{"id":93093,"date":"2009-09-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-09-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinchu-chandrakumar-vs-state-of-kerala-on-30-september-2009"},"modified":"2014-10-10T18:30:43","modified_gmt":"2014-10-10T13:00:43","slug":"chinchu-chandrakumar-vs-state-of-kerala-on-30-september-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinchu-chandrakumar-vs-state-of-kerala-on-30-september-2009","title":{"rendered":"Chinchu @ Chandrakumar vs State Of Kerala on 30 September, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Chinchu @ Chandrakumar vs State Of Kerala on 30 September, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCRL.A.No. 658 of 2005()\n\n\n1. CHINCHU @ CHANDRAKUMAR, AGED 28 YEARS,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. GIREESH AGED 23,\n3. SAJEEV AGED 23,\n4. SAJEEVAN @ RAJEEVAN, AGED 20\n5. RAJU @ MISSILE RAJU, AGED 25\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU\n\n                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN\n\n Dated :30\/09\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n   K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ.\n\n               == = = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n                Criminal Appeal No.658 of 2005.\n               = = = == = = = = = = = = = = =\n\n            Dated this the 30th day of September, 2009.\n\n                        J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
Gopinathan, J.\n<\/p>\n
      The appellants are accused Nos.3, 5, 7, 9 and 11 in<\/p>\n
SC.No.467\/2001 on the file of the First Additional Sessions<\/p>\n
Judge, Thrissur.      The Circle Inspector of Police, Valappad<\/p>\n
prosecuted the appellants along with 16 others for offences<\/p>\n
under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 307 and 302 r\/w.149 IPC. Of<\/p>\n
the 21 accused, 18th accused could not be apprehended. During<\/p>\n
the trial accused Nos.15 and 17 absconded.        The remaining<\/p>\n
accused faced trial. The case against the absconding accused is<\/p>\n
split up. On conclusion of the trial the appellants were found<\/p>\n
guilty for the above said offences and convicted. Accused Nos.1,<\/p>\n
2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 19, 20 and 21 were acquitted. The<\/p>\n
appellants were sentenced to imprisonment for life under<\/p>\n
Sec.302 IPC. They were also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment<\/p>\n
for two years under Sec.148 and 324 IPC. No separate sentence<\/p>\n
was awarded for offence under Sec.143, 147, 324 and 307 IPC.<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.658 of 2005.\n<\/p>\n
                                -: 2 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
Sentences were ordered to run concurrently.            Assailing the<\/p>\n
above conviction and sentence this appeal was preferred. We<\/p>\n
are told that as against the acquittal of the other accused no<\/p>\n
appeal was preferred.\n<\/p>\n
       2.      The prosecution case in brief is that, Pws.1 to 7, 10,<\/p>\n
deceased Ravi and one Prasad were members of the Democratic<\/p>\n
Youth Federation of India (DYFI).        The accused were either<\/p>\n
members of the BJP or RSS and both parties were on bitter<\/p>\n
terms due to political enmity. On 5.2.1998 by about 7.30 pm.<\/p>\n
Pws.1 to 7, 10, deceased Ravi and Prasad had a torch procession<\/p>\n
in connection with the election propaganda of V.V.Raghavan who<\/p>\n
was a candidate proposed by the Left Democratic Front (LDF).<\/p>\n
After procession some of them remained near the shop of one<\/p>\n
Usman for pasting wall posters. Pw3 Hochimin along with Pw4<\/p>\n
Shanil had been to his house for supper. Before supper, Seena, a<\/p>\n
girl in the neighbour-hood conveyed a message to Pw3 that there<\/p>\n
was likelihood of RSS activists attacking the houses of Pw3, Pw1<\/p>\n
Soman and Pw4 Shanil. He conveyed the message to Pw4. They<\/p>\n
decided not to remain in the house. Hence they returned to the<\/p>\n
shop of Usman. Pws.1, 2 and 5 were there. The information was<\/p>\n
conveyed to Pws.1, 2, 5 and other members in their group and<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.658 of 2005.\n<\/p>\n
                                  -: 3 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
they decided to remain in the property of one Therambil<\/p>\n
Viswambaran, which is on the eastern side of the house of Pw3.<\/p>\n
       3.      By about 11.30 pm., according to the prosecution, all<\/p>\n
the 21 accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and<\/p>\n
were armed with deadly weapons like sword, iron pipe, stick,<\/p>\n
knife, iron blocks, etc., and in furtherance of their common<\/p>\n
object committed rioting after entering the property of<\/p>\n
Therambil Viswambaran and the 3rd accused hit on the head of<\/p>\n
deceased Ravi with a sword and the 15th accused hit on the head<\/p>\n
with an iron pipe. The 11th accused hit Pw2 Kishore at his head<\/p>\n
with an iron rod and the 5th accused hit at his thigh with a sword.<\/p>\n
Deceased Ravi, owing to the assault fell down into a thodu. Pw2<\/p>\n
who also fell down into anther thodu. He climbed out of the<\/p>\n
thodu, took to his heels and reached at the shop of Usman where<\/p>\n
the other members in the group took shelter. Pw2 was taken to<\/p>\n
the Elite Mission Hospital, Thrissur. From there he was referred<\/p>\n
to the Medical College Hospital, Thrissur.\n<\/p>\n
       4.      Pw16, the father of Pw3, at about 11.30 pm. heard the<\/p>\n
utterance, ‘murder’, from the property on the eastern side. He<\/p>\n
took a torch and proceeded. His wife prevented. So, he didn’t<\/p>\n
proceed then.           After some time, when the noise ceased, he<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.658 of 2005.\n<\/p>\n
                              -: 4 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
proceeded to the property along with his dog. The dog sniffed<\/p>\n
here and there and rushed to the thodu on the southern side of<\/p>\n
the property. He followed the dog. Deceased Ravi was found<\/p>\n
lying prone unconscious. He lifted Ravi and made him lie a little<\/p>\n
more towards the bank of the thodu and proceeded to the shop<\/p>\n
of Usman where there were 4 or 5 persons, of whom he<\/p>\n
identified Pw5. Pw16 soon enquired about Pw3. Pw5 told that<\/p>\n
Pw3 had taken Pw2 to the hospital. Pw16 informed Pw5 and<\/p>\n
others that Ravi was lying unconscious in the thodu. They then<\/p>\n
went to Ravi and lifted him. By the time a tempo van reached<\/p>\n
there and Ravi was taken to the hospital.\n<\/p>\n
       5.      On the way to the hospital, it is alleged that the<\/p>\n
autorickshaw carrying Pw2 was found going ahead.            They<\/p>\n
intercepted the autorickshaw, PW2 was also taken in the vehicle<\/p>\n
in which Ravi was being carried and by about 1.15 am. on the<\/p>\n
next day they reached at the Medical College Hospital, Thrissur.<\/p>\n
Ravi was declared brought dead.       Pw2 was admitted in the<\/p>\n
hospital. Pw1 returned home and narrated the incident to the<\/p>\n
members of his family. Then, though he started to the police<\/p>\n
station, family members prevented him. Later, at 9 am. he went<\/p>\n
to the Vatanappilly police station and gave Ext.P1 first<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.658 of 2005.\n<\/p>\n
                               -: 5 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
information statement before the Sub Inspector (SI) of Police,<\/p>\n
Vatanappilly. As per Ext.P1, the information was seen given at 7<\/p>\n
am. Pw32, the then SI of police, Vatanappilly recorded Ext.P1<\/p>\n
and registered a case as Crime No.48\/98, by Ext.P20 First<\/p>\n
Information Report against (i) Kuttamon, (2) Unnikrishnan and<\/p>\n
20 others, who could be identified by sight, for offences under<\/p>\n
Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 307 and 302 r\/w.149 IPC.<\/p>\n
       6.      Pw38, the then Circle Inspector of Police took over<\/p>\n
the investigation. He proceeded to the hospital and prepared<\/p>\n
Ext.P15 inquest report.       Then he proceeded to the spot of<\/p>\n
occurrence and prepared Ext.P3 scene mahazar. He then filed<\/p>\n
Ext.P25 report arraying 17 persons as accused. He proceeded<\/p>\n
with investigation and after completing the investigation, charge<\/p>\n
sheet was laid before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class,<\/p>\n
Chavakkad against 21 accused. The learned Magistrate having<\/p>\n
found that the offences alleged were exclusively triable by a<\/p>\n
court of Sessions, after complying the mandatory procedures, by<\/p>\n
order dated 30.6.2001 in CP.61\/00 committed the case to the<\/p>\n
Court of Sessions, Thrissur from where the case was made over<\/p>\n
to the First Additional Sessions Judge. The learned Addl.Sessions<\/p>\n
Judge after hearing both sides framed charge for the above said<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.658 of 2005.\n<\/p>\n
                                    -: 6 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
offence, to which the appellants and others pleaded not guilty.<\/p>\n
Consequently, the accused were sent for trial, as we mentioned<\/p>\n
earlier.\n<\/p>\n
       7.      On the side of the prosecution, Pws.1 to 38 were<\/p>\n
examined. Ext.P1 to P42 and MOs.1 to 28 were marked. Plea of<\/p>\n
the accused is false implication. During the course of cross-<\/p>\n
examination of the prosecution witnesses, the contradictions in<\/p>\n
the case diary statements of Pws.2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 15 and 16 were<\/p>\n
marked as Exts.D1, 2 and 5 to 24. Exts.D3 and D4 are copies of<\/p>\n
Final Report in ST.No.502\/2002 and CC.No.120\/2002 on the file<\/p>\n
of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Chavakkad.<\/p>\n
Responding to the call for defence evidence, DWs.1 to 5 were<\/p>\n
examined and Exts.X1 to X5 marked.\n<\/p>\n
       8.        Though it was alleged that the appellants and other<\/p>\n
16 accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and<\/p>\n
armed with deadly weapons, attacked Pws.1 to 7, 10, deceased<\/p>\n
Ravi and Prasad,           it is brought out in evidence that only Pw2<\/p>\n
and Ravi were injured.              None others sustained any bodily<\/p>\n
injury.\n<\/p>\n
       9.      Pw1 had deposed that on 5.2.1998 they had a torch<\/p>\n
procession as part of the election propaganda of V.V.Raghavan<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.658 of 2005.\n<\/p>\n
                                 -: 7 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
and after the procession some of them remained near the shop of<\/p>\n
Usman for pasting wall posters. Pw3 went home. A little later<\/p>\n
Pw3 returned and informed that BJP supporters had planned to<\/p>\n
attack his house. So, all in the procession group including Pw3<\/p>\n
went to the property of Therambil Viswambaran just on the<\/p>\n
eastern side of the house of Pw3 and remained there. By about<\/p>\n
11.30 pm. they heard the sound of swords. Pw1 immediately<\/p>\n
lighted the torch, which he was carrying and found a group of<\/p>\n
people proceeding to them with swords.              He identified<\/p>\n
Unnikrishnan and Kuttamon,          both were armed with swords.<\/p>\n
Pw1 got scared and took to his heels and had shelter at the shop<\/p>\n
of Usman. While so, Pw2, with injuries, was taken by Pw5 to the<\/p>\n
shop. They fetched an autorickshaw and Pw2 was taken to the<\/p>\n
Elite Mission Hospital, Thrissur by Pws.5 and 6. Then Pw16<\/p>\n
reached there and reported that Ravi was lying unconscious near<\/p>\n
the thodu.         Pw1 along with Pws.3, 10 and Prasad went to the<\/p>\n
thodu and found Ravi lying unconscious in the thodu with<\/p>\n
injuries at the back of the head and nose. Ravi was lifted and<\/p>\n
rushed to the Medical College Hospital, Thrissur in a Tata Sumo<\/p>\n
vehicle. On the way they saw the autorickshaw carrying Pw2.<\/p>\n
The autorickshaw was intercepted and Pw2 was also taken into<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.658 of 2005.\n<\/p>\n
                                 -: 8 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
the Tata Sumo vehicle and rushed to the Medical College<\/p>\n
Hospital, Thrissur. At 1.15 am. on the next day they reached at<\/p>\n
the Medical College Hospital. The doctor after examining Ravi<\/p>\n
declared him dead.          Pw2 was admitted in the hospital, Pw1<\/p>\n
returned home and informed the matter to the family members.<\/p>\n
When he was to proceed to the police station the family members<\/p>\n
prevented him and on the next day at 9.00 am. he went to the<\/p>\n
Vatanappilly police station and gave Ext.P1 first information<\/p>\n
statement which was identified by him. In the box Pw1 had<\/p>\n
identified accused 5, 6 and 17. Though he named Unnikrishnan<\/p>\n
and Kuttamon in Ext.P1 he had deposed that he could not<\/p>\n
identify them from among the accused persons. He had also<\/p>\n
identified two swords which were marked as MOs.1 and 2.<\/p>\n
       10. Pw2 had deposed that on 5.2.1998 there was torch<\/p>\n
procession in which ten persons mentioned earlier were present.<\/p>\n
After the procession, some of them remained there for pasting<\/p>\n
wall posters. Pw3 and 4 went to the house of Pw3 for taking<\/p>\n
supper.       A little later, they returned and informed that BJP<\/p>\n
activists had a plan to attack their house and suggested that they<\/p>\n
should not go to their house and they decided to remain in the<\/p>\n
property of Therambil Viswambaran. By about 11.30 pm. they<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.658 of 2005.\n<\/p>\n
                                  -: 9 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
heard the sound of iron rods. Deceased Ravi alarmed that, ‘they<\/p>\n
are coming’. Soon Pw1 lighted the torch. In the torch light he<\/p>\n
identified accused Nos.5, 9 and 11 who were standing on the<\/p>\n
eastern side.          Some others were on the western side at a<\/p>\n
distance of ten feet. Seeing these persons coming, himself and<\/p>\n
others stood up and moved a little towards east. Then the 11th<\/p>\n
accused inflicted a blow at the back of his head with an iron rod.<\/p>\n
Somebody uttered to murder.             When turned back he was<\/p>\n
intercepted by the 5th accused who hacked him twice at his left<\/p>\n
thigh with a sword. He fell down into a thodu on his right side.<\/p>\n
No sooner he fell down into the thodu than the 9th and 11th<\/p>\n
accused inflicted blows at his both shoulders and head with iron<\/p>\n
rods. Some how or other, he climbed out of the thodu and ran to<\/p>\n
the house of Vallissery Anil where Pw5 was present. He was<\/p>\n
accompanied to the main road by Pw5.          From there he was<\/p>\n
rushed to the Elite Mission Hospital, Thrissur by Pw3 and Pw4.<\/p>\n
From there he was taken to the Medical College Hospital,<\/p>\n
Thrissur. On the way, the autorickshaw in which he was taken to<\/p>\n
the hospital was intercepted by Tata Sumo vehicle in which Ravi<\/p>\n
was being carried. He was also taken to that vehicle and rushed<\/p>\n
to the Medical College Hospital, Thrissur where he had<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.658 of 2005.\n<\/p>\n
                                -: 10 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
undergone treatment. It was further deposed that later he came<\/p>\n
to know that Ravi had succumbed to the injuries and that the<\/p>\n
attack was due to political enmity. He had further identified<\/p>\n
MO3 as the sword by which he was inflicted injuries by the 5th<\/p>\n
accused. The iron rods used by accused 5 and 11 were identified<\/p>\n
and marked as MOs.4 and 5. He had also deposed that while he<\/p>\n
rushing out of the scene, his lungi fell down. The lungi was<\/p>\n
identified as MO6.         The evidence of Pw38, the investigating<\/p>\n
officer is to the effect that MO6 was seized while he preparing<\/p>\n
scene mahazar which was marked as Ext.P3.\n<\/p>\n
       11. Pw35 had deposed that he was working as Deputy<\/p>\n
Police Surgeon at Medical College Hospital, Thrissur on<\/p>\n
6.2.1998 and on that day at 2.00 pm. he conducted autopsy on<\/p>\n
the body of Ravi, aged 30 and that Ext.P22 is the post-mortem<\/p>\n
certificate. Following are the ante-mortem injuries noted:<\/p>\n
       1.Laceration with contused margin vertically placed
\n           on the right side of top of head 3.8 x 5 cm. The
\n           front end was 7.5 cm above the outer end of eye
\n           brow. The wound was muscle deep only. The skull
\n           bones underneath were intact. The brain showed a
\n           thin      layer of subdural  and    subarachanoid
\n           haemorrhage on both sides. The base of the skull
\n           was intact but the anterior cranial fossae showed
\n           light blue colouration due to infiltration of blood
\n           underneath.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Crl.Appeal No.658 of 2005.\n<\/p>\n
                                  -: 11 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
       2.Irregular laceration with contused margin 3.5 x 8
\n           cm on the middle of under surface of nose and
\n           right side of upper lip.     The horizontal limb of
\n           laceration was merging with the middle of the
\n           vertical limb. The central incisor tooth of right side
\n           of upper jaw and the right upper canine tooth were
\n           partly broken (broken pieces missing) and the right
\n           upper lateral incisor tooth dislocated and pushed
\n           backwards.      The inner aspect of the upper lip
\n           mainly on the right side showed split laceration.
\n           The nasal cartilage was separated from the nasal
\n           bones. The upper jaw bone (maxilla) was fractured
\n           at the middle with contusion of soft tissues around.<\/p>\n
       3.Abrasion vertical 7.5 x 1 cm on the back of right
\n           forearm 12 cm below the elbow. The arm bones
\n           were intact.\n<\/p>\n
       4.Abrasion vertical 6 x 8 cm on the back of left
\n           forearm 2.5 cm above the wrist.         The forearm
\n           bones were intact.\n<\/p>\n
       5.Abrasion 1 x .6 cm on the middle of back of right
\n           middle finger. The bones underneath were intact.<\/p>\n
       6.Abrasion 0.8 x 6 cm on the back of right little
\n           finger 3 cm below the root.\n<\/p>\n
       7.Multiple abrasions over an area of 5 x 3.5 cm on
\n           the front of left knee joint.\n<\/p>\n
       8.Abrasion 4.5 x 1 cm on the front of left thigh 6 cm
\n           above the knee.\n<\/p>\n
       9.Abrasion 3.7 x 3.5 cm on the back of right lower
\n           leg 4.5 cm above the ankle. The leg bones were
\n           intact.\n<\/p>\n
       10.Abrasion 4 x 1.7 cm on the top of left shoulder.<\/p>\n
       11.Contused abrasion 6.5 x 4.3 cm on the outer and<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.658 of 2005.\n<\/p>\n
                               -: 12 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
           back aspect of right upper arm 8 cm below the
\n           shoulder.\n<\/p>\n
It was further deposed that the deceased died of injuries<\/p>\n
sustained to head and face and that injuries No.1 and 2 are<\/p>\n
sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and<\/p>\n
that injury No.1 could be caused if struck with an iron pipe like<\/p>\n
MO8 and injury No.2 could be caused if hacked with a weapon<\/p>\n
like MO9 and injuries No.3 to 11 could be caused if he falls on a<\/p>\n
rough and hard surface and also could be caused with a weapon<\/p>\n
like MO10. In cross-examination Pw35 deposed that injuries<\/p>\n
No.3 to11 could also be caused while the injured person was<\/p>\n
being transported from the site to the hospital.<\/p>\n
       12. Pw34 had deposed that while he was working as<\/p>\n
Lecturer in Surgery at Medical College Hospital, Thrissur, on<\/p>\n
6.2.1998 he examined Pw2 and issued Ext.P21 wound certificate<\/p>\n
and that Pw2 had the following injuries:\n<\/p>\n
       1.Lacerated wound, lateral aspect of left thigh, muscle
\n           deep, app.12 x 5 cms.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       2.Lacerated wound 8 x 4 cm above the first wound.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       3.Laceration 2 x 1 cm on the left fontal scalp.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       4.Stellate laceration 5 x 3 cms. on the occipital scalp.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It was further deposed that injuries No.1 and 2 could be caused,<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.658 of 2005.\n<\/p>\n
                              -: 13 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
if hacked with a sword like MO3 and injury Nos.3 and 4 could be<\/p>\n
caused if beaten with an iron pipe like MO4.\n<\/p>\n
       13. The evidence of Pw1 coupled with Ext.P1 would show<\/p>\n
that late Ravi, with injuries, was taken to the Medical College<\/p>\n
Hospital, Thrissur along with Pw2. Pw2 also had given evidence<\/p>\n
that Pw2 and late Ravi were taken to the Medical College<\/p>\n
Hospital. Pw1 had also deposed that the doctor on duty in the<\/p>\n
casualty, after examining Ravi declared that he was dead. Pw2<\/p>\n
was admitted in the hospital. That much evidence of Pw1 was<\/p>\n
corroborated by Ext.P1 also. The factum of death of Ravi and the<\/p>\n
injuries sustained to Pw2 were not in dispute. But the defence is<\/p>\n
that Ravi and Pw1 might have sustained injuries at the hands of<\/p>\n
someone-else and not at the hands of the appellants. Ext.P16<\/p>\n
inquest report prepared by Pw38 also supported the evidence of<\/p>\n
Pw1 that Ravi died.\n<\/p>\n
       14. The cause of death deposed by Pw35 and certified in<\/p>\n
Ext.P22 is also not in dispute. The evidence of Pw35 would show<\/p>\n
that injuries No.1 and 2 found on the body of Ravi are sufficient<\/p>\n
in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The possibility<\/p>\n
of causing injuries No.1 and 2 with iron pipe, sword like MOs.8<\/p>\n
and 9 was also proved by the testimony of Pw35. Injuries No.3<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.658 of 2005.\n<\/p>\n
                              -: 14 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
to 11 were minor in nature. There is no evidence as to how<\/p>\n
exactly those injuries were caused. According to Pw35, those<\/p>\n
injuries could be caused with an iron rod like MO10 or the body<\/p>\n
coming into contact on rough and hard surface or while<\/p>\n
transporting from the site to hospital. However, since those<\/p>\n
injuries were not fatal in nature, even if the prosecution could<\/p>\n
not adduce evidence as to how exactly those injuries were<\/p>\n
caused, it is not much significant. On a considered view, in our<\/p>\n
opinion, the evidence of Pw35 supported by Ext.P22 is believable<\/p>\n
to come to a conclusion that the death of Ravi is one of homicide<\/p>\n
and not at all a natural death.\n<\/p>\n
       15. The evidence of Pw34 coupled with Ext.P21 would<\/p>\n
show that Pw2 was brought to the Medical College Hospital with<\/p>\n
injuries as deposed by Pw1. The evidence of Pw2 also would<\/p>\n
show that he sustained injuries due to an assault and was taken<\/p>\n
to the Medical College Hospital.      That much extent of the<\/p>\n
evidence of Pw2 coupled with the evidence of Pw34 and Ext.P21<\/p>\n
are reliable and we safely conclude that Pw2 also had sustained<\/p>\n
injuries which we mentioned earlier.\n<\/p>\n
       16. The question then to be decided is as to whether late<\/p>\n
Ravi and Pw2 sustained injuries as alleged by the prosecution.<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.658 of 2005.\n<\/p>\n
                              -: 15 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
In the event the question can be answered affirmatively, the<\/p>\n
conviction under challenge is sustainable. A careful reading of<\/p>\n
the evidence on record would show that the available evidence<\/p>\n
can be segregated into two. One that relating to the injuries<\/p>\n
sustained to Ravi and the other relating to the injuries sustained<\/p>\n
to Pw2. Though it is alleged that 21 persons came armed with<\/p>\n
deadly weapons, only 4 were alleged as assailants. It is the<\/p>\n
specific case that the 3rd and 15th accused assaulted Ravi and<\/p>\n
Pw2 was assaulted by 5th and 11th accused. Though the other 17<\/p>\n
accused were also alleged to be armed, there is no allegation of<\/p>\n
any overt act. It is also crucial to note that Pws.3 and 7 speak<\/p>\n
only about the injury to Ravi and Pws.4 to 6 and 10 speak only<\/p>\n
about the injury to Pw2. From the evidence of Pw1 which we<\/p>\n
mentioned earlier, Pw1 had not witnessed the alleged assault.<\/p>\n
Though Pw1 was in the company of the others to defend the<\/p>\n
anticipated attack on Pws.1, 3 and 4, seeing the assailant Pw1<\/p>\n
who alone had a torch in his hands took to his heels. Pw16 had<\/p>\n
seen Ravi lying unconscious with injuries. So, the evidence of<\/p>\n
Pws.3, 7 and 16 can be analysed regarding the assault to<\/p>\n
deceased Ravi and the evidence of Pws.2 & 4 to 6 can be<\/p>\n
analysed regarding the injuries sustained to Pw2.<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.658 of 2005.\n<\/p>\n
                                -: 16 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
       17. Pw3 had deposed that in 1998 he was working as<\/p>\n
Manager of a finance firm and that he is a member of the<\/p>\n
Communist Party of India (Marxist) [CPI(M)], Pws.1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7<\/p>\n
and others were also members and that at about 7.30 pm on<\/p>\n
5.2.1998 there was a torch procession as part of the election<\/p>\n
propaganda and in the procession, Pws.1 to 7, 10, deceased Ravi<\/p>\n
and Prasad were participants. The procession was over by about<\/p>\n
8.30 pm. He went home along with Pw4 Shanil for supper. A<\/p>\n
little later, Seena, a girl in the neighbour-hood told him that she<\/p>\n
heard from RSS workers that there was plan for attacking the<\/p>\n
house of Pws.1, 3 and 4. He conveyed the message to Pw4 and<\/p>\n
both of them rushed to the shop of Usman where Pws.1, 2 and 5<\/p>\n
were remaining after the procession. The other members also<\/p>\n
returned and the message was communicated to all of them and<\/p>\n
they decided to remain away from the house and took shelter at<\/p>\n
the property of Therambil Viswambaran which is just 100 metres<\/p>\n
towards east from his house. Pws.1 and 3 lay over palm leaves.<\/p>\n
Others sat on palm leaves. Pw3 got asleep. By the time he<\/p>\n
heard the sound of Ravi telling that somebody was coming. Pw1<\/p>\n
lighted the torch and they found accused 1 to 3 proceeding with<\/p>\n
swords. Accused 7 and 15 were proceeding with iron rodes.<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.658 of 2005.\n<\/p>\n
                                -: 17 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
There were 21 persons, all armed with deadly weapons. Then<\/p>\n
the 2nd accused shouted to murder. The 15th accused uttering<\/p>\n
‘om kali’ inflicted a blow at the head of Ravi with an iron pipe,<\/p>\n
which was identified and marked as MO8. Himself and Ravi ran<\/p>\n
towards south. He crossed the thodu on the southern side. No<\/p>\n
sooner, Pw3 crossed the thodu, he heard the sound of Ravi<\/p>\n
falling to the thodu.       Turning back, he saw the 3rd accused<\/p>\n
hacking Ravi with a sword at his face. Pw3 ran towards east. He<\/p>\n
also saw a few persons beating Ravi, but he could not identify<\/p>\n
them. Pw3 went to the house of one Jayamama and telephoned<\/p>\n
to T.L.Santhosh to fetch vehicle. When he came out of the house<\/p>\n
of Jayamama he saw Pws.4 and 5 carrying Pw2, who was having<\/p>\n
injuries at his head and leg. Pw4 fetched an autorickshaw and<\/p>\n
Pw2 was taken to Elite Mission Hospital, Thrissur by Pws.3 and<\/p>\n
4. Pw2 was bandaged at Elite Mission Hospital. From there he<\/p>\n
was taken to the Medical College Hospital, Thrissur. On the<\/p>\n
way, they were intercepted by a Tata Sumo vehicle in which Ravi<\/p>\n
was carried by Pw5, Prasad and Pw1. Pw2 was also taken into<\/p>\n
Tata Sumo. They reached at the Medical College Hospital by<\/p>\n
about 1.15 am on the next day.          Pw2 was admitted in the<\/p>\n
hospital. Ravi was declared dead by the doctor after examining<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.658 of 2005.\n<\/p>\n
                                  -: 18 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
him. Pw3 identified accused 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 11 and 21. He also<\/p>\n
identified MOs.1, 8, 9 and 10.\n<\/p>\n
        18. Pw7 would depose that, the torch procession was over<\/p>\n
by 8.30 pm on 5.2.1998.             There were ten persons in the<\/p>\n
procession. After the procession Pws.3 and 4 went to the house<\/p>\n
of Pw3. Later they returned stating that there was likelihood of<\/p>\n
attack by BJP activists. So, they decided to remain away from<\/p>\n
their houses. Accordingly all of them went to the property of<\/p>\n
Therambil Viswambaran which is adjacent to the house of Pw3.<\/p>\n
While they remaining so, about 20 persons reached there.<\/p>\n
Deceased Ravi stated that they had reached. All in the group<\/p>\n
stood up. There was good moon light. Pw1 lighted the torch and<\/p>\n
they identified accused Nos.1, 3, 7, 15, 17 and 18. They were<\/p>\n
uttering ‘om kali’.        Seeing them attempting to assault with<\/p>\n
swords he ran towards south and hid behind a coconut tree.<\/p>\n
Then he saw Ravi attempting to climb out of the thodu. By the<\/p>\n
time the 3rd accused hacked Ravi with a sword.                     Ravi was<\/p>\n
uttering that he was Ravi, don’t hack, (.. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..<\/p>\n
.. .. .. .. .. .. ). Accused Nos.2, 7, 15, 17 and 18 rounded Ravi and<\/p>\n
he could not see as to what happened. The 7th accused threw the<\/p>\n
iron rod which was identified and marked as MO10.                           The<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.658 of 2005.\n<\/p>\n
                              -: 19 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
assailants then returned. Pw7 went to the house of Vallissery<\/p>\n
Anil and reported that Ravi was attacked by BJP activists. He<\/p>\n
along with Vallissery Anil came to the road. Then it was found<\/p>\n
that Pw2 was being taken to the hospital by Pws.3 and 4. By the<\/p>\n
time Pw16 reached there and reported that Ravi was beaten (by<\/p>\n
the assailants) and lying (at the scene). He along with Pws.1, 5<\/p>\n
and Prasad went to Ravi and lifted him to the hospital in a Tata<\/p>\n
Sumo vehicle. Ravi was declared dead at the Medical College<\/p>\n
Hospital. He had further deposed that at Karthika theatre, there<\/p>\n
was some problem with Pw3 and Ravi on one side and the 11th<\/p>\n
accused and his brother on other side and that there was yet<\/p>\n
another problem at Eranaezhathu pooram where the 5th accused<\/p>\n
was on one side and Pws.4 and 5 on the other side. In addition<\/p>\n
to that, there was political enmity and that the attack was with<\/p>\n
intention to murder Pws.2 and 3.\n<\/p>\n
       19. Pw16 had deposed that by about 11.30 pm. on a day,<\/p>\n
about 6 – 6= years back, he heard the uttering ‘murder’ from<\/p>\n
the eastern side of his house.        Pw16 took the torch and<\/p>\n
proceeded. But he was prevented by his wife. After sometime<\/p>\n
the sound ceased. He proceeded towards east to the property of<\/p>\n
Viswambaran along with the dog.        He lighted torch in and<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.658 of 2005.\n<\/p>\n
                              -: 20 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
around and found no person, but there was a sword, some iron<\/p>\n
rods and wooden sticks thrown around. The dog ran towards<\/p>\n
south. He followed the dog and found that in a thodu on the<\/p>\n
southern side Ravi was found lying unconscious with his head on<\/p>\n
the bank. He lifted and laid him a little more to the bank and<\/p>\n
then proceeded to the shop of Usman where there were 4 or 5<\/p>\n
persons. Among them he identified Pw5 and asked where his<\/p>\n
son (Pw3) was. Pw5 told that Pw3 had gone to the hospital.<\/p>\n
Then Pw16 told that Ravi was lying in the thodu.            They<\/p>\n
proceeded to the spot where Ravi was lying. Ravi was lifted out<\/p>\n
of thodu. After some time a vehicle came there, which according<\/p>\n
to him was a tempo and since he could not witness any more he<\/p>\n
returned home and on the next day he came to know that Ravi<\/p>\n
was dead.\n<\/p>\n
       20. The summary of the evidence of Pw3 & 7 is to the<\/p>\n
effect that Ravi was hurt. Seeing that Ravi was being hurt, Pw3<\/p>\n
and 7 took to their heels. Later Pw16 came to the spot and<\/p>\n
found that Ravi was lying unconscious in the thodu. Ravi was<\/p>\n
lifted to hospital, but dead.     Though the evidence of these<\/p>\n
witnesses prima facie impresses a case of assault and murder, a<\/p>\n
critical analysis of the evidence of these witness would show that<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.658 of 2005.\n<\/p>\n
                                    -: 21 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
their evidence is not credible. The evidence of Pw3 would show<\/p>\n
that the so called intention of attack was informed to him by a<\/p>\n
girl by name Seena. In cross-examination Pw3 had deposed that<\/p>\n
the girl is the daughter of Chinnatti Velayudhan. It is from this<\/p>\n
girl, the event starts. She came to the house, called out Pw3 to<\/p>\n
the western courtyard and confidentially conveyed the message<\/p>\n
that there was likelihood of RSS people attacking the house of<\/p>\n
Pw1, 3 and 4. But that girl is not a witness. It is crucial to note<\/p>\n
that this information was not conveyed to Pw16, who is the<\/p>\n
father of Pw3.            Neither it was conveyed to the mother nor<\/p>\n
informed to the police or other authorities. But Pw3 informed to<\/p>\n
his friends and they themselves decided to go out of the house<\/p>\n
and to sit in the property on the eastern side, that too without<\/p>\n
any preparation for defence. If the evidence of Pw3 is believed,<\/p>\n
assailants had no intension to have any physical attack but to<\/p>\n
attack the house. Neither there was any intension to attack Pw2<\/p>\n
nor deceased Ravi. The alleged target was the house of Pws.1, 3<\/p>\n
and 4. But that didn’t happen. Neither Pws.1, 3 and 4 were<\/p>\n
assaulted.\n<\/p>\n
       21. The evidence of the witnesses coupled with Ext.P3,<\/p>\n
the scene mahazar and the evidence of Pw38, the investigating<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.658 of 2005.\n<\/p>\n
                              -: 22 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
officer, would show that the property where Pw3 and his friends<\/p>\n
took shelter was just on the eastern side of the house of Pw3. On<\/p>\n
the southern and eastern side of that property there are thodus.<\/p>\n
In the normal course, it is not easy to escape towards south or<\/p>\n
east because of the thodu. The evidence on record itself would<\/p>\n
show that Ravi fell into the thodu on the southern side and Pw3<\/p>\n
fell into the thodu on the eastern side.       If the information<\/p>\n
conveyed to Pw3 by the girl was true, in the normal course, the<\/p>\n
assailants would have first gone to the house of Pw3. But it was<\/p>\n
not seen so. The evidence of Pws.1 to 7, 10, 16 coupled with<\/p>\n
Ext.P3 would show that none in the party were armed with any<\/p>\n
weapon, except Pw1 was having a torch. That story itself is not<\/p>\n
believable. In the normal course of human conduct, since those<\/p>\n
persons were apprehending assault they should have carried<\/p>\n
something, at least for their defence. So also, they should have<\/p>\n
taken shelter in place from where they could escape in the event<\/p>\n
of attack and not to surrender unarmed in a place circled by<\/p>\n
thodu on two sides. Though Pw1 had a torch, the prosecution<\/p>\n
did not care to seize that torch. The evidence of Pws.1 to 7 and<\/p>\n
10 is to the effect that they identified the assailants in the light<\/p>\n
of the torch. Of course, some of the witnesses had deposed that<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.658 of 2005.\n<\/p>\n
                                  -: 23 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
there was good moon light. What is the position of the moon on<\/p>\n
that day has not come out in evidence. Form the evidence it<\/p>\n
appears that it was a coconut garden. In the normal course,<\/p>\n
there would have been shade of the palm leaves and it is very<\/p>\n
difficult to identify the assailants unless they are so previously<\/p>\n
well acquainted. The evidence on record would show that none<\/p>\n
of the witness has got a case that the assailants were so closely<\/p>\n
acquainted with or that those persons could be identified in<\/p>\n
night by their gait or sound. So the identification in the moon<\/p>\n
light is not convincing. So also, the story that a group of 21<\/p>\n
assailants who are not so familiar were identified in the torch<\/p>\n
light, that too while assault and Pw1, the torch bearer got scared<\/p>\n
and running to escape from the scene is also not believable.<\/p>\n
       22. The evidence of Dw2, the then Sub Inspector of<\/p>\n
Police, Vatanappally Police Station coupled with Ext.X2 would<\/p>\n
show that Pw3 is a rowdy as per the station records and the<\/p>\n
photograph of Pw3 was affixed in the police station and that Pw3<\/p>\n
was involved in several criminal cases since 1996. Of course,<\/p>\n
Pw3 had not admitted that he is a rowdy. But he had admitted<\/p>\n
that at the time of examination he was an accused in three<\/p>\n
criminal cases.           We find no reason to disbelieve DW2 and<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.658 of 2005.\n<\/p>\n
                              -: 24 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
conclude that Pw3 is a rowdy. If such a person apprehends some<\/p>\n
attack and remaining out side the house with ten persons<\/p>\n
together, in the normal course there would have been at least<\/p>\n
some sticks for defence though not for attack. So, the evidence<\/p>\n
that they were unarmed and waiting for assailants that too in a<\/p>\n
property covered by thodu or two sides is not believable.<\/p>\n
       23. Pw3 and 7, who said to have witnessed the attack<\/p>\n
against Ravi, neither cared to counter attack nor to defend the<\/p>\n
victim. So also, Pws.1, 4, 5 & 6 didn’t care to defend; nor to have<\/p>\n
any counter attack. According to Pw1, seeing the assailants<\/p>\n
rushing, he took to his heels with the torch bearing others in the<\/p>\n
darkness. So also Pws3 to 6 and 7 escaped from the scene. The<\/p>\n
evidence of Pw38 would show that at the time of preparation of<\/p>\n
scene mahazar he had found three iron sticks which were<\/p>\n
identified and marked as MOs.10, 11 and 25, one sword which<\/p>\n
was marked as MO9, an iron block which was marked as MO17<\/p>\n
and the cover of a knife which was marked as MO18, wooden<\/p>\n
stick which was marked as MO9. All these materials objects<\/p>\n
were lying at the spot and that he had seized the same while<\/p>\n
preparing Ext.P3 scene mahazar. The further evidence of Pw38<\/p>\n
is that he arrested accused 5, 8, 9, 10 and 17 and on the basis of<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.658 of 2005.\n<\/p>\n
                                -: 25 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
their confession statement MO9 sword, MOs.5, 26 and 27 GI<\/p>\n
pipes were seized on the strength of the confession statement.<\/p>\n
In the normal course since there was no counter attack from the<\/p>\n
side of the victim or the persons around the victim, that too at<\/p>\n
midnight, it is very difficult to believe that some of the assailants<\/p>\n
left the weapon at the spot so as to have it seized by the<\/p>\n
investigating officer. A reading of Ext.P3 would show that but<\/p>\n
for the weapons and MO6 lungi, there is nothing significant.<\/p>\n
       24. If the prosecution story is believed, at the property<\/p>\n
where Pw2 was assaulted and Ravi assaulted to death, there<\/p>\n
were 31 persons (including witnesses and victims) of whom 21<\/p>\n
were armed with deadly weapons. Pw2 and deceased Ravi fell<\/p>\n
down to the thodu because of the assault. Ext.P3 mahazar didn’t<\/p>\n
narrate anything regarding the foot prints nor there any mention<\/p>\n
regarding the thodu where Ravi and Pw2 fell into. It is brought<\/p>\n
out in cross examination of Pw38 that there was water in the<\/p>\n
thodu. It appears it is low lying area, though not marshy. In the<\/p>\n
normal course, there would be mud and water in the cloth of the<\/p>\n
victims. According to Pw2, MO6 lungi that he was wearing fell<\/p>\n
down while he was being lifted by Pw5 and others.             If the<\/p>\n
evidence of Pw38 and Ext.P3 are given reliance MO6 was seized<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.658 of 2005.\n<\/p>\n
                              -: 26 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
by Pw38 at the time of preparation of scene mahazar. But there<\/p>\n
is no mention that the lungi was wet with mud or water. As<\/p>\n
regards the cloth of the deceased there is no mention that it was<\/p>\n
either wet with mud or water. Ext.P16 inquest report didn’t<\/p>\n
mention that the cloth on the body of the deceased was wet with<\/p>\n
mud or water. If the evidence of Pw16 is believed, there is every<\/p>\n
chance for mud on the body and cloth of the deceased. Even the<\/p>\n
wound should have been contaminated with mud. Regarding<\/p>\n
that also there is no mention in the inquest report. In the post-<\/p>\n
mortem certificate also there is no mention. If the evidence of<\/p>\n
Pw16 is believed, deceased Ravi might have been lying<\/p>\n
unconscious in the thodu at least for a few minutes. At least the<\/p>\n
injuries on the lower limb should have been contaminated with<\/p>\n
mud.       The absence of mud and water on the cloth of the<\/p>\n
deceased or mud in the injuries stares at the evidence of Pw16.<\/p>\n
       25. We had earlier mentioned that Pw3 had an<\/p>\n
information that the house of himself, Pw1 and Pw4 would be<\/p>\n
attacked. It is crucial to note that neither their house nor the<\/p>\n
persons were attacked, but the attack was against Pw2 and<\/p>\n
deceased Ravi. If the evidence of Pw7 is believed, when the 3rd<\/p>\n
accused hacking Ravi with sword, Ravi was telling that ‘should<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.658 of 2005.\n<\/p>\n
                              -: 27 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
not hack, he was Ravi’. If that version is true, the attack against<\/p>\n
Ravi was either without identifying the victim because it was<\/p>\n
darkness or if there was some moon light, Ravi might have been<\/p>\n
attacked by a person known to Ravi and who had no enmity.<\/p>\n
Such a conclusion is justified because Ravi was telling to the<\/p>\n
assailants that not to hack, he was Ravi. If the evidence of Pw7<\/p>\n
is believed, after the 3rd accused hacking Ravi, accused 2, 7, 15<\/p>\n
and 17 rounded Ravi. If the allegation of the prosecution is true,<\/p>\n
all of them were armed with deadly weapons.          Pw7 avoided<\/p>\n
further by stating that he could not see anything after those<\/p>\n
persons circling the deceased. If that is so, there was only one<\/p>\n
victim and five or six assailants armed with deadly weapons and<\/p>\n
the victim couldn’t even defend. If all five or six persons attack<\/p>\n
one unarmed person, there would have been much more severe<\/p>\n
injuries. But no such injuries. It is also pertinent to note that<\/p>\n
Pw7 had deposed that the 7th accused threw away the iron rod<\/p>\n
towards south and that iron rod was identified by Pw7 and<\/p>\n
marked as MO10. MO10 was seized by Pw38 while preparing<\/p>\n
Ext.P3. The nature of injury found on the body of Ravi would<\/p>\n
show that there is no likelihood of these persons hacked or<\/p>\n
beating with swords or GI pipes like MO10. We don’t forget that<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.658 of 2005.\n<\/p>\n
                              -: 28 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
Pw35 had deposed about the likelihood of causing the injuries<\/p>\n
with the weapons produced.        But the crucial aspect is the<\/p>\n
manner of inflicting injuries. If it was in the way as deposed by<\/p>\n
Pw7, the injuries might have been more severe. So also, the<\/p>\n
absence of foot prints in the thodu looms large. To beat a person<\/p>\n
lying in a thodu assailants had to get down to the thodu. If 5 or 6<\/p>\n
persons getting down to a thodu having mud and water and<\/p>\n
assaulting an unarmed person lying in the thodu, definitely there<\/p>\n
would have been foot prints and speaking marks in the thodu<\/p>\n
and its banks. The absence of such markings in Ext.P3, in fact,<\/p>\n
persuades us to disbelieve the witness.\n<\/p>\n
       26. We had earlier mentioned that Pw3 had deposed that<\/p>\n
he had witnessed the assault on Ravi. According to Pw3, there<\/p>\n
were 23 persons who were identified in the torch light. Accused<\/p>\n
1 to 3 were armed with swords. Accused 7 and 15 were armed<\/p>\n
with iron pipes. The iron pipe used by the 5th accused to beat<\/p>\n
Ravi at his head is identified and marked as MO8. The sword<\/p>\n
used by the 2nd accused and 3rd accused were identified and<\/p>\n
marked as MOs.2 and 9. According to Pw3, other than the above<\/p>\n
mentioned persons, few other persons also hit or beat Ravi but<\/p>\n
he could not identify those persons.       Having got scared he<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.658 of 2005.\n<\/p>\n
                              -: 29 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
rushed to the house of Jayamama and telephoned to<\/p>\n
T.L.Santhosh to fetch a vehicle. Pw3 had admitted in cross-<\/p>\n
examination that he had not narrated the incident to Jayamama.<\/p>\n
In the normal course, if a person going to the house of a lady at<\/p>\n
midnight for calling a vehicle, he would have disclosed the<\/p>\n
purpose. The evidence of Pw3 that he didn’t inform the reason<\/p>\n
or purpose for telephoning to Jayamama would show that what<\/p>\n
he deposed before the court is not correct. It is also crucial to<\/p>\n
note that Pws.3 and 7 had rushed to the shop of Usman after<\/p>\n
they have seen Ravi being hurt. According to Pws.3 and 7, Pw5<\/p>\n
and others were there and Pw2 was brought with injuries by<\/p>\n
Pws.4 and 5. But Pws.4 and 5 has no case that they or any other<\/p>\n
person at the shop of Usman were told by Pws.3 or 7 about the<\/p>\n
hurt caused to Ravi. If the evidence on record is relied, Pws.3<\/p>\n
and 7 had been keeping silence till Pw16 came there.         That<\/p>\n
conduct of Pws.3 and 7 is not at all believable.<\/p>\n
       27. According to Pw16, when he enquired about Pw3, it<\/p>\n
was told by Pw5 that Pw3 had gone to the hospital with Pw2. If<\/p>\n
that is true Pw3 had gone to the hospital with Pw2 who was<\/p>\n
injured. In the normal course, Pw3 would have intimated Pws.4<\/p>\n
and 5 that Ravi was also hurt and that he also had to be lifted to<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.658 of 2005.\n<\/p>\n
                                  -: 30 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
the hospital. The failure of Pw3 and 7 to disclose the injuries<\/p>\n
sustained to Ravi would show that they might not have seen Ravi<\/p>\n
being hurt. They appear to be planted witnesses.<\/p>\n
       28. We had earlier mentioned that Pw3 is a rowdy of the<\/p>\n
Vatanappilly police station. The mere fact that he was a rowdy is<\/p>\n
not at all a reason to disbelieve him. Irrespective of the criminal<\/p>\n
background           of   Pw3, his  evidence is to  be    analysed<\/p>\n
independently. We find that a reading of the cross-examination<\/p>\n
of Pw38 regarding the statement given by Pw3 would be<\/p>\n
relevant. Pw38 would depose that when Pw3 was questioned he<\/p>\n
had not mentioned about the name and address of the 9th<\/p>\n
accused. So also he had not mentioned about the name of the 5th<\/p>\n
and 21st accused, Pw3 had not mentioned the presence of the<\/p>\n
11th accused. He had also not mentioned about the presence of<\/p>\n
the first accused or about the sword with the first accused. Pw3<\/p>\n
had deposed that the 3rd accused is known to him for about 19<\/p>\n
years and accused Nos.2, 7 and 15 were known to him for about<\/p>\n
four years. But Pw38 had deposed that Pw3 had not given such<\/p>\n
statement. So also Pw3 who had identified the sword in the<\/p>\n
hands of the 2nd accused had not been identified at the time of<\/p>\n
investigation. Pw38 had also admitted that while Pw3 being<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.658 of 2005.\n<\/p>\n
                                -: 31 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
questioned he had not mentioned that the assault was because of<\/p>\n
the political enmity.       But in the box he had mentioned so.<\/p>\n
Having due regard to the evidence of Pw38, we find that Pw3 is<\/p>\n
not a dependable witness.\n<\/p>\n
       29. In Ext.P1 first information statement Pw1 had<\/p>\n
mentioned about one Kuttamon and Unnikrishnan. But in the<\/p>\n
box Pw1 had admit that he couldn’t identify them. Though he<\/p>\n
had deposed that the first and second accused were armed with<\/p>\n
weapons at the spot, he had to admit that he could not identify<\/p>\n
them in the box. But he had identified accused Nos.5 and 17.<\/p>\n
Though he could not mention the name of the 6th accused and<\/p>\n
identified the 6th accused at the time of evidence, he had not<\/p>\n
mentioned about the 6th accused while giving Ext.P1. According<\/p>\n
to Pw38, during the course of investigation the name and<\/p>\n
address of 17 persons were disclosed. It is to that effect Ext.P25<\/p>\n
report was filed. In Ext.P25 report, the name and address of the<\/p>\n
persons mentioned in Ext.P1 was changed. Though the name of<\/p>\n
the fathers of some of the accused in Ext.P25 is mentioned, there<\/p>\n
is no mention regarding their address. The name of four persons<\/p>\n
comes only along with charge sheet.\n<\/p>\n
       30. The evidence of Pws.1 to 7 and 10 would show that in<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.658 of 2005.\n<\/p>\n
                              -: 32 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
fact, the accused persons were not so familiar to them to identify<\/p>\n
them in the moon light or in the flashes of torch. It is very<\/p>\n
crucial to note that the investigating officer had not conducted<\/p>\n
any test identification parade. It is true that test identification<\/p>\n
parade is not at all mandatory if there are other materials to<\/p>\n
identify the assailants. Here in this case, the evidence of the<\/p>\n
occurrence witnesses would show that none of them were<\/p>\n
familiar with the addresses of the assailants.       There was an<\/p>\n
attempt by the defence to bring out in evidence by examining.<\/p>\n
Dws.3 and 4, the Secretary of the Local Body and the Tahsildar<\/p>\n
were examined and produced the voters list to bring on record<\/p>\n
that there are so many persons in the locality with identical<\/p>\n
name and address. Of course, the availability of persons with<\/p>\n
identical name in the locality is not at all a reason to find against<\/p>\n
the prosecution in the event there is sufficient evidence to<\/p>\n
identify the assailants. But when there are more persons with<\/p>\n
identical names and the assailants being not familiar, the proper<\/p>\n
course open to the prosecution is to have the identity first<\/p>\n
established by conducting test identification parade. But for the<\/p>\n
best reason known to the investigating officer, there was no such<\/p>\n
attempt.\n<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.658 of 2005.\n<\/p>\n
                               -: 33 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
       31. The injury found on the body of deceased Ravi in fact,<\/p>\n
didn’t tally with the ocular witnesses. Having due regard to the<\/p>\n
nature of the injuries 3 to 11, we find that those abrasions might<\/p>\n
be sustained while lifting the deceased to the hospital. In the<\/p>\n
normal course, if beaten with iron rodes like MO8, there would<\/p>\n
be contusion and when beaten at the limbs with iron pipes there<\/p>\n
is chance even for fractures. If the evidence of Pws.3 and 7 is<\/p>\n
believed, Ravi was attacked by a group of people without any<\/p>\n
defence. He was even beaten while he fell unconscious in the<\/p>\n
thodu. But no such injuries are seen on the body of Ravi. In<\/p>\n
fact, there is conflict between the medical evidence and ocular<\/p>\n
evidence.       The reason for the occurrence witnesses and the<\/p>\n
victim gathered at the spot of occurrence at the midnight is the<\/p>\n
information given by Seena that Pw1, 3 and 4 would be attacked<\/p>\n
by RSS activists. Curiously Pws.1, 3 and 4 were not attacked. If<\/p>\n
Seena was examined, it would have been sometimes revealed out<\/p>\n
as to who were the assailants. Since Seena was not made a<\/p>\n
witness, even the reason stated by the witnesses having<\/p>\n
assaulted at the alleged spot of occurrence at the midst of night<\/p>\n
itself is very suspicious. As stated earlier, the story that the<\/p>\n
witnesses were unarmed is also not believable. Coupled with<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.658 of 2005.\n<\/p>\n
                              -: 34 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
that, it is even doubtful whether the incident occurred at the<\/p>\n
spot stated in Ext.P1.\n<\/p>\n
       32. In the above circumstance and the nature of evidence<\/p>\n
on record being as we stated earlier, we find that the evidence of<\/p>\n
Pws.3 and 7 regarding the assault on Ravi is not believable.<\/p>\n
They appear to be planted witness. It is even doubtful whether<\/p>\n
the incident was occurred at the spot as mentioned by the<\/p>\n
prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
       33. We had earlier mentioned that Pws.4, 5, 6 and 10 had<\/p>\n
claimed to have witnessed assault against Pw2. It is crucial to<\/p>\n
note that in Ext.P21 wound certificate relating to Pw2 the time of<\/p>\n
assault was shown as 10.45 pm. In the box, Pw2 had mentioned<\/p>\n
that the assault was at 11.00 am. But, according to all other<\/p>\n
witnesses, namely, Pw1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10 and 16, the time of<\/p>\n
occurrence was at 11.30 pm. If the entry in Ext.P21 is given due<\/p>\n
regard, Pw2 have sustained injury 45 minutes prior to the<\/p>\n
incident alleged in this case. If that is so, the entire prosecution<\/p>\n
story regarding assault on Pw2 is to be disbelieved.      There are<\/p>\n
also other circumstances to suspect that Pw2 might have<\/p>\n
sustained injury earlier. If Pw3 is believed after he telephoned<\/p>\n
from the house of Jayamama to Santhosh to fetch a vehicle,<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.658 of 2005.\n<\/p>\n
                              -: 35 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
presumably with intent to lift Ravi to the hospital, he saw Pws.4<\/p>\n
and 5 taking Pw2 from the spot to the shop of Usman and from<\/p>\n
there Pw2 was taken to the hospital in an autorickshaw. In the<\/p>\n
normal course of human conduct especially at midnight when<\/p>\n
vehicles are not easily available and if Pw3 was aware that Ravi<\/p>\n
was hurt in the same place both persons should have been taken<\/p>\n
to the hospital together. It is true that there may be a possibility<\/p>\n
for first lifting Pw2 without waiting for lifting Ravi. However,<\/p>\n
Ravi and Pw2 were taken to the Medical College Hospital in the<\/p>\n
same vehicle. According to the prosecution evidence, Pw2 was<\/p>\n
first taken to the Elite Mission Hospital then to the Medical<\/p>\n
College Hospital. Curiously, no evidence from the Elite Mission<\/p>\n
Hospital, where Pw2 was first taken, was brought out in<\/p>\n
evidence.\n<\/p>\n
       34. The very case of Pw2, which we had discussed in<\/p>\n
para.10 is that seeing the mob of assailant he moved towards<\/p>\n
east. Then the 11th accused inflicted a blow at the back of his<\/p>\n
head with an iron rod. Pw2 turned back. By the time the 5th<\/p>\n
accused hacked twice at his left thigh with a sword. Then he fell<\/p>\n
into the thodu. Immediately 9th and 11th accused inflicted blows<\/p>\n
at his both shoulders with iron rods. The injury found on the<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.658 of 2005.\n<\/p>\n
                               -: 36 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
body of Pw2 as revealed out in Ext.P21 wound certificate and<\/p>\n
deposed by Pw34 is stated in para.8. If the evidence of Pw34<\/p>\n
and Ext.P21 is given reliance there were only four injuries. Of<\/p>\n
the above, two of them were minor in nature. Conspicuously<\/p>\n
there is no injury on the shoulder of Pw2 despite he was beaten<\/p>\n
by 9th and 11th accused at his both shoulders. So, the medical<\/p>\n
evidence did not tally with the assault as deposed by Pw2.<\/p>\n
       35. We had earlier mentioned that Pw2 was alleged to<\/p>\n
have been first taken to Elite Mission Hospital, Thrissur. For the<\/p>\n
best reason known to         the prosecution, neither any wound<\/p>\n
certificate from the Elite Mission Hospital, was produced nor the<\/p>\n
Medical Officer who attended him was examined.           The non<\/p>\n
examination of the Doctor who attended the Elite Mission<\/p>\n
Hospital, and the non production of the wound certificate from<\/p>\n
that hospital is very suspicious. In Ext.P21, Pw34 had noted the<\/p>\n
time of assault at 10.45 pm. If any reliance is given to the time<\/p>\n
of assault noted in Ext.P21, no doubt, one can arrive an<\/p>\n
inference that the said injury might have been sustained in some<\/p>\n
manner other than what is alleged by the prosecution because<\/p>\n
the very case of the prosecution is that the alleged assault in this<\/p>\n
case is at 11.30 pm.<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.658 of 2005.\n<\/p>\n
                              -: 37 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
       36. We had earlier referred about MO6 lungi said to have<\/p>\n
been worn by Pw2 at the time of occurrence. It is the very case<\/p>\n
of Pw2 that because of the assault, he fell into the thodu. Pw38<\/p>\n
had admitted that there was water in the thodu. In the normal<\/p>\n
course MO6 would have been got wet and stained with mud.<\/p>\n
There would have been mud on the body of Pw2 also.            But<\/p>\n
neither on MO6 nor on the body of Pw2 there was any mud nor<\/p>\n
MO6 was wet with water. Such being the evidence of Pw2, we<\/p>\n
are unable to believe Pw2 also.\n<\/p>\n
       37. The evidence of Pws.4, 5, 6 & 10 is regarding the<\/p>\n
injuries sustained to Pw2. Since we disbelieved Pw2 regarding<\/p>\n
the injuries sustained to him, we find that we need not waste<\/p>\n
time for discussing the evidence of Pws.4, 5, 6 & 10 especially in<\/p>\n
the light of our conclusion regarding the evidence of Pws.3 and 7<\/p>\n
relating to grave part of the crime.      On going through the<\/p>\n
evidence of Pws.4 to 6 and 10 we find that they are also planted<\/p>\n
witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
       38. According to the prosecution, accused 9 and 11 were<\/p>\n
injured in the incident alleged. Exts.P17 and P16 respectively<\/p>\n
are the wound certificate obtained by the investigating officer<\/p>\n
after sending accused 9 and 11 to the doctor after their arrest.<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.658 of 2005.\n<\/p>\n
                                  -: 38 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
There is no explanation in the charge sheet as to how accused 9<\/p>\n
and 11 sustained injuries. If the evidence of Pws.1 to 7 and 10<\/p>\n
are believed, none of the victim or the witnesses were armed<\/p>\n
with any weapon and there was no counter attack even for the<\/p>\n
sake of defence. Whereas Pw2 and deceased Ravi had been<\/p>\n
suffering the assault without any defence. There was no fight for<\/p>\n
any weapon.           So, there is little likelihood of having accused<\/p>\n
Nos.9 and 11 sustained injury out of the incident alleged in this<\/p>\n
case. In that view of the matter, the non-explanation of the<\/p>\n
injury found on accused Nos.9 and 11 also would cast serious<\/p>\n
doubt on the prosecution story.\n<\/p>\n
       39. To sum up, on a careful analysis of evidence on<\/p>\n
record, though there is some sound and fury in the evidence of<\/p>\n
prosecution, there is little convincing material to connect the<\/p>\n
appellants with the offence alleged. The story of the prosecution<\/p>\n
regarding the manner in which the offence was committed, place<\/p>\n
and time of occurrence is not at all convincing. It appears that<\/p>\n
Pw2 and deceased Ravi had sustained injury in some manner<\/p>\n
other than that was narrated by the witnesses. There is wide<\/p>\n
cloud in the evidence. Even the place of occurrence alleged by<\/p>\n
he prosecution is not free from suspicious. Therefore, we find<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal No.658 of 2005.\n<\/p>\n
                                  -: 39 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
that the prosecution had not succeeded to establish the guilt<\/p>\n
alleged against the appellants beyond the shadow of reasonable<\/p>\n
doubt. We find that the conviction and sentence under challenge<\/p>\n
are not legally sustainable. Hence it is liable to be set aside.<\/p>\n
       In the result, the appeal is allowed. While setting aside the<\/p>\n
conviction and sentence under challenge in SC.No.467\/2001 of<\/p>\n
the Sessions Division, Thrissur against the appellants, they are<\/p>\n
set at liberty.           The appellants shall be released forthwith<\/p>\n
provided their presence is not warranted in any other case.<\/p>\n
                              K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                      P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
Kvs\/-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Chinchu @ Chandrakumar vs State Of Kerala on 30 September, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM CRL.A.No. 658 of 2005() 1. CHINCHU @ CHANDRAKUMAR, AGED 28 YEARS, … Petitioner 2. GIREESH AGED 23, 3. SAJEEV AGED 23, 4. SAJEEVAN @ RAJEEVAN, AGED 20 5. RAJU @ MISSILE RAJU, AGED […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-93093","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nChinchu @ Chandrakumar vs State Of Kerala on 30 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinchu-chandrakumar-vs-state-of-kerala-on-30-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Chinchu @ Chandrakumar vs State Of Kerala on 30 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinchu-chandrakumar-vs-state-of-kerala-on-30-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-09-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-10-10T13:00:43+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"44 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chinchu-chandrakumar-vs-state-of-kerala-on-30-september-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chinchu-chandrakumar-vs-state-of-kerala-on-30-september-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Chinchu @ Chandrakumar vs State Of Kerala on 30 September, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-10-10T13:00:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chinchu-chandrakumar-vs-state-of-kerala-on-30-september-2009\"},\"wordCount\":8770,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chinchu-chandrakumar-vs-state-of-kerala-on-30-september-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chinchu-chandrakumar-vs-state-of-kerala-on-30-september-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chinchu-chandrakumar-vs-state-of-kerala-on-30-september-2009\",\"name\":\"Chinchu @ Chandrakumar vs State Of Kerala on 30 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-10-10T13:00:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chinchu-chandrakumar-vs-state-of-kerala-on-30-september-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chinchu-chandrakumar-vs-state-of-kerala-on-30-september-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chinchu-chandrakumar-vs-state-of-kerala-on-30-september-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Chinchu @ Chandrakumar vs State Of Kerala on 30 September, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Chinchu @ Chandrakumar vs State Of Kerala on 30 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinchu-chandrakumar-vs-state-of-kerala-on-30-september-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Chinchu @ Chandrakumar vs State Of Kerala on 30 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinchu-chandrakumar-vs-state-of-kerala-on-30-september-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-09-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-10-10T13:00:43+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"44 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinchu-chandrakumar-vs-state-of-kerala-on-30-september-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinchu-chandrakumar-vs-state-of-kerala-on-30-september-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Chinchu @ Chandrakumar vs State Of Kerala on 30 September, 2009","datePublished":"2009-09-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-10-10T13:00:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinchu-chandrakumar-vs-state-of-kerala-on-30-september-2009"},"wordCount":8770,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinchu-chandrakumar-vs-state-of-kerala-on-30-september-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinchu-chandrakumar-vs-state-of-kerala-on-30-september-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinchu-chandrakumar-vs-state-of-kerala-on-30-september-2009","name":"Chinchu @ Chandrakumar vs State Of Kerala on 30 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-09-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-10-10T13:00:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinchu-chandrakumar-vs-state-of-kerala-on-30-september-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinchu-chandrakumar-vs-state-of-kerala-on-30-september-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinchu-chandrakumar-vs-state-of-kerala-on-30-september-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Chinchu @ Chandrakumar vs State Of Kerala on 30 September, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/93093","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=93093"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/93093\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=93093"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=93093"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=93093"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}