text:
Aflați mai multe despre abonamentul Scribd
Descoperiți tot ce are Scribd de oferit, inclusiv cărți și cărți audio de la editori majori.
Present:- sri.
Sasidharan, B.A, LL.B, Judge for the Trial of NIA cases, Ernakulam.Thursday the 30th day of April, 20 j.5/ 10th Vaisakha 1937.P.
A23. Mahinkutty,
Pothanikkadu Village.A24. Muhammedali, S/o. Abdul Khadar, aged 33 years,Mullarikkattu House, Azad Road, Kavungara Kara,Velloorkunnam Village.A25. Abdul Latheef, S/o. Muhammed, age 40 years,Karimpayil House, Near Mannar Masjid, UliyannurKara, Kadungallur Village.426. Moidheenkutty, S/o. tsmail, Aged 36 years,Pullanikkattil House, Valanchery Bhagom, KattipparathiVillage, Thirur Taluk, Malappuram District.A27. Shejeer @ Sajeer, S/o. Hamsa, aged 28 years,Ayyarakudi House, Eramam Bhagam, MuppathadomKara, Kadungallur Village.A28. M.K.Naser, S/o. Kunhan pillai, aged 42years,Marangattu House, Kunhunnikkara Kara, Aluva,Ernakulam (Absco n d i ng ).A29. Kasim.K.E, S/o. lbrahim, age 34 years, KappoorilHouse, Kunhunnikkara, Kadungalloor Village, Aluva.A30. Shafeeq, S/o. Fakrudeen, aged 25 years, ThelappuramHouse, Ekunnam Bhagom, Odakkali , Ernakulam
District. (Absconding)
HaneefaT.K, ThachuvallathHouse, Elookara, West Kadungallur Village,Muppathadom
s I43,147,148, 120(8),34L,427,323,324,326,506(ii),2O1,202,2t2,153(A),307 rlw I49 lPC, Section 3 ofExplosive Substances Act,L908 and Section 15 r/w1"6,18,18(B),19 and 20 of UA(P) Act 1967.
Offence charoed:-
Not guilty
guilty and
,,' '
of ipC, Sec. 18
Sentence or Order:-
of lpc, Rigorous
UA(P) Act.
A7 Pareed is sentenced to undergo Rigorous lmprisonment for three months u/s 143 of lPC,Rigorous imprisonment for six months u/s 147 of lPC,imprisonment for one month u/s 34I rlw 149 of lPC,Rigorous imprisonment for one year U/s 427 rlw I49of lPC, Rigorous imprisonment for-'.three months u/s323 rlw iqg or lpC Rigorous im$risonment for one
of the
Rigorousimprisonment for two years u/s 153A r/w 1208 of lPC,Rigorous imprisonment for 3 years u/s- 3-of theIPC andEx-plosive Substances Act r/w 1208
IIt is made clear that the substantive sentences ofimprisonment shall run concurrently. The convicts areentitled to get set off, of the period undergone bythem in custody under Section 428 ot Cr.pC. Out otthe fine amount, <8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhsonly) shall be paid to PW2 under Section 357(1) ofCr.PC, if realised. No order is made for the disposal ofproperties since the case against absconding accusedis pending. The accused are committed to the CentralPrison, Kannur to undergo the sentence imposed.
Descriotion of accused
Savad (A1)
MudasseriHouse, NearNooleli Mosque,Nooleli kara, ,AshamanoorVillage,
Hassa n
ThenkkumBhagam Kara,ChowaraVillage,Sreemoola nag a ram, Aluva Taluk.
MuhammedShobin (A3)
Koorumattukudy(Thanimolel)House, NearGovt. L.P.SchoolVenduvazhiKara,
Sajil (Aa)
Shamsudhin @Shamsu (A5)
ThottathikkudyHouse, Randarkara,MuvattupuzhaVillage.
House,Mundankarapuram Bhagom,Vengola Kara,
Shemi @Shanavas (46)
PunnakkalHouse, ValluvalliKarayil,
Pareed.K.A (A7)
Kaippilly House,ManakkamoolaBhagom, SouthVazhakkulam
Yunous Aliyar(A8)
Jaffer (A9)
Ashraf (A10)
Meera n
NellimattomKara,.KuttamangalamVillage.Paruthikkattukudi House,PoovathurBhagom,Era ma llu rVillage.Mundeth House,Mekkalady Kara,Near RadioJunction; KaladyVillage.t
i pareeth
lchariruouse, I
Veedu,Koorumpanampara Bhagom,
CheruvattoorKara, EramalloorVillage.
Shiyas (A13)
KalarikkalPuthenpuraVeedu,Olibhagath,Mulavur Kara,Era mallu r,MulavoorVillage.
Siyad (Al-4)
KizhakkepramKara. KottuvalliVillage.
House No.4/462K, Near CresentSchool, Aluva
Thottu mughomPost (From
KuzhuppallyVillage)16 Abdul Salam. |:: {416).t-
Padinjare Veedu,ThayikkattukaraBhagom,Ghoornikkara
Ka mu
Abdul Khadar
Fahad (A1B)
Palakkal House,MariyappadiBhagam,VeliyathunaduKara,Ka ruma loorVillage.
Niyas.K.A. (A19)
KadukkappillyVeedu, KaladyVillage.
Anas (A20)
KhadarNanethanHouse,Kandantharakara, VengolaVillage.
K.M. AIi@Nirappu Ali(A21)
Kolambel House,Nirappu KannadiCity Bhagom,Mu lavoorVillage.
PuthenpurayilHousePaingottur Kara,KadavoorVillage.
Abdul Azeez
Mukalel House,Waiting shedBhagom,Pallarimangalarn
.:\, ,,',1,:r.
: ^:'\,,
Abdul Latheef(A2s)
KarimpayilHouse, NearMannar Masjid,Uliyannur Kara,KadungallurVillage
Moidheen Kutty(A26)
lsmail District.
House, AzadRoad, KavungaraKara,Velloorkun na mVillage.
ValancheryBhagom,KattipparathiVillage, ThirurTaluk,
Shejeer ESajeer (A27)
MalappuramAyyarakudiHouse, EramamBhagam,Muppathadom
M.K. Naser(A2B)
Kunjan pillai
KadungallurVillage.Agriculture Kappooril House,Kunhunnikkara,KadungalloorVillage, Aluva.ThelappuramHouse, EkunnamBhagom,Odakkali ,Erna ku la mt District.
Moiden Kutty
H.l{o. Vll/656,KarimberapadyHouse,Uliyannoor Kara,KadungallurVillage, Aluva,ErnakulamDistrict.(Absconding)
ValiyaparambilVeedu, ChoiceRoad, NearPashnithodu
Azeez Odakkali(A33)
Sadhiq.T.H (A34)
KuzhakkanayilHouse, Vll/403,Ekkunnam,Pallippady,Asa ma n noorVillage,Kurupampadi,Ernakulam.(Absconding)
ThachuvallathHouse, Elookara,
Niyas (A35)
Riyas (436)
Mad rassa pa ra m
:j':_-.-.,--, ( .' \.',, , ' -"- "'*.,./,.
MadrasaprambilVeedu, NearMuslimpalli,Nettoor Kara,Maradu Village.
ParekkatilHouse,Asokapuram,ChoornikkaraVillage, Aluva.
Date ofOccurrence
Date of filing
A1- AbscondingA2- 28.08.201.0
A12- 30.08.2010At3- 22.07.2010A14- 23.07.2010A15- 13.07.2010
416- 12.07.2010417- 09.07.2010A18- 25.07.2010At
9- 15.08.2010
A2s- 21.07.2010A26- 22.07.20LOA27- 09.07.20L0A28- AbscondingA29- 28.11..20L2A30- AbscondingA31- AbscondingA32- Surrendered on04.10.2012
A34- 10.08.2011A35- Surrendered on
Commencementof trial
Close of
436- Surrendered on
Date ofJudgment
Sentence /Order
Service ofcopy of
judgment orfinding on
Explanationfor delay.
No delay
college, Thodupuzha, in the question paper set by him for the second semester
B' com
examination held
reference against Prophet Muhammad and lslam. The accused, who are active
members of Popular Front of India (in short pFl) and its political wing socialDemocratic Party of India (sDpl), with an intention to pass the message to thepublic and other religions that any one who offends the prophet or the lslam will
llil.4uvattuprlzha whefein A3, A4, /f8,
vehicles, sufficient number of mobile phones and SIM cards by using fakeidentity cards and A2 was made the leader of the team.
In order to execute the plot and as per the direction of A8, A11 prepared
sketch of the route to the house of CW2; A18 Fahad and A37 Noushad were
deputed by A8 and A28 to finalise the sketch and accordingly they visited thelocality and finalised the sketch; A27 obtained a mobile phone and SIM cardfrom A17 and handed it to A29 who in turn gave it to A28 and in furtherance of
the criminal conspiracy A2 to A7, on 6,5.2010 went to the house of CW2 with anintention to attack him. A8, A13, 421 to A23 and A30 waited at different placesto facilitate the crime and to cause disappearance of the evidence by disposing
the weapons. But the plan was foiled. Subsequently on 17.5.2010, A2, 43, 45,
46, AB and A28 visited the house of CW2, but that attempt was also foiled.
.,.,Again..a...'i-'. l
".-rhouSe gf CW2, but he was not ppresent in his house. Then on 2.7.2010 and'i' -t'..-lq. ,3.7.2O1-O';attemptswere made by 41 to A7 with the help of A8 to A10, 418, A30
,l; ,..l
(viii) on the same day night another criminal conspiracy was held in thehouse of A28, which was attended by A1 to A7 and A2g from where A2g gavespecific instructions to A1 to A7 about the role of each and supplied the articlesrequired for the purpose of committing the offence. A2g gave a mobile phone to
directed to be the driver of the omni van. Thereupon A2g went to the house of429 for arranging <25,000/- from him for meeting the expenses that might arise
during the attack and subsequently. A29 agreed to arrange that amount nextmorning and thus the accused herein along with A1, A4, A28, A30, A31 and A33(absconding accused), in pursuance of the conspiracy made all arrangements to
attack CW2;
A2B as promised.
and 7 left the house of A28 in a Maruthi omni van and proceeded to
A7 reached near the house of CW2. 43 who was watching the movements ofCW2 passed the information to A8 over phone. A37 took his position nearoffice, Muvattupuzha wnich is near Muvattupuzha police station to watch..---"Vtllegei\...,..,:':':,_: ,.the mo\ements of police. At about 8 am. when CW2 professorT.J. Joseph wasi.i::.
Maruthi WagopR car bearing No.KL-17 ElI795 along with his sister Sr.Marie
Pareed,interceptedandwrongfu||yrestrainedtheWagonRcardrivenbyCW2.seatA7 stopped the omni van after turning it around and remained in driver's
for quick
escape from
meanwhile A1 to A6 came out of the omni van with choppers, hatchet, knivesand explosives, surrounded the Wagon R car. Then A1 smashed the right frontside door glass of the car with hatchet, 43 smashed the front windscreen with
chopper and A2, with a chopper smashed the left front side door glass and
the neck of cw3 sr. stella, restrained and attacked her by pressing
towards the compound wall. 42 inflicted injuries on the left ankle of CW2 with achopper and A1 inflicted cut injuries on the left thigh, left foot and left ankle ofCW2 with hatchet. A1 to A4 together pulled down CW2 on the road at the back
side of the car. 43 and A4 guarded the place by standing on both sides of the
road with weapons, 46 threatened the persons who were coming out of thechurch. On seeing CW1 Salomy, wife of CW2 and her son CW4 Mithun rushing
towards the spot, A6 hurled explosives to prevent them from approaching and
to generate fear among the public. CW4 Mithun managed to get a chopper andrushed to save his father. In that attempt A1 had sustained injuries. A5 and 46.,,-r:r::.-forciblV held CW4 and threw him in the school compound which is in a lower
',....::';'i;,,.,-.r': \ a -. ..'.! \
'iJ,{:i,,-tevel.: .;y" ,1 .,*,{:}, , "
A-1 pr.tr::serl
the right hand of CW2 on the road and A1, with an intention to kill CW2 byinflicting serious injuries, cut on the right hand of CW2 several times with thehatchet knowingly that his act would cause the death of CW2 and thus chopped
off the right hand and told CW2 in Malayalam that you have ridiculed tslam byusing this hand, you don't write with this hand again. 41 threw the severedhand in a nearby compound with intention to cause the death of CW2 and thuscommitted terrorist act and caused terror in the minds of the people.
a bag. 43 alighted at Varapetty with that bag and handed over the same toA30 who was waiting there as per the previous plan. A7 brought the omni van
to lrumalappady from where it was handed over to A9. After removing the fakenumber plates, A9 threw it away to Periyar valley Canal and proceeded with theomni van along the Perumbavoor
A19 Niyas, A31 Najeeb and Noushad M.K. (not charge sheeted) as per thedirections of A28 took AL and 45 who had sustained injuries in the attack on
Abdul Salam at Aluva. A2B, A29 and Rafi (not charge sheeted) brought A15Dr.Reneef to the house of A16 in a Swift car to attend 41 and 45. 416 brought
equipments and medicines from the clinic of A15 and made arrangements in hishouse for the treatment of 4L and A5. A15 who is a dentist knowingly that he
was not authorised to treat them, rendered necessary treatment to A1 and 45.','
ALq,intention to harbour the injured accused;.made arrangements to') wilhj ,an
r.\ .:.
.. .;'
.,, .,,.-.r',
z:shift A1 and A5 frorn his hi:uEc iit liis 5t,-ri'pio c;rr haarirlS
l',lc.KL-O:31 3883,
A of
No.XVlll/269 of Maradu Grama Panchayath and provided safe hide out to those
three accused. Then 436 shifted those three accused from that house to houseNo.TC 68896 at Pachalloor, Thiruvanantha puram.
A14 and A14 purchased two mobile phones and gave the mobile phones withSIM cards
to A2B and then made arrangements to shift A2B, A29 and A32 in
Maruthi Alto car bearing No.KL-8/AB 5597. A28' A29, A32' A33 and A34, with
46 and 47 to Ochira,
Nilamel, Thiruchirappally and Chennai and provided safe hide outs to thoseaccused.
6. A13, A2O, A24 and accused namely Rafi and Mansoor (not chargesheeted), on 4.7.2010 at 10 pm, assembled in the house of A20 in Vengola
to A13 and
harboured A13 in that house; A25, A26 and A34 with the assistance of
A48, 451 to A54 (not charge sheeted) took A8 to the house of A4B at Eloorkaraand then to the house of CW64 at Eloor, from where A8 was taken by A34 in the
car owned by his wife to the parking area of Najath Hospital. From that place5 took AB in his Ritz car bearing No.KL-42lC 4700 to a flat by name Daffodils
came to that
AB, A35 and 436 were harboured in that flat by A2B for two
days. From there A8 was shifted to the house of Ramla, wife of 426 atValancherry and then shifted to the house of A54
at perinthalmanna in the
Maruthi 800 car which belongs to 426. A19 and A2g harboured A12 and A44 inbuilding No.xxx/1615 at Ponnurunni, Vyttila and earmarked them as culorits tosurrender before the police so as to mislead the investigation and to ensure
7. In the meanwhile A9 and A10 were arrested by the police. Then A20,with an intention to mislead the investigation and with an intention to save A9and A10 from the clutches of law conducted processions with the assistance ofPFI and SDPI workers.
occasions A13, A20, A24 and another accused namely M.K.Asharaf (not charge
sheeted) gave financial assistance to the accused who went absconding and to
act as defined under Section 15 of the UA(P) Act. Then he filed a report in thecourt
Section 15 of the
Police, Muvattupuzha.
1-4;1.2011 CW255 filed final report against 27 accused before the Sessions
LZOB, 34r,:.427, 323, 324, 326, sO6(ii), 1534, 201, 2OV, 2L2 and 307 r/w
149 of lPC, section 3 of the Explosive substances Act and sections 15, 16, 18,1BB. 19 and 20 of the unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The said case was
taken on file as SC No.41l2011 and made over to the lvth Additional Sessions
accused. That report was accepted and those accused have been ranked as A28
A37, alleging commission of the same offences mentioned in the earlier finalreports and that report was also accepted.
307 rlw 149 lPC, Section 3 of Explosive Substances Act and Section 15 r/wSections 16, 18, 18B, 19 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, read
over and explained to which they pleaded not guilty. On 22.4.2013 A35ered in court. He was remanded to Central Prison, Viyyoor. Charge5 was framed on 29.4.2013, for the same offences. He also oleadedThen evidence was started and PW1 was examined in part. While so,OM.B-1-58/13i-dated 17.5.2013 issued by the Hon'ble High Court this
case was made over to this court for trial and disposal. 436 Riyas surrenderedbefore this court on 27.5.2013. After furnishing copies of the relevanrrecords,charge framed against 436 on 11.6.2013 for offences under section 2r2 otlpc
A28, A30, 431 and A33 are absconding. A2, A3, 45 to AB, A19,
A32, 436 and A37 are in judicial custody. During the trial A35 and A29 were
filed a
accused who are not charge sheeted. After filing the final reports theprosecution has re-arranged the rank of those accused who are not chargesheeted and arraigned them as A38 to A54.
prosecution pws
to 304 were examined and marked Exts.Pl to p901. Ext. C1 to C56 were alsomarked and identified Mos 1 to 227. Exts.Dl to D25 were marked during theexa
prosecution witnesses.
evidence the accused were examined under Section 313 of Cr.p.C. They deniedall the incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence against them. They
stated that they are innocent and filed separate statements. Thereupon theprosecution and the accused were heard under section 232 cr.p.c. since therewas no scope for acquittal under the said section the accused were directed
enter upon their defence and to examine witnesses if any. Accordingly, fourwitnesses were examined as DW1 to DW4. Exts.D26 and D27 were marked on
26,,r.the side of the defence. Exts.c57 and c58 were also marked. PW35
recalled and cross examined by the accused' Thereupon the prosecution filedapplication under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. seeking permission to examine a PoliceCircle Inspector as witness. That petition was allowed and he was examined asPW3O5 and Ext.P9O2 was marked. A5 was again examined under Section 313Cr.P.C. on
certain points. Again the prosecution and the defence were heard and
having found that there is no scope for acquittal under Section 232 of Cr.P.C. thedefence was directed to adduce further evidence if any. But they did not adduce
any evidence. At this stage the learned Public Prosecutor filed anotherapplication under Section 31L Cr.P.C.
issue summons
to an additional
witness. After hearing both sides that petition was also allowed and that witnesswas examined PW306. PW27L was recalled suomoto. He was further examinedand two documents were marked as Exts.C59 and C60.12. Here the points that arise for consideration are:1. Was an
z/5. Did 46 with the common object hurl bomb and cause explosion asalleged?
6. Did accused
Nos. 2, 3 and 5
the crime?10. Did A29,
of evidence as alleged?
give, as alleged?13.
Did accused
1s. Did qecused Nos. 16, 19, 20, 25, 26. and 34
offender with the intention of screening him from legal punishment andknowing that such person is a terrorist?16. Did accused Nos.2,
5 to 27,29,32,34,
13. Point
Nos.l to 8:-
considered together. PWL is the wife of PW2, the injured. They are residing near
Nirmala Public School along with their two children namely Mithun (PW4) and
Amy (CW6) and Elikutty (CW5), mother of PW2. According to PW1, aftei thequestion paper issue some strangers came to her house twice or thrice. On the
date of the first visit her mother-in-law Elikutty, two sisters of her husbandnamely Sister Marie Stella (PW3) and Mary (PW14) were present at her house.On that day at about 5 pm she came out on hearing the calling bell. When sheope-ned
the door she found two persons in the sit out. 3 - 4 persons werJ
standihg in the courtyard. One among them told her that they came to get an
'-.,,irticle fiom her husband for publishing in a college magazine. PW3 told them
that PW2 has gone out and asked them to wait. one among them repried thatthey will meet PW2 from outside and reft the prace. This witness identified A2,43, A5, 46 and 47 in court and also the photograph of A4 who is absconding.
she identified the photograph of A4 during the investigation stage arso. sheadded that on 220.127.116.11 at about 5 pm while she was walking through the road
in front of her house along with her neighbour seena, six persons came thereon two motor cycles. After parking the motor cycles in front of her house, five
among them went to her house and the remalning person sat on the moror
remained there and it was marked as Ext.pi.(b). The others were identified asA2 Jamal, ,A3 shobin, A5 Shamsudin and A6 shanavas, who came to their house
on 6.5.2010 and identified the eighth accused yunous Aliyar to be the personwho rang the calling bell. At that time pw2, his mother Elikutty, nephewJoby(PW15) and his wife Prabha were present in that house. From the road she
found PW15 Joby opening the door. Then A5 shanavas handed over a cover toJoby. He went inside with that cover. lmmediately he came back and returned
the cover to the fifth accused and closed the door. Accused Nos.2, 3, 5, 6 and gwent outside. lmmediately she came to the house and came to know that theyhad come to the house seeking financial help for the treatment of the child ofone among them.
14. According to her, the third attempt was on 28.5.2010. tt was the
standing in the car porch. By this time PW4 went to the backside of the house
to call his father. Those persons who were standing near the calling bell entered
into the house and searched each and every room for PW2. When shequestioned them, one among them told that he came from HDFC Insurance.
she identified 43 and Ext.P1(a) photograph to be the persons who had enteredinto the room. They followed PW4 and went to the backside of the house. Then
they came to the front side and left the compound along with the four personswho were waiting near the car porch. She followed them quickly. But one among
them threated her by showing gestures and left the place on their motorcycles. Though she made an attempt to note the number of those motor cycles,she could get only one number. On that day evening they went to Velankanni on
officials came to their house. They gave the phone numbers of some policeofficers and the phone number of the police station. Those numbers werewritten on a paper and affixed on the wall near the telephone stand.15. According to PW1, on 4.7.20L0 at about 6.15am, Pws 2 and 3 andtheir mother went to the church to attend the Mass. At around 8 am she heard
sound from the road followed by a screaming sound. She heard the honking of
the horn of their vehicle. lmmediately she rushed towards that place and askedher son to verify as to whether anybody attacks PW2. When they reached near
van. She identified that ornni van as Iv]O.2. The brok:rt lrunltler'platt::
front side and backside were identified to be Mo.1 and Mo.3 respectiveiy.
the four doors of the omni van were seen kept opened. She found their WagonR car
with broken windscreen and side windows near the omni van. Her mother-
in-law was sitting in the Wagon R car and crying. At that time one of theassailants caught hold of the neck of PW3 with a knife on his left hand and
detained her near the 'kayyala' of the school compound. She identified
Shamsudhin as the person who caught PW3. PW2 was laid down on the roadunder the grip of 3
- 4 assailants.
of PW2 with a hatchet. She tried to go near PW2. At that time the sixth accusedwho was carrying the plastic
threatened her with dire consequences. She deposed that she ignored thethreatening and proceeded towards PW2. At that time 46 took something like
ball and hurled towards her. lt exploded in front of her. She realised that it was abomb. By this time her son Mithun managed to get a chopper from their house,approached PW2 and inflicted injury on the backside of A1 with that chopper.On seeing this two of the assailants who were identified as A5 and A6 came
there, took Mithun and threw in the school compound. By this time A1 got into
the vehicle with the severed hand, followed by the other assailants. The vanspe.d towards Companypady side. The severed hand
compound of Plakkil J"gy (PW10). Due to the attack her husband hqd sustained'
:llinjuries on hi: left hand ariil lcft l*g.
16. Accordinr] to pw1, some of the assairants u/ere wearing caps. 'Irreothers had a band on their head with a cloth like ,lungi,. pw2 was taken to the
hospital by PW3, 4 and 6. she spoke that her daughter who was there at theplace of incident, informed the police about the incident over phone. within ten
minutes police party came there and corded the place of incident. By this timeM.c.Joseph (PW158) and some others found out the severed hand. M.cJoseph
kept the same in a plastic kit and they handed over the same to the police.lmmediately the police went to the hospital with the severed hand. she wastaken to her house by the persons who gathered there. Around 9 am policecame to her house, recorded her statement, and obtained her signature in thesame. she identified her signature in the Fl statement and
was marked as
Ext.P2. she spoke that at about 11 am the police prepared a scene mahazar as
shown by her. From the place of occurrence the police recovered two pairs of
from the spot were identified by PW1 as Mo.4 series. Mo.5 series are her ownslippers recovered by the police from the spot. one slipper recovered by thepolice from the spot was identified as MO6. MO7 was the spectacle used by
PW4. Mo.8 series are the two caps recovered by the police from the spot andMO.9 is the broken glass pieces. MO.10 series are also broken glass pieces
collected by the police from the spot. The chopper which was taken by pW4eir house and used by him for attacking A1 was identified as MO.11. MO.
,-,:ci;,ri'.,'. ...:'ri":.
deoosed that she was able to identify the assailants in the TIP conducted by theMagistrate.
that in connection with that question paper he was suspended by the collegemanagement on 26.3.2010. A case was registered in the Thodupuzha police
station against him. In that case he was in judicial custody for six days.
connection with that issue, PFI and SDPI conducted several protest rallies in and
their mother were there in the house along with PW1. The persons who came to
that house told them that they wanted an article from him for their collegemagazine.
18. This witness spoke about the alleged incident which took place on17.5.2010. At that time his nephew PW15 Joby and his wife who had come
visit, were there in the house along with him. On hearing the calling bell PW15Joby opened the front door. He followed Joby and stood behind Joby. At that time
a person who was standing nearthe calling bell pointed out another person and
told that the latter's daughter was having some kidney problem and soughtfinancial help for treatment. He found three others standing in the courtyard JfthaLhouse. The person who spoke to PW15 handed over a cover to PW15 and
told him that it waTgiven by Thomas 5ir of Vazhakulam. PW15 gave that letter
to him' rt was a
retter addressed
42 and A5 were having brack caps and ail of them were having shourder
the departure of assailants, pw1 came there and he narrated the entire incident
to her. she told him that there were six persons and one among them waswaiting for the others on the road.19. 28.5.2010 was the birthday of his daughter Amy and mother Erikutty.They had a plan to go to Verankanni on that evening. For that purposehe hadarranged a vehicle through a travel agency. Around 2pm he went to thehouse
of PW15B M.c.Joseph which situates on the back side of his house to keep hiswagon R car in that house. After parking the vehicre in the house of prof.M.c.Joseph, he had some conversations with prof. M.c.Joseph. At thattime pw4
":,.:l.V${rn-".,':i'i:" \
came to the backyard of his house and told him that somebody came
,rttie{elpnd they wanted to meet him. By this time two persons came to thethfough the door of the kitchen. On seeing thisihe rushed
to the house of M.c.Joseph and remained there for a few minutes. Later on, hecame back to his house, after ensuring that the persons who had come therehad left the place. Then Pws L and 3 narrated the entire incident to him. He was
informed by PW1 that some of the assailants were standing in the courtyard
and another man was waiting on a motor cycle which was parked near thehouse. PWL told him that she questioned the persons who came there but they
some police officials came to their house and gave some phone numbersincluding that of the Sub lnspector, Circle Inspector and police station. Thepolice officers gave direction to them to note the registration number of thevehicles coming to their house and to inform the police immediately and tofurnish the details of those vehicles. Thereupon PWL wrote the phone numbers
in a paper and stuck on the wall near the telephone stand. He added that on2.7.2O7O while he was going
in his car
and when he reached at Randar he found two persons chasing him on a motorcycle. The pillion rider was talking in his mobile phone. When the motor cyclecame nearer he slow down the vehicle and gave way to the motor cycle to pass
on. But the motor cyclist, without overtaking his vehicle slow down
followed him. He was scared and so he proceeded in high speed. The motorcyclists also followed him for about 3
- 4 kilometers.
rnotor cycle and identified A37 Noushad as the pillion rider. When PW3 askedhirp why he took the vehicle in such a high spged he narrated the,incident to
to the church, which situates justt/z km awayfrom his house, along with pw3and their mother in their Wagon R car bearing No.KL-17/E 1795. When heentered on the road he found a stranger walking along the road side with
plastic kit in his hand. They attended the Holy Mass. lt ended at about 7.55 am.
when he was about to start his vehicle he found sister Jessy Tressa (pw13).Though he had offered a lift she refused. He left the church premises at around
8 am. PW3 was sitting on the front seat and their mother was sitting on theback seat. They almost crossed the play ground of Nirmala school. when hewas about to enter the pocket road leading to his house a white Maruthi omni
high speed, stopped in front of his car and blocked him. This witness identifiedMo.1 number plate and added that there was a sticker of the Holy Family on the
windscreen of that omni van. This witness also identified Mo.2 white Maruthi
omni van and added that the number plate now seen fixed on the van bearssome other number. This witness identified A7 in court to be the driver of Mo.2
omni van. At that time A7 was having beard. when the omni van stopped infront of his car, he honked the horn. At that time six persons got down from Mo.
2 van, one among them was carrying a plastic kit, who was identified as 46.The others were carrying weapons. This witness identified Ext.p1(a) and p1(c)photographs of 44 sajil and AL savad in court and added that 44 was carrying a
.'- .' ..,''"' thepl and A5 was having a knife. All of them were in pants and shirts. A2 and 5';
re wearing black caps. The black cap of A2 was identified as MO.g (a) and
the black cap of A5 was identified as Mo.8(b). He added that these two personscame
to his
having band on their head with a cloth like 'lungi'. He spoke that 41 and A4came to his side and the three among them stood on the side of PW3. The first
accused tried to open the door. since all the doors were locked, A1 could notopen the door. Then A1 smashed the door glass on his right side with hatchet.By this time A2 smashed the front door glass on the left side using the chopper
to attack them they cried aloud. At that time A1 put his hand inside the car and
inflicted injuries on him with hatchet. He had sustained injuries on the outeraspect of the left hand, injuries below and above the left elbow and on righthand. At that time A1 put his hand inside the car and opened the door. Due to
the attack he could not resist. By that time three others came to that side,caught and dragged him out of the car. When he made an attempt to escapefrom the clutches of those assailants A2 Jamal inflicted two injuries on the leftheel. A1 forcibly inflicted injuries with hatchet on the buttock above the leftthigh and on the ankle of the left foot. A1 to 44 dragged him to a place behind
the car. In the meanwhile A5 caught the neck of PW3 pointing a knife towardsher and took her near the 'kayyala'. He added that 41 to 4 forcibly laid himdown on the road and then AL cut him on his Ieft hand. At that time he heard
AL inflicted cut injuries on'the right hand and chopped off his right ftand by
saying that you have ridiculed lslam by this hand, you shall not write with-thishand any more. In the meantime he saw pw4 rushing towards that side with a
chopper. This witness spoke that 41 took the severed right hand and went
towards the omni van. The other assailants followed him. They got into thevehicle and left the place. Thereafter pw3, pw4 and pw6 took him
hospital in his car. After giving first aid he was referred to Specialists' Hospital,Ernakulam from where his severed hand was replanted.
on 7.g.2010 he was
discharged from that hospital. He stated that he had five fractures. According
common object they inflicted injuries on him. This witness identified one of his
Mo.15 series
20. PW3 Sister Marie Stella also supported the versions of pW2. She is theelder sister of PW2. she is a member of 'sisters of saintJoseph of cluny'. while
she was serving as a nun at Newzealand she entered on leave and came to
lndia on 28.4.2010. Due to illness she applied for voluntary retirement andstayed with PW2 and his family members at Muvattupuzha. According to her,on 6.5.201-0 at about 5 pm while she was in that house along with pWl and her
sister Mary (PW14) and their mother, somebody came to the house and rangthe calling bell. PW1 went to the front room and opened the door. she followedher to the drawing room. When PW1 opened the door they found two persons
that they came for getting an article of pW2. At that time pW2 was not therd.So she invited them
to sit in the drawing room. They refused and went out. This
witness:identified A2, 43 and A5 in court and wrongly pointed out A20 and A22
and stated that they were also in the party who had visited her house on that
day. When the learned Prosecutor put a question as to whether she couldcorrectly identify those persons, she answered that she is having some memory
problem. Then
Ext.P1(a) photograph of A4 Sajil and added that he was also there in the team.On 10.5.2010 she left for Banglore and returned on 22.5.2010. By that time shecame to know that somebody came to their house on 17.5.2010.21. This witness also narrated the incident alleged to have been occured on
28.5.20!0. She identified 43 Shobin as one among the persons who enteredinto the house and searched the rooms. The other man was identified as A4.Then she added that PW1 followed the persons and after a few minutes shecame back and noted the number in a slip of paper. After about 15 minutesPW2 came there. Then, on the way
to Velankanni
PW2 lodged
a complaint
came there and gave some phone numbers and asked them
to note
numbers of vehicles coming to their house. She noted those numbers given by
them in a paperand affixed that paperon the wall. On2.7.2OIO she wenttotheBishop's House along with PW2. On the way she noticed the unusual driving ofPW2 and when she enquired PW2 about this, he
following them on a motor cycle. On that day at about 5 pm she saw a whiteomni van parked near their house. from her terrace. After sometime the vehicledrove away.
22. According to this witness, she had witnessed the entire incident tha;happened on 4.7.2010. On that day she went to the church along with pW2 and
their mother for qttending the Sunday Mass. When they werp returning from
the church after attending the Mass, a white Maruthi omni van came fromcompanypady side and stopped in front of their wagon R car by brocking theroad. she said that the registration number of the omni van was KL.O7.AD.7201.This witness also identified Mo.1 broken number plate and Mo.2 Maruthi omni
van. she said that there was a sticker of the Holy Family on the windscreen of
the omni van. According to her, she had noted those things as per
instructions given by the police officers who came to their house to enquireabout the incident dated 28.5.2010. This witness stated that the driver of theomni van was having beard. Though this witness had made attempt to identify
the driver in court she could not identify the driver. Her version is that whenthe omni van blocked their vehicle PW2 honked the horn of their vehicle. At that
time six persons got down from the omni van with weapons. one among themhad a hatchet in his arm and two of them were holding choppers. Two others
were carrying knives. out of the six persons two of them were having blackcaps and others had tied cloth like lungi on their heads. she identified Mo.g
series black caps. This witness also stated about the attempt made by theassailants to take PW2 out of the van and about the resistance offered by them.The assailants were able to over power the resistance offered by them and they
took PW2 out of the car by smashing the side window glass of their wagonR car.
she added that on seeing the attack on pw2 she got down from the vehiclewith an intention to interfere and to save her brother. By that time one amongthe assailants caught her neck and pressed her towards the compound wall
the school ground pointing a knife towards her. when pw2 made an attempt to
' i 'll .. ..escapd: f.rom the grip of the four persons, one among them inflicted injuries on
thq heil of left leg of PW2 with a chopper. The person who was carrying hatchet
inflicted injuries on the left ankle and on the left thigh of PW2. Then theydragged PW2 to the backside of the wagon R car and forcibly laid him down on
the road. Then two of them stood on the right side and the other two stood on
the left side of PW2. The assailant holding hatchet who was standing on theright side of PW2 started to inflict cut injuries on the left hand of PW2. PW2 hadsustained injuries on the left wrist. At that time she heard a sound of explosion
from the side of the Maruthi omni van. When she turned to that side she foundpwl_ and Amy standing there. At that time she heard an assailant calling thename of Savad and asking him to chop the other hand of PW2. The person whowas holding the chopper caught the right elbow of PW2 and pressed it towards
the ground. Then the other one carrying the hatchet inflicted injuries on theright wrist with that weapon saying that you had prepared the question paperridiculing lslam by using this hand and you shall not write with this hand anymore. By this time PW4 Mithun came with a chopper and caused an injury on
the backside of that assailant. On seeing this, the person who caught her lether free, approached PW4, got the chopper from his hand and put
it on the
ground. By that time the person who was carrying the plastic kit also joined himand both of them took PW4 and pushed him down to the school compound. Two
of the assailants threatened the persons who were coming through the'ioadafter attending the Holy Mass, by showing weapons. The person who washolding the hatchet went towards the omni van with the severed hand. He wasassailants. At that time she noted the number of the- followed by the other...._.,;'.: ,.vehicleon the backside. She identified that number plate on the back side as,lt' .'
,,.,,,,;\ .rt''l
,After getting into the vehicle, they proceeded in a high speed towardsi
::,..;-ComB/nypady side. By this time PW4 Mithun came back. She deposed.that-'
herself and PW4 Mithun with the help of another took pw2 to the vehicle. ThenPW6 Nibin took them to Nirmala hospital. After giving first aid pw2 was referred
to specialists' Hospital, Ernakulam. By this time one police officer brought thesevered hand of PW2 to the hospital. She added that subsequently, during the
investigation she had produced her blood stained clothes before theinvestigating officer. she identified M.o.14, L5 series, 16 and L7 dress materials
of PW2. The saree, blouse and skirt worn by this witness were identified as M.o.18 to 20 respectively. she added that she had sustained minor injuries on ner
left elbow and right knee. According to her, the assailants attacked her brother
with an intention to create a communal issue and to terrorise the people. Thiswitness identified the photograph of A1 and stated that he was the person who
had chopped off the right hand of pw2 with hatchet. she identified 45shamsudhin to be the person who caught her neck and pointed knife towards
her. she identified Ext.P1(a) photograph of 44 as the other person who wascarrying knife. Then she pointed out A2 and 3 to be the assailants who wereholding choppers. she added
on the heel of PW2 and gave instruction to A1 to chop off the right hand ofPW2.
windscreen of their
WagonR car and caught the right hand of pW2 and pressed the same to theground. 46 was identified as the person who was carrying the plastic kit and A7
was identified as the driver of the omni van and added that they were alsothere in the party who had visited their house on 6.5.2010.
23. PW4, Mithun has no direct knowledge about the incidents which too'k6.5.2010 and 17.5.2010. 28.5.2010 was the birthday of his sister Amy
to go to
Velankanni. PW3 and PW14 Mary were also there in the house. While he was
taking lunch along with PW3 and Amy, somebody came and rang the callingbell. He went to the front side of his house and found two persons standingnear the calling bell. Four others were standing near the car porch. The person
who was standing near the calling bell told him that he is coming frominsurance company and enquired about PW2. He called his mother to ascertain
whether his father was there and he was informed by PW1 that PW2 had gone
to the neighbouring house to keep their car. Then he went towards the houseof M.C.Joseph and found
PW2 chatting
that somebody from insurance company had come PW2 replied that he hadnever asked anybody to come there. When he turned around, he found the twopersons who were standing near the calling bell, coming out of the kitchen.They entered the backyard of their house, then went to the front side and left
the place. They were followed by the persons who were waiting near the car
porch. PW1 followed them. After few minutes PW1 came back and told them
that she got the registration number of one motor cycle. On the wayVelankanni PW2 had filed
the house and searched the rooms. After two or three days of their return fromVelankanni police came to his house to conduct enquiry.24. fhis witness spoke that he had seen the attack on his father. On that
morning at about 6.15 am PW2, 3 and his grandmother went to the church
see whether
that point. He reached the spot first. At that time he found a white Maruthiomnivan bearing No.KL.07.AD.720L stopped there facing companypadyside witharl
the doors opened and without switching off the engine. This witness identified
47 in court as the person who was sitting on the driver's seat and statedthathe had identified that accused In the Test ldentification parade conductedat
identified M.o.2 vehicre and M.o.1 number prate. There was a stickerof the'Holy Family' on the windscreen of the omni van. Their WagonR car wasseen
stopped behind the omni van. one of the assailants who was identifiedby thiswitness as 46 was standing in between the omni van and the compoundwall of
the school with a plastic kit on the left hand and a bomb on the right hand.when he reached the spot 46 threatened him by saying ,, rcros;eoo;<f, .,gc1cor,o,,Hefound PW3 under the grip of another assailant who was identified as 45.45 waspressing PW3 towards the compound wall. He found four assailantsdragging his
father towards the compound wall of the school ground and one among theminflicting a cut injury on the left heel of PW2. on seeing this he rushed to hishouse, got a chopper and returned to the spot. When he reached near the place
was exploded.
proceeded towards his father and found one of the assailants inflictinginjurieson the right hand of his father. He inflicted an injury on the back of the assailant:'' '" -"''l:'.-t1-'r"-'
.'Wfro was attacking his father. At that time A5 let PW3 free and approached him- \'-..
qldngiwith 46. They got the chopper from him and threw,,1;;1,'I .."
away. Thereupon
',rl:ii; bothof them pus\ed him to the school ground. He had sustainec, injuries on his
''-'a '
back and on both hands. When he reached the spot from the school compound,
he found PW2 lying on the road without the right hand. The assailants andvehicle were not there. Then he lifted his father to his WagonR car with the help
of others and proceeded to the hospital in that car driven by PW6 Nibin along
Then he went to his house, changed the blood stained dress and went toErnakulam. He identified Ext.P1(c) photograph of A1 as the photo of theassailant who had chopped off the right hand of PW2. A3 was identified as theperson who caught the right hand of PW2 and added that the said accused had
A4 as the persons who caught hold his father. This witness identified M.O.11chopper which was brought by him from his house to attack A1. This witness
identified M.O.4 slippers and M.O.7 spectacles. He identified M.O.8(a) and (b)caps worn by A2 and A5.
25. PW6 Nibin was the person who drove the WagonR car to Nirmalahospital with the injured. His evidence is that on 4.7.2010, after attending themass, he reached his house with his parents at about 8 am. While they were
getting out of the car they found a white Maruthi omni van proceeding towardshostel junction
from the road. He rushed to the spot and found the omni van stopped on theroad facing Companypady side. There were few persons behind the omni van
with weapons in their hands. He could identify one of the weapons as chopper.He realized that it was an attack .He was scared so he returned to his house to
9et hls cell phone and call his friends. But he did not get anyone.
By that time
,..-".h.9 hearp the sound of explosion. On hearing the soL;nd he rushed to that place. :'.. ':.'
and found the omni van speeding towards companypady. pw3 to pw5, cw5Elikutty and Punnad rhomas were there. There were some others also. pw2's
was there. pw2 was found lying behind the car near the
compound wall with a chopped hand. The windscreen and the window panes of
the wagonR car were seen broken. when he tried to lift pw2, pw5 asked him totake the car. PW3 to pw5 and Thomas lifted pw2 to the backseat of the car.lmmediately he took PW2 to Nirmala hospital in that wagonR car. pw3 and pw4accompanied them to the hospital. on the way to the hospital, he saw the wife
of Punnad Thomas. He asked her to search for the severed hand of pw2 andproceeded to the hospital. After a few minutes the Muvattupuzha sub Inspector
brought the severed hand to the hospital in a kit wherein ice cubes were put.He identified MO.4 series, MO.5 series and MO.6 series.
26. PW8 Thomas deposed in the same lines. His version is that while hewas returning from the church in his car along with his wife and when theyreached near the gate of Nirmala public school they heard a sound of explosion
from the road. He stopped the vehicle and found a black car on the road facing
wall. That man fell on the ground. He added that he saw one among themwaving a weapon towards that man who fell down. At that time another person
was being thrown out to the school compound. pw5 George Varghese camethere in his car and they together rushed towards the scene. By that time theleft the place. They found PW2 lying on the road with injuries in a
without his right hand. lmmediately himself and pW5, with the
n"r4of Pg3gand PW4 who were present there, lifted PVlp to the vehicle. ThenJi..;\.',. 1,'.-'"..,7
. .;
-rr"- -. -,t
the said vehicle was taken to the hospital by PW6. They searched for thesevered hand of PW2. lt was found in the courtyard of PW10 Plakkil Joy. After
getting some ice cubes from that house the severed hand was put in a plastic
kit and it was brought to the place of incident by PW158. That kit was handedover by PW158 to PW5 who, in turn entrusted
party who
came there. He spoke that he found M.O.4 series, M.O.5 series, M.0.6, M.O.8series and M.O.11 at the place of incident.
27. PW5 George Varghese who is a trustee of Nirmala Matha church alsosupported the versions of PW8. On 4.7.2010 he attended the Sunday morningMass.
lt was ended before B am. On that day he had occasion to see pW2, 3
and their mother at the parking area of the church. They were about to return
to their house. After sometime he went to his house. When he reached in frontof Nirmala school he found the car of Thomas (PW8) stopped on the road.
stopped his car behind the car of Thomas. He got down from the car and foundsmoke near the junction. PW2's car was there. PW2 had injuries. His right hand
Pws 3,
who had gathered at that place. This witness stated that himself, pws 3. 4 and
8 took PW2 to the car. As instructed by him PW6 Nibin took the car to thehospital. He found the remnants of crackers, slippers, caps one chopper andblood stains at the spot. After sometime M.c.Joseph (pw158) came to the spot
with the severed hand of PW2 and gave it to him. He handed over the same rothe Sub Inspector who came to the spot.28. PW7 Moly ceorge and PWg Betty Shaji atso deposed about the,incideniThey were returning from the church. when they reached near Nirmaja sadan.,!hey sary a omni van proceeding towards the school,from Companypady side in
a high speed in zig zag manner. After a few minutes they heard somesoundfrom the school side and found some persons standing there withweapons.They got frightened and went back and stood near the house of pw6Nibin. At
that time they heard a sound of explosion. After some time the omnr vanproceeded to the companypady side. pw7 added that whenshe reached there
she found PW2 lying on the road without his right hand, she saw smokeat the
spot' PWL. PW3, PW4, pw5, pw6/ pwg and mother of pw2 were there.lmmediately PW2 was taken to the hospital. pw9 found the remnantsofexplosion, broken grass pieces, brood stains and srippers at the spot. sheidentified Mos'4 series, 5 series, 6, g series, 9
29. PW11 Freddy craimed that he had informed the porice contror roomabout the attack on pw2. on 4.7.20L0 he was sreeping in hishouse. He heard
the sound of exprosion from the road, foilowed by a cry. on hearing this herushed towards that place. He found pw1 salomy standing near the gateofNedungad rhomas. she was seen scared. The vehicle of pw2Joseph was seen
stopped in front of the school. He found smoke at that place. salomy told him
that her husband was attacked and asked him to intimate the police. Then hewent to the house of Roy, contacted the police control room over phone andgave intimation that pw2 was attacked at a place near Nirmala publicschool
and sought their help. Then he returned to the place of incident. By that time.PW2 was taken
pieces and gaps at the place of occurrence. He identifBd MO.4 series, MO.5t'.
PW10 PlakkilJoy deposed about the recovery of the severed hand from
his compound. His version is that on 4.7.2010, after attending the Holy Mass,he reached his house at around
the sound of a horn and the sound of breaking glasses. After a few minutes heheard a cry. He was prevented by his wife from going out. He heard a sound of
vehicles. Then he came out and found PW5 and pw158 at the spot with someothers. He was told by PW158 M.c.Joseph that somebody had attacked pw2. He
also joined the persons who were searching for the severed hand of pW2.PW158 found out the severed hand from the courtyard
of his house.
PW158 got a plastic kit and some ice cubes from him and placed the severed
hand in the plastic kit with ice cubes. Thereupon pw15g gave it to pw5. Then it
was handed over to the police. This witness also stated that he found bloodstains, chopper, slippers, caps and broken glass pieces at the place of incidentand identified MO.4 series, MO.5 series, MO.6, MO.B series, MO.9 to MO.11 andMO.13.
31. PW158 M.CJoseph is a neighbour of PW2. His house situates just behind
the house of PW2. He was the person who found out the severed hand fromthe courtyard of PW10 Plakkil Joy. He spoke
house he found a black car speeding towards hostel junction. on seeing this heapprehended that something had happened. At that time some ladies who wer!
walking along the road told him that somebody attacked and chopped off thehand of ,PW2. They further infoqned him that severed hand is lying somewhFre
near the spot. When he proceeded further he found a gathering. PW5 and 8were also there. He felt the smell of gun powder and found smoke at that place.
Then he joined the others who were searching for the severed hand. He found
the severed hand from the courtyard of PW10 Plakkil Joy. He got a plastic kitand some ice cubes from the house of PWL0 and put the severed hand and the
ice cubes in that kit. He handed over the kit containing the severed hand toPW5. By that time police party came there in a jeep. PW5 gave that kit to the
Sub Inspector and they proceeded to the hospital with the same. He felt badand so he directly went to his house.
32. PW243, the Sub Inspector of Police, Muvattupuzha is the police officerwho had reached the spot first. According to him, on 4.7.20t0 at about 8.10
am while he was attending his duty, he got an information over phone thatsome miscreants attacked PW2. lmmediately he rushed to the spot with policeparty. When he reached the spot he found broken glass pieces and blood stains
on the road. There was smell of explosion. He found two black caps, slippersand a chopper at the place of incident. A few people was there. On enquiry hecame to know that PW2 was attacked by some persons who came
a Maruthi
omni van and that PW2 was taken to the hospital. At that time a person brought
the severed hand in a plastic kit with ice cubes and handed over the same tohim. Then he deputed two police men to guard the place of incident and rushed
to the hospital with the severed hand. As per the directions of the Doctorhanded over the plastic kit
same to the concerned court. That FIR was identified by this witness and it was
marked as Ext.P5B5. After registering the case the investigation was handedover to PW294, the Circle Inspector of Police. On
7 .7
33. From the evidence of PW1 and PW3 to PWg it is clear that on 4.7.20IO
at about B am
such as hatchet, choppers and knives. In that incident pW2 had sustainedinjuries. This evidence is supported by PW180, PW181 and pW265 who hadexamined and treated PW2. PW180 Dr.Suresh Kumar deposed that on 4.7.2010
Public School, Muvattupuzha". He spoke that the patient was conscious andoriented. He noted the following injuries:1)amputated right palm just above wrist joint with actively bleeding stump(amputated palm was brought separately)2)incised wound left forea rm
He deposed that after giving first aid the patient was referred to a highercenter. within 15 minutes the patient was taken to the specialists' Hospital in
an ambulance, He stated that most of the injuries were deep and the injuriescould be caused.as alleged. He opined that incised wounds ian be caused by
;i.. i..,:i.:
marked as Ext.P30:i.
wN'ro hacl
he examined one
52 years,
by him and it was marked as Ext.P307. According to him, the right hand of thepatient was amputated at the wrist end. This witness also opined that injurywas fatal and added that at the time of admission the patient was critical.
j ./1.- .:} 1.r., 6. Multiple deep lacerated injuries on the left leg lower U3d."f'j, -'-,, -:-' .:'1i,.I :. 7. Lacerated wound on the left foot.lrl
'- -i ',.r-{
-;: "r."- n!.!he wounds were.severely bleeding. There were other multiple fractures["F .;'{n:''.; ..I..---..1,
t.l '''-.---,.|I
,) -)
36. This witnes$ stated that the injured was in a state cf shock with life
danger. According to him, the injured was almost dead when brought to thehospital. He started the operation at 11 am on that day and it went on till 3 amon the next day. The whole blood, packed cell, plasma, platelets and fluids were
substituted. The injured was in the hospital for more than one month. The case
sheet of the injured, which was brought by the witness on summons wasmarked as Ext.P622. This witness stated that amputation of hand could becaused by an axe and the other injuries noted by him could be caused by anaxe or chopper. He added that it is scientifically not possible for the right hand
Salomy. He deposed that on 4.7.2O1O he visited the place of incident along with
Saju. He identified his signature in Ext.P133 scene mahazar and stated that hehad signed in the said mahazar from the place of occurrence. He spoke that he
occurrence. PW251,a senior civil police officer attached to the office of PW294stated that on 4.7.2070 he took the video of the scene of occurrence. That DVDwas marked as Ext.P605. PW226 Village Officer of Muvattupuzha village proved
the sketch of the scene of occurrence prepared by him and it was marked
38. PW294 the Circle Inspector of Police, Muvattupuzha stated about theinvestigation conducted by him. According to him, he reached at the place ofincident at about L1 am, inspected the scene as shown by PW1 and preparedExt.P133 scene mahazar in the presencp of two witnesses. He took possession
of ciiap[ie.!is {M0.4 :erie:, f40.5 series and lvlU.5i, l,1D'l :::t:ctacle -:. l'4f]. i: ss:rjesbiack caps, broken glass pieces (MO.9 and 10) and M().11 'Vakathi'(chopper)
him Scientific
Assistant collected samples from the scene. On that day itself at about 2.30 pm
side window glasses were seen broken. He added that he saw dried blood
Pws 3 to 8 regarding
the injuries of
accused has challenged the presence of PW3 at the place of incident. That is
stated about the recovery of the severed hand from the property of PW10. The
of these
supported by PW1B0, PW181 and PW265 the Medical Officers and Specialistswho had examined PW2. I do not find any reason to disbelieve the evidencetendered by these witnesses about the injuries of PW2. There is convincingevidence to show that PW2 had sustained grievous injuries. His right hand waschopped off. There were six multiple fractures on the right forearm. Apart fromthese injuries there were multiple lacerated injuries with tissue loss on the right
multiple deep lacerated injury on the left leg, lacerated wound on thend injuries on left palm. left elbow and left thigh. The evidence of Pws65 would show that the injured was in the hospital for more than one
40. Now I shall pass on to the next points. To prove the prosecution case
officers who were in the investigation team, the other officers, experts and thesecond phase of investigation conducted by pw 294 and the other officers wholed the investigation team.
at the scene
Bureau, Ernakulam and PW227, the photographer and inspected the scene in
the presence of PW294. The place of occurrence was seen guarded by policeconstables. From the spot she collected swab, burnt remnants, glass pieces,
dark brown stains in cotton gauze from the wall and stained soil and packed
the same separately. Thereupon she inspected the wagonR car and Maruthi|.
omni van bearing No.KL.07.AH.8768 from the premises of the police station and
collected glass pieces, dark brown stains, stained portion from the.seat and
pi?cked the same in separate paekets she produced the packets along ltrithExt.P309 to P311 reports prepared by h:r before the ASI of Muvattupuzha police
WagonR car from the police station premises. He got nine chance prints from
the omni van and two chance prints from the wagonR car. The chance printstaken from the omni van were labelled as M1 to M9. He developed the finger
prints of those chance prints. The police photographer took the photographs ofdeveloped finger prints. subsequenfly he examined one Indica car and got apalm print. Thereupon he compared the finger print slip received on 18.10.2010
with the chance finger print and on comparison it was found that there wereidentical ridge characteristics. Ext.p312 is the report prepared by him, andExt.P313 is the original finger print slip of A7, sent by the police to him for
comparison. The attested copy of Ext.p313 slip supplied by the police wasmarked as Ext.P314, subject to the objection raised by the defence. Ext.p315 is
the photograph of the left thumb impression marked as ,s' and Mo.316 is thephotograph of the specimen marked as M6. These photographs werealsomarked subject to the objection raised by the learned defence counser.
42. PW18B is the sub Inspector of perumbavoor police station who hadseized Mo.2 omni van. The evidence of this witness regarding the seizure of
that vehicle will be discussed while dealing with the point regarding the seizure
of that omni van. His version is that after entrusting A9 and Mo.2 in theMuyattupuzha police station he came back
caie, against A13 shiyas, A20 Anas, A23 Mahinkutty and 50 otheis as crime No.
deterring police officials from discharEing iheir offrcial r.luties, Ext.P322 is thecertified copy of the said FIR and Ext.P323 is the report filed by him to addSection 353
in court. Thereupon he
memo and search list prepared by him in connection with that search. Thiswitness stated that in the month of August 20L0, on getting information about
enquired about a black Indica car bearing No.KL-7/AP 16L3 and found out thesaid car near the house of one Surendran at Nellimattom. He came to know that
the said car belonged to A8 Yunous Aliyar. Then he went to the house of
which situates just 10 meters away from the spot where the car was seenparked and obtained the key from the father ofA8. As per the instructions given
by him the finger print expert examined the vehicle and took some chancefinger prints from the car. Then he seized the said car as per Ext.P330 mahazar
l*-.mobile-phqnes with SIM cards ( MO.42 to MO.47) and some VCDS (MOs.4B to
5?).lhe qearch memo and search list prepared by him in connection with thatfi::i'(l,:i',,\ - ,seaith'werg marked as Ext.P340 ,and P339 respectively. On 29.10.2010 he\. - i ,'"'' 'r't. ---.'--t-n'
*f one
P346 as per Ext.P342 search list. Ext.P341 is the search memo. This witnessadded that on 5.7.2010 he received a threatening call in his mobile phone from
written papers, printed sheets etc. (Exts.P350 to P359) and MO.53 pendrive
per Ext.P349 search list. On the same day at 7.40 pm, on the basis of reliableinformation he again conducted search in the house of A8 and recovered MO.54CPU as
per Ext.P361 search list. Ext.P360 is the search memo sent by him to
the concerned Magistrate before conducting the search. This witness addedthat on II.7.2Ol-O he conducted search in the same house, after preparing andsending Ext.P362 search memo. This time he had recovered two title deeds and
a mobile phone, which was used by A8 for committing the offence. But he didnot get it. The search memo and search list were marked as Ext.P364 and P365.
This witness stated that he had effected formal arrest of A8 from the jail inconnection with Crime No.101/2010 of Oonnukal Police station.
station was
:"' i'
Sub Inspector of
information he went
on the basis of an information and found A12 Ali at Pollachi Railway stationprernises at about 2am. Then he brought that accused to Muvattupuzha and
police station as crime No.733/2010. Ext.P371 is the certified copy of the said
FlR. Ext.P372 is the seizure mahazar prepared by him for the recovery of
mobile phone belonged to one Mujeeb who was behind the SMS.46. The Sub Inspector of North Paravur, when examined as PW194 stated
about the search conducted in the house of A14 Siyad. From the said house hehad recovered some publications and a SIM card which was identified as MO.59.Exts.P373 is the search memo and Ext.P374 is the search list prepared by him
in connection with the search conducted in that house. Ext.P375 to 384 are thepublications, notices, notepad etc. recovered from the said house. This witness/-:".:,.:::.-.
" ,,|li^ii
., .
stated that he had produced those items before the concerned court as per.._.
,; . .'i 47. pw1g5, a Grade Head Constable said that he had witnessed the
,*;.1"tt,." seizurl of motor cycle bearing No.KL-41/A 3082 (MO.60) and Lancer car bearing.' .:....]' -
No.KL-7/A.H 1515
{"}nce ril:l!'1ie.i
f'40"24 thrcugh
his signatures in the relevant mahazari and those mahazars were marked asExt.P386 and P387 respectively.
48. PWL96, the then Sub Inspector of Police, Aluva who was also in theinvestigation team deposed that on 29.7.2010 he had recovered MO.60 motorcycle as produced by Muneer, brother of accused Rafi (not charge sheeted), as
a case as crime
station. The certified copy of that FIR was marked as Ext.P388. On 9.7.2010,PW291 ASP of Police, Aluva filed a report before him regarding the seizure of
gun from the house of accused Ayoob (not charge sheeted). On the basis of that
report he had registered two cases in his police station as Crime No.1836/2010
49. PWl97, the then Circle Inspector of Kuruppumpady stated about the
cycle and they were declared hostile. pwL97 added that on 7.7.2010, as amember in the investigation team he conducted search in the house of oneBeerankutty in Asamannoor village and recovered the identity card of A1 Savad,one diary and some publications (Exts.P392 to P400) and some CDs (MO.62 toMO.64 series and MO.70) as per Ext.P3gL search list. On that day itself he
conducted search in the house of one lbrahim and recovered the identity card
of one Andru. Ext.P401 and P402 are the carbon copy of the search memo and
the search list. On that day itself he conducted search in the houses of oneBavu and Basheer. The album seized from the house of Bavu was identified as
conducted in the house of one Shine Muhammad. From the said house heExt.P407 photo and Ext.P408 pamphlet. He searched the factory of
/ ';lsi,7;;:;.,fecovered
,t.l' ,i\ ,'.,.' 'r'
t|:ea:irclr in ij rl: lrr:u:r,:;; ijl' atr:i-used 5jh;ril-r:,J
Al fai'i'.1'
The search memo and the search lists prepared by hirn in connecl.iori with thesearch macle in those houses were markr:d as Exts.P410, P411 and P414, As perExt.P414 search list prepared from the house of Savad he recovered Ext.P415, a
ration card issued in the name of 41 and his family members. Exts.P412 andP413 are the search lists prepared by him during the raid conducted by him in
the house premises of PW37 and PW38. This witness added that on 5.7.20L0 heregistered
a case in
against one Rasheed, as per Ext.P347 report (certified copy) of the CircleInspector of Police, Kothamangalam. The certified copy of the FIR was markedas Ext.P418.
him. PW200, the Circle Inspector of Police, North Paravur stated about thesearch conducted in the house of A6 Shanavas and the seizure of MO.79 series
flex sheets from that house. Ext.P425 is the search memo and Ext.P426 is thesearch list. On 25.7.2010 he seized an Alto car bearing No.KL-8/AB.5597 from
PW116 identified his signature in the said mahazar but denied having seen the
statement and ldo.B0 mobile phone frorn A9. He ;:rided thei: cii 5.7,2i11r1 ireaccompanied Pw294 and A9 to Methala periyar Valley car:al and witnessed the
recovery of MO.1 broken number plates, as shown by A9, pW202, wno was
working as ASI
Muvattupuzha identified his signature in the arrest memos of A9, A15 and 426.Those arrest memos were marked as Exts.P431, P434 and p436. He identified
his signature in Exts.P42B, P429, P432, P435, P44t, p442, p444 and p445mahazars and identified the mobile phone recovered from A9 (MO.80), themobile phone and wrist watch recovered from ALO (MOs.81 and 82), the mobilephone and purse recovered from A15 (MOs.83 and 84), the dress materials ofA8 ( MOs 85 and 86) and the mobile phones recovered from 426 and AL8 (MOs.
87 to 89). He identified Exts.P437 to P440 the driving licence, ATM debit card
autorickshaw ofA11.
53. PW203, who was working in the Crime Squad under the CircleInspector of Police, Muvattupuzha stated that he had signed in some arrestmemos and mahazars prepared by the investigating officers as witness. Heidentified his signature in Ext.P434 arrest memo of A15 and Ext.P455, the arrestmemo of A21. So also this witness identified his signature in Exts.Pl-12 to 114,
car of A15. MOs.91 to 93 are the material objects viz. purse, wrist watch and
pW204, a Headmobile:. phone recovered from the possession of A21 K.M.Ali.
that he frarl
:"elovtry" ,;f
E.<l;.F.i:j, 45,
;16 lnii
l':1,-1.1., ii-r,.'l
25.7.20L0, as per the directions of PW294, he went to the office of ASP (PW291)
at Aluva and took A1B Fahad to the office of PW294. He added that he waspresent at the time
to 119, 124, 1,35, 138, 154, 456, 463 to 467,469 and 470 and stated that
and P46, the documents produced by PW144 Lawrence and MOs.97, 98 thematerial objects recovered from 416, MO.101 mobile phone recovered from A27and MO.102, the motor cycle recovered from the house of A18 Fahad. PW208 isan. attestor to,- Ext.P478, P435 and P444 seizure mahazqrs prepared
for the
materials of PW3 and an auto rickshaw bearing No.KL-17/F 5760 belong to A11.Further he identified Mo.85 and Mo.B6 the dress materials recovered from AgYounus Aliyar.
at the time of the arrest of A22 and A23. This witness identified the mobilephone recovered from A23 as MO.103. He added that he had witnessed the
sale agreement
of a car bearing
Constable attached
to the office of
PW295 stated
Exts.P479, P480, P482, P483. P484, P486, P487 and P4B9 to P492. This wirness
identified Ext.P5O, P84 to P86, P4I7, P48l and P485 recovered by pW295 as per
the above said mahazars. According to this witness, MO.104 was the mobilephone and MOs.105 and L07 were the SIM cards used by 45 Shamsudhin andproduced by his brotherAli. He added that MO.106 was the SIM card used by A7Pareed. lt was produced by one Abdul Gafoor (PW87).
was present at the time of the seizure of a car bearing No.KL-8/AB 5597. He
.,..:,Qy the,
the arrest rnemos prepared at tlre time of lhe arrest of 426, AI7,
416, 43, 46, A13, A24, A]-B, A2 and A25. He ideniified Ext.P461, a noticerecovered from the auto rickshaw of 411. MO.97 and MO.9B are the mobilephone and ATM card recovered from 417. MO.100 and MO.101 are the mobilephones recovered from AL7 and A27 and MO.114 is the bag and MO.L15 to MO.
118 are the dress materials recovered from 46 Shanavas. This witnessidentified MOs.119 to 122, the dress materials recovered from 43 Shobin.
58. PW215, the Circle Inspector of Police, Piravom questioned PW3 SisterMarie Stella on 5.7.2010 and recorded her statement from the premises of
that on
from his house. He identified Exts.P508 to P515 and P178 copy of a letter, somepublications, pamphlets etc. recovered from that house. Ext.p506 is the copy of
the search memo and Ext.P507 is the search list. Ext.P516 is the search listprepared at the time of the search conducted in the house of accused Tamar
(not charge sheeted) and Exts.P517 to P519 are the booklet, diary and photorecovered from the house of that accused.
''" 327l2OlO alleging commission of offences under Section 1534 and 2954 of
copy of the question paper. -fhe relevant qL.restion was niarkeri as f:xt.p52l (a).
This witness added that in connection with the protest railies conducted inThodupuzha town. four cases were registered
certified copies of the concerned FlRs were identified by this witness anomarked as Exts.P522 and P525.
60. PW223 who was studying in Newman College identified Ext.p52i", the
witness stated that Question No.11 disturbed her. Therefore after theexamination she met PW2 and asked why such a question was put. while shewas attending another examination on the same day pw2 approached her andstated that he extracted that portion from a book and added that he would give
the details after the examination. Pw224, the then Principal of Newman collegestated that after the question paper issue he had received several anonymous
calls and letters. Certified copy of a post card received by him containingthreatening words, was identified and marked as Ext.p545. This witness hasstated that the original is produced before the University Appellate Tribunal inconnection with a matter pending against PW2. In connection with the questionpaper issue PW2 was suspended from service.61. PW2L7, the then Sub Inspector of Kalady police station stated that asper the direction of the circle Inspector, he went to the house of ALO Asharaf at
l4ekalady and brought him to the office of the circle Inspector, Kalady and thenproduced that accused before PW294. PWI-90, the circle Inspector of Kaladystated that on production of A9 before him, he directed pw2l7 to produce thataccused before PW294. on 31.7.2o10 pw2l7 conducted search in the house qf
.:: r':-)ij;l
of KL-o7/AH 1515 (Ext.P65), copy of a tilx receipt (Ext.P528) and MO.12B seriesCDs as per Ext.P526 search list. Ext.P527 is the search rnemo prepared by him
62. PW218, Circle Inspector of Vadakkekara had seized a laptop and someCDs from a car which was parked in the house of one Kunjumon
and produced
the house of one Nazar and recovered the insurance policy of a vehicle, drivinglicence of Ayoob (not charge sheeted) and a copy of a complaint filed by Ayoob
before the Circle Inspector of Police, Kadakkavoor. Ext.P530 is the search list,Ext.P531
recovered from that house. On that day itself he had recovered several articles
including Ext.P537
Ext.P536 search list. On 27.7.20IO this witness conducted search in the shop of
A25 at Aluva and recovered some paper cuttings (Ext.P540 series). Ext.P53B is
the search list and Ext.P539 is the search memo prepared by him. PW219
63. PW220 ASI of Police, Muvattupuzha police station deposed that he hadwitnessed the production of the samples collected by the Scientific Assistant(PW1B3) before PW294. PW236, the Circle Inspector
supported the versions of PWL88, regarding the seizure of MO.2 omni van from
of Police, Perumbavoor
list. i
P565). Exts.P556 to P559 are the search memos and search list prepared byhim in connection of the search conducted in that houses.64. PW227 who is working as photographer in the police department stated
that he took the photographs of the scene as directed by the police officers.
per the direction of PW184 he took Ext.P315 and P316 photos of the developed
finger prints.65. PW229 deposed that while he was working as Additional Sub Inspector
regarding the seizure of some articles promoting hatred and contempt towards
the Government. On the basis of that report he registered a case against oneMoideen Kunju as Crime No.209412010. Certified copy of the FlR, search list and
2011 she received three sealed packets forwarded by the Assistant Director ofSerology. pertaining to Crime No.704l2010 of the Muvattupuzha Police station.She spoke that the seals of the packet were found in tact. As per the requisition,
she examined the glass fragments contained in three packets and preparedExt.P553 report. On visual and microscopic examination
rCturned the items to the Serology division dnd sent Ext.P553 direcuy to the
riccl court. :,itt: icl*rri.ifi*rl the gla.,: ir;;gtli':iil:; i*;rl.aiil':,:l iir tI,rr;:: i:,rtr-i
9 and 15 as
respectively. From the evidence of PW235 it is clear that the broken giass pieces(MO.144) collected from the omni van and the broken glass pieces collected
from the WagonR car and from the place of incident (MO.142 and
P492 and P566 to P570 and stated that these mahazars were prepared by himas dictated by PW295. This witness identifed MO.150 mobile phone produced by
Banasira, MO.151 mobile phone and MO.152 SlM cards produced by Meerakutty
(father of A3), MO.153 and MO.L54, the dress materials of A7 Pareed and
admitted his signature in Ext.P147, the seizure mahazar prepared by PW295 forthe seizure of the dress materials of A7, but this witness denied having seen theseizure. PW23B added that he had witnessed the production of Ext.P61 seriesdaily collection statement and Ext.PL37 agreement by the concerned witnessesbefore PW295.
68. PW243 Noble Manuel is the Sub lnspector of Police who registered this
Vedhi' (ac$"
o"gyo5 cclril)
.Aft.ef taking charge in the Vazhakulam police station, he was deputed to assistthe" investigating team. Accordingly he joined
stated about the seizure of the logbook from the office of the
Telecommunications, Aluva and about the search conducted in the house of oneNizar and 44 Sajil (absconding). Exts,P586 to P589 are the search memos and
search lists prepared by him in connection with those search conducted in thehouse of Nizar and A4. From the house
the said mahazar from the house of PW36. He spoke that on 3.9.2010 as perthe directions issued by the investigating officer he went to the house of PW192Murugan as led by A2 Jamal and prepared Ext.P139 mahazar. On that day itself
but he did not get any material objects from those places. That search list wasmarked as Ext.P594. The search lists and search memo prepared by him during
""'a ,,."',x.' '\)\
with tfte investigation in this case, he had conducted searches in the house of
''i.. ; , -
search memos and search list prepared by him. From the house of A31 he hadi,
telephone index diary (Ext.P661), a copy of the question paper with a letter(Ext.P662), a phone bill (Ext.P663) and three mobile phones with its packets(MO.156 series), as per a search list and sent a report to the Station HouseOfficer to register a case. Ext.P660 is the certified copy of the search list.
71. PW280, the Sub Inspector of Police, Tirur in Malappuram district stated
that on 15.10.2012 while he was conducting night patrol duty and when
Faisal. On further
interrogation the said person who was identified as A37 admitted that his name
Noushad. Thereupon
information to the higher authorities. On the next day NIA officials came thereand took A37 Noushad to Kochi.
registered this case as Crime No.1/2011 NlA, New Delhi. That FIR dated4.4.2011 was marked as Ext.P708. PW287 is a Sub Inspector attached to NlA.This witness stated about the arrest of an accused namely K.A.Ali (not charge
- lyh.g"ted)
and about the preparation of Ext.P709 scene mahazar and the seizure
:.:,--of orie mobile phone. This scene mahazar was marked subject to the objectio-n
1:;.1',1Eised by
the learned counsel for the accused that it contains self incriminating
statement. Since there is no charge against this accused, this document need
not be looked into. These documents and the mobile phone (MO.26) seizedfrom the house of that accused are not at arr rerevant in this case.73. Pw297, K'Jayanath lPS, the then Asst. Superintendent of police, Aluvawas a member in the investigation team. On 4.7.2010 he conducted searchinthe house of one suspected person namely Manzoor and recovered Ext.pTLgtoP739 pamphlets, publications, visiting cards etc along with Mo.1B3 file folderas
per Ext.P717 search list. Those documents include the list containingthe names
a sheet of paper
office bearers of area committees etc. The search memo was markedExt.p716.
Moideen and recovered some pamplets and publications. The search list andseized articles were marked as ExG.P740 to P743. This witness statecl that on
lo'7.2oLo at 12.15 noon, after obtaining search warrant from the concernedcourt he conducted search in the house of Kasim (A29), at Kunjunnikkara inKadungaloor village. When he reached the house along with independentwitnesses the house was found locked. At that time two persons claimed tobe
the relatives of Kasim came there. They were ready to hand over the key of thehouse, but they did not give it. Then he broke the front door in the presenceof
.- '
iword' The
i .I
witness and those documents were marked Exts.P745 to p747. The telephone
index diary and the &her items which were seized from the douse were
and recovered Ext.P757 to Ext.P760 as per Ext.P756 search list. This witnessdeposed about the search conducted in the clinic and the house of A15.Ext.P76L is the search memo and Ext.P762 is the search list pertaining to the
series CDs, Ext.P763 series phone bills, receipts etc. Ext.P764 is the searchmemo and Ext.P765 is the search list prepared by him in connection with thesearch conducted in the house of A15. From the said house he had recovered31. CDs (MO.187 series) and a
publications, pamphlets etc. Exts.P767 and P768 are the certified copies ofsearch memo and the search list prepared for conducting the search in thehouse
marked as Ext.P769 and P770 were recovered. From the house of Abdulla herecovered MO.188 mobile phone and MO.189 motor cycle bearing No.KL-9/B3560. The search memo and search list were marked as Exts.p772 and p771
the list containing the phone numbers of the office bearers of pFl etc.(Exts.P1.74, P180, P773
(MO.190 series) and three file folders (MO.191 series) recovered from the
/)Officer, Aluva. Ext.P780 and P548 are the certified copies of the reports filed byhim.
74. PW293, an ASI attached to NIA Kochi unit identified his signature inExt.P783 seizure mahazar prepared for the seizure of an Indica car bearingNo.KL-09/R.7541. This witness stated
the car by the Scientific Expert. Subsequently, as per directions he went to the
certificate, sale letter etc. of the above said Indica car as per Ext.P784 seizurema haza r.
police station at
inspection memo prepared by him at the time of the arrest of A9. Ext.P62 bus
daily statement and MO.80 mobile phone with two SIM cards (MO.158 and
statement of accounts two phone numbers and the name of one Asharaf wereseen written. Then he questioned A9 Jafar and recorded his statement. At 9 pm
he arrested A1O Asharaf who was produced by the Circle Inspector of Police,
.r'time of arrest of A10. At 10 pm, ASJ.Thomas (PW220) who was in the GD charge..
those items into custody as per Ext.P430 mahazar. He identified the packetshanded over by ASI Thomas as MOs.l"2, 13, 131 to 140 and 142 to 144. Then he
took possession of the Indica car bearing No.KL-7/AP 1613 along with Exts.P331
that accused he went to Methala and seized two pieces of number plates (MO.1)from the eastern side of the western bund of Periyarvalley canal which were
of Royal hotel. The mahazar was marked as Ext.P52. Ext.P52(a) is the relevantportion of the confession statement of A9. On that day itself he filed Ext.P789report to incorporate the names of A9 and ALO as accused and another report(Ext.P790) to add Sections 201 and 153
(A) of
along with other mahazars and material objects to the concerned court as perExt.P433 report. On 7.7.2010 PW243, PW191 and PW197 produced Exts.P318,
53, 54 and 62 to 65
;before him. On the next day, after obtaining Ext.P792 search warrant from thef
to P795, P800 to P805, Mo.L96 series and Mo.197 series. Ext.p791 is the
the name of A8 Younus Aliyar, A12 K.K.Ali and A28 M.K.Nazar and issued lookout notices against those accused. PW215 produced Exts.p178, p5og to p515and MOs.123 to L27 along with Ext.P507 search list. On the same day the SubInspector of Kuttampuzha police station and PW291, ASp of Aluva produced
9.7.2010 at 10.50 am he arrested A17 Kamarudheen and A27 Shajeer from thepolice station premises. Ext.P474 is the arrest memo and P475 is the insoection
memo. He took MO.100 and 10L mobile phones from the possession of A17and A27 respectively. On that day PW144 Lawrence produced the carbon copy
of the sale agreement entered into between that witness and A12
the first page of the ration card of A12 (Ext.P8L1). Ext.p459 is the seizuremahazar prepared by him for the recovery of those documents. On the same
day, after getting the police custody of A9 Jafar from the concerned court hequestioned that accused and recorded his statement. On 9.7.2010, as per the
place near the Periyarvalley canal at Methala and took MO.3 broken Dieces of
.,;.,,,-i:identified MO.1 and MO.3 from the dock. PW294 added that in.connection withl
this case, he had questioned several witnesses and recorded their Statements.
station before PW294. Accordingly that document was seized by PW294 as perExt.P453 mahazar. On the same day PW1B9, PW191, PW198 and PW291produced Exts.P339, P363, P405, P4O7,P4OB and MOs. 42to52 before PW294'
On I2.7.2OLO PW294 arrested AL6. Ext.P476 is the arrest memo and P812
the inspection memo. At the time of arrest he recovered MOs.97 to 99 and MO.164 from AL6 as per Ext.P464 seizure mahazar. He produced Ext.P8L3 reportbefore the court furnishing the address of Ai.6. Ext.P465 is the seizure mahazar
prepared by him for the seizure of Scorpio car bearing No'KL-O3/J 3883 whichbelongs to A16. On the same day he arrested AL5 as produced before him.Ext.P434 is the arrest memo and Ext.P8L4 is the inspection memo prepared for
the recovery of MOs.83, 84 and L61. Ext.P446 is the mahazar prepared by himfor the recovery of car No.TN-o1/P 7555 which belongs to A15. As per the saidma'hazar he seized Exts.P447 to P454, some publications, a laptop and some
material objects found in the said car. On the same day PWs218 and 291produced some material objects along with the documents prepared by them.Thereupon he filed Exts.P8L5 and P816 reports to incorporate the name and
identified Ext.PlO the mahazar prepared by him at the time of the searchconducted in the clinic of
MOs. 198
medicines seized from the said clinic and Exts.PB mahazar and P9 prescriptio-nproduced by PW49. He inspected the house of416 as perthe statements givenUV
and A16 and as led by those accused and prepared Ext'P502 mahazar.
On 16.7.2010 he took motor cycle bearing No.KL-71/ 2600 into custody as perExt.P123 mahazar as produced by PWl27. He stated about the production of
proceeded to Palakkad along with party and arrested A8 who was found in the
arrest memo, Ext.P818 inspection memo, P819 seizure mahazar and MOs.85,86 and 109. On that day itself he arrested A25 Latheef and prepared Ext.P503
arrest memo. As per Ext.P820 inspection memo he seized MOs.L62, 163 and
207 from A25. PW194, PW218 and PW236 produced some material objectsbefore him along with Ext.P374 search list. On 22.72010 he seized Ritz carbearing No.KL-42|C 4700 as per Ext.P441. (Ext.P821 series are the photographs
taken from this court while releasing that vehicle on bond). On that day hearrested accused Moideenkutty from the police station and took Exts.P437 toP440 and MO.87 as produced by the investigating team. Ext.P436 and P822 are
the documents pertaining to the arrest and inspection. On that day itself
arrested Shiyas (A13) and Muhammadali (A24) as per Exts.P494 and P495arrest memos and recovered mobile phone, purse etc. (MOs.208 and 209) asper Ext.P823 and P824 inspection memos. Then he filed Exts.P825 to P827 andP829 reports and furnished the names and addresses of those accused. On
prgpared Ext,P496 arest memo and Ext.P828 inspection memo. On that dayitself A1.1 who,.-was found in the autorickshaw stand near Muvattupuzha private
bus stand was brought to the police station. After interrogation he arrested A11
and Mo.95 purse from him as per Exts.P830 and P466. On the basis of thedisclosure statement given by A11 and as shown by that accused he seizedExt.P443 sketch from autorickshaw bearing No.KL-17/F 5760 which belongs to
A11. Ext.P442 is the mahazar prepared for the recovery of the sketch andExt.P444 is the mahazar prepared for the seizure of the auto rickshaw. Thenhe conducted search in the house ofAl-1 and recovered Ext.P461 note book as
per Ext.P460 seizure mahazar. PW294 identified Exts.PB3l" and P832 reportsfiled by him furnishing the correct address of A5 and A29. Ext'P688 is thespecimen handwriting of A11, taken by him. On the same day PW193 producedExt.P367 and P368 along with MOs.55 to 58'77 .
P495 and P833 are the relevant documents prepared by him for the arrest ofA18 and recovery of MOs.88, 89 and 165 to 167. Ext.P834 is the report filed by
him to incorporate the name and address ofA18 Fahad, in the case records. On
the next day PW200 produced Ext.P125 mahazar along with an Alto car bearingNo.KL-8/AB 5597 before him. After inspecting the house of PW36, Sub Inspector
Flat No.7 he recovered MOs.21 and 22. MO.96 and Exts.P468 series were..-re-covered
from house No.lYl224. Exts.P13, P118, P467 and P119 are the
produced Exts.P386,-!:: mahazars prepared by him. On 29.7.2OI0 PWs186 and 199
and P420 to:P424 along with motor cycle bearing No.KL;41/A 3068.''''P387,i,i..:, ..
to a
Ext.P111 and stated that at the time of preparation of the said mahazar, police
brought a person with them, but he could not identify that person. He wasdeclared hostile. Pw294 added that from seemas Auditorium he seized a diary(Ext.P1g) which contains the booking details of that auditorium, as produced byPW32. On
the next day A8 took him to the inspection bungalow of Kerala Water
particular spots as pointed out by A8. This witness identified Exts.p704 andP705 ownership certificates produced by the secretary of Angadipuram Grama
on that
PW2l7 produced the documents and material objects seized from the house ofA19 Niyas (Exts.P65, P526 and P528 along with Mo.128 series). on 1.8.2010 hearrested A2l- K.M.Ali and recovered Mos.91, 92 and 93 from his possession as
per Ext.P456 seizure mahazar. Ext.p455 and p835 are the arrest memo andInspection memo prepared by
him. on
(Ext.P104). PW101 has supported the said version and stated that he hadproduced those documents before Pw294 for verification and got
it back on
one siyad (not charge sheeted) as produced by one Kareem. Ext.P93 is themahazar. PW92 has admitted that a building owned by his brother Abbas wasmortgaged to one siyad in 2009. Thereupon PW294 filed Exts.P836
reports to incorporate the names and addresses of some accused including 43,A4, A21. and A32 to A34. On 7.8.2010 he arrested A20 Anas and recovered MO.
2l-1 mobile phone from him. Exts.P471 and P841 are the relevant documentsprepared by him at the time of the arrest of A20. On that day itself he arrestedA22 and A23 from the police station premises as produced by Circle Inspector ofPolice, Kalloorkkadu as per Ext.P472 and P473 and recovered MO.103 mobile
phone from the possession of A23. Ext.P742 and P843 are the inspectionmemos. Then he filed Ext.P844 and P845 reports to furnish the address of A20
and A23. On 10.8.2010, on the basis of the disclosure statement given by A13,he went to the house of PW37, inspected the bed room as pointed out by thataccused and prepared Ext.P124 mahazar from the said house. PW115 identified
his signature in the said mahazar, but he did not admit that he had seen thepreparation of the said mahazar. Then he went to the house of A20 as led byA13 and prepared Ext.P135 mahazar. In the meantime he had questioned and
of the witnesses.
the statements of
l. i, Sections 15, 16, 18, 18B and 19 ofthe UA(P) Act and he filed Ext.P846 report to-,;
incorporate those provisions of law in the case records. After incorporating the
provisions under the UA(P) Act, the investigation was handed over to pw2g5,
by PW295 he went to ottapalam Police station and took AL9 who was detainedin that police station and brought him to Muvattupuzha. Then he accompaniedPW295 to Thiruvananthapuram and witnessed the arrest of A2 at a place near
and 46 who were found in the premises of Coimbatore railway station andproduced them before PW295. On 8.10.2010 he went
Trust' and the details of the users of those phone numbers along with Ext.p598covering letter. On 22.17.2010 PW74 produced Ext.P66 sale agreement beforehim, executed in favour of A26.
Ext.P92 and P93, the RC particulars of KL-07/AH 1515 and KL-41/A 3068 from
the concerned officer. On getting information that A19 Niyas is coming to Kerala
il' l
arrested A19 a:; ptt:r [xt.PB49 arre:;t rnti],i-ro artrl recoveii:rj l.xL.F$Si-. se|ies Al-i\lcards, PB52 voters lD card, Mo.212 rnobile phone and Mo.213 purse along \/ith
five SIM cards (MOs L7O, ]-13 and 181) as per Ext'P880 inspection memo.20.8.2010 he got reliable information that A5 Shamsudhin
is coming to
that accused. Then he arrested A5 from the police station premises andprepared Ext.P499 arrest memo and Ext.P853 inspection memo. On the basis of
the statement given by that accused he recovered the pants and shirt worn byA5 at the time of incident, along with some other dress materials (MOs.219, 220
and 22Ll as per Ext.P479 seizure mahazar. Then he filed Ext.P854 reportfurnishing the name and address of that accused and Ext.P855 to incorporate
the names and addresses of A2. 46 and 47. On interrogation he realised that 45had sustained injuries during the attack on PW2. Then he sent that accused to
the hospital for medical examination. In the meantime Pws 3 and 4 identifiedA5 and the dress materials seized from him. On 21.8.2010 he searched thehouse of A16 to seize the mobile phone which was used by that accused, but he
did not get it. The search list was identified and marked as Ext.P856. On thenext day, on the basis of the statement given by A5 and as led by that accusedhe went to the Municipal park, Muvattupuzha and prepared Ext.P112 mahazar. --. f\:..i"' .of the concrete watch tower and its surroundings as pointed out by that
.4cgtrsqd. On
bearing No.KL-4O/c 3739 used by A5, as produced by his brother Ari (pw86)asper Ext.P481 mahazar. On the same day PW86 produced MO.104mobile phone
and Mos.105 and 107 srM cards, used by 45 and accordingry he seized thesame as per Ext.p4g2 and p4g3 mahazars. on 25.g.2010, pw2gL sent a reportabout the search conducted by him in the house of A5. While so, on 28.g.2010he proceeded to Thiruvananthapuram along with PW2g4 and party, on the basis
hours found 42 at that premises and arested him as per Ext.p500 arrest memo.
was identified by Pws 1 to 4 and 15. On that day itself he questioned A2 andrecovered his dress materials (MOs 110 to 113 series) as per Ext.P501 seizuremahazar. At 5.15 pm, on the basis of the disclosure statement given by A2 and
PW193 went
to pollachi and
found A12 at the railway station premises and brought him to Muvattupuzha. At
. .:. -.
,:t. .. t'i;.. 1': .,'. i
and Ext,PB59 inspection memo. On the next day he took Ext.P25 atcount
;,;custodian of the said register, as,per Ext.p462 mahazar. In the meanwhile:
86-^BanasiraproducedMo.l50mobilephoneusedbyirerhusbandSharnsurlhin(A5).Thatmobi|ephonewasseizedasperEXt'P566seizuremahazar.Onthatpmday itself he received the driving licence particulars (Ext.P4B5) of 45. At 4
pwg5 Abdul Rasheed produced the driving licence and the learner's drivinglicence (Ext.P79 and P80) before him and he took possession of the saiddocuments as per Ext.P144 mahazar, in the presence of PW129. On 1.9.2010
pw198 produced Ext.P415 ration card seized from the house of 41 along withExt.P414 search list. During investigation, he inspected a house which situatesnear the High way Mosque, and another house at Nettoor as pointed out by A2
and prepared Exts.P35 and P30 mahazars respectively from the said premises.
on that day itself Ext.P50 rent deed was produced before him. Ext.P486 is themahazar prepared for the recovery of the rent deed. This witness identifiedExt.P567 mahazar prepared by him forthe seizure of the driving licence of A72,as produced by his brother in law unais (PW72). On that day itself
are staying some where near Coimbatore railway station. He gave instruction
PW294 went
on interrogortion he carne ro
and seized KL-7IAG 2766 motor cycre as per Ext.p128 seizure mahazar.Ext.pgg
the sale of the said motor cycle and Ext.p159 is the mahazar. Ext.p301
Deed along with the covering retter sent by the District Registrar,
ThosedocumentsWereseizedbyhima:;perExt.P4BTmahazalfixts'F295andP2ggaretheRCparticu|arsofScorpiocarbearingNo.KL-03/J3BB3andmotorseized motorcycle bearing No.KL-7/AG 2766' On 25'g'2OIO at 11'30 am heper Ext'P161cycle bearing No.KL-7/AE 7849 which belongs to A18 Fahad' as
mahazar.on6.l0.20l0heseizedExt.P5T2rationcardofPWl39Najathu||aSiddiquiasproducedbythatwitnessaSperExt.Pl4seizuremahazar'g0. On the basis of the reliable information that A7 Pareed is staying at
of 47 and sent it
examination. That finger print slip was identified as Ext.P313. On that day itself,
the reportPWBT produced Ext.P106 SIM card which was used by A7. Ext.PB65 is
filed by him giving the full address of 47 and Ext.P489 is the mahazar preparedby him for the recovery of MO.106. This witness identified MO.215 mobile phone
in law of
him for the recovery of those items. Ext.P7O6 is the ownership certificate of../'- -i:r--:..of the Kadungalloor.,,,,',-,,gu11dgiQ:.No.Vll/246, obtained by him from the Secretary
copy of the Trust deed and the phone numbers of the Thejas publications.Exts.P601, p869, p597 and p59g are the rerevant documents. Thenhe firedExt.P867 report and furnished the address of ramar Asharaf andExt.pg6g to
rectify some mistakes in the arrest memo. He seized Mo.2L7 mobire phoneused by A28 as per Ext.pg70 mahazar, as produced by oneJasmine. Later on,Ext.P66 agreement was produced before him. He seized thesame as oerExt.P457 mahazar. Exts.pg71 and pg72 are the mahazars preparedby him for
offices. He identified Exts.p11, p458, p57o and pg74 reports filed by himandExt.P61 series daily statement of accounts produced by saleem. Afterobtaining
' the final report before this court. This witness stated that during the. 'investigation he had questioned the witnesses and recorded their statements.He produced alJ the documents and material objects in cou$, after verificdtion.
Bl.PW2g6,Vikraman,DeputySuperintendentofPo|ice,N|Astatedaboutthe phone numbers alleged to have been used by the accused. He has no directknowledge about those facts. His attempt was to give evidence on the basis of
the opinion given by the experts who had examined the slM cards and mobilephones. so also he has stated about the inference drawn by the investigatingofficers. This evidence is not admissible and cannot be looked into.
82. PW302 is the DysP who conducted the first phase of the investigation,after the investigation was taken over by NlA. After getting the case records heverified the same and filed a petition before this court under S' 173(8) Cr'PC for
on the basis of the statement given by A34, he went to the house of that
A|uvaandthecarparkingareaoIt,lajatht|ospitai,A|t-lvaandpreparfJC|Exts.P8B6 to PBBS memos, subject to the objections raised by the learned(not chargecounsel for the accused. on 26.9.2011 he arrested accused saleem
given bysheeted) and seized a motor cycle, as per the disclosure statement
that accused. On 28.11.2011 accused Moideen Kunju (not charge sheeted) wasproduced before him by his team members and as pointed out by that accused
he insoected the house of PW36, the houses of A20 Anas and one TamarAsharaf and the office of sDPl at Aluva. These memos were marked asExts.P890
PB93 subject
he took steps to conduct the test identification parade of A2, 43 and A5 to A8.
25.2.2OI2 as per his directions PWL43 Anil Kumar and cw271 had
A32 Manaf had surrendered before the court, he got the custody of thataccused and recorded the statement of that accused.
statement given by him he went to chaliyam near Kozhikode along with A32.
g6 to Tirur police station to bring A37 who was detained in that police station.
On,'that day at B pm A37 was produced. before Fim. PW244 who was working in
the NIA has supported the said version of pW303 ari{l stateddirection of pw303 he went to
detained in the poiice station to Kochi. Then PW303 arrested that accusedas
per Ext.P590 mahazar and recovered Mo 25 mobire phone and Mo.26 purseand five visiting cards (Exts.p168 and pg94 series) as per Ext.p591 searchmemo. on 20.10.20r.0 he went to the house of pw157 as red by A32andprepared a memo which was marked as Ext.pg95. Thereupon, on30.10.2012 he
Maunath-Ul-lslam sabha. when he reached the spot that buirding was foundlocked. 437 Noushad took a key, which was kept on the wall ofthe bathroom of
that building and opened the door. As pointed out by A37 he took two mobilephones, one cD, driving licence of A37, a prescription issued inFaisal, some certificates etc. (Mo.s 25
name of
1.11.20!2 he got the custody of A32 from the court and continued theinvestigation. on 3.11.20L2 cw279 Nizar who is the brother in law of A32produced Mo.227 mobile phone. He took that mobile phone into custody as per
Ext.PB96 mahazar.
sized Mo.35 mobile phone, Mo.36 vcD and Ext.p281 identity card, as persearch list. On 28.11.2012 he arrested A29 Kasim as ,rrrend"r"d
oi a ju:'na
details of their car bearing No.KL-09/R 754. Exts.P2B9 and P899 are the copy of
the said notices. To the said notice PW170 sent a reply, which was marked
Ext.p290. A34 did not file any reply. After getting sanction to prosecute A2B to
questioned PwL77 and took Ext.P304 activation tracker register and Mo.38mobile phone as produced by PW177. Then he questioned that witness and hisemployees. Thereupon he took Ext.P2B3 case sheet of Faizal as produced by
mahazar. on that day the Village officer, Aroor produced Ext.P308 report. After
getting Ext.P883 sanction order he filed charge sheet against A37. Thereafter
he questioned A35 and 436 who had surrendered before this court.
8.1.20L4, as per the directions issued by him PW256 Badar Dareez producedIndica car bearing No.KL-09/R 7541. He took the vehicle into custody as per
by him Pw292
transfer of owner ship of the said car and produced the same before this court.'..85. Pws 139, 1'4O, ]4]-, 142, 148,164
superior officets they reported in the office of NlA, Kochl'on different dates.
ani :l.r:e
2012 he received four sealed packets forwarded from this court whichcontained two laptops, three cpUs, two pendrives and some slM cards. Thiswitness stated that he had examined all those material objects using softwareand hardware tools and he had extracted the data from those items and savedin a sterile hard disc and sent to the court. Ext.p7L1 is the report prepared by
him and Ext.P711(a) is the covering letter sent to this court by the AssistantDirector of GFSL. The hard disc was marked as Ext.p712. This witness identifiedMO.27, MO.54 and MO.157 CpUs and the two pendrives (MOs.53 and 55)examined by him. So also he identified MOs 45 to47,59,105 to 107, 152, 158
discs in the cPUs mentioned above. Mo.L76 hard disc in Mo.27 cpU hao some
internal read error problem. so he could not retrieve data from the said harddisc. so also he could not retrieve the data in Mos.171 to 173 slM cards since it
was found pin locked. The worksheet prepared by him at the time ofexamination of material objects was marked as Ext.p711(b). The hard copy of
the retrieved data was marked as Ext.P715. Ext.p7i.5(a) is the covering letter.This witness has stated about some phone numbers saved in those material
72, who was working as Motor Vehicle Inspector in the Sub Regional
JointRTo,Mattancherry,whoproducedtheRCparticu|arsofmotorcyc|esbearingNo.KL-7/AL6992andKL-7/AG2T66.ThoseRCparticuIarsWeremarkedregisteredas Ext.P298 and P299. As per these documents one Asharaf is thewas inowner of motor cycle bearing No.KL-7/AL 6992 and the other motor cycle
the name of one Saneesh. PW237 Saneesh identified the motor cycle as MO.149and stated that he had sold the said vehicle to one Muhammad saleem. PW175,
the Motor Vehicle Inspector attached to the Sub Regional Tiansport Office,Kothamangalam produced the driving licence particulars of Muhammad Shobin(A3). That document was marked as Ext.P301. PW222 Joint RTO, Muvattupuzha
the auto rickshaw was Sikkander Ali Khan (A11) and the owner of the Wagon
car was Joseph T.J. (PW2). PW260, the Joint RTo Thodupuzha produced the Rc
particulars of
Ext.p6L4. According to him, one Vipin Mathew was the owner of the said car. In
2013 the said vehicle was transferred in the name of one Showkathali. PW261
the Joint RTO of Perumbavoor identified Exts.P615 and P616, the registrationparticulars of KL-7/Y 2600 and KL-40/C 3739. As per the records one Abhilashwas the owner of motor cycle bearing No.KL-7/f 2600. The owner of the other..-,:'''1'"Ji'ttto..r cycle was Shamsu V.M, S/o Marakkar, who is the 5th accused. Ext.P619 is,,'"'1..i'-...:.
,,''.l,r\r1'\'' ..;,,';1"-'1i,.'r.'\ r. , l, .:rrr'\': "; ..;;: iI
the house of PW2 arong with Ameer. From the said house a photo arbumcontaining the photos
pW29g, after
removing the inmates of the house from the room wherein they were sitting.Then he shuffled the photos in the album and called pw1 and asked whether
she can identify any of the photograph. After going through the album she
persons' Then he asceftained the identity of those persons from pW29B andcame
to know that those are the photos of 41, 44 and A28. pw2 and pw4
identified the photographs of 41 and A4. Then he called PW3 Marie and asked
her to identify the assailants. She identified the photo of 44. Thereafter heprepared Ext.P60 report regarding the photo identification parade by giving
dictation to an officer of NIA and obtained the signature of Ameer who was,r .-.4i" ,': present in- , ".-t:,jrC i:. . : .: .
ChiefSecretary,HomeandVigi|ancestatedthaton13.l.20llheverifiedtherecordsproducedbytheinvestigatingofficerandissuedExt.P8TTsanctionorder to prosecute A1 to A27 for offences punishable under Section 153 A and
120 B lpc. On the same day he issued Ext.P876 sanction order to prosecutethose accused for offences under Sections 15 r/w L6, 18, 188, 19 and 20 of theUA(P) Act. PW301, who was working as Under secretary, |nterna| Security, MHA,
prosecute A29
to A33 for
commission of offences under Section 153 A, 120 B of IPC and under Section L6and 20 of the UA(p) Act and to prosecute A34 to 436 for offences under Section
that they have issued the sanction orders after verifying the entire recordssubmitted by the investigating officers.
admitted the versions of PW80 that he had purchased that motor cycle (MO.25)-
lvehicG to one Manaf, s/o lbrahim. Ext.P132 is the photocopy of the sale..
had entluirecl
cycle, ii:.;i
who is a lecturer in MES college, Marampilly denied that he had attended theconspiracy meeting held at the residence of pw157 at Kakkanad on 3.7.2010. ln
reply to a suggestion put by the learned public prosecutor, this witness stated
that he does not know anything about such a meeting. Further he deniedhaving participated in the protest march conducted by pFl against the arrest ofsome of the accused in this case. The evidence of these two witnesses would
not help the prosecution to prove any of the charge levelled against any of theaccused.
92. The next question to be decided is the identity of the assailants. pws
to 4 have stated about the incident which took place on 4.7.20!0. The learnedcounsel for the accused challenged the presence of pw3 at the spot and stated
that she had no opportunity to see the incident. According to him she isplanted witness. Pws 2 and 3 stated
Vargl.lr:c, trul|i:.: ofFws 1 anr-i z} supp<lrtec| the saicj rlersion, PW5 Gtorge
churchhasspecifical|ystatedthaton4.T.za].ohefoundPW3arrdCW5E|ikuitywas the Priest of thealong with PWZ at the church' PW17 Father George whochurchstatedthatPW2andPW3attendedthemorningMassonthatday'PW13Tressa stated that she saw Pws 2, 3 and cw5 in the church, whilesisterJessy
she politelyshe was returning from the church. PW2 offered a lift to her butpresence of Pwsrefused that offer. The evidence of these witnesses prove the
2. 3 and cw5 in the church on that morning. In view of the evidence of thesewitnesses I can very well accept the versions of Pws 2 and 3 that they came
together to the church to attend the Holy Mass and returned to their house intheir WagonR car with their mother.g3. Pws 5 to 8 stated about the presence of Pw3 and Elikutty at the spotalong with Pw2. PW8
pressing a woman towards the wall and 3-4 persons dragging a man towarcls
the compound wall. He stated that when PW5 reached there, they rushed to thespot and found PW2 with injuries. Thereupon, himself and PW5 lifted PW2 with
of PW8 who is an
the car with the help of Pws 3 and 4. PW6 Nibin Lukka who took the injured tothe hospital stated
the evidence of these witnesses, PW7 who is the wife of PW5 also confirmed,-..
' .. .'
at the
place of incident. There is ample evidence to prove that PW3 was present along
*1i6 fW2 through out the incident. Exts.D11 anf D12 contradictions marked
e r_tii)i;.iii
94' The learned counsel for the accused argued that there wasa deliberatemove on the part of the police to suprpress the true state offacts and the
unKnown persons wearing masks had attacked pw2. In order to suppress that
fact, the police had concocted stories to the effect that the assailants werepreviously known to them and there had been some attempts on previousoccasions. The first information to the police, according to the learned counsel
for the accused, was that the offence was committed by two persons who hadcovered their faces with masks. To substantiate this contention he has pointed
out the information contained in Ext.p3l"g, the mahazar for the recovery of thelogbook maintained in the Office of the Police Telecommunications at Aluva. He
maintained in that office to make it appear that the assailants were previouslyknown to the witnesses. According to the learned counsel for the accused theentries made in the logbook, if produced would show that pw2 was attacked by
two persons who were wearing masks. But the police, when realized the factthat the entry in the logbook will put them in trouble and in such a situation it
logbook. \.,
in the office of
received intimation through the wireless set about the attack on ProfessorJoseph and that the assailants had escaped from the spot in a white Maruthiomni van. lt is clearfrom the evidence of this witness that during the'zatta'theSuperintendent of Police used to discuss matters with his subordinate officers in
the district every day relating to the investigation of cases and the law andorder situation.
during the 'zatta' in the logbook, on specific directions. He need not record eachand every information passed though 'zatta'.
96. Though the logbook is not produced by the prosecution, the relevant
and Police Constable Ansar (PW233). PW186 Davis A.A, Asst. Sub Inspector,Police Telecommunications and another police official attached
to that office
the ASI who is working in that office has specificaily stated that sincethelogbook was required for their office purpose, they gotf
nspector who had verified the same. pw243 arso supported theversions of
not produce the logbook, I cannot say that the intention of the prosecutionwas
Ext.P318 which contains the relevant portion of the logbook itself would prove
version regarding the incident. He pointed out that the normal procedure
on getting
the police stations for taking immediate action. lt is clear from the versions ofPW233 that during 'zatta' the informations wlll be passed in a brief manner.
After getting those informations, they will record the same in their
got inforrnation about the attack on PW2. According to PWIBB, as per theinstructions given by the Superintendent of Police during 'zatta' to check allwhite omni vans, he started from the police station for vehicle checking. While
coming out of the police station he met PW236 the Circle Inspector whodirected him to conduct vehicle checking at Vattakkattupady area. He reached
perumbavoor KSRTC bus stand and started vehicle checking duty near the bus
stand. From the evidence of these two witnesses it is clear that they received
the intimation at about 8.15 am itself. These two witnesses have no case that
pW18B at the time of the seizure of the omni van at Vattakkattupady, he has
Joseph at 8.15 am and he reached the spot at 8.30 am. This mahazar is seen
produced in the court on the next working day itself. From the evidence of these
two witnesses and from Ext.P321 it is clear that information regarding theattack on PW2 was passed from the office of Superintendent of Police at about8.15am itself. In this circumstance the evidence tendered by PW11 Freddy
also relevant. His version is that on hearing the sound of explosion he rushedtowards that place and on the way he was asked by PW1 to call police. so he.,::
ri . ,-
...;-; '..Wp.Q! to the house of Roy, called the Police Control Room and sought the help of
, oolice.\This evidence
-::r "
at about
0 arn and immeriiatel'/ f:r: intirnated lris luperir;: lificers abli.rl i:i:e ir';,:ident.
assailants were wearing masks. Merely because of the reason that someentries were made in the logbook, I cannot say that it was recorded in the samewords of the police officer who had passed the information. lt is clear from theversions of PW233 that they will record the informations and instructions given
circumstances I cannot say that the entries in the logbook regarding the attackon PW2 were true or correct. lt is very pertinent to note that nobody has a case
that the assailants came to the spot by covering their face with mask. PWB who
such an entry was made in the log book maintained in the office ofTelecommunications,
99. PW243 has specifically stated that after handing over the severed hand
to PW3 he returned to the place of incident and on the way he had informed theSuperintendent of Police about the attack
that he had given intimation to the Superintendent of Police that the assailantswere wearing masks. In view of the evidence of the ocular witnesses I can very
well say that it was a mistake committed while recording the information thatwas a wrong information passed without verifying the
s of the same. At that time the only intention of the police was toilants.
tovehicle into custody. lt was recorded in a casual manner, There is nothingspecificallysuggest that the police had suppressed the logbook' PW243 hasExt.P31Bstated that he had copied the relevant paragraphs in the logbook inprepared by him and returned the original since it was required for the
that theday to day affairs. ln the circumstances I cannot accept the contentionprosecution has deliberately suppressed the logbook with an intention
up the actual events and that all the entries in the lo9 book were true andcorrect.
100.|tisarguedbythe|earnedcounse|fortheaccusedthatPW243,thesub Inspector, when realised the difficulties that may arise due to the entry inthe log book, deliberately omitted the portion regarding masks in Ext'P2, the socalled first information statement. The contention of the defence counsel is thatExt.P2 is a statement recorded by the Sub Inspector
infOrmation from the local people who had gathered at the place of incident to
cover up the
fact that the assailants had covered their faces with masks.
According to him, the information recorded by PW233 at 8.37am in the log bookis the first information statement and therefore Ext.P2 Fl statement cannot be
looked into.
version about the attack and there is no evidence regarding the source of that
ln this circumstance
..'' l;aidi.rrnents put forward by the learned counsel for the accused on this point willngt sustain.
""1' , ,,'
occasion t9!s pointed out by the.learned counsel that PW243 had1
discuss the rnattei: with pw3 nri{i pir.t from the l-rcspital *lrd ti-re pEr:*i,.:;gathered at the place of incident. Even then he did not record the statement
incident. His specific case is that he got information about the incident at 8.10
At the time of cross examination he has made it clear that the informationreceived by him when he reached the spot was not sufficient for registering
case. His version is that when he reached at the place of occurrence pw5 had
hospital with that severed hand and entrusted the same to pw3 as directed by
the medical officer. At that time pw2 was not in a position to give a statement.PW180
the Doctor who had examined pw2 from the hospital has stated that
after giving first aid PW2 was referred to the specialists' hospital. Ernakulam. In
such a situation he cannot detain pW3 or pW4 and ask them to give
statement. so he came back to the place of incident. But he could not find pwLat the spot. Therefore he went to the house of pwL and recorded the statement
given by her. On going through the explanation given by pW243, I cannot saythat there had been laches on his part in recording the Fl statement in time. His
first concern was to take the severed hand to the hospital. I do not find any:
reason for this witness to create a false statement and produce the same beforetn ls court.
' o'"r"i"i:
. ,'\
t) '
102. Another argument raised by the learned counsel for the accused is that:'
i t)7
through Ext.p2 and Ext.P585 FlR, I could find that it was received in the office ofthe.ludicial First Class Magistrate on 5.7.2010 at 11 am. The learned counsel for
the accused relied on the decision of our Hon'ble High court in Biju v. state
court is not at all a ground justifying the delay in the FIR reaching theMagistrate. Dealing with the delay in sending the FIR to the Magistrate and itsconsequences, the Hon'ble High Court in that decision held that the FIR should
state of
held that the explanation put forth by the learned counsel in regard to the delay
in the FIR reaching the court is not tenable because assuming that there weresome court holidays, that cannot be a ground for the delay in the FIR reaching
the Magistrate, because requirement of law is that the FIR should reach theconcerned Magistrate without any undue delay. According
to the
sufficient time
embellishments. ln Biju's case (supra) our Hon'ble High Court has made it clear
throwing away the prosecution case if the evidence adduced in the casefound to be credible and unimpeachable. The significance of sending the
' 1"'l'i.,
that if
I t ilJ
would not demolish the other credible evidence on record. lt would only show
how in such a serious crime, the investigating officer was not careful andprompt as
v. state of Bihar
out the delay in sending the FIR to the Magistrate and held that if suchpractice
authorities concerned should woke up and see that the provisions of section157 cr.P.c. are complied with, in letter and
the Hon'ble Supreme Court is that there should not be any undue delay.103. In Bhajan Singh
- AtR
2011 sc 2552) the Hon'ble supreme court held as follows:- lt is not that as ifevery delay in sending the report to the Magistrate would necessarily lead to
FIR has
delay is not fatal unless prejudice to the accused is shown. The expression'forthwith' mentioned therein does not mean that the prosecution is required toexplain delay of every hour in sending the FIR to the Magistrate. In a givencase, if number of dead and injured persons is very high, delay in dispatching
the report is natural. of course, the same is to be sent within reasonable time inthe prevalent circumstances. However, unexplained inordinate delay in sendingthe copy of
particularly when the prosecution furnishes a cogent explanation for the delay
dispatch of
v. State of
Karnataka (2013 KHC 4884) held that the delay by itself does not renderprosecution case doubtful. In the said case the Fl statement was seen recorded
FIR reached
sending copy of the report to the Magistrate under Section 157 of Cr.P.C. is theonly external check on the working of the police agency imposed by law which
explained no adverse
rulings is that the inordinate and unexplained delay occurred in the FIR is very
about five days in sending the FIR to the Magistrate. In the said ruling theHon'ble High Court has made it clear that the inordinate delay in sending the
is fatal to
pqp;ecution case. Here the incident was on a Sunday. FIR is seen received by..
ca_nnot say
i', if;i:
'forthwltl-i' in Section 157 Cr.Ft"" does nrrit mean thri. ilie i;rosecution is rur. iti-e{!
FlR to
An adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution when there arecircumstances from which an inference can be drawn that there were chances
of manipulation in the FIR by falsely roping in the accused persons after duedeliberations. In the case on hand, I can very well rule out the possibilities of
manipulation. There
after collecting details from the parties who had gathered there as alleged bythe learned defence counsel, there is no chance of committing any mistake inpreparing Ext.P2. The learned counsel has submitted that there are several
registration number of the van etc. lf Ext.P2 is a fabricated one, definitely thereshould not have been any omissions or mistakes. They could have prepared a
foolproof statement. lt cannot be ignored that A9 Jafar and ALO Asharaf werearrested on 4.7.2010 itself. ln such a case the prosecution could have afleast
to show that
106. PWl Lc
;1"1 i..i,'
actused. PltrsThese witnesses oeposed about each and every act of Lhese fivewitnesses1, 3 and 4 identified A7 as the driver of the omni van. These threePW2 andstated that they found 47 sitting in the driver's seat of the omni van'
pw3 have specifically stated that the left window pane of their car
smashed by 42, and 43 smashed the windscreen of their car. Pws 2 and 3 have
stated that A6 took a position between the two vehicles with a plastic kit in hishand. The evidence of PW1 and PW4 would show that 46 who was standing inbetween the omni van and the wagonR car threw a bomb, when they reachedat the spot. PW3 deposed that when she came out of the car A5 caught hold of
her neck and pressed her on the side wall. The photograph of A1 savad wasidentified by Pws 1 to 4 as the person who was holding the hatchet' Further it isdeposed by these witnesses that A2 was holding a chopper and he had inflicted
injuries on the left heel of PW2. Pws 2 and 4 have specifically stated that A2and A5 were wearing Mo.8 series caps. PW1 to PW4 identified A1 to 44 to be
PW2 towards
and 4 identified 45 and 46 as the persons who had lifted PW4 and thrown to the
school compound. PW1 to PW4 have narrated about the roll of A2, A3, and A5to A7 in the attack in specific and clear words.
107. According to the learned counsel for the accused the evidencetendered by Pws 1 to 4 with regard to the identity of A2, 43 and 45 to 47
cannot be relied upon since they had no previous acquaintance with thoseaccusgd. He pointed out that the accused were shown to the witnesses from
the poiite station and therefore the subsequent identification by the witnesseshas no Value and it i9 not acceptable. The learned counsel for the'accused has)
i-Ji I
accepted, but such a situation will arise only when there are sufficientmaterjals
accused at the time of the incident and when the accused are not shownto thewitnesses during the investigation. Here the incident was taken place at about8.05 am at a public road. According to the witnesses the incident lasted about
- 7 minutes. They had ample opportunity and time to see the assairants.
Further PwsL to 4 have stated that they had occasion to see the assailants on 2
attack him, but their pran was foired since pw2 was not present. on 17.5.2010the attempt was failed as there were other persons in that house.
108. PW1, PW3 and pW14 have stated about the incident happened on6.5.2010. I have already mentioned the evidence tendered by pw1 and pw3 on
this point. PW14 is the sister of pw2. she is residing at parathodu in ldukkidistrict with herfamily. she used to visit her brother. on one such occasion, that
deposed that when pw3 enquired about the purpose of their visit they told that
they came for getting an article from pw2. since pw2 was not there, pw3asked them
to wait. They told that they would meet pw2 later and left the
place. she added that on 28.5.2010 she came to the house of pw2 to join themin their trip to Velankanni. At about 2 pm, six persons came to their house anclenquired about PW2. when pw4 went to the backyard of the house to call pw2.
two among them entered. in the house and searched each and every_..room of
thr: l'rouse. They cat-rie outside through tiie door orr tlie i:acf:ri,:i.: arrd then leftthe place along with the others who were waiting in the courtyard of the house.Though PW1 requested them to disclose the purpose of their visit, they did not
give any reply. One among them showed gestures to keep silence.
followed them and immediately came back and noted the number of a motor
cycle. When PW2 came they told him about the incident. On the way toVelankanni PW2 filed a complaint in the office of the Deputy Superintendent ofPolice, Muvattupuzha. These are the versions of PW14 regarding the incident
which took place on 6.5.2010 and 28.5.201"0. lt is very pertinent to note thatPW1 has identified A2. A3, 45
marked as Ext.Pl(a)) as the persons who came to their house on 6.5.2010. pW3
was also able to identify A2, A3, A5 and Ext.P1(a) photograph. She could notidentify 46 and A7. Instead of pointing out 46 and A7 she pointed out A20 andA22. The failure to identify 46 and A7 as the persons who came to their house
time of giving evidence. when the learned public prosecutor asked her toidentify the persons who came to the house on 6.5.2010, she could have verywell stated that A2, 43 and A5 to A6 were present on 6.5.2010 also, but she did
not say so. Instead of pointing out 46 and 47 who were known to her, shewrongly pointed out A20 and A22 as the persons who came to their house on6;5.2010. lt proves that she was not able to remember as to whether eo ano
evidence. I am satisfipd that she had stated only true facts. TJle egidence given
by such r,i 'rtiines:, canrrol. l:i: ihiowl"r :ui- statirrg ;f ir1. :,;itr: i:; an
witness. Frorn the evidence of PWl anqi PW3, I can vi:ry rvell say that ,{?, A3
and A5 were there in the group of pei'sons who had visited their hotise on6.5.2010. PW1 has identified 46 and A7 also.109. Pws1,3 and 4 have identified 43 and Ext.Pl-(a) photograph of A4 Sajilas the persons who had entered into the house on 28.5.2010 and searched forPW2. PW14 has identified Ext.P1(a) photograph of
43 and A5 only when they were pointed out by the learned Public
Whereas Pwsl and 3 were sure about the oresence of 43 on 6.5.2010 and28.5.2010. PW1 has identified A2, A3, A5, 46 and 47 and stated that they came
to her house on 6.5.2010 also. The presence of A2, 43 and A5 in that house
According to PW15, he was present in the house of PW2 on that day along with
financial help for the treatment of the child of one among them. This witness
also deposed about the incident in tune with the evidence of PW2.
identified 42, 43, 45, A6 and-A8 as persons who came to his house on that dayand added that A5 Shamsudhin was the person who had talked with him and
identified A2 to be the person whose child was having some kidney problem.According to PW2, 42 and 45 were wearing caps and A8 was wearing paijama
and kurta. PW15 Joby identified 42, A3 and A5. When the learned Prosecutorpointed out AB, this witness stated that he was also present on that day. Thiswitness wrongly identified 47 Pareed and A24 Muhammadali to be the members,,j
I lf
r,'vltr; ir;.:tl
1l-1. PWl Salomy stated that at that time she was not tfrere in tiie hou$e.
she used to go for evening walk. on that day, while she was walking thrclugh
the road along with her neighbour seena, six persons came on two bikes andstopped the bikes in front of the house. One among them remained there and
the others went to their house. She identified those five persons as A2 Jamal,
as the persons who had visited their house on 17.5.2010. The presence
L12. PW18 Johny who was the owner of Hotel New Paris, Anikkad,Muvattupuzha spoke about
17.5.2010. This witness added that during investigation A2 was brought by the
police to his hotel and he heard the said accused saying the police that the
latter had taken food from his hotel on the date of the hand chopping incident.At the time of cross examination this witness stated that it was on l-7.5.2010. ltis clear from the inconsistent versions that he was not sure about the date on
running a hotel to remember a person who had opportunity to visit his hotel
once or twice. The evidence of this witness that he was able to identify A2 who
.-^10"1n." visited hls hotel, is n-ot reliable and it cannot be accepted. Thg
near to the hotel of pwl8" But there is evidence of pw1, pw2 ancl F,w15, whohave stated about ihe presence of A2 on that day at their residence. That itself
opportunity to see the assailants prior to 4.7.2010. He pointed out that there
lt is a statement
attack on PW2. Nobody could expect such a detailed statement from pw1regarding the entire incidents took place on that day and on the previousoccasions. I cannot expect such minute details from PW1 who is the wife of the
victim who had lost his right hand. I cannot ignore the fact that Ext.p2 is
statement given by her within one hour after the tragic incident. Therefore the
, :
j-.., -
statement given by PW1. lt is true that PW1, at the time of Eiving statement,
did not mentlon the particular dates of visits to the investigating officers.
also she did not give the details of the visits of the assailants on those days,
before PW294 or PW295, at the time of questioning. But it is clear from theevidence of pws 294 and 295 that she had briefly mentioned about the visits of
the assailants on those occasions. Though PWL has omitted to mention thedates and the number of visits in Ext.P2 Fl statement, it is clear that she hasbriefly stated about the previous visits to the Investigating officers.1t 5.
lt is admitted by
Pws 294 and 295 that when questioned, PW3 did not
give any statement about the previous visits of the assailants on the threeoccasions. Whereas
he had occasion to see the assailants when they came to his house on previous
witnesses. He stated that he did not put any question to these witnesses withregard to the incidents which took place on 6.5.2010. 17.5'2010 and 2B'5.2010'pW215 added that when he questioned her, he asked only about the incident
3 and 4,
questioned by PW215 did not give the dates of the previous visits and about the
number of the persons who came to their house or about their identifying''
..','.: .--:fedi{ns, What could be inferred from the evidence of the investigating officers\.'' .,''.' ''ous' occaslons.
th: ilatiie.i
il!i ihdt
iti.)i. fitr:ntiOn
she was walking along the road with her neighbour seena. lt is true. shedid not
mention about the presence pwL5 in that house on that day. These are ali
trivial and it can be ignored. Merely because of the reason that pw1 to pw4 didnot state each and every minute aspects to the investigating officers about the
cannot reject the entire evidence tendered by these witnesses on these points.
so also the omission to mention that on 29.5.2010 when some of the accusedcame to their house, pw1 was serving meals has no importance. I could notignore the admission made by PW294 who has stated that though the witnesses
had given detailed statements regarding those aspects he recorded only thematerial aspects.
gave a
Ext.P3. In the said complaint PW2 has specifically stated that on 17.5.2010 six
persons came to his house. He further stated that on that day itself he hadcontacted the police and accordingly the sub Inspector came to his house on
that day for enquiry. Further he has specifically mentioned in Ext.p3 that
and conducted search in that house. When his wife followed them theythreatened her.
cycles end that PW1 was able to collect the numbeg of one motor cycle. In this
r i li
17.5.2010 and 28.5.2010. 5o also f'W2, at tlre tinle of exantination has siaied
that he had informed the police about the incident which took place 17.5.2010.PW243
the sub Inspector of Police supported this version and said that
had given intimation in the police station about that incident over phone. Headded that he did not get any written complaint with regard to that incident. InExt.P3 also PW2 has specifically stated
the incident dated 17.5.20L0 and the sub lnspector of Muvattupuzha had come
to his house. I do not find any reason to disbelieve the evidence tendered bypw2 with regard to the incident which took place on 17.5.20L0. He has statedthat fact briefly in Ext.P3 also. The fact that PW243 did not maintain any recordabout the enquiry conducted by him as per Ext.P3 complaint, will not make theoral evidence tendered by the witnesses unreliable or untrustworthy.L18. PW101 Vishwappan who is a neighbour of PW2 Joseph deposed that on
28.5.2010 he took PW2 and his family members to Velankanni in his car. Thiswitness also stated that on the way he stopped the vehicle near MuvattupuzhaPolice station and then PW2 went to the police station. At the time of cross
examination this witness has clarified that PW2 went to the police station to
a complaint.
forwarded the same to the Circle Inspector of Police for enquiry and necessaryaction. PW294 in turn forwarded the same to the Sub Inspector, Muvattupuzha.PW243 has stated that on the basis of Ext.P3 complaint he went to the house of
r"Igcli;.tlit*rless Uf i::i.Fri
ol []iij,l til
i)\i!,1j, i./,j2rtr1"
Pw294 and PW29t;. I do not find any ri-.ason for these witnr-.sses to give false
to Ext.p3 coniplaint.
an independent witness. lt is very pertinent to note that the defence did notchallenge the credibility of pwL01. ln this circumstance I can very well acceptthe contention of the prosecution about Ext.p3 complaint.119. According to the learned counsel for the accused, the omission on the
that test identification parade was absolutely necessary, they did not resort to
the same and opted the short cut method of showing the accused to thewitnesses to enable them to identify the accused during trial. lt is further stated
that the investigating officers for that purpose collected the photographs of theaccused and shown to the witnesses. The prosecution did not adduce anyevidence as to how they collected those photographs. Admittedly they did notprepare any search list or seizure mahazar for collecting those photographs.The learned counsel for the accused added that the test identification paradeconducted by the learned Magistrate, at the request of the NIA officials in alater stage has no value as the accused were shown to the witnesses on earlieroccasion.
120. The learned counsel for the accused has relied on the rulings in
SCC Cri.G3,
anotherv,stateofPunjab*(zoluCri'L'J"sc2336'&'lunshiSingtaVijayan v'Gautarn and others v. State of M'P' - AIR 2OO5 SC 4O2 andaccusedState of Kerala - L999 (1) KLT 760 (SC) and submitted that if the
areshowntothewitnessespriortotheidentificationparadeorthetestphotographs of theidentification parade was conducted after supplying theunreliable' lt isaccused, the subsequent identification from the court becomesthenfurther argued that when the test identification parade is not acceptedplacedidentification in court is of no value. The learned counsel for the accused
state oft2oo5(1) scc 851, Shaikh umarAhamed shaikh and anotherv.Maharashtra [AlR I'998 SC 1922L Girija Shankar Misra v' State of UPtAtR 1993 SC 26r.8I and Harinath v. state of UP [X998 KH 849I. Fromthe judgment in Viiayan v. State of Kerala it could be seen that the accusedwas not known to the witness in that case. Therefore
be relied upon. The witnesses in that case had no opportunity to see theaccused before the incident. Here the facts are different. There is evidence of
pw1 to PW4 that they had opportunity to see all the assailants prior to4.7.2010. Therefore that ruling is not applicable to the case on hand'
121. The learned counsel for the accused argued about the necessity of
ac.quaintance with the assailants. According to him, PW302 when realised that
fact app.lied for conducting the test identification parade of A2, A3, and A5 to'A8;r,That;.prayer was allowed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate' PW269, theas per theJudicial Fir,st plass Magistrate, Kolenchery deposed that on.5.12.2011,
1.:t I
application before the Magistrate, that too after the appearance of the accusedbefore the court. The final report under section 173 Cr.p.c. was filed by pw295
before the court of sessions, Ernakulam on 14.1.2011. During that period 42,A3 and A5 to A8 wherein judicial custody. All of these accused were arrested in
20L0 itself. on all the posting dates these accused were brought from jail and
in open court. After filing the final report these accused were
to pw4 nave a
specific case that they identified those accused before the investigatingofficers. As such the test identification parade conducted by the learnedMagistrate (PW269) that too, after the filing of the final report has no value inthe eye of law lt was a futile attempt of pW302.122. lt is seen that immediately after the arrest of 42, A3, 45, 46, 47, AB
series. The date of arrest of 43 and 46 was 7.9.20IA. Ext.D22 series viz. the
of A7 Pareed was 8.10.2010. His photo is seert published irt Fxt.DZ3 sr:ries,Mathrubhumi,Ma|ayalaManoramaandDeshabhimanidated9'10.2010.Thepage ofdetails of the arrest of A8 Younus Aliyar is seen published in the front
it could be seen that the photos of some accused including A8 Younus Aliyar
werepub|ishedinthefrontpageofMa|aya|aManoramadated].0.7.2010(Ext.D25). In that news item the report regarding the look out notice issued by
the police against A8 and two others is seen published. From these newspapers
it could be seen that the photos of A2, A3 and A5 to A8 have been published inall the prominent Malayalam newspapers. In such a situation if the investigating
not have any value. In this circumstance I cannot find fault with PW294 whohad conducted the investigation for not conducting a test identification parade
by a Magistrate.
of a test
identification parade
is to have a
conduct a test identification parade of the accused whose photos had beenwidely published in almost all the newspaper in and around the locality.
iourt.. In a case where the accused were known to the witnesses or thewithdsles had occasion to see the accused before the incident, the test.''ideiitificatjon parade has no consequence. In Haseeb v. State of Bihar - AIR1972 SC 283 it was hel+that the necessity of holding identification parade
to enabie the
matter of alleged offence or the persons who are alleged to have beenconcerned in the offence. such tests or parades belong to the investigation
stage and they serve to provide the irrvestigating authority with material toassure themselves that the investigation is proceeding on right lines" There is
no inflexible rule that the identification made for the first time in court has tobe always ruled out of consideration.
L24. lt is clear from this ruling of the Apex Court and the other rulings
cited by the defence that there is no inflexible rule that an identification madeby the first time in court is valueless or unreliable. The role of test identification
has no
independent value. In a case reported in l9B9 (2) KLT S.N. 3 page No.2. (Crl.Appeal Nos.52, 53 etc. of 1956) a Division Bench of our Hon'ble High Court held
that test identification parade is not the only type of corroborative evidencewhich can be tendered
of a witness regarding
and appearance before he was brought for identification. There might havebeen something in the context, manner and the circumstances of the meetingwhich would render it easy for the appearance of the accused to fix itself in the
gnr naveplmemory of the witness; something mighty thereafterhave taken placeshortlyth
., ,. .wh.ich would have enabled tfLe witness to recollect the prior meeting of,the'.-:.i,
o"runn concernecl. lt is clear from this ejecision of the Hon'hle l-.liglr Couri ihateven without prior identification parade, identification in court can be believed.The learned Public Prosecutor has cited the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
date of incident. In the said case no test identification parade was conducted.Even then the Hon,ble supreme court has accepted the evidence of the eyewitnesses. The settled law is that there is no legal obligation on the part of the
investigating officer
three times prior to the incident. lt is very pertinent to note that PW1 and PW4have stated about the involvement of A2, 43 and A5 to A7 in the incident dated
4.7.2010. PW2 also stated about the role of A2, A3, 45, 46 and 47 andidentified those accused. Whereas PW3 identified 42, 43, A5 and A6.125. The learned counsel for the accused pointed out that these witnesses
were not able to mention anything before the investigating officers about theappearance, identification marks and other relevant things required for thepurpose of identifying the assailants. All these witnesses were cross examined
in detail by the learned counsel for the accused with regard to the identity of
the.assailants. Pws 1 to 4 stated that they have given the details required for
it is not seen
it:)*lviCence of any
o{' PW2
occasion to see them on 17.5.2010. pw3 and pw4 also stated abouttheidentity of some of the accused who had visited the house on 6.5.2010and
126' lt is brought out by the learned counsel for the accused that pW1 did
not furnish any material required for the purpose of the identification of theassailants,
assailants were wearing caps, paijama, kurtha etc. They did not mention about
witnesses have stated that they had given the details; such as physicalfeatures, identification marks etc. before the investigating officers, but there isno evidence. But there are sufficient materials to suggest that these witnesseshad ample opportunity to see the assailants. lt is borne out from the evidence
that the incident lasted about 6 - 7 minutes. They had opportunity to see theassailants in broad day light. In this circumstance I cannot reject the specificanswers given by these witnesses to the questions put by the learned counsel
that the appearance of the assailants were fixed in their memory and mind.They had occasion to see the assailants on three times prior to the incident._-.Subsequently, they went to the police station on being summoned, identified.:a
the assailants in clear words. As stated above they had obtained ampieopportunity to see all the assailants. PW2 has stated that the face of the personwho had chopped off his hand is imprinted in his mind. The evidence tendered
by Pw1, PW3 and PW4 would also show that they had sufficient opportunity towatch the assailants on the date when PW2 was attacked and on the previousdays and that the faces of the assailants were imprinted in their minds.
l2T.ongoingthroughtheevidenceIcou|dfindthatPW].wasabletoidentify A2, A3 and A5 to A7 as the persons who had visited their house on6.5.20L0. Her evidence with regard to the presence of A2' A3 and A5 wascorroborated by PW3. Pws
be one among the persons who had entered in their house on 28'5'20L0. PW1,PW2 and PW4 have Stated about the involvement of 42, 43 and A5 to A7 in the
incident dated 4.7.2010. PW3 was able to identify A2, A3, A5 and 46. lt is true
that PW2 was not able to identify A7 in the test identification parade conductedby the Magistrate. But from the evidence of PW1 and PW4 | can very well say
that A7 was also present on 4.7.2070. PW3 has fairly conceded that she did notremember the person who had driven the van on 4.7.2010. I am satisfied that
there is cogent evidence to prove that 42, 43 and A5 to 47 had visited the
house of PW2 on 6.5.2010. The persons who had visited the house of PW2 on
: !7.5.20IO'1 ..''that
were A2, A3, A5, A6 and A8. The witnesses have specifically stated
photoqreph (txt.P1(a))
128. lt is argued by the rearned counsel fclr Lhe accused that dockidentification of accused who are stranqers to the witnesses for the first time in
- (Chandran v. State of
Kerala) wherein it has been held that the safe rule is that the sworn testimonyof witnesses in court as to the identity of the accused who are strangers to thewitnesses, generally speaking, requires corroboration which should be in the
In Malkhan Singh and others v. State of M.p. (AtR 2OO3 SC 2G69) theHon'ble Supreme court held that there is no inflexible rule that an identificationmade for the first time in court could not be taken as a good piece of evidence.
The purpose of
facts, which establish the identity of the accused persons, are relevant under 5.
lt is accordingly
obliges the
investigating agency to hold or-confers a right upon the accused to claim; a [est
before any of the investigating officers that the person who was holdinghatchet got into the vehicle with the severed hand. so also these witnesses clidnot mention anything to the effect that the severed hand was thrown out bythe accused from the van to a property on the road side. lt is true that none of
officers. But that itself is not sufficient to reject the entire evidence. pw6 NibinLuka who took the injured to the hospital has specifically stated that on the way
to hospital he asked the wife of punnad rhomas to search for the severed hand.PW158 M.c.Joseph deposed that he found the severed hand in the compoundQlakkil Joy (PWLO) and handed over the same
evidence of PW8 is supported by pw7 Moly George and pw9 Betty shaji. pwloi
plakkil Joy deposed that the severed trand was faund out from his property anil
thenhegaveaplasticbagandicecubstoPW15E.PW5GeorgeVarghesestated that PW158 M.C.Joseph had handed over the severed hand to him and in
turn he gave it to PW243 the Sub Inspector who came to the spot. I do not find
to give false evidence with regard to the recovery of the severed hand.
the evidence of these witnesses it is explicit that the severed hand was thrown
Joy. ln
getting into the vehicle with the severed hand can be ignored, The evidencetendered by these witnesses cannot be rejected in toto stating that it was
universal omission.
131. lt is submitted that PWL did not mention to the investigating officers
that she had seen the act of chopping off the right hand of PW2. Thissubmission does not Seems to be correct: Ext.P2 itself would show that the right
hand of her husband was chopped off. Though PW1 did not mention to any of
the investigating officers that she had seen the accused chopping off the righthand of her husband in specific words,
untrustworthy. lt is clear from her versions that she reached the spot along withPW4 and witnessed the brutal attack on her husband.
materialslworn by the assailants etc. of the accused. But they have got.-:.,"
twice. PW3 and pw4 arso had opportiinity to see the assairantson earrieroccasions. I cannot ignore the fact thar pws r- and 2 havespecificailystated
doubted that it was the horn of her vehicle, that when she reached thespot shefound an omni van facing companypady side with opened doors with persona
sitting on the driver's seat, their wagonR car with smashed windowpanes,oneperson holding the neck of pw3 and standing adjacent to 'kayyala'with a knifeon right hand, 3 - 4 persons holding pw2 who was rying on the road, 42 and 43
standing with "'vakathi" and A1 with hatchet, A6 holding a plastic kit and A1
inflicting 6
- 7 cut injuries on pw2. lt is true that she did not give each and
every minute details before the investigating officers. pw215, pw2g4, pw295and PW302 have stated that though she has narrated the entire incident andgave minute details they recorded the same in brief. This submission seemstobe true. Merely because of the reason that she did not say each and every act
of the assailants in its sequence, I cannot say that the evidence tendered byher before this court is a story developed by her during the trial. Further t couldnot find any material omission which amounts to contradiction, in her evidence.
The prosecution was able to prove that pwL has given detailed statementabout the presence of each and every assailant and about the.role of them in
the attack on PW2 and identified all of the assailants in court. In thiscircumstance I can very well ignore the above mentioned omissions pointed outby the learned counsel.
134. The learned counsel for the accused made simiiar attempt to bring
outthroughtheinvestigatingofficersthatPws2,3and4didnotmentionanything that the driver of the omni van turned around the vehicle immediatelyafter blocking the car, that the driver was having beard, that there was a sticker
he is chopping off the wrong hand, directed the other to chop off the righthand, that the assailant who was holding the hatchet saying to PW2 that "prc
ooe oec6rB6flsc.,6gc,oerrec"
gqnil crll
pe ooa od,c6n3
(you have ridiculed the lslam religion using the hand, you don't write
with this hand again), that the faces of the assailants were imprinted in theirmind, that the person who was holding the plastic kit took a bomb from the kitand threw
it by saying '
hand was attacked by Mithun and sustained injuries and that the assailants had
visited their house on previous occasions. lt is true that none of the witnesseshave stated about the honking sound of the horn.
135. Pws 294 and 295 have stated that Pws L to 4 have narrated theentire incident in detail, but they recorded their statements in a brief manner.Even
before the investigating officers I cannot reject the other evidence tendered by
,,.'thgseryilnesses. We can always expect normal discrepancies and omissions, ' '.,.,:'.
the depositions of witnesses. lt is quite natural also. Nobody can give detailed'nafl:ation jnlsuch precision, withoutany omission. The question is whether such
All the other omissions pointed out by the rearned counser forthe accusec are
all trivial and it can be discarded. Nobody courd expect that thewitnesseswould say that the faces of the assairants are imprinted in theirmrnds. Nowitness will give such detairs. rt is to be noted that ail the witnesshad stated
that they can identify the assairants. I cannot ignore the fact that
the witnesses had obtained sufficient time to watch the assailants who hadattacked PW2 on 4.7.201,0. Therefore the omission in giving the details sucnas,
the appearance of the assailants, the details of the dress materials worn by theassailants, the identification marks of the assailants etc. cannot be treated asmaterial omissions.
DLO series.
that identical or universal omissions and contradictions make the case doubtful.(Dharam singh and others v. state of punjab
--Beg.amnr.., ,i..
witnesses were questioned by four investigating officers. Ext.D1 series are the
pw2g4. Ext.D5 series are the contradictions in the statement of PW3 in thestatement given to NlA. Exts.D6 series and D7 are the contradictions in the
PW2, given
and every contradictions since all those contradictions are not at all materialand liable to be ignored. I cannot forget the fact that the questioning of thesewitnesses by the investigating officers started on 5.7.201-0 and lasted for about
one year. During this period these witnesses were questioned by four or five
4 have narrated the entire incident in clear and specific terms. The omissionsand contradictions marked by the defence are not at all material and those
time of the occurrence, and the like. Material discrepancies are those which arenormal.
':r ' ri
l.iij138. Apart fron: tliose minor omisllons anil contraciiction: pr:inLeti oui bv
the learned counsel for the accused, there is nothing to suspect the evidence ofPWs 1, 3 and 4 who had narrated the incident. They are most natural witnesses
to see the incident. pw1 is the wife and pw4 is the son of the injured pw2.PW3 who came on leave, was also residing along with pw2 and
family. Further
139. lt cannot be insisted that in order to accept the evidence of eyewitnesses, they should speak how each and every injury found on the victimwas inflicted. The injuries must have been inflicted in quick succession as the
duration of the incident was short. They may not be in a position to have
close watch on each and every injury inflicted on the injured. In this connection
Supreme Court
in Nand Kumar v.
more persons with an intention to kill them then the witnesses whoare closely related to the victims are not expected to describe the
140. PW2 was attacked while he was returning from the church after
attending the Sunday Holy Mass. According to the learned counsel for theaccused, though the incident way happened in the vicinity of the church fhg.
prosecuiion could not exarrlirie any independent \,itne5s to prove lhe *[i 'rckPW2 and
spot after hearing the hue and cry, had seen the incident. Further PW3' at the
time of cross examination has admitted that nuns and neighbours who werereturning from the church had seen the incident, but she could not identify any
to prove the attack on PW2. lt is clear from their versions that they had noopportunity to see the entire incident. PWg said that when he reached near thegate of Nirmala Public school he heard the sound of an explosion and stoppedhis car. He saw a black car on the road. A woman was seen under the grip ofanother nearthe car. He saw 3 -4 persons dragging a person to the backside of
that car which was stopped there. They dropped him near the side wall. He sawone among them waiving some weapon towards that person. He stated that he
could not identify the assailants. From the versions of PW5, PW6, PW7 and PW9
to PW12 it could be seen that they also heard the sound of explosion and when
they reached the place of occurrence they found PW2 lying on the road withinjuries. All these witnesses are residing near the place of incident. Some ofthem were coming from the church. ln view of the evidence of these witnesses,
the contention that the prosecution did not examine any independent witnesswill not sustain. lt is true that these witnesses did not get opportunity to see theincident. The fact that there was no independent witness who had seen
There is nothinq
before this court rr:garding the attack o:r pw2. rf there areother witnesses whohad seen the entire incident the prosecution wourd havevery weil examined
them' rt is very pertinent to note that the defence courd not pointout
previous visits
,,-,') , ... ,'':4,nd noticed that though there were some marginal variations on,\. ,'' , . l ''tertain aspects as between his statemept----'under section, recordedi
j. ! .t
in chief. lt is
and we are satisfied that PW2 had basically remained at the sameposition which he has stated in the FlR".
142. Here PW2 has narrated the entire incident truly and correctly inspecific terms. His versions are supported by PW1, PW3 and PW4. Merelybecause of the reason that these witnesses are the wife, sister and son of PW2
-"" ..-,,plotectingthe real culprit, and falsely implicating the respondents."2W7(21 KHC r1e
that it is the quality of the evidence and not the quantity of the evidencewhich is required to be judged by the court to prace credence onthestatements.145. Pws 1 to 4 have no enmity towards A2, 43 and 45 to Ag. They hadnooccaslon to see these accused before 6.5,2010. The presence of pws 1,3 and 4
falsely implicate these accused. Merely because of the reason that thereis no
involvement of 47 Pareed. The evidence of PW184 would show that the fingerprint slip of A7 Pareed was forwarded to him by PW295 on 18.10.2010 and oncomparison of the same with the chance prints collected from the omni van
and labelled by him as M6, he found that there were identical ridgecharacteristics. lt is clear from his evidence and Ext.P31'2 report that the chance
prints which were collected from the omni van and labelled by him as M6, is
147. According to the learned counsel for the accused the chance prints
identification of Prisoner's Act is not valid and therefore the evidence adduced
admissible in evidence. According to him, the specimen finger print was taken
by an Assistant Police sub Inspector who has no authority to take the fingerprints. The learned counsel for the accused argued that the specimen finger
prints of the appellant were not taken before or under the orders of
Se ?96C1.
of the accusecr. rn
his presence. lt is true that pw295 has not recorded the samein the case file.But it is not a ground to reject the evidence given by him onthis point. At thetime of chief examination this witness identified Ext.p313 finger printsrip of A7.
i.crtoirorated by
i],i'il iclroit
by PW184.
149. The learned counsel for the accused took a contention that theevidence of PW1B4 cannot be looked into for the reason that the rear view
minor is not produced before this court. This contention does not seems to
correct. The rear view mirror is still there in MOZ omni van. On going through
- the entire evidence I am satisfied that the prosecution was able to prove therole of 42, A3 and A5 to 47 in the attack on PW2.
right forearm, one inch distal to elbow joint and another healed wound 1 x
cm over the dorsal surface of left elbow and a healing wound 1 x 0.5 cm overthe front of right knee. When he examined PW4 he found healed abrasion over
another healed abrasion 10 x 3 cm, 2 inches below the spine of left scapula. ltis contented by the learned defence counsel that though the prosecution has a
case that PW3 and PW4 had sustained injuries in the incident, they did notmake any attempt to get medical aid in time. According to the learned counsel
for the accused the prosecution did not give any explanation for the delay insending PW3 and PW4 to the hospital for treatment. lt is true that PW243 who.,
. ,
had conducted investigation in the initial stage or PW2g4, the Circle Inspector
dicl'not take any steps to send PW3 and PW4 for treatment or for getting.i'l:t,:if:
', i
till 17.7.2010. P\f3 and PW4 also did not feel the necessity tp
rvir* hacj
PW4 on 5.7.2010 did not make any enql iry about the injr,rries nor pWzl give any
statement before that investigating offi;er regarding his injuries. So also pW3did not mention anything about the injuries sustained to her till 17.7.2010. lt
very pertinent to note that PW3 and PW4 have got a specific case that theywere attending PW2 who was in the ICU at Specialists' Hospital, Ernakulam. Insuch a situation they might have ignored their minor injuries. lt is clear from
the evidence tendered by PW294 that he noticed the injuries of Pws 3 and 4only when PW3 produced the saree, blouse and underskirt (MO.18 to MO.20)
worn by her at the time of incident, before him. PW294 spoke that
17.7.2010, when she produced those dress materials he found blood stains inMO.18 saree and then referred PW3 and PW4 to the hospital with requisition.On that day itself he got Ext.P319 and 320 wound certificates from the hospital.
151. PW187 has specifically stated about the injuries of pW3 and pW4. I do
not find any reason to disbelieve the evidence tendered by this witness on this
point. Nobody could believe that this witness had fabricated wound certificate
getting treatment or medical aid, the evidence of PW3 and PW4 on this pointcannot be rejected. Their evidence is supported by PW8 who said that he found
incident.152. The definite case of the prosecution is that 46 Shanavas explodedbomb when PW1 and PW4 were rushing towards PW2. I have already mentioned
about the evidence tendered by the witnesses on this point. The evidence ofthese witnesses about the explosion is supported by PW5 to PWLl". According toPW5, PW7 and PWLL they heard the sound of explosion and found smoke at the
place of incident. PW6 and PW8 to PW10 stated that they heard somethingexploding at the place of incident. PW5 and PW9 added that they found theremnants of the explosion at that spot. PW243 the Sub Inspector of Police.confirmed
spot he felt the smell of explosion and found the remnants. PWL83 ScientificAssistant, Susan Antony spoke that she inspected the scene of occurrence and
collected swab. burned remnants, glass pieces, dark brown stains in cottongauze etc. sealed it and handed over to the ASI of Police, Muvattupuzha with areport.153. PW267 a police constable attached to the Muvattupuzha police station
stated that as per the directions he collected those packets from the court ofthe Judicial First Class Magistrate, Muvattupuzha and produced the same in the
't!. . '.
with impression of seal and the forwarding note. Those packets contained 24
140 (remnant of the rexin) and MO.11 chopper (items 14 and 16 in Ext.P550).According to him, on examination MO.140 was found contaminated with fungus.
report. According
containing three pieces of cotton with coloured stains. The other white paperpacket (item No.2) contained one polythene packet containing partially burned
newspaper and
remnants of item No.l", cotton with black coloured stains and the remnants of
partially burned newspaper and jute twine (MO.13 series). This witness stated
Potassium Chlorate, Aluminium Powder and Sulphur were detected in item Nos.1 and 2. She stated that Potassium Chlorate, Aluminium Powder and Sulphur is
a mixture and added that by using this explosive mixture, explosion can be_-_,...,.-mde. PW266 the Director
that after
is being used for making crackers. The defence did not challenge the credibility
of this witness who is an expert in this field. The argument of the defence
or the
contention that the defence also has no doubt that the explosion was made byusing explosive substances. Though the counsel put forward a contention that
there is doubt regarding the location and regarding the manner in which it was
satisfied from the evidence of PW231 that explosive substances was used byone of the assailants for explosion. Pws 1 and 4 identified A6 Shanavas to be
the person who threw the bomb. PW3 and PW4 also stated that A6 wasstanding near the omni van with a plastic kit. I am satisfied that the prosecutionwas able to prove that 46 Shanavas used explosive substances for explosion.
l-56. PW4 stated that on seeing the attack on his father, he rushed to
house, returned with MO.11 chopper and inflicted an injury on the backside 6fi:'- r
the per.son who was chopping the right hand of his father. A5 and 46;' on seeing'''i'.! 'r.;'';.,,0.,ru.-.,this,,bgSht him, lifted and dropped him in thetchool compound. pW3 has':
Shamsudhin also sustained injury in the scuffle with PW4. At present there isno evidence to show as to how A5 had sustained injuries. The prosecution has
Taluk Hospital,
certificate was marked through PW1B5. This witness deposed that 20,8.2010 at3.30 pm he examined A5 Shamsudhin who was brought to the hospital with a
sustained and when it was sustained. lt is very pertinent to note that the ocularwitnesses did not say anything about the injuries of A5. Pws L to 4 have no case
that 45 had sustained any injury. Nobody has a case that PW4, in the course ofthe transaction attacked A5 and caused injuries to him. As stated above, thereis no evidence to prove that 45 Shamsudhin had sustained any injury in theincident. Whereas PW4 has specifically stated that he waved MO.t1choppertowards the assailant who was attacking his father. This evidence is supported
by Pws 1 and 3. The oral evidence tendered by the witnesses would suggest_-,. ,, !hqt-,Af
,.lt', .: -',
' ;.-''-''';'"'
:.. ;,,..,!i'' ''. ,:
sufficient material to enter into a conclusion that the assailants had an intention
to murder PW2. He pointed out that though the assailants were equipped withlethal weapons they spared the life of PW2 knowing fully well that the personswho had assembled there will take the injured to the nearby hospital. Therewas no attempt on the part of the assailants to cause the death of pW2. lt isargued that what matters is only the intention of the assailants and note the
effect on the injured. They relied on the decision reported in Mangal Singh
X399(SC) and argued that the nature of the injuries is not sufficient to prove
that the assailants had the intention to cause the death of the victim. In theother ruling cited by the defence (Harikishan v. Sukhvir Singh-1988 (2)KLT SN 57-Case No.8O) the Hon'ble Apex court held that under Section 307IPC what
the court has to see is. whether the act irrespective of its result, was
158. In StateSC
Section 307
if there
.lt is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should
.[ . :.,, .have been inflicted. The Section makes a distinction between thedct of the,eccused and its result, if any. i16s court.has toI
whethertheact,irrespectiveofitsresult,wasdonewiththeintention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the
section.Therefore,anaccusedchargedunderSection30T|PCcannot be acquitted merely because the injuries inflicted on thevictim were in the nature of a simple hurt".The facts of the said case are similar to the case on hand' In that case thelower part of the left leg of the victim was chopped off. Apart from that injury,
the victim had sustained injuries on his back, right eye and left leg. The trial
court found the accused in that case guilty of offence u/s. 307 IPC andconvicted him under that section. In the appeal the Hon'ble High court ofMadhya Pradesh took a stand that the offence u/s.307 IPC is not made out. TheHon,ble High Court observed that the doctor has not stated that the injury was
sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and held thatchopping of the leg from the body cannot be treated sufficient to cause death.
death will be caused is a question of fact and would depend on the facts of a
given case. To justify a conviction u/s.307 lPC, it is not essential that bodilyinjury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. Although the nature
finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be deduced
there may be cases in which the culprit would be liable under this Section. lt
not necessary that the injury actually caused to the victim of the assault should
result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstancesmentioned in the Section. The circumstances that the injury inflicted by theaccused was simple or minor will not by itself rule out application of Section
conviction under Section 307 lPC, it is not essential that bodily injury capable ofcausing death should have been inflicted.
stated that PW2 had lost massive quantity of blood and was in a state of shock
and almost dying. The allegation of the accused is that there was somemanipulation in the case sheet (Ext.P622) and it was the reason for the delay inproducing the said document before the court. lt is true that the case sheet was
not produced before this court along with final report. lt was summoned by this
court at the instance of the prosecution. At the same time it is very pertinent to\{
"' . :: |:'
,oiiqiltdtails. of
the injuries on time along with the final report. The case sheet of
.. , r',. ,batienfis to be kept in thp hospital.'" ,t")'.'' .i.t*."... -:>'l,t ''
pW2,, had
undergone prolonged treatment in the said hospital. There are materials in thecase sheet to show that PW2 was treated from the hospital on 20.06.20i.2, for
some other disease. We cannot find fault with prosecution for not producing
the case sheet along with the final report. I cannot say that the delay insummoning the case sheet from the hospital is fatal. I do not find any merit inthe contention that there were chances for manipulation in the case sheet.160. The leamed counsel for
that he is
chopping off the wrong hand and directed the latter to chop off the right hand.According to the learned counsel the said version of PW2 itself is sufficient toprove that they had no intention to murder PW2.
did not inflict any injury on the vital parts of the body of PW2. But that is not
The intention of the assailants can be inferred from their conduct and
deeds. lt is pertinent to note that the assailants had inflicted several cut injuries
and chopped off the right hand of PW2. They did not stop there. One of theassailants took the severed hand with him, boarded the vehicle and on the way
threw it in a nearby compound. lt is clear from the conduct of that accused that
their intention was to cause delay in getting the severed hand. Fortunately,PW6 took
woman to search for the severed hand. PW6 has given evidence to that effect.
It is clear from the evidence that the life of PW2 was saved only because of the
timely intervention of the persons who had gathered there. Merely because,':t
i',i.l the reason that the assailants did not inflict fatal injuries on the vital parts,t'r*
\-'. cannot say that they had no inteption to cause the d6ath of PW2. From th?.,*.:I' :-l.
nature of the injuries caused to PW2 on his hands and legs and from theconduct of the assailants who had collected the severed hand and threw it to a
compound, I can very well enter into a conclusion that their intention was tocause the death of PW2.
was able to prove that A2, A3 and 45 to 47' along with two others, with
common object to cause the death of PW2, formed themselves into an unlawfulassembly with common object to attack PW2, came to Hostelpady junction in a
got down from the omni van with the other two persons, that the side windowglass on the left front was smashed by A2 Jamal with a chopper, 43 attempted
to smash the
windscreen with chopper. PW2 was taken out of the car and
dragged to the backside from where he was attacked by 42. PW2 was forcibly
laid on the road and the right hand of PW2 was chopped off. lt is proved thatPW2 had sustained simple as well as grievous injuries in the attack. When PW4
Mithun made attempt to attack the assailant who was chopping of the righthand of PW2, A5 Shamsudhin and 46 Shanavas caught him, lifted and pushed
him towards the school ground and thereby caused simple injuries to PW4.
the course of the attack. when PW3 got down from the car with an intention tointerfere and to prevent the attack on PW2, A5 Shamsudhin caught her necki'i;: r-:- ""''
' .
ah-d..pressed her towarCs the side wall and caused simple hurti-
proved, r",il,r{.r:{prosecution has,
PW3. The
was standing near the car took a bomb from the kit he was holding, threw it and
caused explosion. lt is proved that A2 and A3 smashed the windscreen and side
window glass of the WagonR car and caused damage to the said car. From theconduct of those accused it is explicit that they had an intention to cause thedeath of PW2 and they had sufficient knowledge that their act would cause thedeath of PW2. I am satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to hold that the
to commit murder.
to 12:-
considered together. lt is the case of the prosecution that A12 was deputed byA8 and A28 to purchase an omni van for the purpose of committing the offence.
PWL44 Lawrence was the registered owner of MO.2 omni van bearing No.KL.
particulars of the said omni van. This document would show that the ownershio
sent two persons to the house of PWl44. After discussions PW144 decided tosell his omni van for t1,00,000/- to those two persons. They were ready to paythe full amount and to take delivery of the vehicle. He took those persons to theshop of PW51 in his omni van. This witness identified A12 from the dock andExt.P1(a) photograph of A4 Sajil to be the persons who came for purchasing his
' , ,.,:.,...,/
to him.
Then Joseph,
w.ho",is,;a st'aff
t ...
They signed in the original agreement prepared by Joseph and in its carboncopy. The original agreement was taken by A12 and the carbon copy (Ext.P45)
was given to him. A12 gave his mobile number. That number was noted inExt.P45. Then the vehicle was delivered to A12 Ali, along with the registration
certificate. A12 Ali promised that the ownership of the vehicle will betransferred in his name within a week, This witness identified MO.2 omni van.
After one week A12 contacted him and expressed his inability to transfer theownership and promised that he will make necessary arrangements at theearliest. When
After a few days he had occasion to see his omni van in a news item telecast
The person who had attended the phone call stated that his name is Sajeesh.On that day itself the Circle lnspector of Thrissur West Police station came to his
house and enquired about the omni van. As directed by the officer he reached
at Thrissur West Police station. PW51 Mani was also there. They narrated theentire incident regarding the sale of the omni van to police. Again on 5.7.20L0he went to the police station as directed, from where a photo of A12 which was
fed in a computer was shown to him. He confirmed the identity of that personas the purchaser of his omni van. Then he was directed to appear before the
''r- -
who is engaged in the sale of second hand vehicles at rhrissur supported theversions of PWL44 regarding the sale of omni van to A12. This witness added
that for the purpose of preparing the agreement he asked A12 to furnish copyof his identity card. AL2 was not having his identity card with him. He gave aphotocopy of his driving licence. This witness also identified Ext.P45, the carbon
of the agreement. The copy of the driving licence given by A12 was markedthrough this witness as Ext.P46. This witness also identified A12 Ali from dockand Ext.P1(a) photograph.164. The learned counsel for the accused challenged the genuineness ofExt.P45 agreement stating that there is only one attester in that agreement and
that revenue stamp is seen affixed in Ext.p45 which is a carbon copy. His case is
that normally there would be two attestors in a sale agreement and there is nopractice of affixing revenue stamp in a carbon copy. pw51, at the time of cross
stamp on
a carbon copy of
considered here is not the validity of the agreement. Merely because of thereason that there was only one attester and a revenue stamp is seen affixed inExt.P45, I cannot say that it is not a genuine document. pffi.44 and pW51 who
have no interest in the subject matter of this case need not give any falseevidence regarding the sale of the vehicle.
station ori'. .7.2010 itself. After collecting the details from this witness and
V5f whor:Wls also summoned to Thrissur West Police station, the Circle
Inspector oT potice, Thrissur West directed them to apiepr before him on thei
next day. On that day they were directed to report before the
PW144 has stated that on 4.7.20L0, when Circle Inspector of Police, Thrissur
West Police station came to his house he showed Ext.P45 agreement to him.But it is clear from his version that he did not take that agreement to the police
station in the afternoon of 4.7.20L0 or on the next day. The fact that PW144 did
examination this witness has admitted that before coming to the court forgiving evidence, some of the officials had read over his 161 statement to him.According to the learned counsel for the accused, that fact itself is a ground to
reject the evidence tendered by him. But it is very pertinent to note that the
accused have
that effect. The accused has a case that PW5L used to obtain copy of thedriving licence of his drivers, while joining in his establishment as Call Drivers.This suggestion would support the case of Pws L44 and 51 that Ext p46 is the
copy of the driving licence given by A12. PW51 has stated as to how this copygf ,!he
"-suppofted by PW14f. These facts would prove thai Ext.p46, is ttle copy of the
driving licence of A12 Ali, produced by him atthe time of the sale of MO.2. Theaccused was not able to substantiate his contention that Ext.p46, the copy of
the driving licence was given by him to PW51, when he joined in the service of
the latter as a Call Driver. I do not find any reason for PW5L to give falseevidence against A12. There is nothing to disbelieve the evidence tendered by
expressed his willingness to give a statement with regard to the incident before
was fed up by the formalities. According to the learned counsel for theaccused, these admissions made by PW144 would show that he was coerced by
the police to give false evidence. On a close scrutiny of the evidence tenderedby this witness and PW51, I cannot say that these witnesses were compelled
by the police to give false evidence. I am fully satisfied that the aboveversions
PW144 pertaining
169. PW144 has a specific case that on 5.7.2010 when he went to Thrissur
saved in'the computer. These versions of PW144 inspire confidence. The fact
investigation quickly and were able to collect evidence within a short time.There is no chance of fabricating documents or creating false evidence by theprosecution within that short period.
RC owner
the business of buying and selling used motor vehicles have narrated the entire
regarding the sale of MO.2 omni van bearing No.KL-07/AH.8768 to A12 wassufficiently corroborated by PW51, I do not find any reason for these witnesses
acquaintance. The prosecution has relied on the call data records of AL2 to
stated that they did not know as to whether AL2 was having mobile phoneconnection with that number. PW72 Unais who is the brother in law of AL2 also
pretended ignorance about the phone number of A12. But this witness hasidentified Ext.P46. the copy of the driving licence produced by pw144, wherein
Advocate and Notary Public stated that Ext.p46 is a photocopy of the notarized
copy of the driving licence of A12. In Ext.p45, (carbon copy of the agreement)
and in Ext.P46, the copy of the tD proof given by A12 to pW144, the mobilephone number of Ali was seen written as 9567693209. This evidence would
was marked as Ext.P620. Ext.c6 is the BTS list of Bharathi Airtel, Kerala circle
admissibility of theCDR will be considered later in detail). This CDR in the name
of K.K.Ali would prove that on 15.6.2010 between 07:16 hours and 08:40 hoursthe above said phone number was at the location of Cell lD No.7353 and 7351;
that is Kothamangalam area. On that day at L2.48 noon that phone was at
15:24 hours it was at Olarikkara, Thrissur. At 16:00 hours that phone was atThrissur West Fort location and 18:13 hours it was at Perumbavoor in Ernakulam
district. These Call Data Records would prove that AL2 had been there atThrissur
in the afternoon of
15.6.2010. In short
prosecution was able to prove that MO.2 omni van having registration No.KL-07AH-8768 was purchased by A12 K.K.Ali and another from PW144 for a sum of<l-,00,000/-.
PW53 Amanullah
had handed over the RC book, insurance certificate etc. in his shop an!case and stated thatme to suggest that
is noas
172. Pws 1 to 4 identified MO.2 omni van as the van used by the assailants
to come to the spot. PW188 seized the said vehicle from the possession of
within two hours after the attack on PW2, There is cogent evidence to show that
the said vehicle was purchased by A12 K.K.Ali from PW144 Lawrence
15.6.2010. PW184, the finger print expert proved that the chance finger printcollected by him from the rear view mirror in the omni van was found to be that
of A7. PWs L to 4 have proved that A7 was the driver of the van in which A2.A3, A5 and 46 came to the spot along with two others. Though there is noevidence to prove that A12, after purchasing the vehicle handed over the same
to A28, there is sufficient evidence to prove all the link in the chain regarding
seizure from A9. I am satisfied that the prosecution was able to prove that MO.2
omni van purchased by 4L2 was used by A2, A3 and A5 to A7 to reach at theplace of incident. A12 has no explanation as to how MO.2 omni van came into
the possession of A1 to A7 who had attacked PW2. The silence of A12 itselfwould prove his involvement in the offence.
parked it in front of Royal Hotel and waited the assailants. By that time A7Pareed reached there with the omni van.
A7 brought the vehicle to lrumalappady with the other assailants and handedover the vehicle to A9 for disposal. A7 and the other assailants escaped
thatspot.f9Proceededinthevehic|etowardSPerumbavoorandonthewayhe...'',".'wap intercqpited by
i ,.
174. The definite case of the prosecution is that while A9 was taking the
the case of the prosecution that from lrumalappady junction MO.2 omni van washanded over by 47 to A9 Jafar who took
route. On the way A9 disposed off the fake number plates. When A9 reached atVattakkattupady, PW188 who was conducting vehicle checking duty as per the
There was no other person in the vehicle. He questioned the driver andcollected the address of that driver. Then he inspected the vehicle and foundbroken glass pieces on the back seat. Further he saw blood stains on the seat
facing back and on the top of roof of the sliding door. A9 could not produce theregistration certificate, insurance certificate etc. On the basis of the informationpassed by
place and made enquiries. Thereupon PW236 directed PW188 to take the
he reached the police station premises PW236 asked him to produce A9 and-:,v.".ehicle before the Circle Inspector of Police, Muvattupuzha' As per the.:,:'f*g.'.' ...:.'t, '-'f
,, ,
:pm PW294 came to the office and asked him to file a report. Accordingly heand the vehicle toover A9t' lafar
PW294 along
175. According to the learned counsel for the accused, there wasinordinate delay in producing MO.2 alleged to have been seized by pW188,before the investigating officer. His main contention is that the prosecutioncould not give any explanation for the delay. PW18B said that he produced MO.2
police. This argument of the learned counsel does not seems to be correct.There is no dispute that PW188 has produced A9 and the vehicle after 1.L5 pm
police station around 2 pm and saw A9 Jafar in the police station. lt is clear from
their evidence that they did not mention the exact time of production of A9 orMO.2. Whereas PW1BS has specifically stated that he produced A9 and MO.2
before PW294. PW294 has admitted that A9 was produced before him byPW188. The definite case of PW294 is that on production of A9 Jafar by pW18B,
lt is very pertinent
note that no question was put by the defence to PW294 about the time ofproduction of MO.2 before him by PW188. Even if there is some confusion in the
evidence tendered by PW188 and PW294 regarding the exact time of the
officials joined together and started to manipulate things as and when they gotinforr.Eation. about
the attack on PW2. why shoulp pw294 who was the circle
General of Police, interfered in the investigation and as per his directions his
the learned counsel for the accused that it was the DGp who had constituted
the investigation team. This witness further denied that the DGp had issuedinstructions to him to incorporate all the provisions of criminal law against the
assailants. lt is admitted by PW294 that after the incident the DGp had visitedMuvattupuzha. That does not mean DGP came to that place
to influence
brutal attack on a professor by fundamentalists. I can not ignore the fact that
the Government, considering the seriousness of the crime, directed the NIA toinvestigate the case. The impact of the crime on the public was so dreadful. I donot find anything suspicious in the visit of DGp, in such a serious case. on the
_I76 From the evidence of PW188 and PW294 it is clear that MO.2 omnivan was handed over by PW188 to PW294 directly and thereafter the omni vanwas under the custody of PW294. lt is very pertinent to note that pw1g3 and
PW184 have specifically stated that they inspected ,the omni van from the't-
station premises. Their evidence would also support the prosecution case thatMO.2 was in the custody
PW294, after
I77.'fhe apprehension of the defence counsel was that the police officershad manipulated things from the police station. His attempt was to make itappear that the detection of broken glass pieces and blood stains alleged to
found broken glass pieces on the back seat and blood stains on the seat on theback side of the driver's seat. lt is clearly mentioned in the mahazar
was an attempt to sweep the blood stains. From the evidence of PWL88
clear that the broken glass pieces and the .blood stains found in that vehicle
raised suspicion
pertaining to the vehicle, but A9 could not produce any of the documents.These endorsements in Ext.P321 would support that the evidence of pW188and PWL83 that they found blood stains and broken glass pieces in the vehicle.The fact that Ext.P321 does not contain the signature of independent witnesses
,'will'not render it'.1{
there is only one bus service through the said road. He added that though somepersons had come along the road, on seeing him they avoided that way. This
witness has specifically denied the suggestion put forward by the learnedcounsel for the accused that there were two or three houses in the vicinity. He
has admitted that there were some plywood factories near the place ofoccurrence but all of those factories were bounded by big compound walls. I am
satisfied that the explanation given by PW188 for not getting the presence of
the last line of Ext.P32L the time is seen corrected as 9.50 am. I cannot say that
this is a material alteration. In the first part of that mahazar PW18B hadmentioned the time of getting information and theVattakkattupady.
van driven by A9 reached the spot at 9.25 am. His evidence is that, afterinspecting the vehicle he questioned A9, then informed PW236 the CircleInspector, PW236 came to the spot and after verification PW236 directed him
to take the vehicle to the police station. From the recitals in Ext.P321 it is clear
that it is not a material alteration. lt would not affect the genuineness of thesaid mahazar.
L79. Jhe learned counsel for the accused challenged the genuineness of
Ext.P848 report submitted by PW188 to PW294 and pointed out the delay in
examination itself has specifically stated that when he met PW294 at 1.L5 pm
for handing over A9 and the vehicle, PW294 directed him to produce theaccused and vehicle with a report. Accordingly he produced the accused andMO.2 with a report. On the next day of examination
has produced that report with a petition and it was received. I cannot believe
that the NIA officials had fabricated this document within 24 hours after theexamination of PW188. First of all PW188 need not give any false evidence on
this point. He has got a specific case that after examining the vehicle atVattakkattupady, he prepared a mahazar and brought A9 and the vehicle to the
police station. PW294 has specifically stated that he had mentioned aboutExt.P848 report in the GD.
not consider
document, I cannot say that the evidence tendered by PW188 regarding the
of A9 is not reliable.
examined the vehicle and found broken glass pieces in the van and blood stains,...it.
.i, r,on{ ,the
'.f I "'i
b."ackside of
,' . ttl" accused along with the vehicle to,'the police station. PW236 has identified i,-
A9 Jafar from the court. As stated above I do not find any reason to disbelieve
the evidence of PW188 and PW236. Further, from the suggestion put forward bythe learned counsel for the accused to PW294, it could be seen that there is an
say Ext.P848 is a fabricated one. The delay in producing the same before this
couft is not sufficient to raise any reasonable suspicion about the genuinenessof that report.
l-80. The learned counsel for the accused relied on a statement given byPW144
at the time of
prosecution regarding the seizure of MO.2 is a cooked up story. PW144 who hadsold the omni van to A12 stated that he saw a white omni van in a news item
lmmediately he tried to contact A12 K.K.Ali. The learned counsel for theaccused relied on this statement of PW144 and submitted that if that be so, the
vehicle might have been seized by the police before 9.43 am. Ext.P620 CDRwould show that there was an incoming call in the phone number of A12 on4.7.20L0 at 9:43:25 hours from 9847380528. which is the number of PW144.
This entry in the CDR corroborates the evidence of PW144 that he tried to
contact A1-2 in the above said number. The evidence of PW188 is that heintercepted MO.2 omni van at 9.25 am at a place Vattakkattupady and gaveinformation to the Circle Inspector of Police. lf the evidence of PW144 that he
.,.'''.'hdd' ,::
haveinformation regarding the seizure much earlier. I cannot ignore' receijved'.:lthe fact that the information regarding the,"attack and the vehicle used by,,thet.t
.", 1.,-*,=;..
assailants with the number have been passed through wireless set.
lt is to be
noted that the incident was happened near a church, that too immediately after
the dispersement of the people who attended the Sunday Mass. PW17 Vicar of
the Nirmala Matha Church stated that normally around 350 persons
attend the Sunday Holy Mass. In such a situation the news will be flashed withinno
time. Naturally it will be aired by the TV channel without any delay. In such
a situation, some TV channel might have shown a white omni van in the news
item. lt is very pertinent to note that PW144 has not stated that he had seen
the omni van which was sold by him, The incident was at about 8.05 am.PW188 and PW236
no chance of showing the omni van which was seized by the police at 9.25 am
at an interior place, in the news at 9.43 am. There was no chance of seeing his
white omni van in the news item telecast at 9.43 am. Even if it is assumed thatthe
attack on PW2, it cannot be said that it was MO.2 Maruthi omni van. There is noreason to reject the evidence tendered by PW1BB regarding the seizure of MO.2
its case that A9 Jafar was apprehended by PW188 along with MO.2 omni van atVattakkattupady.181. PW294 stated about the seizure of broken pieces of the number olates'
i l;-"::1: lr'
:.(MO,1 & MO.3), from the Periyarvalley canal bund. These two material objects',
Wefe_ seenii' . ,' ., '
in the
the prosecution and denied having seen the recovery of MO.1 and MO.3. But itis very pertinent to note that these witnesses have admitted the presence ofpolice officers at the places from where Ext.P115 and PL54 were prepared.These witnesses have stated that police came to that place. Further it is clear
from the evidence of these witnesses that they were present at that place at
Koyan, at the time of cross examination stated that the police had obtained his
signature after 4 or 5 days. No doubt this version of PW108 that he did not see
the recovery of MO1 is utter falsehood. Merely because of the reason that thesewitnesses have denied the recovery of MO.1 and MO.3, the evidence tendered
t7tThe Hon'ble Supreme Court has made it clear that the fact that some witnesses
turned hostile is not a reason to discard the evidence of other eye witnesses. lt
was held that there is nothing unusual in a criminal trial that many a timesindependent witnesses who do not want to incur the wrath of the accused will
turn hostile at the trial. lt is the tendency on the part of the persons to playsafe by remaining neutral.
that the accused some how managed to win over the witnesses. The learnedPublic Prosecutor pointed out the admission made by an independent witnesswho was examined as PW117. This witness was examined to prove the seizure
of the motor cycle of 43 Shobin. This witness has denied his signature in themahazar for the seizure of the motor cycle. When the learned Public Prosecutor
put some questions to this witness after seeking permission from this court, hestated that he did not remember as to whether police had questioned him. Then
he added that he is a heart patient and he has some memory problem andstarted to weep. This witness has admitted that on that day he came to thiscourt along with
the official witnesses cannot be rejected on the sole ground that their evidenceregarding the seizure
judgment I do not want to conduct a postmortem and find out as to how or why
it clear that
almost all the arrest memos were prepafed from the police station at the
of the arrest of the accused. The definite case of the prosecution is that theaccused were brought to the police station and after interrogation they arrested
is to be noted
that several documents and material objects were produced by the witnesses
the police station. Merely because the reason that there is no independentwitness in some mahazars, it cannot be said that these mahazars are all forgeddocuments
for not getting the presence of independent witnesses at the time of arrest ofaccused and at the time of preparation of documents from the police stationpremises. I can very well say that the investigating officers had made all efforts
the prosecution, the versions of the police officials cannot be thrown out. Themere fact that PW108 and PW135, attestors
hostile, will not render the evidence of the police officers who had effected theseizure and prepared the mahazar untrustworthy.
183. lt is true that PW201 ASI of police who had signed in Ext.PLL5 as an
attester could not identify A9 Jafar from the court. lt is not a material defect. ltis a fact that at the time of the recovery of MO.3 on9.7.2OIO, A9 was in police
custody. The failure to identify an accused by a police officer who was in the
- tl
MO.1, A9 was in his custody. He produced A9 before court only after effectingreceived
to create
A5 and 46 along with 41 and A4 escaped from the spot in MO.2, driven by A7and proceeded to lrumalappady. As per the previous plan the vehicle had to behanded over to A9. For that purpose A9 was waiting at lrumalappady. To prove
over phone and made arrangements for the same. These witnesses stated that
they did not know anything about such a call. PW69 who is a neighbour of A9denied that on 4.7.2010 he found A9 proceeding on his motor cycle. PW59 who
185. lt is proved by PW52 that he had sold the said motor cycle bearingNo.KL-44l8029 (MO.23) to A9 Jafar. According to him, this motor cycle belonged
to his relative Hashim who was working abroad. Hashim had authorised him tosell that motor cycle to A9. Accordingly he sold
Kothamangalam who has stated that the registered owner of that motor cycle is
not challenged by the defence. lt is very pertinent to note that A9 lafar himself
,got the motor cycle (MO.23) released under Section 451 Cr.P.C.
hotel. The admission made by this witness that he had signed in the saidmahazar from his shop would prove that police came to lrumalappady. ln this
that he had
recovered the said motor cycle (Mo.23) from a place in front of Royal Hotel at
lrumalappady on 5.7.2010 at L1 am. Here the prosecution has proved that the
rumalappady on 4.7.2OIO with his motor cycle. After parking the said motor
short the prosecution was able to prove the involvement of A9 Jafar in theincident.
187. Pws
came to the spot in Maruthi omni van bearing No.KL.07.AD.7201. This number
i! has been specifically stated that he got information about the attack
Joseph at 8.15 am through wireless set and that the numbrer of the vehicle used
by the assailants was KL.07.AD.7201. The number of the vehicle seized by him
from 49 was KL.7.AH.8768. The learned counsel for the accused put several
suggestions to Pws l- to 4 to the effect that they did not mention the digit '0' in
also '0' is not seen written in the registration number. There also PW188 did notmention
stated anything about the said sticker to any of the investigating officers. Had
there been any such sticker on the windscreen definitely PW188 would havementioned the same
sticker before any of the investigating officers. Therefore the evidence tendered
Pws 1
to 4 have identified
opportunity to see the vehicle at the place of incident. The defence could not
point out any contradiction in the versions of these witnesses with regard to,r,,!i il"
..'n:,.: the ,tiegistration number of the vehicle used by the assailants. there is ampl-e,. .t;:,,
, -, ":,,evj$gnce to prove that the assailants came to the spot in MO.2 Maruthi omni
of No.KL-07-AD-720I (Ext.P612)
and stated that as per the registration certificate it was not a Maruthi vehiclebut a Santro car manufactured by Hyundai. As per the said document the ownerof the vehicle is one Jose (PW114). PWL14 Jose, who is an employee in FederalBank has stated that he is having a Santro car with registration No.KL.O7.AD.
identified that vehicle from the premises of Muvattupuzha police station on tfie
next day itself. PW176 the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, Muvattupuzhastated that on 7.1.2011 he inspected Maruthi omni van bearing No.KL.O7.AH.8768 at the premises of Muvattupuzha police station and prepared a report.Ext.P302 is the report. This witness deposed that on verification he found that
the engine number of the Maruthi van was F881N227L933 and the chassisnumber was ST911N524169. Ext.P609. the RC .particulars issued by
would show that the engine number and chassis number of the vehicle in the
PW144 were same. That vehicle was seized by PWL88 from the
all the link with regard to the use of MO.2 Maruthi omni van by the
assailants by using a fake number and its seizure from A9. I am satisfied that it
conspiracy had arranged fake number plates for the vehicle used by theassailants. PWs 1to 4 have identified MO.1 and MO.3, the pieces of the numoerplates from the court. Further it is proved by prosecution that information about
the number of the vehicle used by the assailants was passed through wirelessset. Ext.P3L8 seizure mahazar prepared at the time of the seizure of logbookwould show that the said number K1.07.AD.7201 has been noted in the log
191. PW291 the ASP of Aluva deposed that on 10.7.2010 at L2.l_5 noon,after obtaining search warrant from the concerned Magistrate he searched thehouse of A29 Kasim at Kunjunnikkara, Kadungalloor village and seized 36 items
from the said house as per Ext.P744 search list. lt is very pertinent to note thatthe accused did not challenge the prosecution case that A29 is the owner of thehouse searched by PW291. No question is seen put to PW291 challenging hisevidence with regard to the ownership of that house, from where the SSLC bookand ration card of A29 and Ext.P747 the personal diary of his wife were seized.
a question relating to
the search conducted in his house and the seizure of Ext.P745 to P755 and.,;.1:,,r.17-p.,.r-
answered'!, ,l'.1',':..'.1,
to him. Ue ju{t
that it is false. He did not deny the ownership of the house. At that
r' 11rr!1.,i .- -, ,r-,.,. ,time l'1e;filed a written statemept, and denied the prosecution version regarding.
':1,i'_' 'Ir' !''
.':" '
the search, but he did not deny that he is the owner of that house. Theevidence tendered by PW291, who is a responsible IPS officer on this point is
supported by two other officers. I do not find any' reason to disbelieve theevidence tendered by PW291 regarding the search and seizure from the house
of A29.
is to be noted that this accused has even denied the phone number
issued in his name. Even then he did not prefer to challenge the prosecutioncase that he
the owner of that house. I cannot ignore the fact that pW291,
along with MO.179 series seized the SSLC book and ration card of A29 from thathouse. The address given in Ext.P745 SSLC book and Ext.P746 ration card aresame. These documents also would prove that he is residing in that house.
192. lt is true that during cross examination of PW291 a suggestion was put
to that witness about the persons living in that house. He did not give anyspecific answer to that question, but
it is not a ground to
version regarding the seizure made from that house. As per Ext.p746 rationcard, the inmates of that house are A29 and his wife Subaida. The entries in the
ration card would prove that A29 and his wife are residing there. There is no
other name in the ration card. That fact itself is sufficient to prove
house from where his SSLC book and ration card were seized, belonged to him
it was in his possession. In this circumstance I can very well accept the
contention of the prosecution that the house wherein PW291 conducted searchon 10.7.2010 belongs to A29.
team. The police officers who had conducted investigation or the police officer
who had seized the items from the house of A29 had no personal grudge orenmity towards him. I do not find any reason for these officials to foist a case on
the accused.194. According to PW291, he had seized 36 items of properties from the
said house. He stated that those items seized from the house of A2g wereproduced before the court. Ext.P744 search list prepared by PW291 for theseizure of those properties would show that the said search list was received in
the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Aluva on I2.7.2010. 10.7.2010 and
ll.7.2O]O were holidays. Therefore the properties were sent to the court onI2.7.20LO. According to the learned Public Prosecutor there was no delay inproducing these documents in the court. The date seal affixed in the property
list from the court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Muvattupuzha wouldshow that the said property list was received in that court on 22.9.2010 only.Those items were seen produced along with the same property list before the
court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Aluva. lt was retumed from that court
with direction to produce before the proper court. The date of production ofthose properties before the court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Aluva
not seen written in that property list. lt does not show whether it was produced
that it
received in the Court at Aluva on 12.7.2OIO itself. lt would prove the version ofPW291 that there was no delay
|: i ' i':,.
According to the learned Public Prosecutor, those items were produced alongwith,Ext.P744, but when it was returned the office of the court has omitted to
discrepancy was noted by the office of the Judicial First Class Magistrate,Muvattupuzha, when the items were produced in that office. Had there beenany difference in the descriptions of the properties in the list and'the propertiesproduced, it would have been returned from that court. Material objects will bereceived in court only after verification. But no such discrepancy was noted by
the concerned court. That itself would prove that no manipulations have beenmade in the material objects produced before the court. Merely because of thereason that the date seal on the property list affixed by the office of the Court
court. lt is clear from the evidence that those items were produced in the officeof the court at Aluva on I2.7.2010 itself. There is nothing to disbelieve the saidcontention. The omission in showing the date of production and return of the
properties before the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Aluva will notrender the evidence of PW291 unreliable. As per Section 102 of Cr.P.C. thepolice officer has to report the seizure to the Magistrate forthwith. lt does notsay that the properties also should be produced before the Magistrate forthwith.
The question is whether any manipulations have been done in the propertiesand whether any prejudice has been caused to the accused due to the delay inproducing the material objects before the Magistrate. As pointed out above, no
discrepancy has been noted by the concerned office. Those items were seenaccepted in the office of the court at Muvattupuzha without any objection. Inshort, there is nothing to suggest that there was inordinate delay in producin-g
the items before court. On the other hand the evidence of PW291 and the dateseal on Ext.P744 would show that these items were produced before the courtt-
oiJr-rdiciai First Class Magisiraie, Aluv'a without atry cielay"'flte argunlent cn this
suggest that prejudice has been caused to the accused due to the delay.
195. Another important point raised by the learned counsel for theaccused is that the attestors to Ext.P744 are not from that locality. He has cited
already found that there is clinching evidence to prove that the said buildingwas in the absolute possession of A29. lt is true that PW291 could not deny the
suggestion that one of the attestors is residing about 45 kilometers away from
the house of A29 and the other attestor is residing about 10 kilometers awayfrom that place. Further it is admitted that there are several houses in thatlocality. On that sole ground I cannot say that his evidence regarding seizure isuntrustworthy, At the time of cross examination this witness has stated that he
two persons from the place where his vehicle was stopped and went to the
gr isi from the same locality. lt ispted out that one_attestor to the said mahazgrI
true that Vimalan, who is an attestor to Ext.p744 is resrding far avvay frorn thrhouse of A29. But there is nothing to support the contentiorr of the defence that
village. The house of A29 situates at the same place in the same village. The
fact that PW291 could not say the distance between the houses of A29 andKunjumuhammad who is an attestor
the house of A29 or about its genuineness. Further there is nothing to suspect
that manipulations have been made by the police, after the recovery of thosematerial objects.196. During the trial the prosecution filed an application to send the stickers
sticker affixed on Mo.1 and Mo.3 number plates. That petition was allowed and
(Physics), FSL stated that on 22.5.201,4 she received the parcel sent from this
court, consisted of three sealed packets. The impression of seal was found in
to tf). This witness stated that she conrpared those items nllcl preparedExt.p713 report and forwarded the same to the court through the Director.Ext.P714 is the covering letter signed by the Director, FSL. The results ofexamination is as follows:-
l.Materials of the number plates contained in item no.1 and 2 are similar.2.Black colour materials of the digits/letters/symbols of the number platescontained in item no.1 and 2 and that contained in item no.3 are similar.3.Small size cut out of the spaces inside the letters/digits A, D and 0 contained
in item no.3 (f) are the parts of corresponding letters/digits contained in itemno.1.
4.Large size cut out of space inside the digit 0 contained in item no.3(f) is the
symbols from the material objects contained in item no.3(c) and 3(f).
found that the edge characteristics of the symbols contained in item No.l. and
the missing symbols from item No.3(c) and (f) were similar. When similarexamination were conducted for the examination of letters and digits she found
that those were the exact replica of the corresponding letters and digits. Sheidentified the stickers numbered as 3(a) to (f) as MOs.179 series. I could not
find any serious cross examination by the defence on this point. Here the
size cut out of the spaces inside the letters 'A' and 'D' and digit '0' contained in";'1 '"',,. .MO;179(e) sticker are the parts of the corresponding letters and digit in MO.1
.prgsecution was able to prove through PW235 who is an expert that the small
contention that pieces of the sticker used for making Mo.1 were found in
doubt the conscious possession. so those rulings are not applicable to the case
on hand. Here the facts are different. I cannot ignore the fact that along withMo.179 series, the ssLC book and the ration card of A29 were recovered byPW291 from
that house. This fact would prove that Mo.l-79 series were
kept by A29 along with his personal documents. That proves the conscrouspossession of A29 over the same. A29 has no explanation as to how the cut out
to be in Mo.179 which was seized from his house. In this circumstance the onlyinference that can be drawn is that it was A29 who had made Mo.1 and Mo.3
the fake number plates. which were seen fixed on MO.2 omni van used by A2,
.attack416 Abdul-.on PW2, A28 M.K.Nazar contacted,tt
arrangements in his house for the treatment of 41 and 45 tvitu had sustainedinjuries in the incident and informed that he will reach there with A15 Dr.Reneef.
Then A2B contacted A15 who is a Dental Surgeon, went to his clinic at Aluva
and took him to the house of 416. The prosecution case is that abscondingaccused Najeeb (A31) brought A1 Savad and A5 Shamsudhin to the house of
416. When A15 realised that suture was needed he sent 416 to his clinic forcollecting the equipments and informed his assistant Sainaba to send thosesurgical equipments required for suturing. After completing his assignment hereturned to his clinic with A31. These are the allegations against A15.199. To prove this charge against A15 the prosecution has examined PW25
and PW48 who were working in the clinic as his assistants. They did not giveany incriminating evidence against A15. PW49 and PW50 have stated that they
had been in the clinic of A15 on 4.7.20L0. The prescription issued by A15 toPW49 on that day was seized by the police as per Ext.P8 seizure mahazar dated
16.7.20L0. PW24 who is an attestor to Ext.PB mahazar has admitted that policecame to the house of PW49 and seized the said prescription. The attempt of the
prosecution was to prove through PW49 and PW50 that A15 was not there in
the clinic in between 9 am and L2 noon. But these witnesses did not supportthe prosecution.200. PW291, ASP Jayanath deposed about the search conducted in theclinic and in the house of A15 and about the seizure of 1.0 CDs (MO.186 series),phone bills etc. PW294 stated about the seizure of car bearing No.TN-01/P.
me surgical equipments, CDs etc. from the car, clinic and residence of
1tIhis signature in Fxt"p10 seizure nrahazrr prepfircd
p.l,tztltl, trui
h: r!irl nr:t
admit that he had witnessed the seizurer of surgical materials from the ctinic ofA15. These documents and material oirjects will not help the prosecution toprove that he had treated A1 and 45.201. A15 has admitted that 9746026660 is his phone number. From Ext.p62i.
cDR it could be seen that on 4.7.201,0 this phone of A15 Dr.Reneef was arcompanypady location at 9:40:12 hours and i.0:35:25 hours. He has a case that
it was the phone number used by his staff in the clinic. There is no evidence tosubstantiate the contention. But that cannot be the sole ground to enter into aconclusion that this accused had been at Aluva between
am. The mere fact that during the entire period of Ext.p621 cDR it was only onthese two occasions his number was seen used in that location, is not sufficient
to prove his complicity. I cannot not ignore the contention raised by the learnedcounsel
for the defence that the distance between his clinic at Aluva
companypady bus stop is around two kilometers only. pw24r who is a Nodalofficer stated that the normal range of a mobile phone tower is between 2
companypady location
on that day between 9.40 to 10.30 am, I cannot say that A15 was personallypresent in that location and that the accused was not there in his clinic during
that time. Further there is absolutely no evidence to prove that the house ofA1Q-,g1tu3tes
sugge-.:jl +;frai
done. So also the prosecution was not able to prove that 45 haci sustained
of evidence.202. The prosecution has a case that on 4.7.2010, A16 was alone at hishouse. Their case is that on that day he had to attend a marriage of one of his
close relatives. But, as per the directions of A28, he remained in his house and
sent his wife to attend the marriage. To prove the said case prosecution hasexamined his wife and brother. PW22 Habeeb who is the brother and PW99,
wife of 416 denied that on 4.7.20L0 416 remained in his house withoutattending the marriage. Further PW22 denied that on that day when he went to
the house of A16, he found a stranger in that house. These witnesses weredeclared hostile and some contradictions were marked through these witnessesas Exts.PT series and 10 series.
lt is true that there were seven outgoing calls from phone number
9037220794 alleged to have been used by A28 to the phone of A16. Furtherthere was another call from another phone alleged to have been used by A28 to
$hf,! does not mean that 416 also took part in the conspiracy or made
,. 204.
The,. prosgcutiontl
with the weapons and destroyed the same, but the prosecution was not able toprove the said contentions against A3. There is no evidence to prove that
had destroyed the weapons used by them for attacking pw2, similarly I could
not find anything on record to suggest that 47 who drove Mo.2 to the place ofincident destroyed any evidence. The fact that he entrusted Mo.2 to A9 is notsufficient to prove that he had destroyed evidence.205. The prosecution has a case that the Lancer car bearing No.KL.07.AH.1515 which belongs to A19 was used by him to transport the offenders to safehide outs. PW196, the Sub Inspector of Police, Aluva deposed that on 29.7.20i.0
village as per Ext.P3B7 mahazar. PW195 stated that he had signed in thatmahazar as a witness. That vehicle was identified by pW73 Abdul Azeez who is
the owner of that car as MO.24 (inadvertently the same car was identified
show that the registered owner of the said vehicle was one Varghese George.An attested copy of the certificate of registration (Form 23) was marked throughPW73 as Ext.P65.
name of PW73 with effect from 23.6.2005. PW73 stated that he had given that
car to A19 Niyas some where in 2006 and added that Niyas had paid rent tohim up to 2010 January. Later on he came to know that this car was seized bycase. The evidence adduced bv
Sheena was sei:erj by PW19{r orr 2!.7.201-0. BLrt thiE i,;rti i:,; nt.il s',tfiit.i*t-rr-
prove that A19 had used the said car for transporting the accused who had
attacked PW2. There is absolutely no evidence tO connect this car with thecrime.
thus committed an offence under Section 202 of lPC. The prosecution case is
that this accused who is a Dental Surgeon was bound to inform the authoritiesabout the commission of the offence, but he had suppressed that fact before
the authorities and treated A1 and A5. I have already found that there isevidence
prove that A15 had rendered medical aid to any of the accused.
Further there is no evidence to show that he was aware of the incident. Even if
it is assumed that he was aware of the incident he is not legally bound to informthe police about the same especially, when the police has a case that he alsotook part in the conspiracy to commit the offence. I cannot say that A15 hadcommitted an offence under Section 2OZ lPC.
the number plates to the canal bund and thus destroyed evidence. There is noevidence to prove that A3, A15, 416, A19 and A29 had caused disappearance of.,.,;i',,,r. : any evidence as alleged by the prosecution. These points are found accordingly.
, ' 208. Point No.13:- lt is alleged that A2,3, 5 to 27,29,32,34,35 and 37,who are active members of PFI/SDPI, out of enmity towards PW2 on his having
cific inteirljrn lo
ori FVij,l::nr!
there by to pass nressage to the publlr and other religions that any one whooffends the Prophet or lslam will not be spared ancl also to promote cornrnunal
enmity between religions by attacking pw2 who was returning from churchafter attending the holy mass.209. The learned counsel for the accused refuted the entire arguments put
forward by the learned public prosecutor and submitted that none of theingredients of section 1534 has been proved by the prosecution. According to
him, none of the witnesses has stated that the assailants had intention tocommit such an offence.
violence was confined only against pw2 and not even against his familymempers.Section 153A IPC reads as follows:-
whatsoever,disharmony or feelings
of enmity,hatred or
communities, and which disturtrs or is likely to disturtr ihe public trancluility, {or)
210. The definite case of the prosecution is that PW2 had prepared
by the act of PW2 decided to take revenge on PW2 who has prepared thatquestion paper.
Section 153A of IPC and he was prosecuted for that offence. Furtheradmitted that several organisations includingPW224
PFI had
threatening calls and letters. There is evidence to show that PFI had circulatedpamphlets
protest against the act of PW2. Exts.P721- and P75B are the
to attack
PW2 and
revenge on him. lt is very pertinent to note that PW2 was not known to any of
the accused. The accused had no personal acquaintance with PW2. They hadno grudge or enmity towards him. So it is clear that the accused had attackedPW2 as a retaliation. The motive of the accused was very clear from the act of
the accused who had no acquaintance with PW2. Further the declaration made
the assailants at the time of the attack on PW2 also would prove that the
motive was to take revenge on PW2 who had prepared the question paper.
i: r.r,,:
want to quote some lines from the ruling of the Hon'ble supreme court in Nazir
propagates terrorism or hatred. Love for all is the basic foundation on which
distorted views of religion spread messages of terror and hatred. They do notunderstand or realize the amount of damage they do to the society and as aresult of these fanatic acts of misguided people innocent lives are lost, distrustin the minds of communities replaces love and affection for others. Neighboursbelonging to different communities who have lived like brothers for ages start
viewing each other with suspicion and hatred." Though the facts of the saidcase and the case on hand are different those lines of the Hon'ble supremeCourt are relevant. No doubt the act of A2, 43, A5 to A7 and the other rwoaccused who had participated in the attack on pw2 who belongs to another
the reason that the assailants did not attack any other person or that theassailants did not utter a single word against other religions or community,
admitted that
preparing the question paper. The assailants were not sdtisfied with that action
taken by the authority. They wanted to revenge in their own method and
execution of that plan they attacked PW2, in the presence of the believers whowere returning from the church after attending the Sunday Holy Mass. lt is clear
from the versions of PW16 Latha Abraham who was an office bearer ofMuvattupuzha Merchants' Association Womens' Wing that after the incidentthere was ill will and hatred in the minds of the people of different religions. Herevidence would prove that it started with the question paper issue. The hand
chopping incident inflated that feeling of ill will in the minds of the peoplebelong to those religions. on going through the entire evidence I find
of belief promoted
provision under the UA(P) Act has been incorporated by the prosecution for the
of such incident. According to the learned counsel for the accused, these are allimaginations
of the prosecution
cases cgrnrng
rPC, Section
2I4. The leamed counsel for the accused pointed out that theobject of the UA(P) Act was to provide more effective prevention ofcertain unlawful and terrorist activities and not to bypass the provisionsunder IPC and Cr.P.C. He relied on the decision of the Hon'ble SupremeCourt in Bonkya Alias Bharat Shivaji Mane and Others v. State of
(AlR X994 SC 2523) and argued that merely because thb victih'
r ii.f;.,,i
f962). According to him, it is clear fron: the evidence that the intentionof the assailants was not to strike terror in a section of the society or to
of Maharashtra
(1998 Crl.L.J,2537l and argued that the most important result of the use ofviolence is not merely the physical and mental damage of the victim but also
the society or to terrorise people and the society with a view to disturb even the
created in the minds of a section of the society or the society at large, then itwill, undoubtedly be held to be a terrorist activity. In support of the contentions
Vadhava v. State
216. Under Section 15 of the UA(P) Act any act likely to strike terror in the
In the instant
preparations. on one such occasion PW2 was present in his house. Even thenthey did not attack him. That was on 17.5.2010. Thereafter, the assailants went
to the house of PW2 on 28.5.2010 and then purchased a vehicle to execute the
attack, made all arrangements and finally attacked PW2 on 4.7.2010. Theassailants made all preparations before the attack on PW2. The evidence would
show that the assailants had formed plan and decided the role of each and
every assailant. They were given separate assignment. This would prove thenature of attack. They finally decided to attack PW2 on the public road in thepresence of the local people. The time selected by the assailants for the attack
was after B am, on a Sunday. They fixed the date, time and venue in such amanner. when PWl and PW4 approached the assailants who were attacking
pw2, 46 who was guarding the place of incident hurled bomb and threatenedthem with dire consequences. No doubt this act of the assailants would provethat their intention was to strike terror in the people. For that purpose they used
bomb and lethal weapons such as chopper, hatchet etc. They arrangedvehicle for this purpose alone.
intention was only to revenge on PW2 who had prepared the question paper
with some blasphemous reference to Prophet Muhammad' They did not evenconsider the fact that a case was registered against PW2 in Thodupuzha police
decided to wreck vengeance on PW2 and thereby pass message to the public-].], 'tha!-theywould not tolerate any act which they do not like. With that intention,
th9 assailants wh9 had no previous acquainta.nce with PW2 dpcided to attack
him in broad day light in the presence of the lr;*al people wno
wera1 c,Jmlng
from church after aLtending the sunday Hory Mass. pws 6 to 10, 12, 13,16 and17 stated about the impact created in their mind and among the localresidence
in that locality. All these witnesses stated that the local peopte were scared.PW13, the Headmistress of a local school stated that after the attackon pW2the students have fear in their mind. PW17 the Vicar of the church alsostatedabout the impact of the attack created on the local people. In Kamarudheenv.
court held:- "The offences alleged were committed in broad day light on thepublic road, giving a feeling of insecurity among the public at largeand therebyperpetrators could strike teror in mind of the people. The crimealleged couldgive a feeling that those who do any act which the people like the perpetratorsdoesn't like ortolerate would be dealt in a brutal manner. Such a feeling is more
than sufficient to threaten the security of the people and the Nation. Havingdue regard to the nature of crime, we find that
those who had witnessed the incident. The terror, fear and panic which the
victim, his wife, mother, son and those who witnessed is unfathomable andtend to demoralize the ordinary man as observed by the Apex court in anidentical case, reported in Ravindra Shantram Sawant y. Sfafe(AlR 2002
consequences and
society and even the public life. In the above circumstances, we find that the_"ri:..9$sqces/.:'...,..n !::.e ', ., ' , -'-'..' i, l\
'': ' .,"'ffroris\.act' under s.L5 of the uA(p) Act, 1967 and is punishable under s.16 of
ii:. ,;,.'
':,:'".it:le"Fagr4ct.".,.,i /'
'i ..i-
r.r .:i;r.,,.
case cluring the investigation stage" Those facts itl the case have been pfoved"
Therefore the said ruling is squarely applicable on the point. Merely because of
the reason that the witnesses did not mention about the impact of the attackcreated in their mind before the investigating officers, their evidence cannot be
thrown out. Their intention was to give a waming that they would not tolerate
any other who makes any remark which is against their belief. Here theprosecution was able to prove that 42, 43 and A5 to A7 had committed offenceunder Section 15 of the UA(P) Act. This point is found accordingly'217. Point No.15:- lt is the prosecution case that after attacking PW2, A7
said house as led by 46 shanavas and prepared Ext.P145 mahazar. PW130 Shaji
reason to
2t: )
is that 46 had been there at the hou:;e after the incident. But there rsnoevidence to prove that A2 to 46 were taken to that house by any ofthe accusedwho is facing trial.
218. The prosecution case is that A35 Niyas @ Nettoor Niyas, under theinstructions from A32 Manaf provided safe hide out to 42, A3 and 45 at a rented
pW83, the
executed by her husband the said building was let out to A35 Niyas. Ext.p32 is
the rent deed and Ext.p37 is the power of attorney executed by her husband inher favour. PW136 who is a relative of pw41 stated that he had witnessed theproduction of those documents by pw40 before police. Ext.p156 is the mahazarprepared by the police for the seizure of those documents. After verification.those documents were released to pw40, on Ext.p33 kacheet. The evidence ofPW41 in respect of the entrustment of the building in favour of A35 and about
his possession over the said building during 20L0 is supported by her
Muhammad Zain who was examined as pw4o. The accused did not challenqe^s?.:gvidence of thesetwo witnesses with regard to the tenancy right of A35
it was marked
through him as Ext.P35. He stated that police had brought a person by namein that house'Jamal to that building and told him that the said Jamal had stayed
This witness did not identify A2 Jamal and stated that he did not remember
whether he had occasion to see that accused from that house on an earlieroccasion. He was declared hostile to the prosecution and some contradictions
witnesses has something to hide. At the same time he admitted that the nameof the person who was brought to that house by police during the investigation
was Jamal. This evidence corroborates the evidence of PW295 that he wastaken to that house by A2. Here the prosecution was able to prove the presence
of 42 in that house along with PW295. In this circumstance I can very wellaccept the prosecution case that PW295, on the basis of the statement given by
A2, had inspected the house which was in the possession of A35 Niyas alongwith A2 and prepared Ext.P35 mahazar. lt is not sufficient to prove that A2 washarboured in that house. The allegation is that A35 had provided hide out to A2,
43 and A5. But there is nothing to support the contention of the prosecutionregirding the harbouring of 43 and A5. The fact that an accused had pointed!,
in tha\'pErticu.lar place. The fact that A2 had point$ out that house remains as
a weak link. The prosecution was not abre to point out any othercircumstancein support of the contention. In this circumstance the prosecutioncase that 42.
taken by him on rent from pw1g2 Murugan. The case of the prosecutionis that
the upper portion of that buirding was given on rent to 436 Riyas whois
contractor engaged in the cable laying work. The said house was takenon rentby 436 for accommodating his workers. The rent deed was markedas Ext.p137.PW125 who is the brother in law of Murugan
the mahazar prepared by the porice for the seizure of that agreement. pw!27sameer deposed
436 Riyas. During 2010 this witness (pW127) was staying with other workersofRiyas in a house at pachalloor. These facts are not challenged by 436.
221. According to pw192, who is the owner of the house, one day in the
first or second week of the seventh month of 2010, whlle he was comingback
a !-tcl
illr-rr ih
told him that they are workers of 436, came from Kollam. He asked them to callRiyas. This witness identified those persons in court as A3 and A5. He added
that the person who was sitting in the sit out was not there in that room"
identified that person in court as A2. On the next day Riyas came to his houseand enquired as to why he has gone to the upstair portion. When he expressedhis concern about the presence of strangers, in view of the hand chopping and
similar incidents, 436 told him that they are his workers and assured him that
they will not create any problem. PW243 Noble Manuel, the Sub Inspector ofPolice, stated
and his workers were staying. His evidence with regard to the entrustment of
the upstair portion of the building to 436 is not challenged. 5o also there is
nothing on record
opportunity to see 42, A3 and A5 at his house some where in July 2010. He was
:6ble;to identifu those three accused from the dock. Nobody could believe that,thigwitness, who lps no interest in the result of this case, gavp false evidence
witness that he had no grudge or enmity towards 436. An attempt was made by
the defence to make it appear that there was some dispute between pw1g2and A36. PW192 has admitted that three months rent was due to him from 436.
therefore he did not return the advance amount. This cannot be a ground todisbelieve the evidence of this witness.
present there is no dispute between himself and 436 with regard to thepayment of arrears of rent. The entire claim has been settled by adjusting theadvance amount towards the rent arrears. The said contention of the defence
that this witness has given false evidence against 436 due to enmity cannot behold good. There is nothing to suggest that this witness had any sort of enmitytowards 436.
223. lt is true that the prosecution courd not give the exact date
harbouring. The exact date of harbouring is not seen mentioned in the charge.The learned counsel for the accused relied on the decision of our Hon'ble High
Court in Vijayachandran
and argued that the particulars viz day/period, time and place at which and themanner in which the offence was committed should be mentioned in the charge
court that details such as date, time, place at which the offence was committedshould be mentioned in the charge. This requirement is mandatory First of all
may submit that the facts of the case reported and the facts in the case onhand are entirely different.
Corruption Act. No doubt in such cases the particulars such as day, period,place etc are to be mqrtioned in the charge. In the said decision, the Hon,ble'l,'r-
High Court has made it clear that due to the omission to mention the details in
the charge prejudice has been caused to the accused therein. But in the case
on hand all the necessary details except the date of harbouring has beenmentioned in the charge. Further copies of all the relevant documents showing
the details of harbouring have been furnished to the accused. Those mattersare included in the charge framed by this court against the accused. lt is settled
law that
it is not in every
case that
date of the commission of the offence. lt all depends upon the circumstance of
the case. The question of prejudice is ultimately one of inference from all thefacts and circumstances of each case. To say that there was prejudice, it should
doubt a charge must contain those particulars such as place, person andcircumstances of the offence. A charge must contain those particulars whichgive the accused an idea of the case which he has to meet. lf such details areknown to the accused from the documents furnished to him, in such cases itcannot be said that prejudice has been caused to the accused. In K. Prema SRao and another v. Yadla Srinivasa Rao and others (AlR 2OO3 SC 11) theHon'ble Supreme Court held that mere omission or defect in framing chargedoes not disable the criminal court from convicting the accused for the offence
)lijayachandran's case is not applicable to the case on hand. ln the said case.,.:'
,-'-ttrere qyis,a finding of the Hon'ble High Court that due to the omission to
- ,, mention the particulars, prejudice had been caused to the accused. But in the
i .,..
. case
on hdnd all those detaill have been furnished to the accused. Thege isr'
iiirit t,r
evidence to show that 42, A3 and A5 were permitted to stay in the saidho.rse
learned counsel for the accused, the employees of 436 can accommodateothers in the house without the knowledge of A35 or 436. rt is clear fromtheevidence of PW192 that it was not a casual visit by those three accused. Thereis clear evidence to show that they spent one night in that house. Nobooycould
believe that A36 was not aware of the stay of these three accused inthathouse. PW127 has stated that 436 Riyas and A35 Niyas used to stay in thathouse while they were at Thiruvananthapuram in connection with their contract
work. He added that it was Riyas and Niyas who select the workers underthemand allow them to stay there. According to this witness nobody can stay therewithout the knowledge and consent of A35 or 436. Further it could be seen that
436 Riyas, on the next day went to the house of pW192 and questioned himwhy he had gone upstairs. At that time pw192 made it clear to that accuseo
that he won't allow to change the inmates frequently and allow the strangers rostay there. In reply, 436 stated that those persons are not bad. The evidence
out any material contradiction or omission in the evidence of this witness. There
isltonvincing evidence to prove that 436 had full knowledge about the stay ofA2, A3 and 45 in that house and they were allowed to stay there by 436.ili-
5C 7S2) the l-lon'ble 5upreine CouiL has rnaije it- r:le;:r th-:r, i:o t.:ttriict Lltcoffence under Section 212
very pertinent to note that 436 did not give any explanation during theexamination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. about the presence of A2, 43 and A5 in
that house. He simply denied the said contention. The accused has a duty toexplain the incriminating circumstance which was brought out in evidenceagainst him. Here 436 simply denied the entire circumstances brought out inevidence. The fact that A36 went to the house of PW192 and questioned him as
involvement of A2, 43 and 45 in the crime. Being the owner of the housePW192 can go
question the landlord for the same. The fact that 436 had questioned that act ofPW192, itself would show that 436 had something to hide. Otherwise he need
not question the landlord. This conduct of 436 would prove that he was awareof the involvement of those accused in the crime. These circumstances would
definitely lead to a conclusion that A36 had knowledge about the involvement
harboui.ep 42,
argued by the learned Public Prosecutor that the cails between A35 and 436during late night would prove that these two accused were discussing about theharbouring of accused. lt is pointed out that there were two calls between A36and A37 on the night of 6.7.2070. The learned counsel for the accused pointed
out that there had been other late night calls between A35 and 436 on someparticular days. They are brothers. They had to discuss their family matters and
counsel for the accused seems to be correct. I am also satisfied that there is
nothing to doubt about these calls made between brothers. There is nothingunusual in it. The fact that these two brothers had contacted each other in the
prosecution was able to produce ample evidence to prove that A2, 43 and A5
were allowed to stay in the house which was in the possession 436. Theconduct of 436 would prove that he had allowed those persons to stay in thehouse taken on rent by him and which was in the actual possession of this
chopping case.227 . fhe allegation against
PW5B Niyas
.i".iJri.t irt;
According to this witness that building was arranged through A19 Niyas. After
getting possession PW58 started a Travel agency in the said building in thename and style ' South Gate Tours and Travels'. This witness made it clear thatthe said building was in the joint possession of himself and
the house and surroundings and prepared a Mahazar. That Mahazar wasmarked as Ext.P30. PW39 who is a relative of PW65 has admitted his signature
in Ext.P30 and stated that he had signed in the said Mahazar from the
house which belongs to his uncle PW65, in the presence of the Police officialsand another. This witness could not identify AL2 in court. He was also declaredhostile to the Prosecution.229. The only evidence available before this court to connect A12 with the
house, at any point of time afterthe hand chopping incident. From Ext.P30 and
' VvttllaVvttlla.thpre is absolutelyahsolrrl-elv-."ry . But there
PW65 at
io suggestclrooest thatl'hat A12A17 Ali had stayedsiaver-lno evidence to
lrr ]lJ
230. The prosecution lras a case th.lt AB Yolrirrjs Aliyar lva: h;irl:oured iit
at Elookkara.
ownership certificate
PW294 when he inspected that house as shown by AB. This document has no
harboured in the said house, except the pointing out memo (Ext.P470) prepared
that house at any point of time. Ext.P470 pointing out mahazar would suggest
that the said house was known to A8 Younus Aliyar. That is not sufficient toprove that he was harboured in that house.
Anwar Sadik in the house of PW43 at Eloor and then shifted him to a safe hide
out at Thrissur. To prove the said contention the prosecution relied on theevidence of PW42 Shiyas and his mother Afsath (PW43). They are staying atEloor.
PW42 and PW43 submitted that A34 and his family members used to come and
stay in their house. According to PW42, on 6.7.2010 A34 came to his house withhis family members including his mother and stayed there. On 8.7.2010 A34-..-,,....._.-,.r"equested
to provide
Permission was
232.rhe defence assailed the evidence tendered by pw42 and pw43. Theirdefinite case is that these two witnesses are not in good terms with A34and his
family members. To prove the said case they examined one of the relativesofPW42 and PW43 as DW4.
there were some disputes between pw43 and A34. DW4 stated that the disputearose some where in 2009. At the same time he admitted that the disputebetween PW43 and A34 relating to the gold ornaments was settled even before
her examination before this court as a witness. According to him, there wasanother dispute between pw43 and Jameela, mother of A34. His version is that
the request made by pw43 for partition of the properties of her deceasedhusband was refused by Jameela. pw43 denied this suggestion put forward by
the defence that she is not in goods terms with Jameela since the latter hadrefused her request for partition of their family properties. The only evidenceavailable before the court with regard
ence of DW4. This witness has admitted that A34 is his mother,s sister's
t...;;):soi a.nb' he is in very cordial terms with A34 and that family.,In thi!,li i
the alleged dispute is pw43. tt is very pe$inent to note that pw43 did not1utI
take any legal steps to effect the partition of the property belonged to herdeceased husband and the co-owners. Even
tendered by PW43 and her son with regard to the stay of A8 in their house. lt is
clear from the evidence of PW43 and PW42 that during 2010, A34 and hisfamily members used to come and stay in their house. PW43 has made it clear
that the entire dispute arose after this incident. These witnesses have
reason to give false evidence against A8. I cannot believe that these witnesses
have given evidence against A8, due to their enmity towards A34. Pws 42 and
43 have identified A8 from the dock and gave evidence against that accused.They need not give false evidence against A8 who is a total stranger to them,especially in a serious offence.
233. PW294 deposed that he was taken to the house of PW42 and PW43by AB during investigation. PW294 stated that on 31.7.2010 A8 who was in his
custody took him to the house No.11/282 of Eloor Grama Panchayat, fromwhere he prepared Ext.P1l,7 mahazar. PW282, Malathi, the Secretary of Eloor
to K.S. Rahim,
Karimbanakattil House, Eloor north. DW4 has admitted that PW43 is the wife ofdeceased Rahim. The prosecution has proved that the said building belonged to
Rahim who is the father of PW42 and husband of PW43. PW109 who is anindependent witness identified his signature in Ext.P117 mahazar prepared byPW294. He added that police had brought one person to that house. Though
clear that .police brought one person to the house, of PW43. This evidence ,t,,
to visit the
incident. Then I do not know how he was able to lead pw2g4 the investigatingofficer to the house of PW43, who was a total stranger to him. The fact thatABwho had no prior acquaintance with Pws 42 and 43 took p.W2g4 to their houseis a strong piece of evidence against A8 and A34. On going through the entire
evidence I find that the evidence of PW42 and PW43 regarding the harbouring
witnesses. According
detained by Police for about 10 days and coerced him to give false evidenceagainst A34 and AB. At the time of cross examination, PW43 stated that police
had come to their house on several occasions for investigation purpose anddetained PW42 for about ten
detention, surprisingly did not put any suggestion to pw42 who was alleged to.,.,.
*f,.t; f,: 1 ',
i r..'1 I '
the contention thar pw42 and pw43 were tools in the hands of the
evidence against A34 who is a close relative of them because of the pressure
from the investigating agency. On going through the entire evidence I find that
the evidence tendered by PW42 and PW43 against A34 and A8 is reliable andtrustworthy.
235. The next question is whether A34 was aware that A8 was an offender.There is cogent evidence to suggest that A34 took A8 to the house of PW43.The prosecution was able to prove that case against A34. But A34 did not give
any explanation regarding the evidence tendered by PW42 and PW43 aboutthe stay of A8 in their house. That itself would prove that A34 was aware of theinvofvement of AB in the case. I cannot ignore that PW294, Circle Inspector of
concerned court to include the name of A8 in the array of accused and a look
out notice was issued against AB and two other accused. lt is not possible forthe prosecution to prove the knowledge of A34 about the involvement of AB inthe offence with direct evidence. lt is to be inferred from the circumstances. Thefact that A34 took AB to the house of PW43 is sufficient to prove that A34 wasproviding hide out to that accused. The prosecution was able to prove the roleof A34 with convincing evidence. I am satisfied that there is ample evidence to
bring home the guilt of A34 that he had harboured AB in the house of PW43knowing fully well about the involvement of A8 in the offence.236. The prosecution case is that from the house of PW43, A8 was shifted
to the Ddffodils Flat at Thrissur by A25 Abdul Latheef. PW23 Varghese is thewatchman of Daffodils Flats at Thrissur. His version is that three persons came;
to'the flats in a Maruthi car and sought permission to go to the seventh floor.They were allowed !o,go inside. After a few minutes one among fqem had gone
out and brought food for them. Thereafter two among themleft the flat in thecar. According to this witness, those two persons retumed tothe flat after twodays and went back with the other person. After about onemonth poricebrought two among them in the frat for the purpose of investigation.when Agand A25 were shown to this witness he identified them to be the personswhocame to his frat. Then he pointed out A25 and stated that A25 wasthe person
who had driven the car and identified Ag younus Aliyar to be the personwhohad stayed in the flat.
he had occasion to visit this flat in connection with his contract work. At that
time he found some workers in the said flat. He identified Ag to be one amongthe persons who was found in the flat. Later police brought that accused to the
flat in connection with the hand chopping incident. At that time he identified Agbefore the police. Though the learned counsel for the accused has crossexamined this witness he could not challenge the credibility of this witness whois an independent witness.
238. PW146 rqbar, who is the brother in law of A25 admits that he hadunder taken the interior work of flat No.2 under PW45. His brother in law Abdul
Latheef used to supply workers for him. This witness has admitted that he had
i''seen A31 Najeeb (absconding) and Noushad (not charge sheeted) and another
fat man:who was having spectacles in his flat. He wrongly identified A34 anwai,isadik,in court to be the person who was found in that flat. No doubt it was
who was found in the flat was having spectacles. This evidence corroborates
the evidence of PW45 and PW23 who had identified A8. These witnesses haveno grudge or enmity towards A8 or A25. On the other hand PW146, who is the
brother in law of A25 proved the prosecution case regarding the access of A25in flat No.7B, Daffodils. PW56 who is the father of PW146 added that A25 hadbeen absconding for a few days after the hand chopping incident. Now theprosecution was able to connect all the link against A8 and A25 regarding theirpresence in Flat No.7B, Daffodils. When the learned Public Prosecutor pointed
out AB and A25 who were in the dock and asked this witness as to whether he
can identify those persons, PW23 showed A25 and stated that he was theperson who had driven the car. Then he added that the other accused (A8) was
the person who has stayed in that flat. lt is clear from the evidence of thiswitness that he was sure that the vehicle was driven by A25. The evidence ofPW23 would prove that A8 was taken to the flat in a car driven by A25 with
another accused. PW146 proved that A25 had access in the said flat.
Tony has specifically stated that he had occasion to see A8 in the flat in the
middle of July 2010. A25 did not explain the circumstances under which hebrought A8 in the said flat. No explanation is forthcoming. In the circumstances
I can very well accept the prosecution case that A8 was shifted by A25 to flatNo.78, Daffodils at Thrissur.239. According to the learned counsel for the accused, there is no evidence
Whlle taking such a contention, the defence forgot the fact that A8 was alsogang who had visited the house
avoid repetition those details can be omitted at this stage. The prosecution
240' lt is argued that A8 was taken to Thrissur in a Ritz car which belongs toPW239 Najatullah Sidhique. The prosecution has got a case that the said car
prosecution is denied by PW239. To prove that PW239 was not having sufficient
financial capacity to purchase the said vehicle, the prosecution has produced
his ration card (Ext.P572) which would show that during the said period hisname was included in the Below Poverty Line list. This witness has stated that
during the said period he was residing along with his elder brother and denied
that he was a dependent of his brother. Whatever may be the prosecution caseregarding the financial capacify of PW239, there is no evidence to prove that
the said Ritz car was purchased by A25 in the name of pW239. lt is admitted
that PW239 is related to A25 through PW27 who is the brother in law of A25.Further
it is admitted that the petition for the release of the said Ritz car was
filed before the court by pw27, as the power of attorney holder of pw239.These facts would support the prosecution case that A25 had occaston to use
the Ritz car bearing No.KL-42lc 4700. lt is very pertinent to note that pw23who is the watchman of Daffodils flats, Thrissur stated that he hajv"rgrnerg{9sei!' :,:."'" noteoiihe number of the car in which those persons came to his flat as ,4700,.
4 nq..--r,t,!,.'," i,;,'-
that the said car was used by A25 for shifting A8 to Daffodils flats, Thrissur.241. From Flat No.7B, Daffodils AB was shifted to a hide out at Malappuram
by 426. For shifting A8, 426 used his Maruthi car. This is the prosecution caseagainst 426. lt is contended that 426 provided hide out to A8 at his wife's house
relating to one maruthi car bearing No.KL-10/M.8044 and some other witnesses
question as to whether the said car belongs to 426 is not at all relevant. The
This witness stated that he went to that house No.lV/224 of Edayoor GramaPanchayath, Malappuram district as led by A8 Younus Aliyar, inspected the said
house and prepared Ext.P118 mahazar as pointed out by A8. PW211, a CivilPolice Officer attached to Valancherry police station identified her signature in
the said mahazar and stated that she was present at the time of preparation of
that mahazar by PW295. Even if it is assumed that A8 had pointed out thatplace to PW294 it would not help the prosecution to prove the involvement of
242. Another contention of the prosecution is that a safe hide out was. ,.,.,,Qfovided
and PW47 is the wife of Zakeer Hussain. These witnesses denied thatoccasion to stay in their house. But PW111 who is a neighbour of PW46
that police had occasion to inspect the house of PW46in the presence of
visit the house of pw46 at Angadippuram. pw111 deposed about the presenceof an accused along with the police. In view of the evidence of thesaid witness
detail. In this case, what I can say is that Ag had stayed in the house of pw46at Angadippuram in Malappuram District.
243' The prosecution has alleged that A20 had harboured A13 Shiyas in hishouse on 4.7.2010. pw!24 who is the brother of A20 Anas denied that policebrought A13 shiyas to his house and that they had prepared a mahazar from
the sit out of his house as pointed out by A13. Any way this witness
the house of one of his leaders, it may not be sufficient to prove that the"'-.
.., '.:;-'.'aicused was harboured in the said house. The pointing out memo preparedal""'-'i-';l:$f-'e"instance of the accused would only prove that he knows the said house.t:" Ngthing more..t
no evidence to prove that A20 gave accommodation to A13 Shiyas at his house.
244.|n view of the above discussions lfind thatthe prosecution was able toprove the charge against A25, A34 and A36 that they had harboured A8, 42, 43
and A5 at different places knowingly that they were involved in the attack onPW2. I am satisfied that A25, A34 and 436 had reason to believe A8, A2, 43 and
245. ln order to attract an offence under Section 19 of the UA(P) Act, theprosecution has to prove that the accused had knowledge that the person soharboured was a terrorist. There is nothing to substantiate the contention thatthese accused had knowledge that A2, A3, A5 and A8 were members of terroristgang or that the said accused had committed terrorist act. In this circumstanceI cannot find that A25, A34 and 436 have committed offence under Section l-9
of the UA(P) Act, but there is evidence to prove that they committed offenceunder Section 212 of lPC. This point is found accordingly.
246. Point Nos.16, 18 and 19:- The prosecution case is that after thequestion paper issue, on 28.3.2010 a conspiracy was hatched by A8, A2B, A29
auditorium was booked for the district conventlon of SDPI by one Noushad.f4;P--f9 is the diary maintained by PW32 in the auditorium and Ext.P19(a)the,,relevant entry showing the details of booking of the auditorium for
convention. These witnesses submitted that the auditorium was booked before.:.'.
before theThat meansthe district convention was scheduled evenone--'- week...;l t.! ,,...
247. lt is the case of the prosecution that the State level committeeof SDplinstructed the District committee to take action against pw2in retaliationof the
A29 and A32. Ext.p623 is the copy of the cAF fired by A29and Ext.p623(a) isthe copy of the rD proof submitted by A29. Ext.p624 is the cDRphone
by Vodafone. The relevant cDRs were marked through PW264, who is the Nodal
officer of Airtel and PW271, the Nodal officer of Vodafone as Ext.P627 andExt.P664 respectively. Ext.c17 and Ext.c17(a) and Ext.P665 are the CAF, copyof the lD proof and the cDR of phone number 9745003256 allotted by Vodafone
of phone
numbers 9846722220 and 9946855461, along with copy of the cAF and lDproof of A32 Abdul Manaf and A21 K.M.Ali. Ext. c6 is the Base TransmissiveSystem list of Kerala circle (Cell lD
Nodal officer of Bharathi Airtel. From the evidence of these two witnesses and
from the above CDRs it could be seen that the phones ofthese accused were atPathipalam location on that day. So it is to be presumed that these accused had
the prosecution.250. Admittedly all the accused are members of pFl/SDpl. lt is admittedthat
A32 was the then District president of pFr. so his presence at seemasAuditorium, where the convention of sDpl was held is natural. so also thepresence
in the District
I cannot ignore the fact that the office bearers had decided to conduct thatmeeting even before the question paper issue and booked the auditorium.251. According to the prosecution, the next conspiracy was at the InspectionBungalow (lB) of Kerala water Authority at Muvattupuzha. pw154 who was theMandalam President of SDPI admitted that a convention of SDpl was held in that
lB, but he did not remember the date of that convention. At the same time
PW154 regarding
PW30, Antony
Bungarow was
Muvattupuzha office, who was in charge of the lB and pw31 savio, the then
of water Authority,
Muvattupuzha. Th6
booking register maintained in the lB was produced by pw90 who was a staff in
that office along with a receipt. Those documents vfere seized by pw294 as per't'
relevantExt.p90 seizure mahazar. The register was marked as Ext.PLT and
entrywithregardtobookingdonebyPWl54wasmarkedasExt.PlT(a).Ext.P1Bis the receipt for the payment of the rent'
252.Pw2g,whoisthewatchmanof|BspokethatthemeetingofSDP|washeld in the lB in the evening of 3.4.2010 and on the next day' According to him,
the meeting was held in secrecy and some members were placed near the gateand on the four sides of the compound to guard the premises. On seeing this he
reported the matter to PW30. PW30 supported these versions and stated thathe reached the spot on the basis of the information passed by PW29. Then he
asked PW29
versions of the official witnesses and from the admission of PW154 that
meeting of SDPI was held in the evening of 3'4'2010 and 4.4.2OL0' PW154' theMandalam President identified
K.M.Ali and stated that they had attended the meeting' Those facts are notseen challenged by the defence. This witness identified an application form for
he had supplied food to the members who had attended the meeting. pw29,the watch man of rB has no such case. He is the best person to sayso.
rt is crear
from his version that he was watching the members who hadassembred there.He has no case that some of the participants sat together andhad discussion.There is no evidence to prove the contention that those accuseddisassociatedwith the other members and sat together to hatch conspiracy.254. The prosecution relies on the evidence of pw154 and the cDRsforproving their presence in the lB. pw154 has proved the presenceof A11, A12,A20 and A21. Further Ext.p664, the cDR of Ag would show that his phone was
3.4.20L0. So
before the examination in which the impugned question paper was supplied to
the students. In this circumstance, I cannot say that the meeting was held witha view to make arrangements for the attack on pw2. Further pw29 has stated
that around 100 persons attended the meeting. After attending the first daysession
participants stayed there. They were engaged in discussion till late night. pw29could not identify any of the persons who had stayed there.
256. Mere presence of some of the accused in the premises were theDistrict convention of the party was held is not sufficient to prove that theyhaiehed conspiracy to attack pw2. In that meeting around 100 workers of that:
participants disassociated from the others, sat together and discussed thematter in a discreet manner. Here also there is no evidence to prove that
conspiracy was hatched by some of the accused on that day' Further there is
that some of the members hatched a conspiracy. The definite case of theaccused is that the said meeting was held in the wake of ensuing Panchayatelection. There is nothing unusual in the participation of the members in the
meeting held by their organisation. I cannot reject the said contention of thelearned counsel for the accused, in view of the evidence that the booking wasdone on 15.3.2010.
257. ltis submitted by the learned Public Prosecutorthat A3' A8, A11, A12,A13, A20, A21 and
accused who are members of PFI/SDPI had attended the meeting is not at all an
. ::l- -
4tcused.,:iAnother conspiracy was said
adduced bY theThe -only evidencett
plans. Here also there is no evidence except the pointing out memoalleged tohave been prepared by pw294 on the basis of the statement given by Ag.That
on 19.4.2010 another conspiracy was taken place in the building of one Meeran
building with an accused. He identified his signature in Ext.p109 but stated that
he could not remember the person who came to that building along withPW294' What could be inferred from the evidence adduced by the prosecutionis that PW294 was taken to the above mentioned places by Ag. That does not
mentioned above and hatched conspiracy. The pointing out mahazars are not
noted is that,places and discussed their future plans' An important point to be
Sangham' deposed that during 2010 the said 'Sangham, was managing themunicipal park as entrusted by the Municipality. This witness stated that, after
the hand chopping incident police came to the park along with A2 andconducted enquiry regarding the meeting held by some persons in the park on
4.5.2010. He informed the police that on that day some persons came to thepark at around 2.30 pm and spent about 1.30
that police verified the account book and other registers maintained in theoffice. That account book was marked as Ext.P25. The entry regarding thecollection as entrance fees on the relevant day was marked as Ext.P25(a). Thiswitness identified A2 and added that he did not remember the other personswho had gathered in the park on 4.5.2010'
260. PW34, identified A2 and stated that A2 had been there in the park on4.5.201-0. At the time of the cross examination this witness stated
it is a mistake.
-:,rpgfrdlng the presence of A2 on 4.5.2010. First of all this witness has no enmitytowards A2. He need not give any false evidence against A2 with whom he hadl:
.,, '
that police
seen entered
in thosereferring to Ext.C56 stated that the difference in the date seal affixedindocuments was a mistake and added that these documents were received
evidence on this point. As per Ext.C56 these documents were received only at
26.8.2010. There
is no question of
maintained in the court. In Exts.P112 and P114 the date seal showing date20.8.2010 was happened to be affixed by mistake. lt was a mistake committed
by the court staff. They failed to change the date on the seal and affixed theseal in a reckless manner on a subsequent date. I cannot find fault with theinvestigating officer for the mistake committed by the court staff.263. The attempt of the prosecution was to prove that there were no phone
calls in the phone A2, A3, 46, A7 and some of the absconding accused on4.5.2010. Their mobile phones were found inactive on that day at a particulartime. At the same time the prosecution contends that there was one call in thephone used by A5 at 3.01 pm. I do not know how the prosecution reconcilethese different situations. By no stretch of imagination it cannot be said that 43,
did not give the exact time of the meeting held at the park, from the argumentsof the learned Public Prosecutor it is to be inferred that the meeting was held
would show that A2 was present in the park on that day. Furtherthere
the place would prove his connection with that place. That evidence is notat allsufficient to prove that A2 to A7 and A2g hatched a conspiracy on 4.5.2010atMunicipal park, Kothamangalam. There is nothing to prove the charge against
the accused that 43, A6 and A7 and some of the absconding accused hadassembled there and decided to arrange money, weapons, explosives etc., that
A2 was made the leader of the team to execute the attack, that ALi. prepared
and gave a sketch of the route to the house of pw2 and its surroundings and
that A29 and another accused were deputed to arrange mobile phones, SIMcards etc.
264. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that accused 2 to 7 will have
to explain the circumstances under which their phones have been foundinactive and that A2 have to answer why he was identified by the witness tohave come to the park. According to him, these facts are within the specialknowledge of the accused and they have to explain the same.
is true that
a person does an act with some intention other than that which
intention is upon him. At the same time Section 106 of the Evidence Act will not
attract unless the initial burden of establishing the prima facie guilt of theaccused is proved. The accused are not bound to give explanation regarding,- the-elii4gnce adduced by the prosecution that their phones were found inactiv6
in custody led him to Municipal Stadium, Perumbavoor and pointed out a benchinside the park. Ext.PL13 is the pointing out mahazar. Ext.P874 is a rectification
report filed by PW294 wherein it has been stated that in Ext.P113 he wronglywritten as Municipal Park instead of Municipal Stadium. PW106 who is runninga shop in front of the stadium/park identified his signature in the said mahazarand stated about the presence of a person with the police officers at that place.He could not identify that person, but when learned Public Prosecutor asked A5
to stand up and put a question to the witness whether he had any occasion tosee that accused, this witness answered that the accused had been there in the
stadium along with the police. This cannot be treated as a proper identification.There is nothing before this court to corroborate Ext.P113 pointing out mahazar.Further there is no evidence to prove the presence of any other accused at that
place. Even if it is assumed that PW295 was taken to that place by A5 it would
only prove that A5 knows that place. There is no evidence to prove that 45had conspired with 42, 43, A6 and A7 on 6.5.2010 as alleged.
meeting of A2B and A2 to 47. Here also the prosecution relies on a pointing outmahazar prepared by PW295. This witness stated that on 22.8.2010 at 11.30
went to the Muvattupuzha Municipal Park along with PW2O3 and pWlOi
'--,.:ofi-Lh, . ': j;,'i.-.'i '"..--r':',,:
' , i,_
1'-.,._. i...
and it was marked as Ext.p112. According to him, that mahazar was prepared
by PW295 near an
brought to that prace by the porice. But he courd not identify that accused.PW35 who is an employee in the park stated that during the investigation porice
came to the park and made enquiries. He did not give any evidence regarding
at 4.'J.2 pm 46 Shanavas contacted A2 Jamal and then there was a return callfrom A2 to 46 at 4.1-3 pm. At that time the phone of 42 was found to be atMarampilly location. At 5.53 pm the phone of A2 Jamal remained
to be at
inactive. At that time 46 shanavas was at Kalady. That means both of theseaccused were at different places. Thereafter a call was seen made by A6 to A2g
at 4.15 pm. At that time the location of A28 was at Mathoor. That would alsosuggest that these persons were at different places at around 4.L5 pm. After
4.L5 pm all the mobile phones went inactive. There is nothing to suggest that
after those phone calls all these persons assembled at Muvattupuzha park.whatever may be the contention of the learned public prosecutor there
exact time of the alleged conspiracy. lt is submitted that there was no activityin the mobile phones of 41 to A7 in the evening. The attempt was that during
PW33 who is
denied that seven persons had assembled in her house on 1.7.2010. Thiswitness has admitted her photo in Ext.P23, the copy of the cAF in her name and
a copy of her lD card, but she denied the signature in the saidapplication form. She denied the suggestion put forward by the PublicExt.p24,
Prosecutor that as per the said application, phone number 9846182638 was
allotted to her. PW288 is the mother in law of A28 and mother of PW33. Thiswitness identified Ext.C19 CAF and C19(a), the lD proof submitted by her for
getting mobile phone number. Then she identified the photo in Ext.C17
and Ext.Pl(b) to be the photo of her son in law Nazar (A28). What could beinferred from the evidence of these witnesses and documents that A2B wasusing the phone numbers obtained in the name of his wife and mother in law.Those phones were found inactive during the alleged conspiracy meeting. Even
doubt about the same as A28 was residing in that area. There is no evidence toprove that a meeting of A2 to A7 was held in the house of A28 on
269. The argument of the learned Public Prosecutor is that the mobilephones of A2
1.7.2010 with a clear set of pattern and it would indicate the discrete nature of
the accused persons. I cannot accept this contention because those phones
of 44 at 7.57 pm. Ext.p636 cDR which is in the name of A5 would show thatthere were two calls to his phones at 5.5g and 6.19 pm. so also calls are seen
registered in Ext.P691, and Ext.p696, the cDRs of the phone alleged to havebeen used by 46 and A7 at 5.15 pm and 7.22 pm.
the prosecutor cannot argue that the phones of these accused were placedwithout usage at a particular point of time with a very clear set of pattern.There is no evidence at all to prove that these accused assembled at the house
270.lt is alleged that on 3.7.20ro a high level committee of pFl was held atthe house of PW157 Ansari at Kakkanad to discuss about the steps to be taken
to harbour the
political benefit etc. Prosecution has examined PW157 who is the owner of thehouse. The ownership ceftificate of the said house was marked as Ext.p607through the Secretary of Thrikkakara Municipality (PW253). But PWl"57 did notgive any evidence with regard to the alleged meeting. This witness stated thatduring the investigation police conducted search in his house and seizeo some
material objects including MO.27 CPU. He identified the copy of his drivinglicence seized by the police at the time of the search and it was marked asExt.P17B. PW169 Anwar Sadath also denied having attended the meeting.These witnesses were declared hostile.
Ext.P600 report furnishing the names and address of the trustees of ThejusCharitable Trust. These documents were marked subject to the objection raised
by the defence counsel that these documents are hit by Section 162
Admittedly this witness had produced this list as per Ext.P601 notice issued bythe Deputy Superintendent of Police under Section 43F of the UA(P) Act. PW248
one Moideen Kunju and Mansoor K.A. for their use. He denied that he hadacquaintance with Moideen Kunju, Mansoor and A32 Manaf. He was alsodeclared hostile. The evidence tendered by this witness would prove that Thejus
Charitable Trust had distributed some SIM cards obtained by them to some of
the witnesses and some accused against whom no charge sheet has been filed.Those facts have no relevance in this case.
272. The prosecution relies on the CDRs of A32, A37 and some others to
phone alleged to have been used by A37 was found inactive. That does notmean that the said phone was switched off by A37 so as to attend the meeting.Ext.P668 CDR of the phone number alleged to have been used by A32 wouldshow that his phone was at Kakkanad location between 5 pm and 7.45 pm. Soalso the phone numbers alleged to have been used by one Moideen Kunju and
prosecutiron was not able to collect any evidence against the involvement of the
against these two persons. what remains is the phone aileged to havebeenused by A32. No doubt his phone was found at Kakkanad location. But thatfactis not sufficient to substantiate the contention regarding the conspiracy. Evenif
it is assumed that A32 had been at that location on the evening of 3.7.2010,
cannot say that A32 and A37 had assembled at the house of pwL57 withothers. The remarks made by the learned public prosecutor in the notes ofargument and in the additional notes of argument regarding the phone of A37
and the contact with others are all inferences. The fact that there was no
call in the phone number used by A37 he is not bound to explain anycircumstance. A37 is not expected to give any explanation regarding the fact
that his mobile phone was found inactive for two or three hours. what could beinferred from the evidence available before this court is that a meeting of pFl
was held on 3.7.201"0 at the house of PW157. That does not prove that
conspiracy was hatched by A32, A37 and some other accused on that day.
any direct evidence to prove the presence of any of those accused at thatplace. Just like the other conspiracies,
{,3.7..2010 at 2?:12 hours the pfrone was at pulinchodu, near Aluva. So it is,to be
presumed that 43 and A5 were at the Suburbs of Aluva at the time mentioned
above.ButthereisnoevidencetosuggestthepresenceofA2,46andATatAluva or its surroundings on 3.7.2010. lt is very pertinent to note that theorosecution has no case that these accused had contacted each other from
different places, discussed the matter over phone and thus there was meetingof minds. The definite case of the prosecution is that these accused assembled
at the house of A2B, for which there is no evidence. The only link available to
the prosecution is that the phone numbers alleged to have been used by
274.The prosecution case is that after the incident A28 called one Ayoob(not charge sheeted) and directed to arrange a meeting place to discuss the
future plans. lmmediately the said Ayoob contacted A14 over phone, A14
turn. called PW36 Raihanath and her husband Shihab (PW153) and arrangedtheir house for the meeting of the conspirators. lt is contended that A14' A28,
A29 and A32 and one Moideen Kunju assembled in that house and madearrangements
to A1 to
Ext.P668 CDR of phone number 9846722220 which is in the name of A32 Manaf
would show that his phone was at Mannam between 10.47 hours and 12.46hours.
lt is further
which is in the name of PW63 Adam, alleqed to have been used by A14 Siyadwas found
with Ext'P55' This witness admitted that A14 is a relative of his wife, butdeniedthat the said slM card was given by her to AL4. This witness was atso declaredhostile. Some contradictions were marked on the side of the prosecution
276. pws 36 and 153 pretended ignorance about such a meeting. They
were declared hostile. lt is admitted that pw36 was the state committeeMember of National women's Front and pw153 is an employee of Thejus Daily.
to that police station to protest against the move of the police against
workers. lt may be true. Simply because of the reason that these witnessesareactive members of pFl, I cannot say that what is stated byprosecution
true. The definite case of the prosecution is that Ar4, A2g, A29 and A32assembled at that house and hatched conspiracy. But there is absolutelynoevidence to suggest the presence of A2g and A29 at that house at the relevant
time. At best court can presume that after the attack on pw2, A32 and A14 met".,-
together at Mannam and had discussions. lt would not prove that these twoI1-l"
,277.'lt is the prosecution case that after the above said consprraFy, A3z
met A8 and one Noushad Kunjunikkara at the premises of sait Masjid, Aluva,had discussions and arranged safe hide outs to those persons. Ext.P668 CDR in
the name of A32 would show that between 13:39:52 hours and L4:01:06 hoursthe said number was at Aluva Bank Junction (Cell lD No.13271) where the SaitMasjid situates. PW16l" Abdul Nazar who is running
Junction deposed that Sait Masjid is just 50 meters away from his shop. From
this evidence it could be seen that A32 was present at that location between1.30 pm and 2 pm. But there is no evidence to prove the presence of A8 Younus
Aliyar or any other accused at that place on 4.7.2010 between 1.30 pm and 2pm.
that on L6.6.201l- he reported in the NIA office as directed by his head of office,
from where he was taken by the NIA officials and one Noushad to
respectively. PW147 Sijin Varghese, who is residing in Flat No.7B has stated thatNIA officials came
to prove the
presence of
Noushad. But prosecution could not collect any evidence or file charge sheetagainst the said Noushad. Therefore the presence of the said Noushad at SaitMasjid is not at all relevant in this case. At present there is no evidence tosuggest that A8 Younus Aliyar and A28 met A32 at Sait Masjid, Aluva. The only
the criminal conspiracy the conspirators commit several offences, then all ofthem will be liable for the offences even if some of them had not activelyparticipated in the commission of the offence. Conspiracy can be hatched in
different methods. For hatching conspiracy the conspirators need not sittogether and discuss the matter. In order to constitute an offence of criminalconspiracy there should be an agreement between persons to do one or otherof the acts described in the section. What is required is the meeting of minds.
.,.'', \
to commit
besidestheagreementisdonebyoneormorepartiestosuchagreement in Pursuance thereof.Explanation- lt is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimateobject of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object'"
offence. lt is not necessary that all the conspirators must know each
to be in
him should have been said, done or written by him after theintention was formed by any one of them; (4)
it would
also be
relevant for the said purpose against another who entered theconspiracy whether it was said, done or written before he entered
held that
. ! i.
the unlawful agreement which is the gravamen of the crime of conspiracy. The'unlawful agreement which amounts toa conspiracy need not be formal or
"".,: .... glpress, but may be inherent in and inferred from the circumstances, especially.|..r,. il, i:.1'i$ed.tprptions, acts and conduct of the congpirators. The agreement need not be'-.:.'; ' ./\' r.:,j.r,ll!f
., l-":..,:..::'t'
enteredintobyn|itirepartiestoitatth':Sarr]|irtre,l:''liiilinyt-j*rei;cl:et1l.;;;conspiracy' lt was furiher heldsuccessive actions evidencing their joininq of the
conspiracyajointormutualagencyfortheprosecutionofacommonp|an.done by any ofThus, if two or more persons enter into a conspiracy, any act
them pursuant to the agreement is, in contemplation of law, the act of each of
them and they are jointly responsible therefore. This means that everythingsaid, written or done by any of the conspirators in execution or furtherance of
the common purpose is deemed to have been said, done or written by each ofthem. And this joint responsibility extends not only to what is done by any of
the conspirators pursuant to the original agreement but also to collateral actsincidental to and growing out of the original purpose
'Although there should not be any missing links in the case, yet it is
not essential that each of the links must appear on the surface of
'.' , '
.' l;.5fr1lipose of conviction, the court has to consider the total cumulative"' '- . '...fft.t of all the proved facts, each one of which reinforces theii,.::;'," , .- ...-:', .-t.lt
evidence alone,
that in all
probability the act must have been done by the accused, wherevarious links in chain are in themselves complete, then the falseplea or false defence may be called into aid only to lend assuranceto the court."285. lt may not be possible to prove conspiracy by direct evidence. In V.C.
is well settled
'''-:.-,,. i ii-
'. .:i;
] llll'e
11: i:o
Purushothaman v. State of Kerala (2005 (4) KLT 842 SC), Arul Raia
Rajasthan (2014 (1) KLT Suppl. 29 SC) and Baliya @ Bal Kishan v.
State of M.P. (20f2 (3) SCC 123U on the same point and submittedthat tits and bits are not sufficient to prove conspiracy, it must be provedby reliable evidence and all change should be fully proved. For brevity allthose rulings need not be mentioned in this judgment. The dictum of therulings cited by both sides is same.
287. The Prosecution mainly relies on the Call Data Records (CDR) of theaccused
to be appreciated not in
isolation but
the accused, persons lead to inference of conspiracy, not because there were.
t.put special features of those conversation fike large number of,.. ' egnyer,1afion:
.- r,'..'--''|. '
mobile handsets, the calls made between the accused and seizure of thematerials used for committing the offence.288. PW295 Deputy Superintendent of Police, Muvattupuzha deposed that
Superintendent of Police. PW295 has specifically stated that the letter sent byhim for getting the CDRs were returned by the Nodal officers and then he made
Nodal officers have stated that they produced CDRs as per the requisition made
tendered by PW295 and the Nodal officers on this point. Nobody could believe
that the service providers have violated the provisions and issued CDRs on thebasis of the application filed by the Deputy Superintendent of police. The mere
fact that the prosecution did not produce the copy of the requisition filed by theSuperintendent
the evidence
produced before this court are not properly certified as per the provisions of theEvidence Act and as such those documents cannot be considered as primary
irranything contained in this Act, aity inforrneLicrr csntain*d
recorded orelectronic record which is printed on a paper' stored'
(hereinafterreferredtoaSthecomputeroutput)shallbedeemedtobe also a document, if the conditions mentioned in this section aresatisfied in relation to the information and computer in question and
sha||beadmissib|einanyproceedings,Withoutfurtherprooforproduction of the original, as evidence of any contents of theoriginal
be admissible.
the person having lawful control over the use of the computer;
computer in the
of its contents;
period; or
(b) by different
all the computers used for that purpose during that period shall be
;-ecord corltaining
pr:dessedfor the purposes of those activities by a computer'r'ar'\.rI i5:r.r.l',., '!:,''j"4*.,rcipepated otherwise than in the course of those activities, that'd:' ."'.'iiiI
of any appropriate
information beingreference
are satisfied. Thus, in the case of CD, VCD, chip, etc., the same shall
taking the document without, which the secondary evidence pertaining to thatelectronic record, is inadmissible.291. According to the learned counsel for the accused there is no proper
certification in the CDRs produced before this court. His contention is that thepersons who have certified the CDRs are not the persons connected with the..n.,.tflgvant
device and none of them have certified that the informations collected
l'' ' are true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief.','l',',(j292, lL is fufther argued thatthe CDRs issued by pws 264 and 272,ther,..;t, ,.ilr',J:
i1ii9l; | :,
.Sbd?l officers of Bharathi Airtel and Tata Tele Services are not properlyt t''i;'''
);.'in the ceitit'cdLiorl i5 trot :rifticierit fo1 rthe CDRs of
are not issued by the competent officers, but issued for and on behalf of thecompany. on going through the cDRs issued by Pw264 and 272 | could find that
293. The Nodal officers of BSNL, MTS, Bharathi Airtel, Vodafone CelluarLimited. Tata Tele Services, ldea Cellular Limited and Reliance Communications
were examined as PWs 240,241, 242, 264' 268' 27I' 272 and 215. PW240'
The Nodal officer of BSNL proved Exts. P576, the CDR relating to the phoneconnection of one M.K.Asharaf (not charge sheeted), Exts. P577 and 578 CDRsrelating to the phone calls of Aliyar (father of A19 Niyas) and Ext. P582 relating
to phone number 9446935639 of A16 Abdul Salam. PW247, the Nodal officer ofMTS proved Ext.P583 and 584 CDRs of the phone numbers of A24 and another.
PW242, the then Nodal officer of Reliance Communications identified the CAF
per the said application phone number 9809926230 was allotted to thatapplicant. PW264,621,,624,625,627
A12, A15, A29, A13, A8, Meeran (father of A9), A17, Thejus
Publications and one Muhammad Hashik (alleged to have been used by A5).PW268, the Nodal officer of Reliance communications identified Ext.P663 andExts. P635 to 637 CDRs of the phone numbers in the name of 431, A37, 45 and
A35. PW271, the Nodal officer of Vodafone Cellular Limited identified the CDRsnumbers issuedofl the,'phone'",i -" \
C.tij:1:; ,",ycril
certificates are relating to the phone numbers of A17 (having two mobile phoneconnections), A27 and 46. PW275, the Alternate Nodal Officer of BSNL produced
the documents relating to mobile phone number allotted to one Hashim K.p,K.M.Samad, K.M.Muhammad, Muhammad Ansari (pW157), M.K.Asharaf (not
charge sheeted) and one shaji, The cAFs and lD proof submitted by thosepersons were proved as Exts.C37 series to C42 series. The Cell lD list of BSNLKerala Circle was marked as Ext.C43. These witnesses have specifically stated
about the certification and about their authority to retrieve the call data from
CDRs as
companies. According to these witnesses, all the call data will be saved in the
central server of the respective service provider automatically. The data saved
Alternative Nodal officers shall have separate password and lD to take the data.
only by using their user lD and password. The above Nodal officers havespecifically stated that Nodal officers and Alternate Nodal officers are theauthorised officers and no others will have access to the said computer or to
the server to retrieve data. They have stated that the lD and passwords will not-,,-,'6e giVen.to anyone including the Alternative Nodal officers. Alternative NodJl
, ,,,
''ri r..,
. R?ss,Woitl.:fhe
.''.'',tr, tt'
cJata anCl
that the documents proving the authority of these witnesses to issue CDRs are
not produced, the oral evidence tendered by these witnesses regarding theirauthority cannot be rejected. These witnesses who are legally bound to issueCDR need not give false evidence on this point.
these witnesses that they have no control over the data saved in the server but
they have the authority to retrieve the call data of the subscribers on gettingapplication from the authorised officers. Further
that since the call data are recorded in the server system in an automatedprocess, no alteration in the call data is possible.
Act. Ext.C60
witness before the investigating officer. Those CDRs are seen retrieved on22.7L2O70 and Ext.C60 is seen signed by this witness on 02.12.2O10. pW271have specifically stated that after taking all the print outs he certified the same
certificate was produced before this court only on 22.10.2013. But that does not
mean that he had handed over the CDRs to the police without propercertification. In Crl.MP 9912013,
PW27fitrlis clear that he had produced all the CDRs before the authorised.: ,
that those
officer along with Ext.g60 certificate, but Ext. C60 was omitted to $e produced. .l
trefore this coLrrr ar$rig wiltl the cDRs. In this cile urnsiairr il. ; c,)irroi :jay
of Section 658 of the Evidence Act. I do not find any reason for pW271 who
not at all interested in the subject mafter of this case to give false evidence.295. There is no dispute regarding the fact that Ext. p5g3 and p584, theCDR issued by PW24L, who is the Nodal officer of MTS are not certified. In the
no certificate at all.
find that all of these records except Exts.P583 and P5B4 are properly certified.The omission on the part of the Nodal officers to mention in the certiflcates that
the information collected are true and correct to the best of their knowledgeand belief, will not make the cDRs inadmissible.
these documents.
information recorded are true to the best of their knowledge and belief. Ongoing through the evidence of these Nodal officers I am satisfied that the CDRSwere properly certified as provided under section 65B of the Evidence Act.
mobile number 9946304017. PW27l identified Ext. c23 cAF and Ext.c23(a), the
copy of the lD produced by A2 for obtaining the said number. Ext.P674 is theCDR. The mobile phone used by A2 was seized-.
', ,'"
statement given by that accused. Ext. p141 is the mahazar prepared by pw295
' lignd.,M9,?14is the moBile.phone recovered as per the confessionrbtatement' ;!
. .''' :-.:!ir;r-'l'
. ..'.,
3i.te:Ler:1r:, F]"i
turned hostile to the prosecution. But they admitted their signature in Ext.P141
seizure mahazar for MO.214 mobile phone and Ext.P142 seizure mahazarprepared by PW295 at the time of the recovery of the motor cycle of A2. The
going through the evidence I find that these witnesses who are residing near
the house of A2 turned hostile with a view to help 42. That is not a ground todisbelieve the evidence of the investigating officer with regard to the seizure of
this mobile phone with SIM card. Further in Ext. P203(a), the applicationsubmitted by 42 for getting party membership, this number is seen written ashis phone number. This accused, at the time of questioning under Section 313CrPC has admitted
orosecution that the mobile phone of A2 was found inactive at the relevant
time. Further the prosecution could not point out any suspicious call with theother accused. Therefore the
this case.
297. lt is argued that some of the accused were hiding from 30.6.2010
engaged in the preparation of the attack and so they had to keep away from
their houses. To prove the said case the prosecution has examined somewitnesses. PW85 who is running a driving school at Perumbavoor deposed that
had applied for getting licence to drive four wheelers through his,*_A2'-':: Jamaloffice: Jhis witness identified Ext.P79, the application form submitted by A2 for
.,-.gqttinglearner's licenceandExt.PBO,thedrivinglicenceofA2fortwowheelers
.: i'--'trrgfhlttbd through his officql PW85 has admitted that he had producedithese- -/;'i'./-"
.*..; 71 ,,.
l:v ti:e
2.7.2oro, he did not turn up on that day. The evidence of pwg5 that 42 did notattend the driving test held on 2.7.20re is not a ground to believe that A2 wasabsconding or hiding himself for making arrangements for the attack.298. The prosecution has a case that 42 was absconding after 3.7.2010.PW70 who is the wife of A2 was examined to prove that 42 did not come to
their house after 3.7.2010. But she did not support the prosecution case that A2was absconding. she was declared hostile to the prosecution. Though there is
cogent evidence
prosecution need not rely on circumstantial evidence to prove the guilt of A2.299. PW278, Rajkumar, Nodal officer of ldea Cellular Limited produced thecAF and copy of the lD proof submitted by 43, shobin. Those documents weremarked as Ext. c48 and Ext.c48(a) respectively. As per this application, phone
number 9847573387 was allotted to 43. pw93, who is the father of 43 stated
that he did not remember the phone number of his son. But the said phonenumber is shown in Ext.P88 sale agreement entered into between 43 shobin...eiia"FWgg who stated that he had sold his motor cycle bearing No.KL-7|AG 2766
,;;r;ulil prc}re
r:rL rt-iui:iir
phone number 9847573387 was allotted to 43. Ext.P697 is the CDR foi" theperiod between 25.03.2010 and 06.07.2010.
mobile phone of 43. lt was identified as MO.151. MO.152 is the SIM card used in
the said phone. 43 has admitted that 9847573387 was the number allotted to
him. At the time of examination under Section 313 Cr.p.C. this accused
admitted the said number and added that his parents and their employees wereusing the said number. But there is no evidence to prove that his parents were
using the said number, which was obtained by him. This number was found
inactive during the relevant time and date. Here also, as in the case of A2prosecution could not point out any suspicious call.
Ext.P128 mahazar prepared by the police for the recovery of the above said
motor cycle from the house of A3, but he did not admit that he had witnessed
the seizure of the motor cycle from the house. This witness, though declaredhostile, has admitted that police came to house of 43 and that he had signed in
the said mahazar from that house. pw117 paulose who is an attestor to the saidmahazar stated that he does not remember as to whether he had signed in any
seized the motor cycle of 43 from his house. But that fact has no relevance.
There is no evidence to prove that the said motor cycle was used by 43
r' ;,'
:.,;',;;,,,.'3O].:Admittedly 45 washaving a Reliance Communications mobile pnonpnone.:conne.ctidl'r with number 93q7787I70. Ext. C12,, the original CAF submitfed by
this accused for getting the said connection was markecl throi"rgh plvz6g.
cDR relating to this phone number was marked as Ext.p636. This number isseen admitted
by A5.
mobile phone connection with that number. According to him he used to callA10 and A20 in this number. so also he used to contact the father of Niyas, whois a "Vaidyan" (practitioner in Ayurvedic medicine).
purpose. PW264, the Nodal officer identified the cAF and the documentsproduced by PW112 along with that application and those documents weremarked as C11 series. PW112 Hashik identified the copy of the CAF, copy of
the lD proof and the letter addressed to the Airtel and those documenrs weremarked as Ext. P120 to P122. This witness has submitted that he took thoseconnections for the use of his employees including one Shamsudhin. At thesame time he stated that he does not know Shamsudhin. This witness wasdeclared hostile. lt is clear that his attempt was only to depose in favour of A5
suggestion put forward by the learned Public Prosecutor that he had contacted
A5 in the above said number on several occasions between March 2010 andJuly 2010. A contradiction was marked by the prosecution through this witness
Ali urho is
Ltrc. Lrroliter
o{ 45, but r":y 'li'l rlt)t 5r-!pp{'r lr r-1 r:irI ": ';'ttr'
PWB6deniedthathehadproducedthernobi|ephoneandtheS|McardofA5before pw295. The mahazars prepared by PW295 for recovery of thesematerial objects were marked through PW21O who is a civil police officer asExts.p482 and P483. The evidence of PW295 and PW210 would prove that the
mobile ohone and SIM card of 45 were produced by PW86 before PW295'Whatever may be the contentions of the accused on this point, it could be seen
from Ext.P715 that phone number 8129101103 was saved in the mobile phone
of A2 Jamal in the name shamsu.P. This data saved in the phone of A2 Jamalwould also support the prosecution case that the phone number was used byA5. The cDR of this phone number would show
was in the company of AL to A4 and A25 and he did not even attend his wifewho was hospitalised. PW84, wife of A5 admitted that she gave birth to a child
Prosecutor that A5 did not go to the hospital on 4.7.2010 or on its previous day
to see his wife and that itself would prove that he was engaged in thepreparation of attack. PW84 and her mother (PW79) denied the prosecutioncase that A5 did not come to hospital on those days. PW94, who was working as
a nurse in Carmel hospital, Aluva stated that on 3.7.2010 at 9'30 pm and on the
next day at 6 am she went to the room wherein PW84 was admitted, as part of
by him. Therefore the evidence tendered by pw84, pw79 and pw94 regardingthe absence ofA5 at hospital on the previous night has no relevance at all.306. To prove that A5 was absconding after the incident the prosecution has
to come to
workshop. when the learned Public prosecutor put a suggestion that after the
hand chopping incident 45 did not come to the workshop, they pretendedignorance. But these witnesses have admitted that when they went to thehouse of 45 to mourn the death of his mother, they could not see ,A5 in thathouse. No doubt this evidence of PW95 to PW97 would support the case of the
that accused. But as stated above, where there is direct evidence to prove thecomplicity of the accused, court need go for circumstantial evidence. Here theeye witnesses have proved the involvement of this accused in the overt act. Inthis situation court need not go for circumstantial evidence.
307. The learned counsel for the accused refuted the contentions ofprosecution that A5 was absconding and pointed out that on 5.7.2010 thepolice had registered a case against A5 and others for conducting police station
march. Ext.D26 is the certified copy of the final report submitted by DWI-, the"'.,1'-"'!i'Sub Inspegtor
certified cppyof the FlR. In the said final report A5 herein was shown as A70.' -itii,.ButDWA;,atJhtime--of cross examination stated that he ffad no.occasion to1.'.',''..
prepared that final report on the basis of the statenlent given by some sDPlworkers. Whereas PW305, the Circle Inspector of Muvattupuzha stated that as
filed the additional report deleting the name of A5 in the party array. Thesefacts are not at all relevant in the case on hand. There is clinching evidence toprove the involvement of A5 in the attack on PW2. Hence this point canvassedby the defence does not require a detailed discussion.
308. Ext. C34 is the CAF and Ext. C34(a) is the copy of the lD submitted
by 46 Shanavas for getting mobile phone connection. This CAF was identified
by PW273, Anwar Azeez Sait, who is the present Nodal officer of Tata TeleServices. As per this application phone number 8089230639 was allotted toShanavas. Ext. P685 is the CDR and 685(a) is the copy of the lD proof producedby PW272 before the investigating officer. There is no dispute with regard to theuse of the above said mobile phone number by 46.
remember the number allotted to him. Admittedly Ext.P57 is the copy of the
''. ,
" ..'l .'
prosecution has a case that this SIM card was given by PW64 to 46
andhO was using thb said number. The only document which shdws that it was
hy frir;r ir.;r
getting membership in the party. Further it could be seen frorn Ext. p715 that
20 years. The distance from his house to the house of 4'6 is less than
meters. This witness stated that after the hand chopping incident he could notsee 46 Shanavas in that locality. lt is clear from his evidence that at the time of
this witness to see 46. From the evidence of this witness. it cannot be inferredthat 46 was absconding.311. The prosecution claims that during 2010 A7 Pareed was having
relating to that number. PW88 Abu, father of A7 denied that he had producedthe mobile phone, driving licence, identity card and passport of 47 to the police.PW132, who is an attestor
recovery of those items from Abu. These two witnesses were declared hostile.PW279 the Nodal officer has admitted that the said connection was in the name
.denied that he had given a SIM card to A7 and that he had subsequentlyproduced the same before the police. The mere fact that the said number was
A7, is not sufficient to prove ttiat A/ was i.tsing lfrir laiil ilumbei'
312. From the above discussion, it is clear that A2,A3,A5 anC 46 werehaving mobile phone connections
during 2010.
orove that there had been contacts between these accused during the relevant
period. The definite case of the prosecution is that these accused kept theirphones idle during the time of operations without any activity. The saidcontention seems to be correct. I am satisfied that A2, 43 and 45 to 47 took
due care and caution to see that their phones are not used during theoperation. The said conduct of the assailants would show that it was a wellplanned operation. That itself would show that these persons had discussed
43 and A5 to 47 had conspired for committing the offence and made allarrangements for that purpose, along with some other accused including A12.
am satisfied that the prosecution was able to prove their case against A2,A3and A5 to A7 regarding the conspiracy hatched by them, beyond reasonabledoubt.313. The prosecution has proved that A8 Younus Aliyar was in the gang who
had visited the house of PW2 on 17.05,2010. On that day they did not attackPW2; might be a futile attempt or
. i- ..':
":,cornmittr'lng| , t ' the offence and made neobssary arrangements for the same. PW51
Mani identified Ext.pl(b) photograph of A2g and staterl trral t_ir* saiil
had visited his shop at rhrissur to enquire about the availability of nraruthiomni
van. After two or three days A12 and another (pw5r identified the photograph
of 44) directly approached pw51 for purchasing the omni van with sufficientamount.-The learned public prosecutor pointed out that the calls made by Ag,A],2, A28 and A32 would prove that they were the persons who had decided topurchase Mo2, arranged the consideration for the same and deputed A12 andA4 to purchase the same.
314. According to the learned public prosecutor, Ag had two mobile phone
connections. Pw264, the Nodal officer of the Bharati Airtel and pw274. the
CAFs submitted by A8 in those companies and C8(a) and C15(a) are the
copy of the lD produced along with those CAFs. Those applications werereceived and phone number 9995954555 was allotted to him by the Airtel.9846508555 was the number allotted by Vodafone to AB. Ext.p627 and C664are the relevant CDRs. A8 has denied these phone numbers.
315. The photograph of A8 is seen affixed in Ext.C8 and C15 CAFs. Thecopy of the lD card of A8 is seen produced along with those CAFs. I do not find
any reason to disbelieve the evidence of the Nodal officers with regard to the
,: .'.; :'
that his Vodafone motrile phone nt.tmbr ltas seen"";rlil-lt: iit F:':i P453 itri.i i'i'l;4'
the list of the freedom parade organising commitiee mernbrers. His name wasshown as the co-ordinator. During the said period he was the Division President
of pFl. Further this number is seen saved in the phone of A9 in the name ofYoonus N. So also the Airtel mobile phone number of AB is seen written in the
is also seen saved in the phone of A2 in the name Yoonus K.M' All theseevidence would prove that during the period covered by Ext'P627 and P664, ABwas using those numbers allotted in his name by the said service providers.
316. PW271 deposed about the calls made between A8 and the phonenumbers 9037220794 (phone number of A17- alleged to have been used byA28), 9745003256 (phone number of A2B),9846722220 (phone number of A32)
and 9567693209 (phone number of A12). Ext.P664 would show that A8 hadcontacted A12 on 14.6.2010 at 1.19 pm. There was a call on that day betweenA32 and A8 at 2.05 pm. PW271 has specifically stated that on L5.6.2010 there
of AB and phone
9567693209 (phone number of A12). Those calls were at 5.54 am, 6.04 am andat 6.23 am. Another call is seen made between these two numbers on the sameday at 10.18 am. There are corresponding entries in Ext.P620, the CDR of thephone number of A12. On that day A15 went to Thrissur and purchased MO.2
from PW14. These facts would support the prosecution case that on that dayand the previous day A8 and A12 had discussed about the purchase of Maruthi
omni van.
is very pertinent to note that A8 or A12 did not admit those phone
numberg. The reason for denying the same is clear. lf they are admitting the.
,nurnbers they have to explain these calls. Tp avoid tlrat situation they resorted
;i 5trrn!;
day, the presence of AB at Anikkad, is suspicious. A8 younus Aliyar did not give
any explanation regarding the above mentioned phone calls and about
(ZOL2| s
for such
it is wel:
- (f999) 9 SCC
offers an explanation and that explanation is found not to be true then thesame offers an additional link in the chain of circumstances to complete thecha in.
320. This accused did not give any satisfactory explanation regarding theabove mentioned phone calls. Whereas this accused has simply denied hisphone numbers. That itself is a strong circumstance against the accused. Thecircumstances which I have discussed in the above paragraphs would prove the
their plan.321. PW42 Shiyas and PW43 Afsath stated that A8 was harboured in theirhouse by A34. PW23 Varghese spoken about the stay of AB and the presence of
A25 at Daffodils flat, Thrissur. PW45 Tony also stated about the presence of A8
at that flat during the middle of July 2010. Further PW26 Rejoy and
signed in Ext.PllB mahazar prepared by police from the hou;e oi ili/Jl8 Rarnla,who is the wife of 426. According to him, police came to that house along with
person. when learned Public Prosecutor showed Ag to this witness he sated that
the said accused might be the person who came to that house with police. Theevidence adduced by the prosecution on this point would suggest that Ag had
stayed in the house of PW43 Afsath, in Flat No.7B. Daffodils at rhrissur and in
the house of PW28 Ramla. A8 did not give any explanation regarding hispresence in the above said places. This evidence would support prosecutioncase that after the hand chopping incident A8 was absconding. This is also alink in the chain of circumstances against that accused.322. Another circumstance against A8 is the recovery of Ext.P62 bus daily
statement from the possession of A9 Jafar who was arrested by the policeimmediately after the incident, while taking the Maruthi omni van which was
statements were marked as Ext.P61 series and P62. According to this witness,these statements were prepared by him in his own handwriting. He added that
the two phone numbers written in Ext.P62 are not in his handwriting.
witness added that he knows A9 Jafar, who is a relative of the owner of the said,,..:__q. :.ub
PW82 Salim who is the owner of the bus identified Ext.P61 series and
FSL spoke
the specimen writings. Ext.P687 is the report filed by him. According to him,
after comparison he found that the person who wrote the blue enclosedstandard writings stamped and marked as A1(a), A2(a) and S1(a) to S56(a) alsowrote the red enclosed questioned writings marked as Q1(a) to Q2(a). lt is clear
from the evidence of PW277 that phone numbers in Ext.P62 were written by A8who has given the specimen handwriting to the police for investigation.
323. The learned counsel for the defence put forward a contention thatExt.P62 is not properly proved. According to him, nothing has been mentioned
about the said document in the arrest memo or inspection memo prepared byPw294 at the time of the arrest of A9. The prosecution case is that Ext.P62 was
the time of arrest, it would have been mentioned in Ext.P431 arrest memo andExt.P787 inspection memo.
recovery of that document. Fxt.P428 seizure mahazar wor.rld sirow i:har. r*ccil erywas made at u|.35 pm, after the arrest of A9. The said document was recovered
by PW294 as per Ext.P42B mahazar. That mahazar was seen produced before
PW294 had
fabricated such a document on the date of incident itself. lt is true that there isno independent witness in Ext.P428 mahazar. The witnesses signed in Ext.P428
circumstance. The above circumstance pointed out by the learned counsel for
the accused are not sufficient to reject the evidence of PW294 with regard tothe recovery of this document.
the possession of A9 while he was travelling in MO.2. Further lcould find fromthe evidence of PW27I that there were two calls from the phone of A8 to thephone number of A9 at 6.30 am and 8.19 am on 126.96.36.199. This would alsoprove the link between A8 and A9. The seizure of Ext.p62 statement whichcontains the phone number of A8, which is proved to be in the handwriting ofA8 is also a piece of evidence to connect AB and A9.Let me conclude the circumstances highlighted by the prosecutioni) he was in the gang who visited the house of PW2 on 17.5.2010,
*ccUrrer, ."r:
purpose of taking further action), iv) the: phone calls with Ag on 4.7.2010 at
6.30 am and 8.19 am and v) after the incident he went absconding. Thesefactors are sufficient to connect all the link against A8 and it would lead to anirresistible inference of an agreement between this accused and the otheraccused whose involvement in the crime has been Droved.326. According to the learned counsel for the accused, mere abscondance
(AlR 2Of
observed that even an innocent man may feel panicky and try to evade arrestwhen wrongly suspected of a great crime. In Sujith Biswas's case the Hon'bleSupreme Court has made it clear that the act of absconding is a relevant piece
the above said number was allotted by the ldea Cellular to A9 Jafar. According
cAF were marked as Ext.cg and c9(a). Ext.p62B is the cDR. Exts,p699 and p62B
cDRs would prbve that these numbers had contact with Ag and some others.Corresponding entries are seen made in the CDRs otAS also.
328. I have already discussed about the seizure of Ext.p62 bus dailystatement containing the phone number of A8 from the possession of A9. so
have given the details of the phone calls made between these two
the possession of this accused, thattoo within two hours afterthe incident itselfis sufficient to prove the role played by this accused in the commission of thecrime. I am satisfied that the circumstances proved by the prosecution wouldprove the involvement of A9 in the conspiracy to attack pW2.329. According to the prosecution, ALO Asharaf was deputed by A8, A2g and
the same. lt is argued that A10 reached at the spot at perumbavoor to receiveMO.2, but on the way the said vehicle was seized by the police. pW294 stated
by him at the time of arrest. After the arrest, PW294 stated that he recovered
mobile phone (MO.81) and a wrist watch (MO.82) from the possession of A10.Thereafter he questioned the accused and recorded his statement. To connectA10 with the offence, the prosecution mainly relies on Ext.p62 daily statement
i:': t:';
Bamactiandran proved Ext.P698(a), the topy of the CAF with lD proof andlJ
t.he rr:olrilq:
phone number of ALO. MO.B1 is the mobile phone seized from A10 as perExt.P429 seizure mahazar. Merely because of the reason that the above said
phone number of A10 is seen written in Ext.P62 which was seized from A9,
cannot say that A10 was aware of the conspiracy. Admittedly all the accusedare members of PFl. Even if it is assumed that the phone number of A10 who isa member of PFI was given by A8 to A9, it will not be sufficient to prove that itwas given with the knowledge of A10. lt is true that Ext.P698 CDR would show
that A1O had contacted some accused on one or two occasions. But that is notsufficient to prove that he had participated in the conspiracy against
number 9946609011 and gave it to some accused includinq A10, this witness
did not support the said case of the prosecution. When the learned PublicProsecutor showed the CAF in the name of A10, this witness stated that he does
to verify lh"
It is the case of the prosecution that A11 had prepared a sketch and handedover the same to A8. on verification, A8 noticed some mistakes and thenreturned the sketch to A1L to rectify the mistakes. Accordingly A11 rectified the
mistake in the sketch and placed it before A8. These are the allegations of theprosecution against A1 1.331. PW294 stated about the arrest of A11. According to him, on 24.7.20L0
Al-1 Sikkander Alikhan was found with his auto rickshaw at the premises ofMuvattupuzha private bus stand. Then A11 was brought to the police station.
he arrested that accused and prepared Ext.P497 arrest memo. The mobilephone (MO.94) and the purse (MO.95) found to be in the possession of A11 wererecovered as per Ext.P466 seizure mahazar. Ext.P8B0 is the inspection memoprepared by PW294. Thereafter he questioned A11 and came to know that thesaid accused had prepared a sketch of the place of incident. On the basis of theconfession statement given by A1L that he had kept that sketch in his autorickshaw, he took the sketch which was kept in a box in auto rickshaw bearingNo.KL-17/F.5760 as per Ext.P442 mahazar. The sketch was identified by this
n, ttw2.94
f-,i]iiae r:Jffire;-;
regarding the arrest and recovery The version of PW294 is that A11 was foundnear the auto rickshaw stand and then he brought that accused to the policestation. The arrest and seizure were made from the police station. But PW213Shameer. a Head Constable in the investigation team gave a different storyabout the arrest of A11. This witness has specifically stated that they reachedAshramam bus stand at 11.50 am and found 411 sitting in his auto rickshaw in
the auto rickshaw stand. According to him, ALl- was arrested by PW294 fromthat auto rickshaw stand near Latha Theatre at 12 noon. An arrest memo wasprepared from the spot. This witness identified that arrest memo and
marked as Ext.P494. Thereupon Al-L was taken to the police station along with
the auto rickshaw. During cross examination this witness has reiterated that thearrest of ALl- was from the auto rickshaw stand nearAshramam bus stand. He
was sure that Ext.P494 was prepared from the auto rickshaw stand. Theevidence of PW213 regarding the place of arrest is supported by Ext'P497.When the learned counsel for the accused put suggestions
PW294 with
regard to the arrest of A11, that officer made attempt to wriggle out from the
situation by saying that the entry in Ext.P497 regarding the place of arrest ismistake. In view of the answers given by PW213
reiovery\ilf Ext.P443 could be believed? The main link to connect A11 to thei.. 1.,:'offencel,..is the. recpvery of Ext.P443. But the evidence. adpuced by the
prosecution regarding
other and
untrustworthy. The evidence of PW213 and the entries in Ext.p497 would falsify
the evidence of PW294 with regard to the arrest of A11 and the recovery ofExt.P443 sketch alleged to have been made frorn the auto rickshaw.
333. Ext.P443 sketch was forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory and
that the person who wrote the blue enclosed standard writings also wrote thequestioned writings
the report of
be looked into. Further I cannot believe that this accused who is an activeworker of PFl, had kept the sketch prepared by him in his auto rickshaw which
was plying in and around Muvattupuzha town, while the police was searching
for the culprits who are the members of PFl. The evidence adduced by theprosecution regarding the arrest of A11 and
had contacted some of the accused. The CDR of phone number 9961g39g01and the copy of the CAF submitted by Sikkander Alikhan were marked through
Ext.P695(b) is the lD proof. Though the accused has denied the use of the said
nl,rpne connection with the said number. Ext.P695 would show that he,i,!'I mobile' .."1l;. ,' , had qall$;'with sbme of the accused namery A8, A32 and A2d But that,does not'i':-'.
" l.\-'^r.
lxean that ire took fral't- ifl the conspir;ri"j, :lt"prepar+cl .i .rli:rtiLtli i:J l:h* lo{:i1ir)r; .rjalleged. The prosecution could not pin []Dint a particular call to prove that he
had contacted the accused whose involvement has been proved, with
intention to prepare a sketch during the last week in the March or in the monthof April.
335. PW264, the Nodal Officer of Bharati Airtel proved Ext. C5 CAF andC5(a) copy of the lD submitted by A12 K.K.Ali. The learned counsel for theaccused has contended that the photo affixed in Ext. C5 is not that of Ali and on
Ext.C5. There is no dispute that Ext. C5(a) is the copy of the driving licence ofA12. At the time of examination under Section 313 Cr,P.C this accused hasadmitted that Ext.P47 is the copy of the driving licence given by him to PW5L.Though this accused, put forward a contention that there is difference in the
photo in Ext.CS and C5(a), he did not put any such suggestion to PW264regarding the same. The defence did not put any question
to A12 Ali, he called A12 on several occasions in that mobile phone numberfurnished by Ali, and requested to take steps to transfer the ownership of thatomni van. The mobile phone numberof A12 written in Ext.P45 and in Ext.Cs are
one and the same. There is sufficient evidence to prove that the said mobilenumber was used by A1-2. Therefore I need not probe into the question as tohow therdi.ffgrence in the photograph was occurred.,.offic,ers
that {uringrthe period they were fot conducting any Bnquiry before:
issuing rnobile phone numbers to ttie appiicants. All thesr- I'srinalities were cloi-rl
by the retailers. The retailers might have committed mischief while acceptingthe cAF, but it is not a ground to reject the evidence tendered by prosecutionthrough PW51 and Pw144 regarding the phone number of A12. pw98, who
the owner of the tipper lorry driven by Ar2 stated that he used to call Ali overphone. Though this witness stated that he did not remember the phone number
of A12, he did not deny the suggestion put forward by the prosecution that thephone number of A12 Ali was 9567693209. pw12o who is working as a tipperlorry driver also stated that A12 was having a mobile phone connection. I amsatisfied that Ext. c5 is the cAF submitted by A12 K.K.Ali for getting mobileconnection. From Ext. c5issued to
A12. There
said number.
336. From the evidence of pw264 it could be seen that there were rB4
calls between Ar2 Ali and A8 younus Aliyar during the period between25.3.201-0 and 188.8.131.52. so also there were 135 calls between A12 and 44
sajil. Tiue, these contacts are not sufficient to prove the involvement of
accused who was charged for conspiracy. But there is ample evidence to prove
the involvement of A12. The call details would show that he had contacted A8on 15.6.20L0 on which date he purchased Mo.2 from pw144. There were callsbetween A8 and A12 in the early morning before 6.30 am. on 14.6.2010, these
two accused had contacted over phone. This fact, coupled with the phone calls
need not go for any other evidence. There is evidence to prove the allegation
in th:
arrangements for the execution of their plan and purchased MO.2 for thatpurpose.
337. The allegation against A13 Shiyas is that he had participated in theconspiracy held at the Inspection Bungalow at Muvattupuzha, helped AB Younus
in recruiting the members for committing the crime, provided financial help tothe family of some of the accused and conducted police station march with
view to deviate the investigation. This accused was arrested by PW294 as perExt.P494 arrest memo. Ext.PLg7(a) is the application submitted by him for
338. Ext.P625 would show that 413 used to contact A8 and A32. There is
no other evidence against this accused. None of the witnesses has givenevidence against this accused. There is no evidence to suggest that these callswere made by A13 for the purpose of committing offence or that he was a party
to the conspiracy. Merely because of the reason that this accused had contactswith the District President of PFI and Muvattupuzha Division Convener of PFl,
cannot say:,that he was aware of the conspiracy or took part in the conspiracy.
. The pr,osecution has got a case that A13 had approached some building owners
tr.ide outs
to theaccused.
was examined as PW57, but he denied that A13 had approached hinr for getting
his building for rent. The prosecution has failed to prove that allegation
The fact that he had attended the meeting of pFl held at lnspection Bungalow,
this accused in the offence. I do not find any reason to fasten this accused withcriminal liability.339. There is an allegation that
as directed
A28 rendered
financial assistance to the accused who were absconding. pw75 who is the
Prosecutor that when the child of A12 was admitted in the hospital during that
period, A13 Shiyas and A24 Muhammadali went to the hospital and paid someamount to her. There is absolutely no evidence to prove that A13 or A24 hadrendered financial assistance to the family members of A12 who was involvedin the offence.
340. The alleged role of A14 Siyad is that he took part in'the conspiracyheld at Seemas Auditorium on 28.3.2010, arranged a meeting of some accused
including A28, A29 and A32 at the house of PW36 Raihanath and purchased SIM
No.KL-8/A8.5597 for the escape of A28 and conducted police station march to
firO of ldea from the possession of A14. Ext.P496 is the arrest memo
house ofA14.
341. PW36 Raihanath and her husband shihab who was examlned
pw153 denied the prosecution case that a meeting of A28, A29 and A32 washeld at their house at Mannam. These witnesses were declared hostile to theprosecution. The learned Public Prosecutor marked some contradictions through
this witnesses as Exts.P27 and P171. Any way there is no evidence to suggestthat a meeting of some accused was held at the residence of PW36'342. According to the prosecution, A14 Siyad was using the phone obtained
in the name of PW63 Adam. PW63 who is a close relative of AL4 admitted that
the said SIM card was given to A14. He was declared hostile to the prosecution
SIM card through PW29O Shihabudeen. PW290 has admitted that he had aVodafone mobile phone connection, but he denied the suggestion put forwardby the learned Public Prosecutor that the said SIM card obtained from Vodafone,
was given to A14. Though the prosecution has contended that A14
obtained another SIM card through Cw276 Vahishad, they could not adduce any
ne shoo at Paravur denied that he had sold a mobile phone to Vahishad and
issued b.sash bill in the name of one Manoj. These witnesses were declared!pWOZ wfroslM cards stated that one Vahishad hadwho was a dealer of SIMhostile. pw6z
purchased a SIM card from his shop. This witness identified^,Ext.P59ithe copy of
the CAF and Ext.P60, the copy of the lD proof submitted by Vahishad in his shop
for getting the SIM card. He added that the number issued to Vahishad as perthis application was 9946617247. From the evidence of PW67 it is explicit thatVahishad had purchased a SIM card from his shop. But the prosecution couldnot adduce any evidence to show that the said SIM card was given by Vahishad
to A14. PW62, who is the mother of Vahishad denied that a 5lM card was given
by her son to A1-4. So also there is absolutely no evidence to prove that A14had arranged a meeting of A28, A29 and A32 at the house of Raihanath orarranged two mobile phones through PW290 and CW276 and gave it to A28.343. When examined PW71 Suhara denied that her son Hansal took their
carfrom her house on 4.7.2010 and gave it to Siyad. PWI-52 Hansal also denied
the said prosecution case. There is no evidence to show that A14 Siyad hadprovided a car to A14 to transport A2B.344. Admittedly Ext. c7 is the cAF and c7(a) is the copy of the lD submitted
by A15 Dr. Reneef. These documents were marked through Pw264. As per his
that phone number issued in the name of A15. lt would prove that he used tocontact in the number of 416, A17, A19, A28, A32 and A34 Anwar sadique. Atthe time of examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. this accused stated that wifeand mother of Anwar Sadique and father of A17 Kamarudheen were his patientsand they used to call in his clinic in the above number. lt may be true. Even if itis assumed that A34 and A28 had occasion to contact this accused on that day,
,had participated in any of the conspiracy held before 4.7.20L0. His role startsJ
only after the incident, when A2B requested his service for the treatment of A1and A5. Prosecution case is that on 4.7.2010 at B:39:10 am A28 contacted this
accused through the phone of A17. The call duration was 15 seconds. At8:39:50 am there was an outgoing call from the mobile phone of this accused to
the above said phone of 42B. There is no other call between these numbers on
It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused that in the Parliamentattack case (State (N.C.T. of Delhi v. Navjot Sandhu
the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thatfrequent calls by one of the prime accused
with other accused before, during and after the attack cannot be taken as aground to convict that person. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said
had noted the conduct of accused Gilani who had responded to the informationabout the attack on parliament with a loud laugher and held that it is natural
that there will be contacts between the members of the same group when
untoward incident takes place. In the said case there was evidence to provewere contemooraneous calls between Gilani and two others who,,j
were.lqu'Qdlguilty. Further it was proved in the said case that Gilani pointed out.
.i ' .1 ',ar
",. :tf'p house,.ot,pne convicted person. The Hon'blp Supreme Court has considered
all those aspects and held that his conduct which is evident from the facts and
from the untruthful pleas raised by him about his contacts with shaukat andAfzal, give rise to serious suspicion at least about his knowledge of the incident
and its tacit approval of it. At the same time, suspicion however strong cannot
take the place of legal proof. lt was observed by the Hon'ble supreme courtthat though his conduct was not above board, the court cannot condemn him inthe absence of sufficient evidence pointing unmistakably to his guilt. Therefore,
immediately after the incident it cannot be said that the latter was aware of theentire conspiracy. lf a person after committing an offence contacts another andmaking request to do some favour, it cannot be said that the latter was awareabout the offence committed and that it was committed with the concurrence of
the latter. lt is to be noted that A15 has explained the calls received from themobile numbers of A34 and A17. Even
regarding those phone calls are not true, court cannot found him guilty on thatsole basis. In the Gilani's case it was proved that he was given false answers to
the question put to him during the examination under Section 313
Cr.P.C. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court had considered that aspect and observed that he gave
false answers probably in his over anxiety to wriggle out from the situation and
connect A16 with the offence or the conspiracy hatched by the other accused'
his name. Ext.C33 is the cAF submitted by A17 for getting Tata Tele servicesconnection and Ext.P630 and P630(a) are the copies of the cAF and lD proof
of phone numbers
number 9995377187. The CAF, copy of lD proof etc were marked as Ext.C3L,Ext.P683(a) and P686(a). This accused did not deny these numbers. According
Phone number
9995377!87 was used by his family members at his house. He added that the
other number 9037220794 was used by his father. lt is very pertinent to notethat the prosecution has no case that this accused took part in any ofthe overtact or in the alleged meeting held at various places. The only allegation against
the accused is that he gave the SIM card of phone number 9037220794 to A2B
for the purpose of commission of the offence and thus helped the accused.Ext.P6B3 CDR of this phone number 9037220794 would show several contacts
with the other accused who took part in the alleged conspiracy. The prosecutioncase is that those calls were made by A2B by using the phone number of A17.First of all there is no evidence to suggest that this SIM card was given to A28
and that A28 was using that number. There is absolutely no evidence to show
aJiLSeO is an active member of PFI and that he had contacts with A8, A32, A34
A2B. Even
possession of A28, court cannot enter in to a conclusion that this accused had
committing an offence.348. The defence has put forward a contention that AL7 and A27 were
taken into custody on 4.7.2010 and they were under illegal detention till9.7.20L0. He raised the same allegation regarding the arrest of other accusedalso. According to the defence counsel, the close relatives of A17 and A27 filed
search warrant to find out those accused who were in illegat detention. Thelearned Magistrate appointed an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the police
Accordingly the Advocate Commissioner had inspected the said premises but hecould not find out those accused at that premises. The Advocate Commissioner
name and the report filed by him before the Magistrate's court and thosedocuments were marked as C57 and C58 respectively. According to this witness,
could not find out those two accused in that premises. This witness, toquestion
examination, stated that he had asked the Sub Inspector, Circle Inspector and
Deputy Superintendent of Police about the arrest of those two persons. But
clear from the evidence of this witness that he was not able to find out thei'
accused in the police station premises. Further he ha.d no case that the police
,i1,.,.^...l ,i n,
officials had stated that these two accused were arrested by them on that day
and 427 as per separate arrest memos and recovered mobile phones found to
Ext.PA74 and P475 and the inspection memo prepared by this witness weremarked as Ext.P80B and P809. The mobile phone recovered from these accused
were marked as MO.100 and MO.101. On that day itself he prepared Ext.P810report to incorporate the names of these two persons. I do not find reason todisbelieve the evidence of PW294 regarding the arrest of these two accused.
Merely because of the reason that the relatives of these two accused hadapproached the concerned Magistrate with a complaint,
the allegations raised by them in that complaint were true. lt is to be noted thatA9 and A10 were arrested on 4.7.20L0 itself and that matter was reported tothe court without any delay. They were produced before the Magistrate withoutany delay. That fact itself would show that the invedtigating officers had no such
intention to detain any of the persons who were taken into custody. On theother hand they promptly reported about the arrest of accused in court withoutany delay.
349. lt is alleged that A18 Fahad being member of terrorist gang rectified
the mistakes in the sketch prepared by 4L1 as directed by A8. Further thisaccused, as
movements of,,PW2. For that purpose he used the mobi[e phone number oftl.:i
Bishop's house they were followed by two persons on a motor bike. These two
examined witnesses to prove that A1B was the owner of a motor cycle bearingNo.KL.7E.7849 and
his father. PW250 Asharaf who is working in the police department was the
Paravur. According to PW250, on 8.10.2009 he sold the said motor cycle to ALg
and handed over the original documents with sale letter. This witness identified
that motor cycle, but denied that he had witnessed the production of the
motor cycle by lsmail, father of A18 Fahad before the Deputy Superintendent ofPolice. When examined as PW91, lsmail denied that he had produced the motor
his son Fahad before the investigating officer. These two witnesses
were declared hostile and some contradictions were marked as Ext.P162 andExt.Pg1 respectively. whatever may be the contention
regarding the seizure of that motor cycle by the police, there is evidence ofPW250, the original owner of that motor cycle that he had sold the same toA18. This evidence of PW250 on this point stands unchallenged.-
351. The learned counsel for the accused refuted the evidence tendered
by PW2'and PW3 and pointed out that they did not give any such statemeni to
a case that after the visit of the accused in the house of PW2 on 28.5.2010,Police Officers went
report in case of any suspicious act from any corner. Even then PW2 did nottake note of the registration number of the motor cycle nor did he inform thepolice about the incident. According to PW3, on the way to Bishop's house she
enquired about the reckless driving of PW2. At that time PW2 told her thatsomebody was following them. She added that on that day evening at 5 O'clock
a van came in front of their house, stopped there for a few minutes and then
left the place. The allegations of PW2 and PW3 regarding the incident werevery serious. Even then they did not inform the police who had advised them to
intimate police in case of such untoward incident. I do not know why PW2 orPW3 did not intimate the police about the incident. Further they did not mention
anything about the incident alleged to have been taken place on 2.7.2010 toany of the investigating officers, Omission to mention that incident amounts toa material contradiction. Therefore it is liable to be eschewed.
cycle and he saw them through the rear view mirror. lt is clear from his version
that they followed his car and never made any attempt to over take his vehicle.It is very difficult to believe that he could identify A18 who was riding the motorcycle and A37 who was the pillion rider. lf his version that they were following
him is true, there is no chance of seeing A37 who was sitting behind
examined PW19, the lmam of Anikkad Chirappady mosque and pW21 who isrunning a hotel at Anikkad. The prosecution case is that on that day A1 to 47had attended Juma Namaskar in that mosque and had food from the hotel ofPW21. But these witnesses did not support the prosecution. PW19 stated thathe did not remember as to whether A1 to A7 had attended the Juma Namaskaron that day. So also PW21 stated that he did not remember the presence of 41
to 47 on that day in his hotel. The prosecution has no case that these accusedwere known to PW21 or PW19 prior to the incident. Even if it is assumed thatthese accused had attended Juma Namaskar in that mosque on that day or hadfood from the hotel of PW19. there is no chance for these witnesses who had noacquaintance with the accused, to remember their faces. Both these witnesseswere declared hostile to the prosecution.
354. Another allegation against this accused is that he had rectified the
mistakes in the sketch prepared by A11 and handed over the same to A8.There is absolutely no evidence to prove the said contention. Therefore no-
,: :::'- 'r'*
S5q lt is alleged that A18 was using the phone nunrber obtained in the:
name cif one Christopher who was examined as PW306. He identified the CAF
\'-' 'r'li''-:(:i.i:.rr,!,,,
submitted by him for getting the phone number and it was rnarked as Ext.C59.
According to him, A18 Fahad joined in his office as an employee in May 2010.
During this period he had supplied the above SIM card to Fahad for officialpurpose. A18 Fahad left the job some where in the month of July 2010, but he
did not return the SIM card. Therefore he approached the service provider forgetting a duplicate SlM card. The defence did not challenge that Fahad wasworking under him as an employee. lt is clear from the versions of this witness
obtained that SIM card from him. That fact is proved by prosecution throughPW306. PW271 the Nodal Officer proved the CDR of the mobile phone number
356. Ext.P673
number used by A18 and the phone number of A37. There were four callsbetween these two numbers in the night of 1.7.2010. This document wouldprove that there were frequent calls between A18 and A37. But the prosecution
could not point out anything unusual regarding these calls made between A18and A37. Here the prosecution has failed to prove the allegations raised againstA18.
357. lt is pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor that the phone callsbetween A19 and A32 would prove the complicity of the former in the offence.Ext.P668 the CDR of phone number allotted to A32 would show that in between
lt is very
perlin'ent".io note that A19 had no mobile phone connection in his own name.phone pumber obtained in thet
name of his father. Ext.P577 and Ext. P57B are the Certificates issued by BSNL,
Ernakulam in the name of Aliyar, father of A1.9. As per these documents thephone numbers allotted to Aliyar were 9447623404 and 9446334404. At the
time of arrest, PW295 recovered mobile phone (Mo172), two slM cards (Mo173and 181) from
it could be
inferred that A19 was using the mobile phone number 94476234o4. Ext.p668CDR would prove the contention that
is not sufficient to prove that A19 took part in the conspiracy to attack PW2 or
that he had provided safe hideout to A12 in his building at Vyttila. I cannotignore the fact that the said house was not in the absolute possession of A19. ltwas in the joint possession of 4L9 and PW58. The fact that A12 took PW295 to
Vyttila and pointed out the house which was in the joint possession of A19 andPW58, is
419.358. According to the Prosecution, A12 was earmarked by 428 and 32 as a
dummy accused with a view to conceal the involvement of the assailants and
the conspirators before the investigating officers. I cannot accept the saidcontention. The Prosecution has a definite case that A12 had directly involvedin the conspiracy and that he was deputed by A8 and A28 to purchase
from PW144. The Prosecution was able to orove the contention that A12 hadpurchased MO.2 for the sole purpose of committing the offence. Nobody could
conspirators and the actual assailants and about the entire incidents was,r,t.i,": ," : .--
359. lt is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that A19, who wasdeputed by the conspirators to render financial aid to absconding accused went
accused Shanavas (not charge sheeted). PW54 and PW55 denied that theyaccompanied A19 to Hyderabad.
A19 was taken into police custody from a train, during his journey fromHyderabad to Kerala. That evidence is not sufficient to prove that this accused
360. The role of A20 Anas, according to the prosecution is that he took
part in the conspiracy held at Seemas auditorium and then, after the incidenthatched conspiracy with A13 and A28 at his own house and harboured A13 inhis house. Further he had conducted protest march to police station against the
arrest of A9 and A10 with a view to deviate the investigation. PW3B AbdulKhader who is the father of 420 denied that on 4.7.2010 a meeting of A20 with
A13 and some other accused was held at his house. PW37 Khader also denied
participated in the protest march and meetings held in connection with thearrest of A9 and A10. They were declared hostile.361. PW188 the Sub Inspector of Perumbavoor police station deposed that
violatinq the
-oider of.the Hon'ble High Court. In connection with the said march he registered
. .a.Caqea caqF trinu tl-re Perumbavoor police station as crime,No.666/2010 against A20 and,a.caqel' .-it',i
some others for participating in the march. certified copy of the FIR was marked
as Ext.P322. Ext.P323 is the report filed by him to add section 353 tpc in the
said crime.
evidence of pwlg8
regarding the participation of A20 in the police station march. But there
nothing on record to suggest that the said march was conducted with a view to
Cellular Ltd. and it was marked as Ext.P693. Ext.C5L is the CAF and C5L(a) is
the lD proof. These documents are not disputed by the accused. From the
it could be seen that A20 had contacted 41 and AB on one occasion. The call toA1 was made on 20.6.2010 and the call with A8 was on 24.6.20'J.0. So also itcould
be seen that he had several calls with A5. A7 and A32. But the
prosecution also has no case that he took part in any of the conspiracy except
is a leader of
to the Block
contention of the learned counsel for the accused that being a local leader of a
political party A20 used to contact A32, the District President of PFI and otherleaders and members who were working for the party. The said contention-. "jll
363. Ext.P135, the pointing out mahazar prepared at the instance of A13,would only prove that he knows the house of A20. That is not sufficient to prove
that a meeting was held in the said house on 4.7.2010.lt is true that there aresome self incriminating statements in Ext.PL35 mahazar, alleged to have been
given by A13. That portion is not admissible in evidence. Court need not reject
the entire document on the ground that a portion in that statement is notadmissible in evidence. Evenhouse of A2O,
if it is assumed that
house as
lt is alleged that A2L K.M.Ali and A22 Rasheed took part in the
they were deputed to shift the vehicles used for committing the offence and todestroy the weapons. Also, A21 Ali had participated in the meeting hetd atSeemas auditorium, Perumbavoor. PW294, the Circle Inspector of Muvattupuzhahas stated about the arrest of these two accused. Ext.P455 is the arrest memo
and Ext.P835 inspection memo prepared by him at the time of arrest of A21.Ext.P472 and Ext.P842 are the arrest memo and inspection memo related toA22, The evidence of PW294 regarding the arrest of these accused is supportei.
by'PW203, PW206 and PW209, the police officials who were assisting PW294 in
investigation. i
lotted to A21. Ext.p669 is the cDR. From the evidence of pw27L and from
it could be seen that the accused had contacted A32 and 41 on one
ortwo occasions. He used to contactA4, Ag, AL2, AL3, A24 and A29. But it isvery pertinent to note that the prosecution could not point out any callsbetween these numbers on the date of incident or on the other three dayswhen the assailants went to the house of pW2.
number issued to him. Ext.p700 is the cDR. The cDR would show that he hadcalls with 41, 44, A8, A!2, A13 and A24. The evidence of pw279 wourd show
that there was one call each between this number of A22 and the number of Ag
substantiate the contention that this accused took part in the conspiracy.Ext.P192(a) the application form submitted by this accused would prove that hewas a party member. But these facts are not sufficient to prove his invotvementin the conspiracy._, :,..j.:r.,-.
,:(',: 368'..'lF 'puointed out by the learned counser for the accused frequent'''
' .r-' :) i: irli'1thattliei,.todkr'.r',':.1.'
ai.; ,
"i'o..-.. -"
other link to connect A21 and A22 to prove that they took part in theconspiracy. Merely because of the reason that they had contacted some of theaccused over phone, court cannot enter into a conclusion that they also took
part in the conspiracy. In short there is no evidence to prove that A21 and A22took part in the conspiracy and facilitated the commission of the crime.369. The prosecution case is that A23 Mahinkutty was deputed to destroy
gvidence after the attack on PW2 and on the basis of this direction he
with an intention to deviate the investigation. PW206 and PW209 two policeofficials stated that they had witnessed the arrest of this accused by PW294.Ext.P494 is the arrest memo and Ext.P824 is the inspection memo prepared byPW294. Ext.PB44 is the report filed by the police to add the names cf A20 and
together in an auto rickshaw along with another accused. But PW100 who is anauto rickshaw driver residing near the house of A23 denied such an incident.There is no evidence to prove that these two accused conspired along withanother for committing the offence.371. The attempt of the prosecution was to prove that A23 was using the
{hqre is no evidence to suggest that A23 Mahinkutty was using the SIM
'' ,lt t'. . card'numberissued to Samad.
'' - - ---j
the family of A12 who was absconding. In addition to this, this accused hadparticipated in the protest marches conducted on 4.7.2010 and 5.7.2010. Hewas arrested by PW294.
373. lt is admitted that this accused is also a member of pFl. Even if thisaccused had participated in the protest march, on that ground alone I cannot
enter into a conclusion that he took part in the conspiracy and provided aid to
the assailants. The prosecution could not adduce any evidence that
accused had provided financial help to the family members of A12 or any otheraccused.
374. Ext.Cl is the original CAF and Ext. C1(a) is the copy of the lD of A24.
section 65B of the Evidence Act. Therefore these documents would not help theprosecution to prove the contacts of this accused.
375. The prosecution has proved that A25 Abdul Latheef took A8 andanother to flat No.7B, Daffodils at rhrlssur and provided safe hide out to thoseaccused in the said flat. I have already discussed that point. lt is argued by the
learned Public Prosecutor that this accused was using mobile number9447798692, which was obtained by his father Muhammad. There is absolutelyno evidence to prove the same. Further the cDR of the said number is not seen
produced. The fact that this number of Muhammad was saved in the mobil-ephones of some accused, as Latheef or Latheef aluva, is rtot sufficient to prove
to his wife's
house at Edayur and then shifted that accused to the house of one ZakkeerHussain (not charge sheeted) in his car bearing No.KL-1"0/M.8044.
lt is already
found that there is no evidence to suggest that A8 was brought to that house ofPW28 by 426.
377. PW22B the Sub Inspector of Police, Valancherry spoke that he, on26.7.2OI0 found car bearing No.KL-lo/M.8044, in front of the shop of A26 atValancherry and brought the same to the police station. On the basis of theinformation given by him PW294 came to the police station and shifted the car
pw2og, two police officials who had signed in Ext.P457 seizure mahazar.whereas the evidence of PW259 Subash Babu, Joint RTo, Tirur and Ext.P613,
particulars of the said car would show that the said car was transferred to thename of Abdul Rahiman with effect from 15.10.2010. whatever may be theprosecution case with regard to the ownership of car bearing No.KL-10/M.8044,
there is no evidence to show that 426 had shifted A8 to various places in this
37g. The role of A27, as alleged ity the proseclition i:, ihirl- 11r, !rr ilursuantir,lproof and handed over theof the consptracy arranged slM card by using fake lD
of thissame to A2B to facilitate the crime. The details regarding the arrestillegalaccused and the arguments of the counsel for the accused regarding
detentionhavebeendiscussedwhiledea|ingwiththearrestofAlT.PW294statedthatherecoveredMo.l.o].mobi|ephonefromthepossessionofA2T.AccordingtotheprosecutionduringthatperiodA2Twasusingmobi|ephoneproducednumber go372g4544. The cDR of the said mobile phone number was
byPW2T2andmarkedasExt'P6S4.Atthetimeofcrossexaminationthisissuedwitness has admitted that it was the cDR relating to the phone number
to one shafeek A.A. s/o Latheef. There is no document to prove that A27 wasusing that mobile phone number. But I cannot reject the evidence of PW294'which is supported by two other police officials that the said SlM card waswouldseized from A27 Shajeer along with Mo'101 mobile phone. That fact itself
3Tg.Accordingtotheprosecution,on3.T.2olothisaccusedpurchasedaslM card from the shop of PW177 by using the lD proof of PW168 Selvaraj'pw16g who is a native of Kadalur district in Tamil Nadu stated that he had nooccasion to visit Kerala or to purchase SIM card from Kochi. Ext.P284 is the copy
of his passport (one sheet only) obtained by the prosecution from the mobilephone service provider. According to the prosecution, that was the copy of the
IDproofproduceda|ongwiththeapp|icationformsubmittedbytheapp|icant-," ,.,getting slM card. Exts.P285 and P286 are the cAFs filed in his name for_ -.pW168 identified Ext.P284 copy of the passport but deniedo.ilino-. r\- connection.
t ,h"Jignatures in Ext.P285 and P286 CAFs which.contain his phgto. His definiteii.i/'
occasion to hand o'r'er a copy of his passport and 20 photos to his employer for
getting Visa. According to him, among the employees in the shop eight personswere from Kerala State. He has specifically stated that he went abroad on15.5.2009 and returned to this country on 23.11.2010 only. He asserted that he
had no occasion to visit Kerala during 2010. The evidence tendered by thiswitness need not be disbelieved. I am satisfied that the evidence tendered by
this independent witness who is hailing from Tamil Nadu that he had
380. PW177 is the owner of 'Surya photostat', from where SIM cards in thename of PW168 were sold. This witness identified A27 Shajeer as the personwho had submitted that application form for purchasing SIM card. During 2010
the service providers were selling SIM cards through retailers. He was a dealerof SIM cards of all the service providers. During that period the procedure forselling the SIM card was not so strict. On getting the application the dealer has
to intimate the distributer about the number given to the customer. On getting
that intimation the distributor will keep the number alive and pass intimationthrough their net work. Then the retailer has to put the SIM card in the mobilephone provided by the company and to send a service message to a number
'111'. lmmediately the new SIM card will get activated. That was the procedure
for selling SIM cards. The retailer has to record the details of the sale andactivation in the tracker register. This witness stated that as per the direction of,''
,/ . '".i.- ..'
the ile.rigd 2010. lt was seized by the officials as per a seizure mahazar. That
'.''.'.I .i:15eizure r-nahazar and the.-tracker register were marked through this .witness
;! r: '\.
identified Ext.P285 and stated that she had seen the original of the saidapplication form. According to her, on 3.7.2010 at around L2 noon a person,whom she identified in court as A27 came to the shop for purchasing SIM cardand produced a photo and lD proof of another one. She returned that photo and
lD proof to that person along with the cAF and requested him to fill up thecolumns in the CAF and to sign in that application form. A27 returned the same
after putting his signature and asked her to flll up the columns. On the basis ofthe information given by A27 she filled up the columns. Thereupon PW177 tooknecessary steps to get the connection activated. she identified Ext.P284, copyof the lD proof submitt ed by
she did not see this accused signing the CAF. She stated that after getting theCAF A27 moved
from her version that the signed CAF was given to her by A27. This witness alsosubmitted that during that period the retailers were not so strict. She identifiedMO.38 mobile phone supplied by Vodafone for activating the SIM card andExt.P304 the tracker register of that company' PW179 is also an employee of
PWI77. This witness identified the relevant entry made by her in Ext.P304tracker register with regard to the sale of SIM card in the name of Selvaraj and
that entry was marked as Ext.P304(a). This witness also identifled Mo.38 mobilephone which was used for sending messages to the company for the purpose of
ng SIM cards. According to her, the number allotted as per the said CAF5631249.. The evidence
mobile phone number 9645631249 was sold from their shop on 3.7.2010.PWL77 and PW178 identified A27 to be the person who had purchased the said
SIM card.
the subject matter of this case. They are total strangers to the victim and otherwitnesses related to the incident. I do not find any reason for these independent
Paulose that he came to the court to give evidence along with an accused and
chance for an independent witness to give false evidence against the accused.
Here Pws 777 to 179 have narrated their case in specific terms. The defencecould not challenge the credibility of these witnesses inspite of searching crossexamination. On the other hand the evidence of these two witnesses who are
not in any way connected with the incident, regarding the purchase of a mobilephone from their shop by A27, inspire confidence.
'" ,.eyidence
':,' t.
Singh's case (supra)). l.am convinced from the evidence of these two
number 9645631249 and that CDR was marked as Ext.P671. Ext.P671(a) and(b) are the covering letter and the relevant certificate. The original CAF and thephotocopy of the passport submitted by the subscriber for getting that mobilephone connection were produced by this witness as per summons and that CAFand the copy of the passport were marked as Exts.C22 and C22(a)'384. Along with Ext.P671 CDR, PW271 produced the CDR of phone number
9946055745. That connection is also seen issued in the name of PW168. ThatCDR was marked as Ext.P672. Exts.P286 and P287 are the copy of the CAF and
lD proof relating to that phone number. PW271 has stated that he could notproduce the original CAF and the copy of the lD produced by the person who
had applied for getting phone number 9946055745, which was allotted in the
and stated that he did not file any such application. There is nothing todisbelieve the evidence tendered by this witness. The prosecution was able to
prove that out of the two mobile phone connections issued in the name ofPW168, one connection was obtained by A27.,*
. coulci'not tiradb out the person who had filed Ext.P286 CAF in the name of. t,:'.1.i::r.. i,' i\,.PW168.. ii". ;\/
name of selvaraj. The calls made between these two numbers issued in thename of selvaraj would support the prosecution case that those persons whohad obtained those slM cards were known to each other. The contacts between
these two numbers would prove the same. lt is for Az7 to explain these callswhich were made from the slM card purchased by him from the shop of pwl-77on 3.7.2010. He has no explanation. In Neel Kumar's case (supra) it was held
circumstance proved
against him while making a statement under section 313 cr.p.c. lt was further
held that keeping silent and not furnishing any explanation for
say that he had no connection with that number. The calls made between the
two numbers allotted in the name of selvaraj who was working abroad duringthe said period is a strong circumstance against A27. The facts proved by theprosecution would show that A27 knew the other person who had used theother mobile number issued in the name of pW168.
386. On 4.7.201,0 there were calls from the phone number 9645631249,which was proved to be purchased by A27 with phone numbers 9746g55290
and 9744528638. The prosecution could not find out the details of thebers of those phone numbers, 9746855290 and 9744528638. This fact
the location of each tower of the said company' As per Ext.C16, on 4.7.2010 at6.16 am, the said phone number 964563!249 was within the limits of cell lD
Muvattupuzha, Anikkad.
Muvattupuzha bus stand location (Cell lD No.L4453) between 6.37 am and 7.21
am. At 7.34 am this phone was at Randaar (Cell lD No.15043). These placessituate very near to the place of incident. A27 who had purchased the phonenumber has no explanation as to how the said phone number had been there in
the said places at the relevant time. Whereas the prosecution has got a definitecase that the said phone number was being used by A28 for supervising the
attack on PW2. So also Ext.P672 CDR and the evidence of PW271 would prove
it was at Muvattupuzha
bus stand
point is that the activities from these two phone numbers were stopped
4.7.201A itself. As per Ext.P671 the last call was at 8:11:23 am and thereafterwas no activity in the phone. Thereafter that SIM card was not used. SoExt.P672 of phone number 9946055745 would show that the last activity
would show that there were four calls from that phone number 9946055745 tophone numbers 9744528638 and 9746855290. The data in Ext.P671 also would
show that from the phone number 9645631249 there was one call with9744528638 and two calls with 9746855290 on 4.7,20L0. In short it could be
seen that on 4.7.2010, both the phone numbers obtained in the name ofSelvaraj were found to be in use at Muvattupuzha and suburbs. Further therewere calls from both these numbers to same phone numbers obtained by using
fake lDs. lt is for A27 to explain the purpose of the phone calls made from9645637249, the number obtained by him. As pointed out above he has no
name of Shafeek and seized from A27) and the mobile numbers of A2, 47, A8,A16, A17, A1.8. A29, A31 and A34. PW272 the Nodal Officer of Tata Tele services
deposed about the calls from that phone number with phone numbers9946406099 and 9567712600. There is evidence to show that on 2.7.2010
there were two calls between the number seized from Shajeer and phonenumber 9567712600. which is in the name of A29 Kasim and on 3.7.2010 there
arranged a SIM card by using the copy of the passport of PW168 and handed
A27 in
facilitators, along with the other SIM card obtained in the name of Selvaraj.Here the prosecution was able to connect that link against A27. ThenA27
it is for
to explain the circumstances found against him. This accused did not give
any explanation about these factors, but simply denied the prosecution case.
am satisfied that the prosecution was able to connect all the links in the chain
of circumstances against A27 Shajeer. The first and formost is the purchase ofslM card from the shop of PW177 by using the copy of the passport of PW168,ii) another slM card was purchased on the same day by somebody by using thecopy of the passport of PWI-68, iii) both these slM cards were purchased on the
previous day of incident, iv) on 4.7.2010, at the time of incident both thesephone numbers were found to be at Muvattupuzha and surroundings, v) callsmade between these two numbers issued in the name of PW168 vi) calls from
the two mobile numbers in the name of PW168 to same numbers, within a shortperiod between 6 am and
numbers after the incident, viii) no explanation from A27 and ix) contacts with
other accused whose involvement have been proved particularly the calls withA29 on 2.7.20LO and 3.7.2010. These facts would prove that these two slM
cards were purchased for the sole purpose of facilitating the crime. Thesecircumstances pointed out by the prosecution would prove the involvement ofA27 in the conspiracy. In this case lcannot simplify the matters by saying that
,this.acused might have knowledge about the attack and there is no evidencehe took part in the conspiracy. This argument will not sustain. t ari
390. Ext. P623 is the copy of the cAF and Ext.p623(a) is the copy of the
produced by A29 for getting Airtel mobile connection. pw264, in reply to thesummons issued to him to produce the original cAF, filed affidavit to the effect
that the original is not available. A29 has disputed the case of
regarding the purchase of slM card. He stated that he did not have any sucnmobile phone number. But in Ext. p453 and p754, lists of the Freedom paradeorganizing committee members, Aluva, name of Kasim is seen printed along
with number 9567712600, the number allotted to Kasim as per Ext. p623.Further it could be seen that this number was saved in the name of Kasim in the
mobile phone seized from A2 Jamal and in Mo.107 slM alleged have been used
391. Frequent calls between friends and party members alone is notsufficient to prove conspiracy. But here the prosecution was able to point outsome suspicious calls from the phone number of A29. pw264 spoke that in
between 25.3.2010 and 3.7.2010 there were 74 calls with phone number9048686611 (phone number of A28, proved through pW2B8 Sainaba). On3.7.2010 there were L3 calls between these two numbers, and the last callbetween these two numbers was at 22:59:00 hours. A29 had contacts with the
other phone numbers of A28. He has no explanation regarding these calls with
last call from the phone number of A29 was on 4.7.2OIO at 9 am.'l;is.that-the.!:.- 'i:r:.,,.: ..t:-
Thereafter the said phone number was not used. He has no explanation for thesame. I have already found that this accused had made fake number plates for
using in Mo.2 omni van. This fact, coupled with the suspicious calls made by
this accused with the other accused would prove that this accused also tookpart in the conspiracy.392. The allegation against A32 who was the District President of PFI is
that he had published notices, pamphlets etc. and declared the stand of
PFI on
the question paper issue to its members, participated in the conspiracy alongwith other accused and being a member of the tenorist gang attended the
conspiracy hatched
Muvattupuzha monitored
M.K.Nazar. recruited members for the crime, decided to purchase an omni van
and to provide funds. Further this accused had hatched conspiracy at the house
of PW157 Ansari at Kakkanad and then attended the meeting held at the house
of PW36 Raihanath so as to provide safe hide outs to the accused. These arethe allegations against A32.393. The prosecution was not able to adduce any evidence to prove that
this accused had recruited members from the cadre to execute the plan toattack PW2, that he had provided money for making arrangements for theattack and that he took part in the conspiracy meetings. lt is alleged that thisaccused had attended the meeting held at Seemas Auditorium, Perumbavoor
party workers who had attended those meetings disassociated from others andhatched conspiracy.
394. Pw245, a constabre attached to NrA, Kochi unit spoke about the
attempt made by A32 to commit suicide from the lock up. In connection withthe said incident Pw245 has filed a report in the south police station. on thebasis of the said report PW252 shamsudhin, the sub Inspector of police, Town
certified copy of the report filed by pw245 and Ext.p6o6 is the certified copy ofthe FlR. Pw252 added that he had completed the investigation in the said case
and laid charge against A32 in the court of the Additional chief JudicialMagistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam. pW254, who was working asCasuality Medical Officer
brought by the officials of NIA with a history of alleged fall in bathroom and
following injuries:Lacerated wound at the junction of anterior 1/3rd and posterior 2l3rd of tongue
5xLx1cms.Suicidal cuts, both wrists multiole 5 x 0.1 cms.He was admitted in the hospital. Ext.P608 is the wound certificate. This witness
opined that the injuries could be self inflicted injuries. Any way these mattersare not relevant for consideration in this case.
395. PW303 the Deputy Superintendent of Police, NIA deposed about thearfqst of A32. According to him, on 4.1-0.2012 he got the custody of A32 Manaf,
who had surrenddred before this court. Thereupon he questibrled that accused
Raihanath and the house ofA20 Anas as led by A32 and prepared Ext.P890 and
had inspected
those premises as shown by A32, it would not prove that he hatched conspiracyalong with some others from the said premises. As discussed above, there is noevidence to show that this accused had participated in any of the conspiracy
prosecution that he had attended the conspiracy held at the houses of PW36
and A20 also cannot be accepted as there is no evidence to prove the same.
The fact that his phone number was found at cell lD location No.13841(Mannam) on 4,7.2010 between 10.47 am and L2.46 pm is also not sufficient to
conspiracy meetings held at those houses after the attack on PW2, court cannot
enter into a conclusion that this accused also had an intention to attack PW2 or.
That documeni
the said number was deactivated from the system on 12.12.201'0. He deposeo
that after one year from the date of deactivation the details will be removeofrom the archives. He spoke that the original application and the documents willbe kept for a period of one year only. All those documents will be removed after
one year from the date of deactivation. A32 has denied the phone numberissued in his name. lt is true that the photo of the applicant in the copy of theCAF has no resemblance with the photo in the copy of the driving licence which
was given as lD proof. But the address of this accused fumished by theprosecution and in the CAF are one and the same. The accused has no dispute
with regard to the address furnished by the prosecution in the final report.
also, copy of the driving licence of A32 is seen produced along with the saidCAF.
lt is true that the address given in the driving licence is different. pW156
Nadira who is the wife of this accused has admitted that a criminal case
pending against herself and this accused in the Palluruthy police station inconnection with the purchase of a SIM card in the name of another person. From
the CAF and the copy of the lD proof submitted in the company for gettingmobile phone connection I can very well find that the copy of the lD submittedalong with the CAF was that of A32. As per this application the above number9846722220 was allotted to him.
397. Ext.P71B and P777 are the listsof the district leaders of PFI with
oorca.gecollci (ruoeol4o(6)cro'",
containing the details of the office bearers of PFI and Ext.P729 series are the
Secretary, Ernakulam. Ext.P777 is the list of district leaders of PFI seized from
the house of Moitheen Kunju (not charge sheeted) by PW291 as per Ext.P549search list (certified copy). PW291 stated that the original search list has been
produced in another court. From the house of Moideen Kunju he had recovered
the seals of SDPI (MO.190 series), three file folders (MO.191 series), applicationforms (Exts.PlBQ series to Ext.P269 series), a diary, some publications and file
folders which were marked as Exts.P773 to P779. In Exts.P718 and P778, the
listsof the district leaders of PFl, A32 Manaf was shown as the President ofErnakulam district and one K.M.Sidheeque and K.A.Mansoor were shown as theSecretaries. ln those lists the phone number of A32 is shown as 9846722220.ln
to the genuineness of
Ext.P202(a) application
who was the President of SDPI, Muvattupuzha Mandalam. This document is notseen challenged by the accused. He was not cross examined by the Oetenc-e
398. Ext.P668, the cDR would show that on 28.3.2010 this mobile phonenumber was found in use at cell lD No.14191- Perumbavoor Pathipalam location.The attempt of the prosecution was to prove that he had attended the meeting
with regard to this fact that A32 had attended the meeting. According to theprosecution, he was the then District president
through PWL54 and PW32 the Manager of Seemas Auditorium that the hall wasbooked even prior to the question paper issue. lt is already found that there is
disassociated from the other members who had gathered there, sat togetherand hatched conspiracy. The fact that A32 had attended the said meeting would
not help the prosecution to prove that he had participated in the conspiracy.Ext.P668 would prove that this accused was at Kakkanad location on 3.7.2010
between 5.05 pm and 7.49 pm. But there is no evidence to show that
399. Ext.P668 would show that A32, during the period between 23.5.201"0
Ag. lt
pointed out that on 14.6.2010, the day before purchasing the omni van there"..was'.:c-all from the phone of this accused
:A:2 enU,:fa,
904868661-1 allotted
Ext. C18 is the CAF and 18(a) is the copy of the lD submitted by Nazar for
to A28. PW288 Sainaba identified the photograph of A28 Nazar who is the son
and Ext.P666 is the CDR of phone number 9048686611 issued in the name ofM.K.Nazar. Ext.P667 is the CDR of phone number 9846182913, issued in the
name of PW288 Sainaba who has stated that she had never used a mobile
phone. Ext.P666 would show that there were five calls between A32 andM.K.Nasar. The prosecution has got a definite case that A8, A12, A32 and A28
the offence and deputed A12 for that purpose. Though there were five callsbetween A32 and A28 on 14.6.2010, there is nothing to suggest that A28 hadcontacted A8 or A12 on that particular day. The definite case of the prosecutionis that A28 is an active member of PFl. There may be some calls between A32
and A28. The learned Public Prosecutor has pointed out that on 4.7.2010, thedate of incident there were several calls from the mobile numbers used by A28
to other accused who are involved in the crime. But he could not point out anycall to the number of A32 Manaf from the mobile phone numbers of A28. PW27Ihas stated that the last call between A32 and the phone number 9048686611
of A28 was on 30.6.2010. Thereafter there were no calls between those two
numbers.'The prosecution could not point out any call between A32 and A28, just before t$e incident or on the previous day. From the evidence of PW27l-
between A32 and A1 was on 26.5.2010. The last call between A32 and A3 was
on 21.6.2010. The Learned Public Prosecutor could point out only one
between A32 and 46, that was on 16.6.2010. From these phone calls I cannorsay that A32 had conspired with A28 or any other accused.
were calls between A32 and A8 upto 3.7.2010. lt cannot be said that those calls
were unusual. The calls noted in Ext.P666 are not sufficient to prove theinvolvement of this accused in the conspiracy. I cannot ignore the fact that the
prosecution did not allege any participative act against this accused inconnection with or in pursuance of the conspiracy. The mere fact that thisaccused had denied his phone number is not a ground
to draw an adverse
inference against him. In Gilani's case (supra) the Apex Court, while discussing
a similar point held that though the conduct of the accused was not aboveboard, the court cannot condemn him in the absence of sufficient evidencepointing unmistakably to his guilt. Therefore, even if it is assumed that some of
the accused contacted each other, immediately after the incident it cannot be
lf a person after
it cannot be said that the latter was aware about the offence committed
touch with the party members and the other office bearers of the said party.A-c.gording
those calls. His definite case is that the prosecution has deliberately suppressed"uid "nou'
to make
accused and conspirators only after the question paper issue. According to him,
with that intention to suppress evidence, the prosecution had obtained the CDR
from 25.3.2010 only. lf the CDR of the previous period is produced, it wouldshow that this accused had been in frequent touch with the other accused.
cannot reject this contention in toto. Ext.P668 would show frequent calls notonly with the accused but also with several others.
401. Ext.P668 the CDR would show that A32 had several calls with somewitnesses and some of the accused who are not charge sheeted. Prosecutionhas no case that the calls between this accused and the witnesses were made
as part of conspiracy. 5o also the calls between A32 and the accused who are
Prosecution could not so far collect evidence against those accused. As thePresident of the district committee of PFI A32, had to contact with the members
all over the district frequently. lt is not unusual. Therefore the calls made by A32
with the party members including the accused herein cannot be taken as acircumstance against this accused to prove the charge of conspiracy.402. According to the prosecution, after the incident A32 went abscondingand that itself can be taken as a link to connect the circumstances against this
accused with the conspiracy. PW159 and PWl.60, who were residing near thehouse of A32 identified the accused and stated that after the hand chopping
incident they did not see him in the said house. They added that after thatincident, the family members of Manaf had shifted from the said house. PW167Badarudheen who is working in
lt is clear
PWL60 that the family of A32 has been shifted from that place. So also the fact
that a witness had occasion to see an accused at a distant place on one or twooccasions, is not sufficient to prove that the accused was absconding.403. The circumstances pointed out by the prosecution against A32 were i)
his phone calls with the other accused, ii) he was absconding and iii) he, being
the President of
the phone calls of this accused would not help the prosecution. So also therenothing to prove that he was absconding. Even if
public call to Muslim youth to raise to the occasion and to build forts of defence
to protect their lslamic belief. According to the learned Public Prosecutor thesepublications would prove the motive of the accused who was the DistrictPresident of PFl. The pamphlets and notices circulated by PFI would show that
organization was very much aggrieved by the act of PW2. They conducted
protest march and convened meetings to protest against the act of PW2. InExt.P718 andP777 pamphlets Mansoor K (accused not charge sheeted) and one
Siddique were shown as District Secretaries of PFl. The prosecution has no case
that Siddique, one of the District Secretaries had involved in the crime. Theprosecution could not collect any evidence against the other Secretary Mansoor.
It is stillinvestigation stage. Almost all the accused were in frequent touc'h..i.in..\'-.--a'.i\with Mansoo'f. Merely because of the reason that PFI had published pamphlets, il,l
and noticei.'lit cannot.be..said that A32 who was the District Pfesident was,' .',|
behind the entire incident. Publication of pamphlets and notices by PFI cannotbe treated as a link to connect A32, the then President of PFI with the incident
405. At this juncture the allegations levelled by the prosecution against thePFI is also
have been seized from the house of some accused. All these publications are
seen made to propagate that the Muslims are facing challenges from otherreligions. The Prosecution mainly relies on Ext.Pl2l (Ext.P758) and Ext.P795,
leaflets issued by
and the Christian leadership. These leaflets were published to protest against
took it as an
lt is very pertinent to
that the prosecution could not collect any evidence against Mansoor, theSecretary
same time we cannot ignore the fact that all the accused whose complicityhave been proved are active workers of PFl. The prosecution has a definite case
that AB Younus Aliyar was the Muvattupuzha Division Convener of PFl. Onething is clear that some of the leaders were in constant touch with the accusedwhose involvement have been proved, but there is no evidence to accept thecontention of the prosecution that the entire attack was planned and eiecutei
Aliyar in the house of PW43 Afsath. The prosecution has a case that A34, as
member of the terrorist gang participated in the conspiracy to cause the death
connection and Ext.C21 (a) is the copy of the lD submitted by him along with
that application. These documents were produced and marked through PW274,the Alternate Nodal Officer of Vodafone. As per this application phone number9946406099 was allotted to A34. This accused, at the time of questioning underSection 313 of Cr.P.C. has admitted the said phone number.407. The CDR of that phone number was produced by PW271 and marked
as Ext.P670.
deposed that there were two calls between A34 and phone number9746026660 (admitted phone number of A15) on 4.7.2010, one at 10.35 amand the other at 10.39 am. On 4.7.2010 at 4.50 am there was
incoming call
law of A28) to the phone number of A34. lt is brought out through PW271 that
there were some calls between A34 and phone number 9048686611 (phonenumber of A28) on 2.7.20'J.0 and 3.7.2010.408. According to A34, it was the mobile phone number used in his house
by his family members including his mother and wife. But there is no evidence
members had frequent calls with the admitted numbers of A10, A14, Al-7 and
in the conspiracy. lt is to be noted that A34 has explained his phone calls with
Merely because of the reason that A28 had contacted this accuseo on
suspicion however
strong cannot take the place of legal proof. He has explanations for the phonecalls with A15. Even if it is assumed that he had some calls with other accused,
it will not be sufficient to fasten this accused with the liability of criminalconspiracy.
409. The allegation of the prosecution is that after the incident A19 and
the Indica car. PWLTL Joint RTO, Aluva identified the signature of hispredecessor in office, Shri.K.T.Ravindran in the RC particulars of vehicleNo.KL-09/R.7541
particulars would show that Sanooja was the owner of the said car. FurtherPWL70, in reply to the notice issued under Section 43F of the UA(p) Act by the
copy of the notice served on her by the NIA under Section 43F of the Act andExt.P290 is the reply submitted by her. In Ext.P290 this witness has admittel
denied that she sold the vehicle to one Badar Dareez. She was declared hostile
to the prosecution. A34 did not send any reply to the notice issued underSection 43F of the UA(P) Act nor did he produce the vehicle.
410. PW256 Badar Dareez deposed that he had purchased indica carbearing No.KL-09/R.754L from a dealer of used cars at Morayur in MalappuramDistrict. The original registration certificate was produced by PW303 along with
registration certificate, the receipt for remitting the fee for the transfer of the
vehicle, Form No.29 with carbon copy and Form No.30 were marked
Ext.P296, P786, P610 series and P611- respectively. Ext.P785 is the copy of theAadhar card of Badar Dareez. These documents would prove that the ownership
that on LL.2OL4, P256 Badar Dareez produced the said car before him, as per
the notice issued by him. He took the vehicle in to custody as per Ext.P783mahazar and got the vehicle examined by PW292, the Scientific Assistant.PW292 Mary Sherin who
investigating officer she collected samples from the seat and from the ceiling in
the cabin of the car and put it in four packets and handed over the same to theinvestigating officer who took those packets into custody as per Ext.P782mahazar. This witness also identified MO.37 car and stated that she too-k
four sealed packets, containing cotton gauze with light brown stains. Thoseitems were subjected to benzidine test. Blood was detected on item Nos.1 to
Ext.P781 is the report filed by him. Ext.P78L (a) is the covering letter sent byDirector to the court along with his report. The remnants of cotton gauze in the
by PW292. lt is
prosecution case that A31 took the injured accused No.L and 5 in the said car to
the house of 416 for providing treatment and during that journey to the houseof 416 that blood stains happened to be in the seat and other parts of the car.
from the car after about three and a half years. lt is very pertinent to note that
pw23o did not mention anything about the age of the dried blood stainsexamined by him. Even if
the said car by PW3o3 at the time of seizure of the said car, it is for
Badar Dareez to explain the same. lt is very pertinent to note that prosecution
did not get any explanation from PW256 how the blood stains happened to
there. There is no evdience to show that those dried blood stains were there in
the car even at the time of the purchase of the car by PW256' The best person
to say about the same was PW256. But the prosecution did not put any suchquestion to this witness with regard to the origin of the blood stains found in thecar. As stated above l find it difficult to believe that the blood stains taken fromwere
used for transporting the injured accused No.L and 5 by A1-9 or A31. Further
there is no evidence to show that A34 Anwar sadique had provided vehicle toA31 to take A1 and 45 to the house of A16 and thereby attempted to causedisappearance of evidence.
414. The prosecution was able to prove that A34 had provided safe hide
out to A8. But there is absolutely no evidence to show that A34 had previousknowledge about the attack on PW2. There is nothing to show that A34 hadcontacts with any of the other accused except A10, A14 and A17. Those calls
with A10, A14 and A17 were made before 8.6.2010 as part of conspiracy. The
fact that this accused had contacted A28 on 2.7.2OIO and 3.7.2010 is notsufficient to prove that he took part in the conspiracy to attack pW2. On theother hand there is evidence to prove that this accused had harboured A8 in thehouse of PW43.
415. Apart from the charge that A35 had harboured A2, 43 and A5 in
rented house
conspiracy to attack PW2. To prove the said contention the prosecution relies on
the CDR of this accused. PW276 Anil, Nodal Officer, Reliance produced theoriginal CAF submitted by A35 Niyas in his company and that CAF was marked
as Ext.CL3. The CDR of that phone number was marked through PW268
Ext.P637. PW268 spoke that there were several calls from this number tomobile number 9846722220 (the number of A32) and that the last call betweenthose two numbers was on 1.7.2070 at 17:24 hours. Further there were several
calls between his number and phone number 9288853217. According to the.,i '.on, it was the number of his brother Riyas (A36). Ext.C35 ahd C35(a)AF and the 6opy of the lD proof submitted by 436 RiyagPW273, the'i
Nodal Officer of Tata Tele Services proved these two documents. As per this
cAF, phone number 9288853217 was allotted to Riyas. Prosecution could notproduce the CDR of this number. I cannot say that the calls made between the
have already
discussed these facts in one of the above paragraphs. On going through the call
details of A35, I could find that this accused had no contact except A32 and
436. Even if it is assumed that A32 had instructed A35 to provide hide out forthe assailants, there is no evidence to show that this accused was aware of theconspiracy hatched by the other accused. The prosecution has no allegationthat 436 took part in the conspiracy.416. The allegation against A37 Noushad is that in pursuance of theconspiracy he helped 411 to prepare the sketch of the.locality where PW2 wasresiding, followed PW2 on his way
conspiracy meeting held at the house of PW157 Ansari at Kakkanad and acted
allegation is that he took part in the conspiracy held at house of PW157. TheCDR of phone number 9846007283 along with the copy of the CAF, copy of lD
proof and verification form were produced and marked through PW268,
Raja Varma, Nodal Officer of Reliance Communications. That CDR which was
calfs with phone number of A8, A15, A28, 43? and somg
other accused who were not charge sheeted. Further the prosecution
brought out through PW26B that there was no activity in his phone on 2J .2olobetween 0607:21 hours and 19:23:55 hours. On going through the CDR for theperiod between 25.3.2010 and 23.7.2010 it could be seen that this accused hadseveral calls with several persons, including some of the accused. Admittedlyhe is an active member of PFl. There is every chance for the party members to
contact each other. There is nothing suspicious in those calls. The prosecutioncould not pin point a particular call to suggest that he hatched conspiracy with
the other accused over phone. Merely because of the reason that some callshave been made between this accused and some other accused in this case.
4L7. Another point raised by the prosecution is that A37 was abscondingand he was staying in a hide out at
tailoring machine repairing unit. Admittedly pwi-51 Juki Ameer was running arepairing unit in a building owned by Maunathul lslam sabha. This witnessdenied that he had provided job and accommodation to A37. He identified his
admitted that he is running a tea shop in the building owned by the sameSabha, adjacent to the tailoring machine repairing unit of pW151. This witness
stated that police had brought an accused to the tailoring machine repairingunit for the purpose of investigation. He identified the said person as A37 anl
Clerk in the Revenue Divisional Office, Tirur stated that on 31.10.2012 he went
said office. A37 was also present in that office. On the basis of the statementgiven by A37 they proceeded to a house near Chitrasagar theatre at Tirur, fromwhere A37 showed a house to PW303. Thereupon A37 took a key, which waskept on the wall of the bathroom and opened the door. From the said buildingPW303 recovered one bag and two plastic kits containing mobile phones, SIM
letter signed by the patient, his father's name is noted as Beeran. According tohim, that patient was admitted in the hospital on 30.12.2011 and discharged on
419. Ext.P168
A37 at the time of his arrest. This is one of the circumstances to prove theconnection of this accused with PW151 who was running a repairing unit at
tiijl': ''
Pw227 has specifically stated that A37 was staying in the repair:.i1. .:...l,,,"'"r.'.'ifrid.rtlhnerl.'i',' ..t j uhit ot PWl51 at Tirur in the name Faizal. PW303 ptovgd the seizure of:, .]
Ext.P272, the driving licence of A37, the prescription and discharge certificaie
lt is brought
(Exts.P273 and P274) from the said room as pointed out by A37.
Hospital, Perinthalmanna in the name Faisal. PW182, the Village Officer, Aroor inErnakulam district stated
conducted enquiry and found that there was no such person or address in thesaid village. Ext.P308 is the certificate issued by
fictitious name Faisal. I am satisfied that A37 was absconding and staying atTirur in a fictitious name.
420. Now the question is whether that evidence is sufficient to prove thatthis accused also took part in the conspiracy
to Bishop's
House is not
believable. The prosecution could not point out any suspicious call between this
accused and the conspirators. So also there is no evidence to prove that thisaccused had attended the conspiracy meeting alleged to have been held at thehouse of PW157 Ansari. Ext.P635 CDR would show that at 4.41 pm his phone
was found at Marthanda Varma Bridge, Aluva. At 20.16 pm that phone was
was found
Nobody has a case that these places situate near Kakkanad, where the meeting
,*:i.rpasi[eld. Similarly the fact that this accused had pointed out a place near the
.'. ,: r.{.._..' ..gr the cdnspiracy. At the most it cguld be infeEed that he knows such a place. tt
cannot be held that this accused, as a member of the pilot team, remained near
to the Village office, Marady and informed the others about the movements ofpolice. The evidence adduced by the prosecution regarding the pointing outmahazar is a weak link in the chain of circumstances. I cannot enter into aconclusion against the accused on the sole basis of the fact that after the
incident he was absconding. The learned counsel for the accused submitted
it might
the reason for keeping away from their residences. According to him, the courtshould consider those facts also. I cannot rule out the said contention raised by
the learned Public Prosecutor. There is no other link to enter into a conclusionthat this accused also took part in the conspiracy.421. On an appreciation of the entire evidence I find that Call Data ofA10, A1L, A13, A15 to A17, A20 to A22, 424, 432, 434, A35 and A37 are notsufficient
prove that these accused also took part in the conspiracy with the
other accused whose involvement in the crime have been proved. On the basis
of the telephone calls made between these accused and the other accused,
cannot enter into a conclusion that they were aware of the attack and they also
took part in the conspiracy. There had been several calls between some ofthese accused and some other accused whose involvement in the overt act hasbeen proved. But there is no iota of evidence against these accused about their
the chain of events against that accused and enter into a finding that the.._ ii:.::..
gull_tulative effect of all the calls would lead to the guilt of the accused or that
.:they.tgd hatched conspiracy. There is no evidence to prove the conversationsi.- .'..Fade through the mobile phones. Ihese ac.cused are active members of PFI r,
and staying in nearby places. The calls made between such persons cannot'be
termed as unusual. court cannot take each call as a link against that accusedand convict them for offence under Section 120 B of lpC.422. Pws 297, 299, 300 and 301 who had issued Exts.pB75, gB1, 882 and
876 and 877 orders have stated that they had issued the sanction orders afterverifying the case records submitted by the investigating agency. I am satisfied
that these officials had issued those certificates after considering the entirefacts and the materials and applying their mind. I could not find any infirmity inthe sanction order issued by these officers.
423.Io recapitulate, lfind that the prosecution was able to prove that
42, A3, A5 to A9, A12, A27 and A29 took part in the conspiracy along withothers to attack PW2 and to commit murder. In pursuance of the conspiracy A2,A3 and A5 to 47 along with two others attacked PW2, chopped off his right hand
and caused simple as well as grievous injuries to him. 46, in pursuance of theconspiracy and with an intention to terrorise public used explosive substances.Thus they committed terrorist act. A8, who had visited the house of pW2 on
17.5.2010 made arrangements through A12 to purchase MO.2 omni van for
came to the spot to attack PW2 in MO.2, which was purchased by A12 fromPWl44. That vehicle was seized from the possession of A9 by the Sub lnspectorof Perumbavoor within two hours after the incident. Further it is proved that A29as part of the conspiracy made fake number plates. The prosecution has proved
inside the digit '0' contained in item no.3(f) is the part of corresponding digitcontained in MO.3 number plate. The SIM card purchased by A27 in the name ofPW168 Selvaraj, was found
place of incident. In view of the entire evidence I am satisfied that A8, A9, A12,
A27 and A29 conspired with 42, A3 and A5 to A7 and two others to commit
terrorist act with an intention to cause the death of PW2 by inflicting grievousinjuries, and to promote disharmony among the members of different religionsand thus abetted the commission of the offence,
hatched conspiracy and committed that offence. A8, A9, A1-2, A27 and A29took part in the conspiracy, associated with the terrorist gang and abetted thecommission of the terrorist act. These points are found accordingly.
425. Point No.17:- lt is alleged that A8, A29 and A32, to execute theirplan recruited persons and formed a terrorist gang. The prosecution was able to
to attack pW2.
For that
purpose they made all arrangements with the help of A9, A12, A27 and some
ut there is no evidence to prove that A8, A29 and A32 had recruited
short there is absolutely no evidence to show that Ag, A29 and A32 recruited
members of
426. Point No.2O:- In view of the above discussions I find that theprosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that A2, A3, A5 to A7, Ag,A9, A12, A27 and A29, along with some others, out of enmity towards pW2 prof.
and A5 to A7 along with two others, with that common object, formedthemselves into an unlawful assembly, came to Hostelpady junction in Maruthiomni van (MO.2) with fake number plates bearing No.KL.O7.AD.72OL driven by
which was proceeding from the side of the Nirmala Matha church and therebywrongfully restrained Pws 2, 3 and their mother who were in the car. A2, A3, 45and A6 got down from the omni van with the other two persons and smashed
the window panes on the right and left front side with weapons and causeddamage to the said car to the tune of <8,000/-. PW2 was taken out of the car
and dragged to the backside from where A2 inflicted grievous injuries to pW2with chopper. PW2 was forcibly laid on the road and the right hand of pW2 waschopped off with hatchet. Due to the attack PW2 had sustained simple as wellinjuries. When PW4 Mithun made attempt to attack the assailant:.1
lifted and pushed him towards the school ground and therebyinjuries to PW4. In the course of thre attack, when PW3 Sr. Marie
Stella got down from the car with an intention to interfere and to prevent the
attack on PW2, 45 Shamsudhin caught her neck, pressed her towards the sidewall and caused simple hurt to her. When PW1 rushed towards her husband, 46
s L43, 147, ir48, 34|., 427, 323,324, 326,506(ii), 307 and 153A
committed offence under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act. A2, 43, 45and A7 have committed offence under Section 3 of the Explosive SubstancesAct r/w Section 1208 of lPC. Also, these accused (A2, A3 and A5 to A7) havecommitted offences under Sections 15 r/w L6, Sections
427. The prosecution could not obtain sanction from the concernedauthority
of the UA(P) Act. Inadvertently this fact was not noted at the time of framingcharge. Both sides omitted to bring that fact to the notice of the court. Since
the trial has been completed and A29 has faced the trial, he cannot
discharged under Section 227 ol Cr.P.C. of the offences under Sections 18 and188 of the UA(P) Act. He shall
188 of the UA(P) Act for want of sanction under Section 45 of the UA(P) Act.A8, A9, A12 and 427 who hatched conspiracy with 42, A3. A5, to A7
othe6 are liable to be convicted under Sections ]20B r/w 153A, 326
and 307 of lPC, Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, Sections 18 and 20
of UA(P) Act. A9 who had destroyed the fake number plates shall be convictedunder Section 201 of lPC. A29 who hatched conspiracy with A2, 43, A5 to 47and abetted the commission of a terrorist act shall be convicted under sectionsL2OB rlw L534, 326 and 307 of lPC, Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act
A25, A34 and A36 have committed offence under Section 212
of lpC.
A24, A26, A32, A35 and A37 are found not guilty of the
offences charged against them and they are acquitted under Section 235 ofCr.P.C.
The bail bonds executed by A10, 411, A13 to A18, 420 to A24, 426, and
430. A2, A3, 45 and 46 are acquitted under Section 235 of Cr.p.C. ofoffences under Section 201 of IPC and Section 18B of the UA(p) Act. A7acquitted under Section 235 of
2OL, 212 r/w 1208 of IPC and Section L8B of UA(P) Act. A9 is acquitted under
Section 235 of Cr.P.C. of offences under Sections L43, 147, L48, 341, 427, 323,324, 506(ii), 212 rlw 1208 of lPC. A12 is acquitted under Section 235 of Cr.p.C.of offences under Sections 143, 147, L48, 341,, 427, 323,324, 506(ii), ZO]-,2L2
of offences under
S_ections ]-43, 1.47, 748, 341., 427, 323, 324, 506(ii), 2OI, 212
r/w 12OB of
l,,ii ."r....o" A?9 is' d\quitted under Section 235 of Cr.P.C. of offences under Sections 143,L47
43t.A2Jama|,43ShobinandA5Shamsudhinarefoundgui|tyandconvicted of offences under -
Section 20
UA(p) Act.
434. A8 Younus Aliyar, 4L2 K.K.Ali and A27 Shajeer are found guilty and
offences under -
437. A25 Abdul Latheef, A34Anwar sadique and 436 Riyas are rouno guirtyand convicted of offence under Section 2I2 of lpC.
s4lSasidharanJudge, Spl.Court for liial of NIA Cases.P.
Heard the convicts. their counsel and the leamed public prosecuror
on the question of sentence. They were allowed to consult their counsel. They
439. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the accused who have
the convicts who have no criminal background and added that when anaccused
sentenced to different terms of imprisonment under each such count, all such
(SC)) i
440. ln
The general policy which the courts have followed with regard to
sentencing is
punishment is the manner in which the courts respond to the society's cry
for justice against the criminals. Justice demands that courts shouldimpose punishment befitting the crime so that the courts reflect publicabhorrence of the crime".
It is the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to thenature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed.
justice to permit the culprits to escape the proper sentence, when faced withsuch evidence and such cruel acts.
factofs available on the facts and circumstances of the particular case. Keeping
prope;'to impose
!47 of lpc,
imprisonment for two years each uls !4g of lpc, imprisonment for one montheach u/s 34r rlw 149 of lPc, Rigorous imprisonment for one year each uls 427
rlw L49 of lPC, Rigorous imprisonment for three months each u/s 323 rlw 149 oflPc, Rigorous imprisonment for one year each uls 324 rlw
of lpc, Rrgorous
imprisonment for five years and fine of t15,ooo/- (Rupees Fifteen thousandonly) each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months each u/s
326 rlw L49 of lPC, Rigorous imprisonment for two years each u/s 506(ii) r/w1.49
Twenty five thousand only) each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for
six months each u/s 307 rlw 149 of lPC, Rigorous imprisonment for two yearseach u/s L53A r/w 149 of lPC, Rigorous imprisonment for 3 years each u/s 3 of
the Explosive Substances Act r/w 1208 of lPC, Rigorous imprisonment for
years and fine of {25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) each, in default
to undergo simple imprisonment for six months each u/s 15 r/w 16 of the
Act, Rigorous imprisonment for 8 years and fine of {25,000/- (Rupees Twenty
five thousand only) each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for sixmonths each u/s 16 r/w 18 of the UA(P) Act and Rigorous imprisonment for five
month u/s 341 ilw 149 of lPC, Rigorous imprisonment for one year u/s 427 rlw149 of lPC, Rigorous imprisonment for three months u/s 323 rlw 149 of lPc,Rigorous imprisonment
imprisonment for five years and fine of tL5,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousandonly), in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months uls 326 rlw149 of lPC, Rigorous imprisonment for two years u/s 506(ii) r/w 149 of
Rigorous imprisonment for 8 years and fine of <25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five
thousand only), in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months u/s3O7
rlw l-49 of lPC, Rigorous imprisonment for two years u/s 1534 r/w 149 of
thousand only), in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months u/s
undergo simple
imprisonment for six months u/s 16 r/w 18 of the UA(P) Act and Rigorousimprisonment for five years and fine of {10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only), indefault to undergo simple imprisonment for two months u/s 20 of the UA(P) Act.
\imprisonrlent for one month u/s 341 rlw 149 of lPC, Rigorous imprisonment for.l
one yeart,yts 427 rlw !49 of lPC, Rigorous imprisonment for three'months
,-'r ..i
323 rlw 149 of lPc, Rigorous imprisonment for one year u/s 324 rlw 149 of lpc,Rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of (15,000/- (Rupees Fifteenthousand only), in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months u/s326 rlw 149 of lPC, Rigorous imprisonment for two years u/s 506(ii) r/w 149 oflPC, Rigorous imprisonment
five thousand only), in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six monthsu/s 307 rlw L49 of lPC, Rigorous imprisonment for two years u/s 1534 rlw t4g oflPC, Rigorous imprisonment
for six months u/s L5 r/w 16 of the UA(P) Act, Rigorous imprisonment for
and fine of t25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only), in default to undergo
simple imprisonment for six months u/s 16 r/w 18 of the UA(P) Act andRigorous imprisonment
(Rupees Ten
thousand only), in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months u/s20 of the UA(P) Act.
A8 Younus Aliyar, A12 K.K.Ali and A27 Shajeer are sentenced to undergo
Rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of <15,000/- (Rupees Fifteenthousand only) each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months
each u/s 326 rlw 1208 of lPC, Rigorous imprisonment for B years and fine of
in default to
sinlple imprisonment for six months each u/s 307 r/w 12OB of lPC,
for two years each u/s 153A r/w 1208 of lPC, Rigorous
iimprisoFlment for 3 years each u/s 3 o[ the Explosive Substances Act r/w 1208
,1 :.
of lPC, Rigorous imprisonment for 8 years and fine of t25,000/- (Rupees Twenty
five thousand only) each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for sixmonths each, u/s 16 r/w 18 of the UA(P) Act and Rigorous imprisonment for five
years and fine of <10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) each, in default toundergo simple imprisonment for two months each u/s 20 of the UA(P) Act.
A9 Jafar is sentenced
for 8 years and fine of (25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only). in default
undergo simple imprisonment for six months u/s 307 r/w l-20B
lPC, Rigorous
imprisonment for two years and a fine of <10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only),
Twenty five thousand only), in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six
months u/s 16 r/w 18 of the UA(P) Act and Rigorous imprisonment for fiveyears and fine of <10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only), in default to undergosimple imprisonment for two months u/s 20 of the UA(P) Act.
only), in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months u/s 307 r/w1208 of lPC, Rigorous imprisonment for two years u/s 1534 r/w 12oB of lpc,Rigorous irnprisonment for 3 years u/s 3 of the Explosive substances Act r/w
1208 of IPC and Rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of <10,ooo/(Rupees Ten thousand only), in default
A25 Abdul Latheef, A34 Anwar Sadique and A36 Riyas are sentenced to
undergo Rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of t10,OO0/- (RupeesTen thousand only) each, in default
them in custody under Section 428 of Cr.PC. Out of the fine amount, <8,00,000/(Rupees Eight Lakhs only) shall
realised. No order is made for the disposal of properties since the case againstabsconding accused is pending. The accused are committed
to the central
.all"1 t-
SasldharanJudge, Special Court for Trial -of NIA Cases.P.
Photo of Sajil
Photo of Savad
Muvattupuzha.25.08.2010 Portion of 161 statement given by PW 19Muvattupuzha from " 2.7.2010 oflorcoileorcod
P4 (a)
C.l. of Police
ecocoroad colcofl"
P6 (c)
17 .07
PW 22 to C.l. of PoliceMuvattu puzha f rom " onorcn;m;old ............. e,eier5cemooiloi
Muvattupuzha..07.2010 Medical prescription, AL-Ameen Multispeciality DentalClinic, Aluva.
msc(otolgg mtruloi.,'
"27.07.2010 Portion of l6L statement given by PW28 to C.l. of police,Muvattupuzha from " erocoa paercorcd .....................ro;ocm; oa,cs;ooo5.
a,enecrd crdcil(o)co.
policeeomnplos o.flgd
"01.01.2010 Rent agreement executed between Haseena, Naduvilaveettil, Nettoor and Niyas.08.09.2010 Kaicheet of Power of Attorney given by Muhammad Zain,cocoaDlgilolcmJ.
olor<ruo olcoaD'l9;l.
" mlctocoem
ojlgl9id. "
ocogdoo o{)slorDJ."
orocmt.*ilogolo;o aendlgf'
Muvattupuzh^a.that" c.,.rca;ooo1 o.oor8epqoldotscotfiild aoril. "
P53 (a)
a,cdor5 g"lcorccrfl2j
. , tl:P69
oa,cere;orr$ rormo5."
oloilcd. ,
ggojlos gqo:laerlcmgerl't
f ro
m " olorcgl-rlpoioeL
"gcrflad orm]."
Passport of Pareed.
P95(a) 10.09.2010
"31.08.2010 Portion of 161 statement given by PW95 to Dy.S.PMuvattupuzha from " zt.oa.zoro or"lorojl oro(o .................. osjocu)oJloc)oocooeru<d GD6nj 5locaa pcgccrE ooceocaoloxmci.
proloroo "Grr45'lfl."P99
-ilcmld ocrrflilg."
PW20 to C. I of policeroroao5cua,om
" roonu5c".ra,oofl
PW99 to Dy.S.Pooa,oogco ......................
oc.,*ilo<o Grocte)co"
Prof. T.J.Joseph.
by Dy.S.P Muvattupuzha.Scene Mahazar of Perumbavoor Municipal Park preparedby Dy.S.P Muvattupuzha.Scene mahazar of Kothamangalam Municipal Parkprepared by Dy.S.P Muvattupuzha.Seizure Mahazar of number plates prepared by C.l ofpolice, Muvattupuzha.Disclosure statement of Jaffer in Ext.P1L5.Portion of L6L statement given by PW108 to C.l of policeMuvattupuzha from "s.z.zoro ro"lor<oil ........................raraceancj oom;."Portion of l6L statement given by PW108 to C.l of policeMUVattUpuzha that
"Oelrotl "OsJoDt'
PW117 to Dy.S.P,
ol:oeorotojlai cqoosio
"3L.08.2010 Portion of 161 statement given by PW119 to Dy.S.P,Muvattupuzha from " eocoE o;<ro"i NDFln
Pt 30
PW118 to Dy.S.P," c.sic6Dflaa c.'rcBlled l"nene1oofl
(a) 31.08.2010
"eorccn;o oneilor;o
".2010 Portion of 161- statement given by PW120 tolorcxd(odildol(m(ocoil crrocjlopo.M uvattu p u zon<oilcngc<onoo
ha f rom
dcrtl$R. "
" <woeilael
uvattu puzha
Gorc(ooo)cDlo cDcn5|ol(')l"
police,09.07.2010 Portion of 161 statement given by PWL35 to C'l ofMuvattupuzha that " ooaoo5ilo ca,cp{loo tuoilorcenloileEBJor&iloldolmorcoa "6prl Cl crua6 "-neorol"
PLs6Pt 57
"6<mcen5"Portion of 161 statement given by PW146 to Dy.S.P, NlA,from " I questioned my relative Najeeb................ thosetwo persons. "Portion of l6L statement given by PWL46 to Dy.S.P, NlA,from " The could not reply ............... away from the flats"Portion of 161 statement given by PW149 to Dy.S.P,MUVattUpuzha from " eoccfl @a@cglos ........ aoJ o.'oq$d o0)elotl"Portion of 161 statement given by PW149 to Dy.S.P,Muvattupuzha from " onroilcn;c@.ojo slacenoa| ........... oo; o"o<pd
oofiDdo'l4oaa mml(6
P163(a) 18.06.2011
P164(a) 28.08.2010
02.1,1.2012 Portion of
from "
s1o............. GraonE
Dy Sp, NIAeolcolcsil4) oa,cerrello;cmo5"
onoilos cilcmJo,ocrresloro(DconDl4ilolmJ."
Dy Sp, NtA
Dy Sp, NIA
...............................a,1crdc5dm:'lo6 om<m
that "P17s(d)P176
ffom "P176(e)
to DySP, NIA
Pl-94(a)Pt e4(b)
Mohammed Ali .SDPI membership forms (25 Nos.)SDPI membership form in the name of Noufal.N.M.SDPI membership form in the name ofAbdul Shefeek.SDPI membership forms (15 Nos.)
P203(a) .
membershipSDPI membershipSDPI membershipSDPI membership
P?70'.\\- i.. ;r:\\.
.,irr.. i,;.'on4.3.2010PF|/SDP|...............,r.................myhome".,,,!,f:..:,',]ri,..
ffom "
rggs ol(o-)(uE
---...........a,00191 Gno<noceni
from "PFl
eclgc l".rcrulcucrlcoio;rm....................'..................'.....'-'..corcoooiloi ocmcd "
" cocrnoroilcti
" oorcoA
oo5Drdo'lercerd clcmol"
oaAau]6 oo(mold
cDoilos g6rBcaolol(m)"
oc,dLs"le)o"" oroaaoi"
cons odqcrDo"
P3 fB
A bOOk