IMPORTANT POINT
The testimony of relatives is not inherently suspect and can be reliable if corroborated by evidence, while conspiracy requires proof of prior agreement, which was lacking in this case.

JUDGMENT :

JOBIN SEBASTIAN, J.

1. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against accused Nos. 2 to 4 in S.C. No. 1530/2012 on the file of Additional Sessions Court-VI, Thiruvananthapuram, for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 341, 324, and 302 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code are under challenge in this appeal.

2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows:

Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 were harboring a grudge against one Syedali for allegedly murdering their uncle. Motivated by this feud, they entered into a criminal conspiracy with accused No. 3, a relative, to murder Syedali. In pursuance of this conspiracy and in furtherance of their common intention, on 06.09.2010 at 2:15 p.m. when Syedali exited a purdah shop where he had gone with his sister, niece, and nephew, and was speaking to his mother on the phone in front of the shop, the 1st accused rushed towards him, shouting threats to kill him, and stabbed him in the left flank, causing grievous injuries. As Syedali fled into a mobile shop to escape, accused Nos. 1 to 4 chased him. Once inside the mobile shop, accused Nos. 3 and 4 restrained him, while the 2nd accused struck him on the head with a soda bottle taken from a nearby juice shop. Subsequently, accused Nos. 1 and 2 inflicted further injuries on Syedali by striking his head and neck with a knife and the broken soda bottle. PW-2, Syedali’s sister, attempted to intervene to save her brother. However, one of the assailants kicked her down, causing injuries. Syedali, however, succumbed to his injuries on the spot. The accused are therefore alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 120B, 341, 324, 354, and 302 r/w Section 34 of the IPC.

3. On completion of the investigation, the final report was submitted before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram. As the case was one triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate after complying with all the necessary formalities committed the case to the Court of Session, Thiruvananthapuram. After taking cognizance, the learned Sessions Judge made over the case for trial and disposal to Additional Sessions Court-VI, Thiruvananthapuram. In the course of the trial, the 1st accused died, and hence charge against him was abated. After trial, accused Nos. 2 to 4 were found guilty for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 341, 324 and 302 r/w Section 34 of the IPC and convicted and they were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) each with a default clause to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for offence punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of the IPC. Additionally, the accused were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life each for offence punishable under Section 120B of the IPC. Furthermore, the accused were slapped with separate sentences for offences punishable under Sections 341 and 324 r/w Section 34 of the IPC. However, the substantive sentences were ordered to be run concurrently. The said judgment of conviction and order of sentence is under challenge in this appeal.

4. The prosecution in its bid to prove the charge levelled against the accused examined 34 witnesses as PW-1 to PW-34. Exts.P1 to P92 were exhibited and marked and MO1 to MO21 were produced and identified. After completion of prosecution evidence when the accused were questioned under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. they denied all the incriminating materials brought out against them in evidence. On finding that the accused could not be acquitted under Section 232 of the Cr.P.C. they were called upon to enter their evidence. On the side of the defence, DW1 to DW5 were examined and marked Exts.D1 to D6 including the contradictions brought out in the statements of prosecution witnesses.

5. The FIR in this case was lodged based on the statement given by the sister of the deceased (PW-2) to the SHO, Fort Police Station. When the sister of the deceased was