Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 25694
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K VINOD CHANDRAN, Ziyad Rahman A. A, JJ
LEEN MARIYAN @ SASI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.A NO. 858 OF 2016|CRL.A NO. 111 OF 2017|CRL.A NO. 777 OF 2016|CRL.A NO. 788 OF 2016|SC 1271/2004|CP 49/2002
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT.K.KUSUMAM, SRI.K.KALESH, SRI.K.C.ELDHO, SRI.ANEESH JAMES, SRI.JIJO THOMAS, SRI.KANDAMPULLY VIKRAM, SRI.MALLENATHAN.M., SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN, SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI, SRI.R.ANIL, SRI.T.ANIL KUMAR, SRI.A.RAJESH, SRI.M.SUNILKUMAR, SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B., SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM NILACKAPPILLIL, SRI.E.VIJIN KARTHIK
For the Respondents: SRI.ALEX M.THOMBRA, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The prosecution must prove the shared unlawful object of an assembly and establish motive through credible evidence for joint liability under Section 149 IPC.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 143, 147, 148, 302 and 307 read with Section 149 - Criminal conspiracy resulting in homicide - Accused charged and found guilty by Sessions Court for committing murder and attempted murder - Evidence from witnesses found inconsistent, leading to doubts about trustworthiness - Prosecution failed to establish motive and common objective required for joint liability under Section 149, leading to acquittal of accused. (Paras 2, 33)
Facts of the case:
Eight individuals were charged for the murder of 'Bosco' and the assault on PW16 during a confrontation stemming from prior animosity. The prosecution presented several witnesses, but discrepancies in their testimonies raised doubts about the case's credibility. (Paras 2, 12)
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the evidence presented by the prosecution could not substantiate the charges against the accused due to significant inconsistencies in witness testimony and an inability to establish clear motives that connected the accused to the crime. (Paras 33)
Issues: The primary issue involved whether the testimonies of key witnesses were credible enough to uphold the convictions based on the alleged common object to commit murder. (Paras 2, 33)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that convictions need to be based on credible evidence and that the prosecution must prove both the motive and the common object shared by the accused. The lack of reliable testimony combined with significant factual discrepancies required the court to set aside the convictions. (Paras 33)
Result: Appeals allowed and convictions set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. prosecution summary and charges (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. defendants' contentions regarding inconsistencies (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. analysis of witness credibility and evidence (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. evaluation of evidence discrepancies (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 5. legal standards for evidence and implications (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 6. conclusion on prosecution evidence insufficiency (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 7. final judgment and acquittal (Para 31 , 32 , 33) |
JUDGMENT
Ziyad Rahman A.A., J.
The appellants in these appeals are accused Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 in S.C.No.1271 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram. Eight persons were charge sheeted by the prosecution for the offences punishable under Sections 143 , 147, 148, 302 and 307 read with Section 149 IPC .
2. The prosecution case in short is as follows; On 26.08.2001 at about 6.30 p.m the accused persons, on account of the previous animosity towards Bosco (the deceased) and PW16 Herbart, in prosecution of their common object, armed with deadly weapons like iron bars, sword etc, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, committed the murder of the said Bosco, and caused serious injuries on PW16. Specific overt acts were that, the 2nd accused attacked Bosco with an oar, the 4th accused attacked him with an iron rod and the 5th accused had also attacked the said Bosco with a wooden stick (kuruthadi). Accused Nos.6 and 7 have attacked PW16 with iron rods. When PW16 attempted to ran away to escape from the assault, A8 attacked him with an oar. The allegation against the 1st accused was that, it was under his leadership the assault was committed and he instigated the other accused to commit the said offences. Because of the injuries, Bosco passed away. PW16 sustained injuries and was admitted in Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram.
3. Based on the First Information Statement furnished by PW1, Crime No.105/2001 was registered by Thumba Police and after completing the investigation, PW15 submitted the charge sheet. In support of the prosecution, they examined PWs 1 to 16, marked Exts.P1 to P41 and MOs 1 to 12. During trial, the 4th accused passed away and accordingly charge against him got abated. After the closure of prosecution case, the incriminating materials brought out in the trial were put to the accused while they were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C and the same were denied by them. From the side of the defence DW1 and DW2 were examined.
4. After evaluating the entire materials brought on record, the Sessions Court found the 1st accused not guilty. However, accused Nos.2, 3, and 5 to 8 were found guilty of the offences and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1,00,000/- with a default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year each for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC , rigorous imprisonment for five years each and a fine of Rs.25,000/- each with a default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for four months each for the offences punishable under Sections 307 read with , rigorous imprisonment for six months each for the offences punishable under Section 148 read with and rigorous imprisonment for two months each for the offences punishable under Section 143 read with . It was also ordered that the substantive sentence shall run concurrently.
5. Crl.Appeal No.111 of 2017 is filed by the 2nd accused, Crl.Appeal No.788 of 2016 is filed by accused Nos.3 and 8, Crl.Appeal No.777 of 2016 is filed by accused Nos.5 and 7 and Crl.Appeal No.858 of 2016 is filed by accused No.6.
6. Heard Sri.B.Ramanpillai, learned Senior counsel appearing for accused Nos.5 and 7, Sri.Ravikrishnan, learned counsel appearing for accused No.2, Sri.S.Rajiv, learned counsel appearing for accused Nos.3 and 8, Smt.K.Kusumam, learned counsel appearing for accused No.6 and Sri.Alex M.Thombra, learned Public Prosecutor. Sri.B.Raman Pillai, learned
