGMENT :

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

1. Political ideology occupies an exalted place in civil society, but it should enable that society to reach out to higher ideals and sublime values, not lead to mindless killing, plunging families into grief and holding that society itself to ransom. We refrain from referring to the political colours of the parties since, in death, affiliations and ideologies fade into obscurity. Suffice it to say that a young man was brutally hacked to death by his political rivals. On an Onam day, when the people of the State; as legends would have, welcomes a most noble and virtuous King of yore, in whose regime, it is said there existed no dishonesty or deceit; the young man was called out to the streets, from his friend's house, brutally attacked with lethal weapons and dismembered, literally butchering him alive.

2. The charges were under Sections 120B, 143, 147, 148, 324, 307, 302, 212, 109, 201 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code. There were 18 accused arrayed before the Sessions Court, of which accused 1 to 4 and 7 alone stood convicted. All of them were handed down sentences of imprisonment for life, fine of Rs. 75,000/- with default rigorous imprisonment (RI) for six months under Section 302, RI for six months and fine of Rs. 20,000/- with default R.I. for two months for Section 324 read with 149 IPC, simple imprisonment (SI) for one month and fine of Rs. 500/- with a default sentence of SI for 15 days under Section 341, SI for three months and fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default SI for one month under Section 143 and RI for four months and fine of Rs.10,000/- with default SI for two months under Section 148 IPC. The prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-23 and marked Exts.P1 to P99 [100 in number] and material objects MO1 to MO27 were also marked. The defence marked D1 to D13. The State has not filed any appeal from the acquittals ordered by the Sessions Court. In the present appeal, we are only concerned with the conviction and sentence of A1 to A4 and A7. The larger conspiracy said to have been hatched with the other accused and the presence of some of the others have been disbelieved by the Sessions Court.

3. Learned Senior Counsel at the outset urge that there is absolutely no evidence to convict the accused. The theory of a conspiracy, at the behest of a political party, in which the eighteen accused were said to have actively participated has not been established by the prosecution. Some of the witnesses paraded before Court were disbelieved and many among the accused were acquitted. The appellants were found guilty only on the sole eyewitness testimony of PW-1. PW-1's presence is very doubtful and he is a planted witness, just as the accused are arrayed at the dictates of the political overlords. PW-1 and the deceased belonged to the same political party and there was alleged, an attack against PW-1 on the previous day. The appellants were wrongly accused of the earlier incident and it was only to settle scores that the appellants were included in the array of accused. The appellants were not involved in the incident and there is no scientific evidence to connect them to the crime. The incident occurred in a residential area on the afternoon of a festival day and PW-1 states that many of the residents gathered, hearing the threats shouted by the aggressors and the cries of the victim. However, none of the residents were made witnesses by the prosecution, thus totally avoiding independent testimonies of the incident. The presence of PW-1 is highly doubtful and the expert opinion regarding his injuries throw further suspicion on his narrative. The injuries seen on the body of PW-1 were marginal and could have been self-inflicted, just to establish his presence at the scene of occurrence or suffered on the previous day. The trial Court has unnecessarily laboured on the digital data produced by the prosecution to find the presence of PW-1 at the scene of occurrence ignoring the fact that he is a resident