The court affirmed the conviction for murder based on eyewitness testimony and medical evidence, ruling that prior acquaintance negates the need for a test identification parade.

JUDGMENT

Johnson John, J

The third, second and first accused respectively in S.C. No. 341 of 2016 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Mavelikkara filed the above appeals challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on them for the offences under Sections 341 , 326 and 302 r/w Section 34 IPC as per the impugned judgment dated 26.05.2017.

2. The prosecution case is that at about 6 p.m., on 18.02.2016, the first and third accused came to the petrol pump of the deceased Muraleedharan Nair in a motorcycle and quarrelled with the staff for asking them to wait in the queue and on hearing noise, PW1, who is the cousin brother of the deceased, came out from the office of the petrol pump and saw accused Nos. 1 and 3 leaving the petrol pump by uttering obscene words. PW3, the elder brother of the deceased and the Manager of the petrol pump was also there and he informed the first and third accused persons that petrol will be filled only in accordance with the queue and that petrol can be filled in the vehicle of the accused persons only after filling the vehicle of the lady who came there first and then the accused persons uttered obscene words against PW3 and by the time PW1 and the deceased came out of the office, the first and third accused left the place.

3. Subsequently, PW1 had gone out to meet his friend and then the first accused again came to the petrol pump alone by walking and questioned PW3 and other employees for not filling petrol in his bike when he came earlier and uttered obscene words against PW3 and other employees in the petrol pump. When the deceased came out of the office and enquired the matter, the first accused addressed him in obscene words, and when the deceased informed the first accused that he is the owner of the petrol pump and that he will call the police, if the accused makes any problem there, the first accused retorted that when the deceased come out, he will show the deceased as to who Boncho is and by saying so, the first accused went out from the petrol pump.

4. Subsequently, at about 7 p.m., the second accused came to the petrol pump and purchased petrol worth Rs. 50/- in a bottle and at that time, the second accused asked PW3 as to whether Murali is the owner of the petrol pump and as to whether he is there in the office. When PW3 informed the second accused that the deceased is there in the office, the second accused left the place by saying that they will see him outside.

5. Thereafter, at about 7.30 p.m., the deceased went out of the petrol pump in the motorcycle ridden by PW1 to see Adv. Venugopal and when they reached near the house of Adv. Venugopal, the second accused came there in MO1 bike and blocked the bike of PW1 and by that time, accused Nos. 1 and 3 came there in MO2 bike and stopped their bike behind the bike of PW1 on its left side. The second accused had exhorted the other accused to kill the deceased and thereupon, the first accused beat on the right side of the head of the deceased with MO3 iron pipe and the deceased fell down and subsequently, succumbed to his injuries while undergoing treatment at Indo American Hospital, Vaikom on 25.02.2016 and the accused persons are thereby, alleged to have committed the aforesaid offences.

6. On the basis of Exhibit P1, First Information Statement of PW1, Exhibit P15 FIR was registered by PW22, Sub Inspector of Police, Chengannur, on 19.02.2016 and thereafter, PW21, the then Circle Inspector of Police, Chengannur, completed the investigation and filed the final report before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Chengannur. After committal and appearance of the accused persons before the trial court, charge was framed for the offences under Sections 341 326 and 302 r/w Section 34 IPC and when the charge was read over and explained to them, they pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 21 and marked Exhibits P1 to P30 and MOs 1 to 7 to prove the charge. Since it is found that the accused are not