1974 (2) TMI 89 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Rival factions and the background of the incident.
2. Sequence of events leading to the incident.
3. Eyewitness accounts and their credibility.
4. The trial court's judgment and its reasoning.
5. High Court's reversal of the trial court's acquittal.
6. Appellants' contentions against the High Court's judgment.
7. Supreme Court's analysis and conclusion.

Analysis:

1. Rival Factions and the Background of the Incident:
The incident stemmed from rivalries between two factions of Muslims in the village Veliyathunad. The appellants and their co-accused belonged to the Nadiattil and Allapat families, while the prosecution witnesses and the deceased were from the lower middle class. The factions had their own kalaries (gymnasiums), and a confrontation on March 13, 1969, involving taunts and physical altercations led to the fatal incident on March 14, 1969.

2. Sequence of Events Leading to the Incident:
On March 14, 1969, after the Friday prayers at the Jummaath Mosque, the appellants positioned themselves near the mosque's main gate. A-1 stabbed Kochunni, A-5 injured P.W. 1, and A-2 further attacked Kochunni. Concurrently, A-3 and A-4 stabbed Kunjeen. The incident involved stone-pelting by other accused. The police were informed, and the investigation commenced promptly.

3. Eyewitness Accounts and Their Credibility:
The trial judge analyzed the testimonies of P.Ws. 1, 2, 8, and 9 in three stages, ultimately finding their evidence inconsistent and unreliable. However, the High Court found the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 8, and 9 credible and consistent on material points. The High Court noted that the occurrence took place in broad daylight, and the assailants were well-known to the witnesses, eliminating the possibility of mistaken identity.

4. The Trial Court's Judgment and Its Reasoning:
The trial court acquitted the accused, citing discrepancies and contradictions in the eyewitness testimonies. It found the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 8, and 9 prima facie acceptable initially but later rejected it due to perceived inconsistencies. The trial judge also doubted the prosecution's failure to examine certain witnesses and the alleged delay in recording the F.I.R.

5. High Court's Reversal of the Trial Court's Acquittal:
The High Court reversed the trial court's acquittal, convicting A-1 under Section 302 for Kochunni's murder, A-3 and A-4 for Kunjeen's murder, and A-2 under Section 324 for causing hurt to Kochunni. The High Court found the trial court's "scheme of approach" faulty and misleading, leading to erroneous conclusions. It held that the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 8, and 9 was reliable and corroborated by medical evidence and other circumstances.

6. Appellants' Contentions Against the High Court's Judgment:
The appellants argued that the High Court erred in reversing the trial court's acquittal without substantial and compelling reasons. They contended that the eyewitnesses were partisan and their evidence was contradictory. They also questioned the delay in recording the F.I.R., non-examination of certain witnesses, and the High Court's reliance on the same evidence to convict the appellants while acquitting A-5.

7. Supreme Court's Analysis and Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, finding that it had duly considered all material facts and given valid reasons for convicting the appellants. The Court noted that the High Court correctly discarded the trial court's flawed approach and independently analyzed the evidence. The Supreme Court emphasized that the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 8, and 9 was credible, consistent, and corroborated by medical evidence and other circumstances. The discrepancies in their testimonies were minor and did not affect the overall reliability of their accounts. The Court also rejected the appellants' contention that the evidence was insufficient to convict them while acquitting A-5, noting that the High Court acquitted A-5 as a matter of abundant caution, not because the evidence against him was necessarily false.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, maintaining the convictions and sentences of the appellants, and affirmed the High Court's judgment.