The presumption of innocence, the principle that grant of bail is a rule, and the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution influenced the court's decision to grant bail to the accused.

J U D G M E N T

D r. A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.

Democracy thrives on the peaceful exchange of ideas, not the violent imposition of beliefs. Political violence is the poison that corrodes the roots of democratic principles.

- Amartya Sen On the morning of 05.05.2012, the people of Kerala woke up to the grim news of a gruesome political murder. T.P. Chandrasekharan, the leader of the Revolutionary Marxist Party (hereinafter referred to as 'RMP' for brevity), had been hacked to death the night before by a group of assassins. The wounds inflicted on him were so brutal and numerous that PW136 Dr.Sujith Sreenivas, the Assistant Professor and Assistant Police Surgeon at the Forensic Medicine department of the Kozhikode Medical College, who conducted the post-mortem examination, opined that it was indicative of the aggressive and hostile nature of the assailants. The question that loomed large, however, was, “Who would commit such a barbaric act and why?”

2. The prosecution would have us believe that the public opinion at No.571/2015 the time was that it was the political rivalry between leaders of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPI (M)) and the victim that led to the commission of the crime. T.P. Chandrasekharan, who was once an active member and local leader of the CPI (M), fell out with the party and formed a new party called the Revolutionary Marxist Party (RMP). The RMP posed a big challenge to the election fortunes of the CPI (M), and this was evident when, in the 2009 Lok Sabha Elections, the CPI (M) lost the Vadakara Constituency, which had been its stronghold till then. Although it was the Congress candidate who was returned from the Constituency that year, T.P. Chandrasekharan's candidacy under the RMP banner was perceived as instrumental in the CPI (M)'s loss. The rivalry between the parties and the inter se attacks between members of the two parties only served to fuel the animosity of the CPI(M) leaders towards the victim.

The prosecution case:

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, pursuant to a criminal conspiracy hatched by accused No’s.8 to 14, with the assistance of accused No’s.1,3,5,7,15 to 18, 20 to 25 and 27 to 30, at about 22.10 hours on 04.05.2012, accused No’s.1 to 7 came in an Innova Car bearing a false registration number, driven by the accused no.1, and rammed the car into the motorbike driven by T.P. Chandrasekharan. After causing the latter to be No.571/2015 thrown onto the road, they hacked him to death on the public road at a place called Vallikkad by striking him with swords. Accused No.3 also used a country bomb to cause an explosion that would prevent witnesses from approaching the scene of the crime. Accused No’s.1 to 7 then fled the scene of the crime and were assisted by the other accused, who either harboured them or destroyed valuable evidence that pointed to them.

The investigation:

4. PW4, the Sub-Inspector of Vatakara Police Station, suo motu, registered Ext.P2 FIR on the night of 04.05.2012 itself. The local police headed by the Dy.SP, Vatakara, initially conducted the investigation of the crime that was numbered as Crime No.433/2012 of the Vatakara Police Station. PW154, the Circle Inspector, completed the inquest proceedings on the morning of 05.05.2012. PW136, Dr. Sujith Sreenivas, conducted autopsy shortly thereafter. PW163 Circle Inspector inspected the scene of the incident and prepared Ext.P20 scene mahazar. In the meanwhile, PW165 Dy.SP Vatakara received information that an Innova Car bearing Registration No.KL-58D-8144 was found abandoned at Punathilmukku in Chokli, and he promptly reached there along with PW1 Praseed and CW2 Ramachandran, who claimed to be eyewitnesses to the incident. They identified the vehicle as the one used by the assailants, and after the No.571/2015 forensic experts examined the vehicle, PW165 seized the vehicle and the articles in it.

4.1. The investigation of the case was then transferred to the Crime Branch, where the case was re-registered