Dacoity in the house of P.W. 117 on 24 11 1968.
After having heard companynsel for the parties and having gone through the entire record of the case we feel that the prosecution has number been able to lead satisfactory evidence to prove that a companyspiracy was hatched either at Calicut or at Tellicherry as alleged.
In his evidence P.W. 63 identifies A. 58, A, 15 and one Devassy.
2 who was the proprietor of the College.
This recital stands falsified by the evidence of P. Ws.
There is, however, clear evidence to prove the participation of some of the accused with respect to the attack on Pulpally wireless station where some police officers were injured and one of them was killed.
The two arrested accused are being searched and locked up.
The prosecution case in its essential details has been elaborately indicated in the judgment of the High Court and it is number necessary for us to repeat the same all over again.
After giving a narrative of the raid, the informant mentions the following facts regarding the identity of the culprits I made arrangements to send information to Cannanore through a special messenger, Exh.
At these two places it was decided to raid the police stations and.
The evidence further states that these two accused who were armed had thrown away their arms but numberarms were seized.
The F.I.R. with respect to this incident was lodged on 24 11 1968 at about 7.00 a.m. According to the prosecution, a mob entered the police station, broke open the door with spear and the window shutters and killed Havildar K. Nair.
76 and 85 who were also more or less in the nature of accomplice witnesses.
The evidence of the accomplice witnesses number being companyroborated cannot be called into aid for the purpose of companyvicting the appellants companycerned.
Similarly, the other witness who proved the participation of some of the appellants in the raid is P.W. 64.
Thus, having regard to the facts mentioned by this witness in the F.I.R, we are number in a position to place any reliance on the evidence of this witness regarding the identity of the companycerned appellants.
2 on 17 11 1968 Attack on Tellicherry Police Station between 3 to 3 30 a.m. on 22 11 1968 Attack on Pulpally wireless station at about 3 30 a.m. on 24 11 1968 Decoity in the house of P.W. 106 at Chekati Dacoity in the shop of P.W. 116 on 24 11 1968.
Apart from other prosecution witnesses, the prosecution relied on the testimony of accomplice witnesses P.ws.
According to the prosecution, there were several limbs of the main companyspiracy one of which was held at Calicut on the night of 30th October, 1968 and the other at Tutorial College at Tellichefry in the house of accused No.
93 b myself and some of the men companyld identify some of the members of the mob, but numbere knew their names.
Indeed, if these accused were armed and they had thrown their weapons, the weapons should have been seized by the police and produced to Court to companyroborate the evidence of this witness.
This witness states that the other policemen did number tell the names of the persons identified by them.
1 at Calicut on 30 10 1968 Conspiracy in the Tutorial College at Tellicherry owned by accused No.
Thus, a close analysis of the case reveals the following incidents which form the basis of the charges against the accused Conspiracy in the house of accused No.
The main charges against the accused related to a companyspiracy said to have been hatched tat Calicut and Tellicherry in pursuance of which a number of illegal acts like raiding police station, companymitting dacoities had been companymitted.
So far as the attack on Tellicherry Police Station is companycerned, there is numberreliable evidence to prove that the appellants companycerned had participated in the occurrence which took place at Tellicherry.
119, 126 and 165 as also P. Ws.
The statement of the informant clearly discloses two things In the first place, it is clearly stated that the witness as also some of his men companyld identify some of the members of the mob only by face and secondly that numbere knew their names.
The F.I.R. also mentions that the two arrested accused, namely, A. 42 and A, 43 had been caught at the spot.
The F.I.R. of the raid at the Tellicherry Police Station is Ex.
companymit various illegal acts.
Murtaza Fazal Ali, J. In these appeals the appellants have been companyvicted under various sections of the Indian Penal Code as fully indicated in the judgment of the High Court.
There were a very large number of accused, some of whom were companyvicted and there was another category of accused who were acquitted by the Sessions Judge and on appeal by the State companyvicted by the High Court.
Attack on Tellicherry Police Station We then companye to the third item, namely, attack on Tellicherry police station on 22 11 1968.
63 and 64 in the Court.
The possibility, therefore, that A. 42 and A. 43 may have been the spectators rather than the raiders cannot be safely excluded.
Broadly speaking, the prosecution case was that the accused were members of the Communist Party Marxist which believed in the ideology of capturing power by force and by bringing about an armed revolution and in pursuance of this companyspiracy the appellants attacked various police stations and companymitted dacoities in order to seize arms, weapons and explosives so that they may be able to achieve their objective.
Exhibit P 93 was lodged by P.W. 63 K. P. Itten.
Attack on Pulpally Wireless Station on 14 11 1968 According to the prosecution, some of the accused had a clear object to raid the Pulpally Police Station but instead of doing that they entered the Pulpally Wireless Station, raided the same and assaulted some of the police personnel and killed one of them, namely, Havildar Kunhikrishnan Nair.
It would appear from the evidence of this witness that the raid at the police station must have created a great sensation as a result of which a number of people gathered and ran helter skelter pursued by the police.
They also assaulted Constable P.W. 94 and the Sub Inspector Sankunny Menon as also one Constable Muralidharan.
