IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2010 / 24TH POUSHA 1931 CRL.A.No. 384 of 2006() ----------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15/02/2006 IN SC.302/01,SC.1786/01 IN SC.1313/2002 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANTS: ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 7,9,14,16 TO 19 & 25 TO 33: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. GIREESAN NAIR, S/O.GOPALAN PILLAI, ARAVINDAN HOUSE, POONTHOPPU DESOM, KONCHIRAVILA, MANACAUD VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2. PADMAKUMAR, S/O.GOPINATHAN NAIR, NALINALAYAM, T.C.20/1172, KARAMANA DESOM, THYCAUD VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 3. CHANDRAMOULI @ RAMESH, S/O. SHANMUGHAN PILLAI, T.C.25/3428, UPPALAM ROAD, NEAR SECRETARIAT, VANCHIYOOR WARD, VANCHIYOOR VILLAGE. 4. ANAND MOHAN, S/O. MOHAN KUMAR, AYODHYA (NEW T.C.18/2860) T.C.3/1295 (EAST PATTOM) T.K.D. ROAD, KESAVADASAPURAM WARD,KOWDIAR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 5. PRAVEEN KUMAR, S/O. MOHANAN NAIR, ASWATHI BHAVAN, K.P.11/383, KUSAVARKAL, CHOOZHAMPALA, KUDAPPANAKUNNU DESOM, KUDAPPANAKKUNNU VILLAGE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. 6. SHINU KUMAR @ VISHNU, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, RESIDING AT R.S.S. KARYALAYAM, SAIDHINIVAS, MITHRANANDAPURAM, KOTTAKKAKOM WARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 7. MURALI, S/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN, RESIDING AT R.S.S. KARYALAYAM, SAKTHI NIVAS, MITHRANANDAPURAM, KOTTAKKAKOM WARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. CRA 384/06 -2- 8. RAJU, S/O. MOHANAKUMARAN NAIR, ASIANA HOUSE, HOUSE NO.318/A, WARD NO.7, VILAWOORKAL PANCHAYATH, NOW RESIDING AT DEEPTHI HOUSE, CHAMPAKASSERY JUNCTION,PALKULANGARA PALKULANGARA WARD, VANCHIYOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT (FOR RENT). 9. VIJAYESH, S/O. RAJAN, SANKARA BHAVAN HOUSE, NEAR MAHAVISHNU TEMPLE, THITTAMANGALAM, THITTAMANGALAM WARD, VATIYOORKAVU VILLAGE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 10. SANTHOSH KUMAR @ SANTHOSH, S/O. PANKAJAKSHAN NAIR, PADINJATTIL VEEDU, BABUJI NAGAR, PONGUMOODU, PONGUMOODU DESOM, ULLOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 11. VINOD @ MANU, S/O. VIKRAMAN, PUTHUVAL PUTHEN VEEDU (OLD T.C.42/1062), T.C.72/2289), ROSE LANE, NEAR PONNARA SCHOOL, SREEVARAHAM DESOM, MUTTATHARA VILLAGE. 12. SUDHARSANAN, S/O.BALACHANDRAN NAIR, PUTHUVAL PUTHEN VEEDU (OLD T.C.42/1143), T.C.NO.72/2175, ROSE LANE, BEHIND PONNARA SCHOOL, SREEVARAHAM DESOM, MUTTATHARA VILLAGE. 13. VIJAYAKUMAR @ BIJU @ POODAN, S/O. THANKAPPAN NAIR (NEW T.C.72/2542),T.C.42/1253 PONNARA NAGAR, SREEVARAHAM WARD,MUTTATHARA VILLAGE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 14. UMAKANTHAN, S/O. ACHUTHAN NAIR, SUDHANILAYAM, IV/276, K.S. RAMAN NAIR ROAD, UDYOGAMANDAL DESOM, ELOOR SOUTH, ELOOR VILLAGE, PARAVOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT (ACCUSED IN S.C.1313/2002). 15. JAYAKUMAR, S/O.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR, T.C.51/569, THOOKKUVILA JUNCTION, MANUKULADICHAMANGALAM DESOM, NEMOM VILLAGE. 16. RAJASEKHARAN, S/O.KRISHNAPILLAI, T.C.30/218, ANAYARA KARAYOGAM LANE, KADAKAMPALLY VILLAGE, RESIDING AT T.C.29/634, THYKKAPALLI LANE, PALKULANGARA VILLAGE, PALKULANGARA. CRA 384/06 -3- 17. RAJ KUMAR @ RAJAN, S/O. PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ARUVIKKARA VEEDU, T.C.60/3852, ARUVIKKARA LANE, SREEVARAHAM WARD, MANACAUD VILLAGE. 18. RAVIKUMAR, S/O. VASUDEVAN NAIR, T.C.50/412, CHENGARA SOUTH, KALADI WARD, MANACAUD VILLAGE. 19. ARUNKUMAR @ MAHESHWARAN, S/O. MADHAVAN NAIR, KODITHARA VEEDU, KUDAPPANAKUNNU DESOM, KUDAPPANAKUNNU VILLAGE. 20. SUDHAKARAN, S/O.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, T.C.6/379(3), KRISHNA HOUSE, KARUMAMKULAM ROAD, VATTIYOORKAVU DESOM, VATTIYOORKAVU VILLAGE. 21. MANIKANTAN, S/O. DAMODARAN NAIR, PONNARA HOUSE, T.C.50/675, KALADY WARD, MANACAUD VILLAGE. 22. SISUPALAN @ SISUPALJI, S/O. JANARDHANAN NAIR, MATHRU BHAVANAM, T.C.47/588, NEAR RAILWAY CROSS, MELARANNOOR, KARAMANA WARD, THYCAUD VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.PRASUN.S RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/STATE: --------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.NOBLE MATHEW THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08.12.2009, ALONG WITH CRA NOS.385/06 & 1279/07, THE COURT ON 14.01.2010 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Cr. A. Nos.384/06, 385/06 & 1279/07 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dated 14th January 2009 Judgment Bhavadasan, J. Thirty three persons were prosecuted for the offences punishable under Ss.120B, 143, 147, 148, 324, 427, 506, 302 r/w 149 IPC and Ss.109, 111 IPC and S.3(2)(e) of the Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the PDPP Act). Accused Nos.8, 13, 15 and 20 to 24 were found not guilty of any of the offences and were acquitted of the charges. Accused Nos.17 and 19 were found guilty of the offences punishable under S.302 r/w 34 IPC. Accused Nos.1 and 2, along with A25 to A33 were found guilty of the offence punishable under S.120B r/w S.3(2)(e) of the PDPP Act. A1 to A7, A9 to A12, A14 and A16 to A19 were found guilty of the offences punishable under S.143 IPC. The said accused were found guilty of the offences punishable under Ss.147 and 148 as well. The accused persons, who were found guilty of various offences, were sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. Cr.A.Nos.384/06, 385/06 & 1279/07 2 2. The Prosecution case, in brief, is as follows : The Government of Kerala decided to de-link Pre-degree course from the colleges and to start Plus-two course at the School level. There were protests from various quarters and the A.B.V.P., one of the students organisations in Kerala, on 12.07.2000, launched a protest march against the policy adopted by the Government. It is stated that the Police were harsh on them and several protesters, including girl students were injured. The Prosecution case is that infuriated by the said conduct of the Police, the office bearers of the A.B.V.P. and allied organisations decided to launch a strong protest on 13.07.2000, by causing destruction to public property and trespass into the Government Secretariat. The case of the Prosecution is that on 13.07.2000, the protesters belonging to the A.B.V.P., armed with deadly weapons, marched to the Secretariat. When the Police prevented them from entering the Secretariat, they became violent. They caused damage to several of the K.S.R.T.C. buses and some of them went inside the garage of the K.S.R.T.C. A few employees of the K.S.R.T.C. reacted to the acts committed by the students and Cr.A.Nos.384/06, 385/06 & 1279/07 3 they tried to repel them. In that process, Rajesh, a Conductor of the K.S.R.T.C., received blows from A17 and A19, to which, he later succumbed. The further allegation is that the students went berserk and caused considerable damages to the public properties, including 86 Nos. of K.S.R.T.C. buses. 3. Rajesh, the injured was admitted in the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. On getting information about the same, PW72, a Head Constable, attached to the Fort Police Station reached the Hospital and found that Rajesh was in a critical stage. Therefore, he recorded the F.I. statement Ext.P6 given by PW2, another employee of the KSRTC, who was waiting outside the I.C.U. wing of the Medical College Hospital. He also prepared Ext.P6(b) body note of the injured. On the basis of Ext.P6 F.I. statement, Crime No.261/2000 for the offences punishable under Ss.143, 147, 148, 307 r/w 149 IPC and S.3(2)(e) of the PDPP Act and Ss.3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Ext.P6(a) F.I.R. were registered. The investigation was taken over by PW78, the then Circle Inspector of Police, Fort Police Station. On the same day, he received reliable information that some of the accused persons involved in Cr.A.Nos.384/06, 385/06 & 1279/07 4 Crime No.260/2000 of the Fort Police Station had gone to the Karyalaya of the R.S.S., carrying weapons. PW78, therefore, prepared Ext.P98 search memo and searched the Karyalaya. He found A1 to A6 there and arrested the said accused persons. He also recovered several weapons from there. Later, PW78 got information that some other accused persons, who were involved in the crime, were standing near Sreevaraham pond and he arrested A7 to A21 from there. On 14.07.2000, he inspected the scene of occurrence, prepared Ext.P91 scene mahazar and seized the materials found there. He submitted Ext.P100 report to the court, furnishing the names and addresses of A1 to A16. He recorded the statement of witnesses. Subsequently, the investigation was taken over by PW76, as per Ext.P95 order of the D.I.G., Thiruvananthapuram. In the meanwhile, Rajesh succumbed to his injuries and therefore, PW78 went to the Medical College Hospital, conducted inquest over the body of Rajesh and Ext.P55 inquest report was prepared. The body was then, sent for autopsy. PW56, the Forensic Surgeon conducted autopsy on the body of Rajesh and prepared Ext.P76 postmortem certificate. Later, a Cr.A.Nos.384/06, 385/06 & 1279/07 5 report was filed before the Court to incorporate S.302 IPC in the charge. All the accused were arrested, investigation was completed and charge was laid before Court. 4. The Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram, before whom, the final report was laid, took cognizance of the offences. On appearance of the accused before Court, necessary legal formalities were complied with and on finding that the offences were exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The latter Court, for speedy disposal, made over the case to the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram. The said Court, on receipt of the records, issued summons to the accused. They entered appearance and after hearing both sides, the Court below framed charges against the accused. To the charges, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The Prosecution, therefore, examined PWs1 to 85 and marked Exts.P1 to P134. MOs 1 to 27 were also got identified and marked. After the close of the evidence, the accused were questioned under S.313 Cr.P.C.They denied all the incriminating Cr.A.Nos.384/06, 385/06 & 1279/07 6 circumstances brought out in evidence against them and maintained that they were innocent. Finding that the accused could not be acquitted under S.232 Cr.P.C., they were called upon to enter on their defence. From the defence side, three witnesses DWs 1 to 3 were examined and exhibits D1 to D24 were also marked. 5. The Court below, on an appreciation of the evidence in the case, found that offences have been established against some of the accused as already mentioned. Therefore, conviction and sentence, with regard to those offences, followed. They are assailed in these Appeals. 6. Cr.A.No.384/06 is filed by A1 to A7, A9, A14, A16 to A19 and A25 to A33. Cr. A. No.385/06 is filed by A10, A11 and A12 and Cr.A. No.1279/07 is filed by the State of Kerala. 7. The question that arises for consideration in the appeals filed by the accused is whether the Court below was justified in finding that the Prosecution case is true and whether the acquittal of some of the accused is justified or not, is the point to be decided in the appeal filed by the State. Cr.A.Nos.384/06, 385/06 & 1279/07 7 8. The Prosecution builds up its case on three aspects, namely, (1) Conspiracy to commit various offences, (2) Causing death of Rajesh & (3) Destruction of public property. The Court below was inclined to accept the case of the Prosecution that there was a conspiracy, as hatched by A1 and A2 along with A25 to A33 to avenge the police atrocity, unleashed on the supporters of A.B.V.P. on 12.07.2000. According to the Prosecution case, those persons had decided to create fear and terror in the area on 13.07.2000. For this purpose, the Court below mainly relied on the evidence of PW68. 9. As far as the conspiracy is concerned, as already noticed, it is alleged to have been hatched by A1 and A2 along with A25 to A33. It was to destroy public properties and create law and order problems in the area. In fact, the Prosecution relied on the evidence of two witnesses to prove the offence of conspiracy. They are PWs68 and 85. Among them, PW85 turned hostile and his evidence serves no purpose as far as the Cr.A.Nos.384/06, 385/06 & 1279/07 8 Prosecution case is concerned. Therefore, the offence of conspiracy remained confined to the testimony of PW68. 10. The learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that the story of conspiracy is a cooked up one, to suit the purpose of the Prosecution. It is pointed out that PW68 was unworthy of credit and is a planted, tutored and manipulated witness. According to the learned counsel, a close reading of his evidence, taken along with Ext.D23, will clearly reveal that he has no regard for truth. The person describes himself as an R.S.S. follower, while he is, in fact, a Marxist Party worker. 11. Going by the Prosecution case, the conspiracy was hatched between 7.30 to 8 pm. on 12.07.2000. During the day time on the said day, there was a protest procession taken out by the followers of A.B.V.P. and it seems that the Police had reacted harshly to them. In fact, it appears that lathi charge was resorted to and tear gas was used. Some of the students were seen to have received severe injuries. The Prosecution would allege that the conspiracy was hatched at the Samskruti Bhavan, where A1, A2 and A25 to A33 had gathered and decided the future course of action to be carried out on 13.07.2000. The Cr.A.Nos.384/06, 385/06 & 1279/07 9 one and only witness for the Prosecution in this regard is PW68. His evidence, therefore, needs to be evaluated very carefully. 12. PW68 claims to be associated with R.S.S. He claimed that he used to attend classes conducted for the workers of R.S.S. On 12.07.2000, he says that he had gone to Samskruti Bhavan. He also claimed that he used to go there frequently. Samskruti Bhavan is situated behind the Fort high School. He stated that he goes there to meet his friends and take books from the Library to read. He then says that Samskruti Bhavan is in the Devaswom Building, which is a huge building and the first floor is occupied by the Samskruti Bhavan. According to him, the said building also has the offices of Seva Bharathi, Vishwa Hindu Parishat, Balagokulam etc. In the ground floor at the southern end, is a temple. On 12.07.2000 in the evening, according to this witness, when he reached the Library in Samskruti Bhavan, there was no one there. But, he felt that there is some one in that floor. He moved around and found a few people sitting in a room and they were engaged in a discussion. There were eleven of them. He says that they were familiar to him and identified them as A1, A2 and A25 to A33 in Court also. It is interesting to Cr.A.Nos.384/06, 385/06 & 1279/07 10 read what he heard at that place. He has deposed that he heard them talking that on the next day i.e., on 13.07.2000, they should take out a protest march against the Police, in the city. He then heard them saying that they should force themselves into the Secretariat, overcoming the resistance offered by the Police and that would spark off police action again. According to this witness, the persons present in the building decided to unleash attacks and terror in the area. They decided to go to any extent, to achieve their purpose. They decided to avenge the acts of the Police on A.B.V.P. followers on 12.07.2000. PW68 would say that after hearing this, he went to the Library. He maintains that he is still a follower of R.S.S. The witnesses stated that he decided to divulge information against the accused since he felt that some of the so called workers in the R.S.S. like the accused, were not really interested in the welfare of the Organisation and they wanted to indulge in activities, detrimental to the Organisation. 13. At the first blush, though the above claim of PW68 may appear to be true, on a close scrutiny of his evidence, it can be seen that he is not a witness of truth. First of all, it is rather Cr.A.Nos.384/06, 385/06 & 1279/07 11 inconceivable that a strong follower of R.S.S. or any political party or organisation would speak so vociferously against the other workers of the party, as has been done by PW68. His claim of loyalty to the Organisation, is open to serious doubts. If he had any intention to keep the Organisation clean, he could have brought the illegalities committed by the workers to the notice of the higher functionaries of R.S.S. in time. Probably, this is one of the rarest of rare cases, where the Prosecution ventures to adduce direct evidence regarding conspiracy. Usually, it is virtually impossible to get direct oral evidence regarding conspiracy for it is done in secrecy. So, the evidence of PW68 appears to be doubtful. One cannot simply swallow that being a follower and worker of RSS, he would speak against the Organisation. PW68 stated that he has nothing to show that he is an active worker of RSS. 14. One may recall that the evidence of PW68 is to the effect that he happened to see A1, A2 and A25 to A33, indulging in conspiracy, when he entered the Samskruti Bhavan. At one point of time, he would say that Samskruti Bhavan is behind the Fort High School and in another point of time, he would say that Cr.A.Nos.384/06, 385/06 & 1279/07 12 it is in the Devaswom Building. Whatever that be, it has been brought out in evidence that with regard to the incidents, which took place on 12.07.2000, the Fort Police Station had registered Crime No.260/00. Quite a few of the accused in this case figured in that crime also. During the investigation of that crime, it seems that the Investigating Officer PW50 examined in this case had occasion to question PW68 and record his statement. He speaks about the conspiracy there also. But, what is important is that he gave a totally different version. There, his stand was that while he had gone to the Samskruti Bhavan at 8'o clock in the night on 12.07.2000, he had occasion to see a white Ambassador car, parked by the side of the Fort High School. He found a few persons going towards the car. There were eleven of them. He identified those persons as A1, A2 and A25 to A33 in this case. He overheard them, planning to unleash violence on the next day. He had no case at that time that he had occasion to see these people conspiring about the acts to be done, inside the Samskruti Bhavan building. It could then be seen that there are two diametrically opposite versions by PW68, regarding the very same incident. When PW68 was confronted Cr.A.Nos.384/06, 385/06 & 1279/07 13 with the earlier statement given by him, he denied of having made any such statement. Before PW50 also, who had occasion to record his statement, was definite that PW68 stated as recorded. The Court below was of the opinion that this inconsistency is not of much significance, but we are unable to concur with the Court below on the above aspect. We also feel that the claim of PW68 that he is an ardent follower of R.S.S. is open to serious doubts. It would appear from the nature of his evidence and the way in which he has deposed that he is a planted, tutored and manipulated witness, as claimed by the defence. So, it may not be safe to infer conspiracy, based on the solitary suspicious evidence of PW68. At any rate, there is nothing to indicate that the conspiracy extended to causing the murder of Rajesh. All that is tried to be established is that there was a decision taken by the members of the R.S.S. to unleash terror, create fright in the area and cause destruction to the public properties. Whatever that be, the evidence of PW68 alone is too brittle to come to a definite conclusion regarding conspiracy. Cr.A.Nos.384/06, 385/06 & 1279/07 14 15. The allegation of conspiracy has yet another aspect. The Prosecution case is that A1 and A2, along with A25 to A33, conspired to create terror in the area. However, in the incident that happened on 13.07.2000, the said accused persons alone were not involved. Various acts were committed by various persons. The evidence in this case is that after the initial surge, when Police offered resistance and resolved to take harsh steps so as to disburse the mob, the protesters ran hither and thither . Later, some of them converged at a particular spot. A few among them made provoking speeches from there and then, they branched off into groups and went from place to place, causing destruction to public properties. So, there is nothing to show that even assuming the first part is in furtherance of a conspiracy, the latter part can have no such image. Even in the first of the two incidents, a large number of people had participated and one fails to understand as to how the Prosecution could say that it was the result of a conspiracy. 16. What next arises for consideration is the murder of Rajesh. Rajesh was working as a Conductor in the KSRTC. The Court below, on an evaluation of the evidence before it, came to Cr.A.Nos.384/06, 385/06 & 1279/07 15 the conclusion that A17 and A19 alone could be held responsible for causing the injuries, which resulted in the death of Rajesh. The State has come up in appeal against the said finding. It wants to find several other accused also, along with A17 and A19 equally liable for the murder of Rajesh, i.e., Accused Nos.25 to 33 and also some other accused persons. According to the State, the acts, which resulted in the death of Rajesh were in pursuance of the conspiracy hatched on the previous day. 17. First of all, the offence of conspiracy has fallen to the ground and therefore, that question does not arise for consideration any more. Even assuming that there was a conspiracy as alleged by the Prosecution, that was only for the destruction of public property and there is nothing beyond that. The conspiracy was only to create terror and fear in the area, as a protest against Police acts and thereafter, to indulge in destruction of public property. The conspiracy, even assuming to be proved, was only to create as much trouble and destruction as possible, in the area. In this scheme of things, the conspiracy to murder Rajesh, does not fit in at all. Cr.A.Nos.384/06, 385/06 & 1279/07 16 18. In Cr.A. No.385/06, A17 and A19 have challenged the finding of offence of murder against them. One may recall that they have been found guilty of the offence of murder punishable under S.302 r/w 34 IPC. 19. The Prosecution seeks to prove that the death of Rajesh was caused due to the acts of various protesters through the evidence of PWs 1 to 12, 15 to 22, 27 to 29 etc. But, unfortunately for the Prosecution, the evidence regarding this aspect was furnished only by PWs 5, 6 and 8. The lower Court have found their evidence to be acceptable. Before going into that, it will be useful to consider the finding of the Court below in this regard and to refer to the injuries suffered by Rajesh, the victim. 20. Though CW84 was cited by the Prosecution to prove the treatment given to Rajesh at Medical College Hospital, on sustaining the injuries, the presence of CW84 could not be procured. The treatment recorded was, therefore, proved through PW83. The wound certificate of the deceased Rajesh, prepared at the Medical College Hospital is Ext.P124. The Court below has extracted the various injuries found on the body of Cr.A.Nos.384/06, 385/06 & 1279/07 17 Rajesh, at the time of his admission in the Hospital. The Court below, in fact, has also extracted the entries in the wound certificate and the findings and opinion given in Ext.P76 postmortem certificate. It is therefore, unnecessary to reproduce them in this Judgment. The opinion as to the cause of death of Rajesh is the blunt injuries suffered on his head. PW56, who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased Rajesh, has deposed that Injury Nos.1 and 2 are the cause of death and they could well be caused by use of weapons like MOs 2 and 3. 21. PW56 had collected samples of various internal organs of the deceased at the time of autopsy. Ext.P83 is the chemical analysis report, which shows that the viscera examined showed that it contained 57.5 mgs. of Ethyl Alcohol per 100 mg. of blood. Based on the alcohol content so found, PW56 stated that the victim would have been easily provoked and behaved violently. There were as many as 15 to 18 injuries, found on the body of the victim. The Prosecution allegation is that the injuries were caused by A17 and A19 by using MOs 2 and 3 and the pelting of stones by the other accused persons. Whatever that be, one fact