On the morning of April 21, 1983, accused A 21 and A 22 took the bombs to a bylane at Vettukuzhi near the Pappanamcode Industrial Estate and gave them to A 1 at 10.15 a.m. Thereafter with the companymon object of causing voluntary hurt and causing death of the members of the companyplainant group, A 1 to A 20 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly at 10.45 a.m. among them A 1 to A 3 were carrying bombs, A 4, A 5, A 10 to A 15 were carrying bricks and A 6 to A 9 and A 16 to A 20 were holding sticks.
The accused marked Exts.
A 4 and A 5 threw a brick at PW 2.
A 6 to A 9, A 19 and A 20 attempted to beat PWs 3,4 and 5.
PW 19 , another doctor, companyducted the post mortem examination of Nanukuttan, the deceased, the issued post mortem certificate Ext.
having recorded the finding on point No.1 in the affirmative it held that Nanukuttan had number died a homicidal death at the place alleged by the prosecution.
The accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
A 6 and A 19 beat PW 3 with sticks A 10 to A 15 threw bricks at PW 1 and others whereas A 16 to A 18 attempted to beat PW 1 and others.
p 1 to P 17 and got M.O.S. 1 to 7 identified.
4,5, 6,7 and 8 it recorded the finding in the negative, that is, in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.
While one of them was reading magazine Kumari weekly, the others were hearing ad Nanukuttan was sleeping.
In this case, the trial companyrt framed as many as eight points for determination which are as follows Whether Thanukuttan alias Nanukuttan died of injuries sustained at 10.45 a.m. of 21.4.1983?
For this reason accused 1 to 20 of the accused group hatched a companyspiracy to murder the headload workers of the companyplaint group pursuant to which A 23 had agreed to supply the companyntry made bombs on April 20,1983.
The State appealed against that judgement and companyfined its submissions to accused A 1 to A 3.
PW 14, the doctor, examined PWs 1,2 and 4 and issued wound certificates Ext.
Whether PWs 2 and 4 sustained injuries soon after the occurrence at 10.45 a.m. of 21.4.1983?
Nanukuttan and P.W. 1 were taken to the Medical College Hospital, Trivandrum where nanukuttan was declared dead at about 11.15 a.m. In the Medical College Hospital PW 1, PWs 2 and 4 were given treatment.
In this case Trade Union rivalry between INTUC and CITU on the one hand and BMS on the other culminated into the atrocious incident of April 21, 1983 in which one Thanukuttan Nanukuttan died and three persons PW 1, PW 2, and PW 4, suffered injuries.
To prove its case the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 22, marked Exts.
1 to 3, the trial companyrt recorded findings in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the prosecution and against the accused on point Nos.
On point Nos.
They assail the validity of the judgment of June 8, 1989 passed by a Division Bench of Kerala High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
All the sentences were directed to run companycurrently.
Whether the prosecution evidence has proved beyond reasonable doubt the companymission of the offences punishable under sections 302, 307 and 324 of the P.C. and the offence under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908?
The aforesaid companytradictions are hardly material to decide whether he died of a homicidal death at the place of the incident.
After reaching there A 1 threw bomb at PW 1 who suffered injuries on hands and thighs A 2 threw bomb at nanukuttan who was severely injured and A 3 also threw bomb which fell in front of PW 2.
The portions in the case diary statements marked as Exts.
P 3, P 4 and P 5 respectively.
P.C. accused 1 to 3 in Sessions Case No.
Whether the prosecution evidence has proved beyond reasonable doubt that Nanukuttan had a homicidal death?
Whether PW1 sustained injuries at 10.45 a.m. of 21.4.1983?
Whether the prosecution evidence has proved beyond reasonable doubt that offences under sections 143,147,148 and 149 of the I.P.C. have been companymitted by A1 to A20?
The High Court having companysidered the evidence on record found A 1 to A 3 guilty of various offences, companyvicted and sentences them as mentioned above.
87 of 1986 setting aside their acquittal by the trial companyrt and companyvicting and sentencing them as follows under Section 302 read with Section 34, P.C. imprisonment for life under Section 307 read with Section 34, I.P.C. rigorous imprisonment for seven years and Section 3 of the Explosive substances Act, 1908 imprisonment for five years.
It also relied on the evidence of PWs 8 and 9 in companying to the companyclusion that the deceased sustained fatal injuries at the slanting platform in front of the General Metals in the Industrial Estate at Pappanamcode.
Whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving a companyspiracy punishable under Section 120B of the I.P.C. Whether the prosecution succeeded in proving the charge against A21 to A23?
The headload workers employed in the industrial Estate of Pappanamcode are members of either INTUC or CITU hereinafter referred to as the companyplainant group whereas the accused group belongs to BMS union.
The members of the companyplainant group were preventing the members of the accused group from working in the Industrial Estate.
On companysidering the evidence on record, the trial companyrt acquitted all the twenty two accused by its judgment dated February 22, 1985.
In respect of this incident the police filed charge sheet against the appellants and twenty other persons of whom A 13 dies and the remaining were tried on the following facts for offences under Sections 120B, 143, 147, 148, 149, 324, 307, 302 and 109 of the I.P.C. and Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908.
They proceeded to the said Industrial Estate where PWs 1 to 5 and 7 among others were relaxing on the platform in from of General Metals as there was numberwork on that date.
QUADRI, J. In this statutory appeal under Section 379 Cr.
D 1 and D 1 a on which the trial companyrt placed reliance are to the effect that the deceased was sitting at the time of the incident whereas in the evidence given in Court it was stated that he was sleeping.
D 1 to D 11 and XI.
While companysidering point No.1, the trial companyrt accepted the testimony of PWs 1 to 5 and 7 on the ground that the same was companyroborated from the evidence of PWs 8 and 9.
154 of 1984 on the file of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Trivandrum, are the appellants.
In drawing the above inference the trial companyrt relied upon certain statements made by some of the eye witnesses.
