9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Conspiracy at Calicut 2. Conspiracy at Tutorial College, Tellicherry 3. Attack on Tellicherry Police Station 4. Attack on Pulpally Wireless Station 5. Dacoity in the house of P.W. 106 6. Dacoity in the shop of P.W. 116 7. Dacoity in the house of P.W. 117 Detailed Analysis: Conspiracy at Calicut The prosecution alleged that a conspiracy was hatched at the house of accused No. 1 at Calicut on 30-10-1968. However, the court found that the evidence provided by P.W. 21, who was declared hostile, did not satisfactorily prove the conspiracy. P.W. 21 admitted he overheard discussions from the ground floor and could not identify the participants. The court ruled out P.W. 21's evidence as speculative and insufficient to corroborate the accomplice witnesses' testimonies. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the conspiracy at Calicut. Conspiracy at Tutorial College, Tellicherry The prosecution claimed a conspiracy meeting was held at the Tutorial College owned by accused No. 2 on 17-11-1968. The court found P.W. 23's evidence unreliable as he allegedly overheard the meeting from beneath a staircase and could not see the participants. P.W. 23 also provided inconsistent statements. The court concluded that the prosecution did not provide cogent and reliable evidence to prove the conspiracy at Tellicherry. Attack on Tellicherry Police Station The prosecution alleged that the accused raided the Tellicherry Police Station on 22-11-1968. The court found that the F.I.R. (Ex. P-93) did not name any accused and noted discrepancies in the testimonies of P.W. 63 and P.W. 64. The court ruled that the identification of the accused in court without a prior T.I. parade was valueless. Thus, the prosecution failed to prove the participation of the accused in the attack on Tellicherry Police Station. Attack on Pulpally Wireless Station The prosecution successfully proved the attack on Pulpally Wireless Station on 24-11-1968. The F.I.R. and testimonies of P.W. 92, P.W. 94, and the statement of Sub-Inspector Sankunny Menon (Ex. P-107) provided substantial evidence. The court found that accused Nos. 5, 7, 16, 128, 135, 145, 146, and 147 participated in the attack. The court altered their convictions to Section 149/455 IPC and sentenced them to 7 years' rigorous imprisonment. Dacoity in the house of P.W. 106 The prosecution alleged a dacoity in the house of P.W. 106 on 24-11-1968. The court found that P.W. 106's identification of A.5 was unreliable as it was made under stress and was not corroborated by other witnesses. The court ruled that there was no legal evidence against A.5, and the accomplice evidence could not be used. Dacoity in the shop of P.W. 116 The prosecution alleged a dacoity in the shop of P.W. 116. The court found that the F.I.R. (Ex. P-134) did not identify any accused by name or face. P.W. 116's in-court identification of the accused was deemed unreliable without a prior T.I. parade. The court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove this incident. Dacoity in the house of P.W. 117 The prosecution alleged a dacoity in the house of P.W. 117. The court found that the F.I.R. (Ex. P-133) did not identify any accused. P.W. 117's in-court identification of A.16 was not mentioned in the F.I.R. and thus was unreliable. The court ruled that there was no evidence to prove the dacoity in P.W. 117's house. Conclusion: The prosecution failed to prove the conspiracies at Calicut and Tellicherry, as well as the dacoities in the houses of P.W. 106 and P.W. 117, and the shop of P.W. 116. However, the prosecution successfully proved the attack on Pulpally Wireless Station, resulting in the conviction of accused Nos. 5, 7, 16, 128, 135, 145, 146, and 147 under Section 149/455 IPC with a sentence of 7 years' rigorous imprisonment. All other appellants were acquitted of the charges against them.
|
