KATTUKULANGARA MADHAVAN (DEAD)THR. LRS. Vs MAJEED .
Bench: S.A. BOBDE,L. NAGESWARA RAO
Case number: Crl.A. No.-000400-000400 / 2006
Diary number: 586 / 2006
Advocates: SENTHIL JAGADEESAN Vs
Page 1
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.400 of 2006
KATTUKULANGARA MADHAVAN (DEAD) THR. LRS. .... Appellant(s)
Versus MAJEED & ORS. ….Respondent(s)
With
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.661 OF 2006
KATTUKULANGARA MADHAVAN (DEAD) THR. LRS. .... Appellant(s)
Versus SIDDIK & ORS. ….Respondent(s)
And
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.141 OF 2007
STATE OF KERALA .... Appellant(s) Versus
ABOOBACKER @ ARABI ABOOBACKER & ORS. ….Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.
The Sessions Court, Thrissur convicted A1 to A4, A14,
A15, and A18 under Section 302 read with 149 Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’) and
sentenced them to imprisonment for life. They were also
1
Page 2
convicted for offences under Section 143, 147, 148, 341, 342
and 324/149 IPC. A5 to A13, A16 and A17 were acquitted.
A1 to A4, A14, A15 and A18 who were convicted, filed an
Appeal before the High Court of Kerala. The State of Kerala
and the complainant (father of the deceased) also filed
appeals against the order of acquittal of A5 to A13, A16 and
A17. By way of abundant caution the complainant also filed
a Criminal Revision challenging the acquittal of the said
accused. The judgment of the Trial Court acquitting A5 to
A13, A16 and A17 was confirmed by the High Court. A1 was
convicted under Section 302 and sentenced to imprisonment
for life. A2 and A4 were convicted under Section 324/149
IPC and were sentenced to imprisonment of 1 year. A3, A14,
A15 and A18 were acquitted. A1 filed an appeal before this
Court which abated as he died. The complainant filed an
appeal against the acquittal of A2 to A4, A14, A15 and A18.
He also filed an appeal challenging the acquittal of A5 to A13,
A16 and A17. The State of Kerala also assailed the acquittal
of A2 to A4, A14, A15 and A18 by filing an appeal. It is
relevant to take note of the fact that initially 21 persons were
named as accused. A21 absconded and A19 and A20 died
during the course of trial. A1, A2, A5 and A12 died during
the pendency of the appeals.
2
Page 3
2. The case of the prosecution was that PW-14, a Head
Constable attached to Kunnamkulam Police Station, received
a phone call in the evening on 10.03.1993 that there was a
fight going on at Ottappilavu centre. He along with two
other police men reached the place of the incident and found
a person lying on the road margin on the western side of the
road. As he was unconscious and was bleeding due to
injuries, he was taken to the Government hospital,
Kunnamkulam for treatment in a police jeep. The Doctor
examined him and declared him dead. As the identity of the
deceased was not known, PW 14 kept the body in the
mortuary, went back to the police station and recorded the
details in the General Diary. The First Information
Statement of PW-1 Krishnankutty was recorded at 12:00
midnight on 10.03.1993. He stated that there was a dispute
between people belonging to RSS and CPI (Marxist) party in
connection with the festival at Korattikara Vishnu Bhagwati
Temple. He further stated that at about 08:15 pm on
10.03.1993 when he was walking back home and reached
Ottappilavu centre he saw A2 to A5, A13, A19 and A21 along
with number of others attacking Suresh Babu. He also
stated that Suresh Babu was stabbed to death by A13 and
others. On the basis of the First Information Statement FIR
3
Page 4
No.95 of 1993 was registered at Kunnamkulam Police Station
under Section 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, 302/149 IPC at
12:00 midnight on 10.03.1993 by PW15. Inquest was
conducted between 9:45 am to 12:45 pm by PW15. The
Assistant Professor of Forensic Medicine at Medical College,
Thrissur (PW13) conducted the autopsy immediately
thereafter. The post-mortem certificate referred to 26
injuries on the body of the deceased Suresh Babu and the
cause of death was stated as “the deceased died of multiple
injuries sustained to chest”. The FIR was sent to the
Magistrate in the morning on 11.03.1993.
3. Not satisfied with the investigation, Madhavan (PW12),
the father of the deceased filed a private complaint on
01.04.1994 before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class,
Kunnamkulam. He along with 4 other witnesses was
examined and process was issued to the accused persons.
PW4 Chandran was mentioned as a witness in the complaint.
On 08.09.1994, Madhavan submitted another list of
witnesses in which PW5 and PW6 were included. The cases
of the prosecution and the private complainant were
consolidated. The Sessions Court directed the prosecution to
submit a schedule of witnesses which would include the
witnesses mentioned in the private complaint also. The
4
Page 5
consolidated list of witnesses given by the prosecution
included PW4, PW5 and PW6.
4. After completion of investigation, all the accused were
charged for committing offences under Sections 143, 147,
148, 341, 323 and 302/149 IPC. As stated earlier A19 and
A20 died during the course of trial and A21 absconded. The
other accused pleaded not guilty and were tried for the
aforementioned offences. There were 16 witnesses examined
on behalf of the prosecution and 3 witnesses by the defence.
PW1 Krishnankutty, who was the informant and PW2
Gopinathan who was an eyewitness turned hostile. Likewise,
PW-8 Sulalman, PW9 Ashraf and PW10 Francis who were
attestors to the scene mahazar and seizure of the weapon
also turned hostile. PW11 Kuttikrishan who was the driver
of the bus in which the deceased was travelling also turned
hostile.
5. The testimony of PW3 was examined in detail by the
Trial Court. After considering the submissions on behalf of
the defence, the Trial Court held that the evidence of PW3
Subramanian was consistent, cogent and in conformity with
the prosecution case. The Trial Court held that PW4 was
also a credible witness. According to the Trial Court there
was no material contradiction brought out in the evidence of
5
Page 6
PW5 Balan who was an eyewitness. PW6 Velayudhan was
found to be a doubtful witness and the Trial Court held that
it was not safe to rely on his evidence. The Trial Court
concluded that there was corroboration to the oral testimony
of PW3 to PW5 from the medical evidence. The oral evidence
showed that A1 stabbed on the left side of the back of the
deceased which corresponds to injury No.24. The other stab
injuries inflicted by A1 and A21 as mentioned by the
eyewitness also correspond to the stab injuries in Exh.P-11
(post-mortem certificate). Injury No.24 had the depth of 7.5
c.m. caused by knife which entered the left chest cavity
through the 5th intercostal space. It terminated at the upper
part of lower lobe of the left lung. The Doctor opined that
this injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to
cause death. The Trial Court held that A1 had a definite
intention to kill the deceased. Considering the fact that the
other accused continued to beat the deceased with sticks
even after stabbing by A1 and A21, the Trial Court held that
there was a common object of murder on the part of the
accused. A5 to A13, A16 and A17 were acquitted by the Trial
Court as there was no evidence against them. A1 to A4, A14,
A15 and A18 were convicted under Section 302/149 IPC and
sentenced to imprisonment for life.
6
Page 7
6. The appeals filed by the convicted accused, the appeals
filed by the State and the complainant against the acquittal
of some accused were taken up along with the Criminal
Revision filed by the complainant against the acquittal. The
High Court discarded the evidence of PW5 and PW6. The
High Court held that PW3 is a trustworthy witness and
PW4’s evidence can be used for corroboration. Placing
reliance on the evidence of PW3 and PW4, the High Court
upheld the conviction of A1 under Section 302 IPC. The
High Court also held A2 and A4 guilty of an offence
punishable under Section 324/149 IPC by acquitting them of
an offence under Section 302/149 IPC. A3, A14, A15 and
A18 were acquitted for offences under Section 302/149 IPC
by the High Court. The acquittal of other accused A5 to A13,
A16 and A17 recorded by the Trial Court was confirmed by
the High Court. The High Court referred to the remand
report dated 17.03.1993 of the Circle Inspector in which it
was recorded that on 10.03.1993 sympathisers of CPI (M)
were attacked by the followers of BJP at Ottappilavu. In that
incident Moidunny, Ali, Subramannian, Shameer and
Kunhikoya sustained serious injuries and crime No.96 of
1993 in the Kunnamkulam Police Station under Section 143,
147, 148, 323, 324, 307/149 IPC was registered. There were
7
Page 8
three other cases which were registered against the
sympathisers of CPI (M) for incidents that took place at 06:15
pm on the same day. Taking note of the series of clashes on
10.03.1993, the High Court repelled the submission of the
defence about the unexplained delay in filing of the FIR and
the delay in the FIR reaching the Magistrate only on the next
day. The High Court relying upon the judgments of this
Court held that the recovery of weapon not being proved is
not fatal to the prosecution case. The submission made on
behalf of the accused that PW3 and PW4 cannot be believed
on the ground that their conduct was contrary to normal
human behaviour was also rejected on the ground that there
cannot be any straight jacket formula for the reaction of a
person who had witnessed a criminal act. The High Court
relied upon the judgments of this Court in which it was held
that human behaviour is unpredictable and there is no set
rule of natural reaction. The defence witnesses were
disbelieved by the High Court. All the accused except A1, A2
and A4 were acquitted of all the charges against them on the
ground that the prosecution was unable to prove the
common object of the unlawful assembly for the murder of
Suresh Babu.
8
Page 9
7. The complainant filed Criminal Appeal No.400 of 2006
against the acquittal of A2 to A4, A14, A15 and A18. He also
filed Criminal Appeal No.661 of 2006 assailing the acquittal
of A5 to A13, A16 and A17. The State of Kerala has filed
Criminal Appeal No.141 of 2007 challenging the judgment of
the High Court by which A2 to A4, A14, A15 and A18 were
acquitted. A1 also approached this Court by filing an Appeal
against his conviction under Section 302 IPC. However, the
said appeal abated in view of the death of A1. We have heard
Mr.Basant R., learned Senior Counsel for the appellant/
complainant in Criminal Appeal Nos.400 of 2006, Mr. G.
Prakash, Advocate for the State of Kerala in Crl. Appeal No.
141 of 2007 and Mr. Siddharth Luthra, learned Senior
Counsel for the accused. Mr. Basant submitted that the
complainant was compelled to file a private complaint in view
of the perfunctory investigation into the murder of Suresh
Babu. He submitted that there was a consolidation of the
prosecution case and the case filed by the complainant under
Section 210 Cr.P.C. He further submitted that a
consolidated list of witnesses was prepared. According to
the learned Senior Counsel, the High Court committed a
serious error in eschewing the evidence of PW5 from
consideration. He also stated that the evidence of PW4
9
Page 10
should have been relied upon by the High Court instead of
using it only for corroborating the evidence of PW3. He urged
that the High Court erred in holding that the common object
of the accused was not proved. He also argued that
admittedly there was a homicide and A1 was convicted for
causing the death of Suresh Babu. The High Court also
convicted A2 and A4 for offences under Sections 143, 147,
148, 324/149 IPC. He submitted that all the accused are
liable for conviction under Section 302/149 IPC especially
when A2 and A4 were convicted under Section 143, 147, 148,
324/149 IPC and A1 convicted under Section 302 IPC.
Mr.G.Prakash, Advocate, appearing for the State of Kerala
adopted the submissions made by Mr. Basant.
8. Mr. Siddharth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the accused took us through the evidence of
PW4, PW5 and PW6 and submitted that they are all
interested witnesses who deposed at the instance of the
complainant. He submitted that the informant PW1 and
another eyewitness PW2 turned hostile. He stated that the
offence took place on a public road and no independent
eyewitnesses were produced by the prosecution to prove the
case. He further submitted that apart from PW4 no other
witness cited in the private complaint was examined. The
10
Page 11
partisan and interested testimonies of eye witnesses who
belonged to the opposite political party ought not to have
been taken into consideration by the Courts below. He also
commented upon the unnatural behaviour of PW3 and PW4
after the incident. Mr. Luthra finally submitted that the
appeals against acquittal should not be interfered lightly by
this Court. In any event, according to him, when there are
two views possible, the accused should be given the benefit.
9. As stated earlier, A1, A2, A5 and A12 died during the
pendency of the appeals before this Court. The remaining
accused can be categorised into three groups. The first
group consists of A5 to A13, A16 and A17 who were
acquitted both by the Trial Court and the High Court. The
second group consists of A3, A14, A15 and A18 who were
convicted by the Trial Court under Section 302/149 IPC but
acquitted by the High Court. A4 forms the third group
whose conviction under Section 302/149 IPC by the Trial
Court was set aside by the High Court. However, he was
convicted under Section 324/149 IPC and sentenced for a
period of 1 year.
10. PW3, who was an independent witness and was believed
by both the Courts below, gave a vivid description of the
incident. He stated that he was a resident of Ottappilavu
11
Page 12
and that he was acquainted with the deceased Suresh Babu
who was residing about 1 k.m. away from his house. He
deposed that he went to Kunnamkulam to purchase
medicines for his brother who was unwell. He boarded a
stage carriage bus by name Babu bus at Kunnamkulam.
The deceased Suresh Babu was travelling in the same bus.
He stated that when the bus reached Ottappilavu junction,
A1, A2, A4 and A5 entered the bus, pulled Suresh Babu out
of the bus and took him to the front side of the bus and
attacked him. He further stated that A1 inflicted a stab
injury on the back of the left side of the chest of Suresh
Babu. The deceased fell down and A1 inflicted two more stab
injuries. When the deceased was struggling to stand up and
escape the other accused indiscriminately beat him with a
reaper and sticks. He did not alight from the bus and
continued his travel and got down at Chalissery junction.
He stated that he was questioned by the police after two
days. He identified M.O.1 knife used by A1. PW4 was also
an eyewitness to the incident. He stated that A2 to A4, A10,
A13, A14, A15, A18 and A20 attacked the deceased with
sticks and a reaper after A1 and A21 inflicted stab injuries
on the deceased. He stated that his house is situated 2/3
k.m. from the house of the deceased and that he also
12
Page 13
attended the funeral of Suresh Babu. He was cited as a
witness in the private complaint filed by PW12 (appellant).
His statement was recorded by the Magistrate under Section
202 Cr. P.C. PW6 was disbelieved by the Trial Court as well
as by the High Court. The evidence of PW5 disbelieved by
the High Court. The High Court acquitted A3, A14, A15 and
A18 of the charges under Section 302/149 IPC on two
grounds. The first ground was that PW3 did not depose
about their presence and it was only PW4 who stated about
their involvement. The second ground was that there is no
evidence to show that the members of the unlawful assembly
had a common object to cause the death of Suresh Babu.
Modification of the conviction and sentence of A4 from
Section 302/149 IPC to Section 324/149 IPC was on the
ground that A4 who was a member of the unlawful assembly
did not share a common object of causing the death of
Suresh Babu along with A1 and A21.
11. We are of the opinion that the High Court committed a
serious error in not taking into consideration the evidence of
PW4. The finding recorded by the High Court that the
evidence of PW4 can be considered only for the limited
purpose of corroboration of evidence of PW3 is unreasonable
and perverse. After recording a finding that the evidence of
13
Page 14
PW4 cannot be rejected only on the ground that he was not
questioned by the police, the High Court proceeded to hold
that the evidence of PW4 can be used only for corroboration
of PW3’s evidence. Unlike PW5 and PW6 who were cited as
witnesses in the second list of witnesses given by the
complainant five months after filing of the complaint, PW4
was named as a witness in the complaint. Further, his
statement was recorded by the Magistrate under Section 202
Cr. P.C. There was a consolidated list of witnesses given by
the prosecution. The High Court has not given any reason as
to why the evidence of PW4 can be used only for
corroboration. On a careful examination of the evidence of
PW4 we are of the considered opinion that the Trial Court
was right in relying upon his testimony and the High Court
was not correct in holding that it can be used only for
corroboration of PW3’s evidence. The finding of the High
Court that A3, A14, A15 and A18 are entitled for acquittal on
the basis that PW3 did not speak about their presence is
liable to be set aside as PW4 had categorically mentioned
about their involvement.
12. The High Court held that the accused were not aware
that the deceased was travelling in the bus and there is no
evidence to show that they formed an unlawful assembly
14
Page 15
with a view to attack and commit his murder. The High
Court referred to the clash between the supporters of CPI (M)
and BJP workers on 10.03.1993. The High Court held that
the deceased was attacked due to political rivalry but there is
no evidence to show that the members of the unlawful
assembly had a common object to commit his murder. The
High Court also found that A1 and A21 alone inflicted stab
injuries and the other members of the unlawful assembly
who caused injuries on the non vital parts cannot be said to
have shared the common object of causing the death of
Suresh Babu. The common object of the unlawful assembly
can be gathered from the nature of the assembly, arms used
by them and the behaviour of the assembly at or before the
scene of occurrence. It is an inference to be deduced from
the fact and circumstances of the case (See Lalji v. State of
U.P., (1989) 1 SCC 437 ¶8). It is also settled law that the
mere presence in the unlawful assembly may vicariously
fasten criminal liability under Section 149 IPC (See. State of
UP v. Dan Singh (1997) 3 SCC 747).
13. We are not in agreement with the High Court regarding
the absence of common object of the A3, A4, A14, A15 and
A18. The evidence on record shows that the deceased and
accused belong to two political parties opposed to each other.
15
Page 16
There were three other incidents of clashes between the rival
groups. The existence of a CPI (M) office at Ottappilavu
junction is proved by a sketch of the site of the incident. The
accused along with others assembled and were searching for
BJP workers travelling in the buses that were passing
through the junction. We do not agree with the finding of the
High Court that merely because the accused did not plan to
murder Suresh Babu (deceased), there was no common
object. The common object of the members of the unlawful
assembly was to attack any BJP supporter who was passing
through Ottappilavu junction. Unfortunately, Suresh Babu
was in the bus and he was killed in the attack.
14. Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade
v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793 ¶ 6 held as
follows:
“The evil of acquitting a guilty person light heartedly as a learned Author [Glanville Williams in ‘Proof of Guilt’.] has sapiently observed, goes much beyond the simple fact that just one guilty person has gone unpunished. If unmerited acquittals become general, they tend to lead to a cynical disregard of the law, and this in turn leads to a public demand for harsher legal presumptions against indicted “persons” and more severe punishment of those who are found guilty. Thus, too frequent acquittals of the guilty may lead to a ferocious penal law, eventually eroding the judicial protection of the guiltless. For all these reasons it is true to say, with Viscount Simon, that “a miscarriage of justice may arise from the acquittal of the guilty no less than from the conviction of the innocent.…” In short, our jurisprudential enthusiasm for presumed innocence
16
Page 17
must be moderated by the pragmatic need to make criminal justice potent and realistic.”
The point that remains to be considered is whether A3, A4,
A14, A15 and A18 are liable to be convicted under Section
302/149 IPC. Taking into account the fact that the incident
occurred in the year 1993, that they attacked the deceased
with sticks causing simple injuries on non-vital parts, their
conviction under Section 326/149 IPC will meet the ends of
justice. The Trial Court convicted A4 under Section 324/149
IPC and sentenced for imprisonment for 2 years along with
his conviction under Section 302/149 IPC. The High Court
acquitted A4 under Section 302/149 IPC and reduced the
sentence under Section 324/149 IPC to 1 year. A4 was
separated from A3, A14, A15 and A18 only on the ground
that PW3 spoke about his presence. Otherwise, the role
ascribed to A4 is the same as that of A3, A14, A15 and A18.
In the result A3 Majeed, A4 Ummer alias Podi Ummer, A14
Balaji, A15 Muraleedharan and A18 Hasheem alias
Muhammed Hasheem are sentenced to 7 years imprisonment
under Section 326/149 IPC. They shall surrender within 4
weeks to serve the sentence. Criminal Appeal No. 661 of
2006 filed by the complainant against the acquittal of A5
Siddik, A6 Asharaf, A7 Sundaran, A8 Rajan, A9 Monutty
17
Page 18
alias Dharmarajan, A10 Kunhippa, A11 Kunhimon, A13
Sathyan, A16 Shaji Alias Kuttamon and A17 Kurukkal
Rassak is dismissed. Criminal Appeal No. 400 of 2006 and
141 of 2007 filed by the complainant and State respectively
against the acquittal of A3 Majeed, A4 Ummer alias Podi
Ummer, A14 Balaji, A15 Muralledharan and A18 Hasheem
alias Muhammed Hasheem are allowed.
..……................................J [S. A. BOBDE]
..……................................J [L. NAGESWARA RAO]
New Delhi, March 30, 2017
18
Page 19
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.400 OF 2006
KATTUKULANGARA MADHAVAN (DEAD) THR. LRS. ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS MAJEED & ORS.
...RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.661 OF 2006
KATTUKULANGARA MADHAVAN (DEAD) THR. LRS. ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
SIDDIK & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.141 OF 2007
STATE OF KERALA …..APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
ABOOBACKER @ ARABI ABOOBACKER & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)
JUDGMENT
S. A. BOBDE, J.
I am in complete agreement with my learned brother
Nageswara Rao J. I would, however, like to deal with one
submission made at the bar in relation to the culpability of an
accused participating in an unlawful assembly in general, and
that of A4 Ummer alias Podi Ummer in particular. It has been
argued on behalf of A4 that his mere presence in the unlawful
19
Page 20
assembly could not be inculpatory since none of the witnesses
attributed an overt act to the accused. Such a submission
without any concrete evidence enabling the Court to infer that
the accused did not in fact harbor the same intention as that of
the unlawful assembly, cannot be accepted.
In the first place, the presence of an accused as part of
an unlawful assembly, when not as a curious onlooker or a
bystander, suggests his participation in the object of the
assembly. When the prosecution establishes such presence,
then it is the conduct of the accused that would determine
whether he continued to participate in the unlawful assembly
with the intention to fulfill the object of the assembly, or not.
It could well be that an accused had no intention to participate
in the object of the assembly. For example, if the object of the
assembly is to murder someone, it is possible that the accused
as a particular member of the assembly had no knowledge of
the intention of the other members whose object was to
murder, unless of course the evidence to the contrary shows
such knowledge. But having participated and gone along with
the others, an inference whether inculpatory or exculpatory can
be drawn from the conduct of such an accused. The following
questions arise with regard to the conduct of such an accused:-
1. What was the point of time at which he discovered
that the assembly intended to kill the victim? 2. Having discovered that, did he make any attempt
to stop the assembly from pursuing the object?
20
Page 21
3. If he did, and failed, did he dissociate himself from
the assembly by getting away?
The answer to these questions would determine whether
an accused shared the common object in the assembly.
Without evidence that the accused had no knowledge of the
unlawful object of the assembly or without evidence that after
having gained knowledge, he attempted to prevent the
assembly from accomplishing the unlawful object, and without
evidence that after having failed to do so, the accused
disassociated himself from the assembly, the mere participation
of an accused in such an assembly would be inculpatory.
In the case of A4, there is no such evidence on record
that having participated in the unlawful assembly which
resulted in the death of Suresh Babu, he made any attempt to
either stop the incident from taking place, or having found out
that he could not prevent it, dissociated himself from the
assembly.
Therefore, he must be held liable under Section 326/149
of the Indian Penal Code.
.....................………J. [ S.A. BOBDE ]
NEW DELHI, MARCH 30, 2017
21
Page 22 22