IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated:- 19.04.2006 Coram:- The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAM and The Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR Criminal Appeal Nos.803, 863 & 871 of 2001 and Crl.R.C.No.285/2002 and Crl.M.P.No. 9069 of 2005 in Crl.R.C. SR No. 46945 of 2005 Crl.Appeal No.803 of 2001 1. Alagarsamy (A-1) 2. Jothi (A4) 3. Andichami (A-7) 4. Renganathan (A-9) 5. Sakkaraimurthy (A-13) 6. Rajendran (A-15) 7. Ramar (A-40) ... Appellants/ Accused Nos.1, 4, 7, 9, 13, 15 and 40. Vs. 1. State by Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch, Madurai. *2. M. Kumar Brought on record as Intervenor as per order of Court dated 7.2.2006 made in Crl.M.P.Nos.8759 to 8761/05 and also in pursuance of the order dated 13.8.2007. ... Respondent/Complainant. Criminal Appeal No. 863 of 2001 1. Ponniah 2. Manikandan 3. Markandan 4. Rasam @ Ayyavu 5. Alaghu https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. Chockanathan 7. Chinna Odugan @ Chinna Ulunthan. ... Appellants/ Accused Nos.3, 5, 11, 12, 14, 20 and 22. Vs. 1. State represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch, Madurai. *2. M. Kumar Brought on record as Intervenor as per order of Court dated 7.2.2006 made in Crl.M.P.Nos.8759 to 8761/05 and also in pursuance of the order dated 13.8.2007. ... Respondent/Complainant. Criminal Appeal No. 871 of 2001 1. Manoharan 2. Sekar 3. Selvam ... Appellants/Accused Nos.8, 18 and 21. Vs. 1. State, by Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch, Madurai. *2. M. Kumar Brought on record as Intervenor as per order of Court dated 7.2.2006 made in Crl.M.P.Nos.8759 to 8761/05 and also in pursuance of the order dated 13.8.2007. ... Respondent/Complainant. Crl.R.C.No. 285 of 2001 1. M. Kumar 2. Periyavar 3. Mayavar .. Petitioners/P.Ws. 2, 5 and 9. Vs. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch, Madurai District. .. Respondent/Complainant. 2. Duraipandi .. A-2 3. Manivasagam .. A-6 4. Dinakaran .. A-10 5. Karanthamalai .. A-16 6. Baskaran .. A-17 7. Tamilan .. A-19 8. Ambalam .. A-23 9. Sethu .. A-24 10. Kalanjiam .. A-25 11. Mani .. A-26 12. Sevagaperumal .. A-27 13. Elavarasan .. A-28 14. Asokan .. A-29 15. Ganesan .. A-30 16. Bharathidasan .. A-31 17. Kathirvel .. A-32 18. Thangamani .. A-33 19. Pandi .. A-34 20. Pugazhendhi .. A-35 21. Nagesh .. A-36 22. Maduraiveeran .. A-37 23. Kannan .. A-38 24. Selvam .. A-39 ... Respondents/Accused. *Crl.M.P.No.9069 of 2005 1. M. Kumar 2. Periyavar 3. Mayavar ... Petitioner (Petitionrs in Crl.R.C.SR.No.46945/05 sought to be presented to this Court) Vs 1. State by The Deputy Superintendent of Police District Crime Branch Madurai District. 2. Alagarsamy 3. Ponniah 4. Jothi 5. Manikandan 6. Andichami 7. Manoharan https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8. Renganathan 9. Markandan 10. Rasam @ Ayyavu 11. Sakkaraimurthy 12. Alaghu 13. Rajendran 14. Sekar 15. Chockanathan 16. Selvam 17. Chinna Odugan @ Chinna Ulunthan 18. Ramar ... Respondents (Respondents in do) Criminal Appeals filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused/respective appellants by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Salem, in his Judgment dated 26.07.2001, made in Sessions Case No.10 of 2001. Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Salem in S.C.No.10 of 2001, dated 26-7-2001, in so far as it relates to the acquittal of respondents 2 to 24/Accused from the charges for offences under Sections 120-B, 148, 341, 506 (ii), 302 read with 34 read with 149 IPC and Section 302 read with Section 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, read with 149 read with 34 IPC. *Crl.M.P.9069/05 in Crl.R.C.No.46945/05:- Petition presented to this Court to condone the delay of 1065 days in filing Crl.R.C.SR.No. 46945/05 sought to be presented to this Court against the order of the Principal Sessions Judge, Salem dated 26.7.2001 and made in S.C.No.10 of 2001 in rspect of the acquittal of the respondents 2 to 18 from the charges for the offences under Sections 120-B, 341, 506 (ii), 302 r/w 149, 307 r/w 149 IPC and section 3 (2) (v) and section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act 1989. Mr. B. Sriramulu, Senior counsel for Mrs.P.V. Rajeswari:- For Appellants in C.A.803/2001. Mr. S. Ashok Kumar, Senior counsel for Mr. A. Sashidharan:- For appellants in C.A.No.863/2001. Mr. S. Ashok Kumar, Senior counsel for Mr. K. Jegannathan:- For Appellants-1 and 2 in C.A.No.871/2001 and for Respondents 2 to 20, 22 to 24 in Cr.R.C. No. 285/2002. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Mr. M. Balasubramanian:- For Appellant-3 in C.A. No. 871/2001. (A21) Mr. V. Gopinath, Senior counsel, assisted by Mr. V. Suresh for Mr. P. Rathinam :- For petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.285/2002. Mr.P.Rathinam – Counsel for petrs. in Crl.M.P. Nos.9069 of 2005 in Crl R.C.No.46945/05. Mr. N.R. Chandran, Advocate General, assisted by Mr. P. Venkatasubramanian for Mr. V.M.R. Rajendran, Additional Public Prosecutor:- For Respondent/State. Mr.P. Rathinam, advocate for the Intervenor. COMMON JUDGMENT P. Sathasivam, J. All the above Criminal Appeals and the Criminal Revision Case arise against the Common Judgment passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Salem, in Sessions Case No. 10 of 2001, convicting 17 out of 40 accused and acquitting 23 accused. 2. Criminal Appeal Nos. 803, 863 and 871 of 2001 are by A-1, A-3, A-4, A-5, A-7, A-8, A-9, A-11, A-12, A-13, A-14, A-15, A-18, A-20, A-21, A-22 and A-40, challenging their conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Sec.148 IPC, and the sentence of life imprisonment. Crl.R.C.No. 285 of 2001 has been filed by one Kumar, an injured eye witness, examined as P.W.2, and two other eye witnesses, ie., P.Ws.5 and 9, as against the acquittal of 23 accused, namely, A2, A6, A10, A16, A17, A19, A23, A24, A25, A26, A27, A28, A29, A30, A31, A32, A33, A34, A35, A36, A37, A38 and A39, from the charges levelled against each of them. Crl.M.P.No.9069 of 2005 in Crl.R.C.SR.No. 46945 of 2005 is a petition filed by P.W.2 and two others, seeking condonation of delay in filing the Revision, challenging the acquittal of A1, A3, A4, A5, A7, A8, A9, A11, A12, A13, A14, A15, A18, A20, A21, A22 and A40 from the charges levelled against them. 3. Brief summary of the prosecution case is as follows:- A. The incident giving rise to the present case has its genesis in mid-1996 when Melavalavu Village Panchayat, previously a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 'General Constituency', was declared to be Reserved for the Scheduled Caste people. Prior to that, Melavalavu village-Panchayat was in 'General Category' and only in the year 1996, the Government of Tamil Nadu notified it as a 'Reserved Category' exclusively for the Scheduled Caste people. This change of category resulted in strained feelings between the members of the Scheduled Castes on the one hand and Ambalakarar community on the other hand in Melavalavu village. During the Panchayat Elections in the year 1996, there was some protest from Ambalakara community that SC (Scheduled Caste) people should not contest the elections. In the following incidents, some of the houses belonging to the members of the Scheduled Caste were burnt down. After conciliation, election was conducted on 31.12.1996 and a SC candidate by name Murugesan (Deceased-1) was elected as President of Melavalavu Panchayat. However, he was not able to perform his duty freely and without fear. On 30.6.1997, P.W.1 went to the Collector Office, Madurai. There, he met 1st deceased Murugesan (President), 2nd deceased Mookan (Vice President), 5th deceased Chelladurai, 3rd deceased Sevagamoorthi, P.W.12 and others. P.W.1 was informed that they came there to claim compensation for the damages caused to the houses of 3 persons by fire. Since the Collector was not available, they left P.W.12 in the office to meet the Collector and rest of them including PW-1 were returning from Madurai to their village in K.N.R. Bus. En route, in Melur, P.Ws.2 and 3 got into the bus. At that time, A1, A2, A4, A5 and A6 also boarded the same bus. When the bus reached Melavalavu Agraharam Kallukadai at about 2.45 P.M., A-2 shouted at the driver PW.14 to stop the bus, hence, he stopped the bus. At that time, all the accused, led by A.40, surrounded the bus with weapons. B. A1 cut 1st deceased Murugesan with Veecharuval on his right shoulder saying "what for you the presidentship and the compensation". The passengers, out of fear, ran away from the bus for safety. A-1 severed the head of 1st deceased Murugesan and ran away towards west with the severed head. A-40 cut the 6th deceased Raja. A-5 cut the 5th deceased Chelladurai on his left shoulder. A-6 cut the 3rd deceased Sevagamoorthy on his right side neck and left ear. While the 2nd deceased Mookan got down from the bus and ran towards east, A-4 cut him on the backside of his neck with a Pattaknife. When the fourth deceased got down from the bus and ran towards west, A-3 cut him on his neck and hand with Pattaknife. While P.Ws.1 to 3 attempted to run away from the bus, A-16 cut PW-3 on his right cheek with Pattaknife. A-2 cut P.W.1 on his right shoulder. A-19 and A-29 cut P.W.2. The headless body of the 1st deceased and bodies of the other deceased persons were lying on the road. P.Ws.1 to 3, the injured witnesses, ran away from the scene to Melavalavu colony. P.Ws.4 to 11 are also said to have witnessed the occurrence. P.W.1 informed the villagers about the occurrence. Thereafter, P.Ws.1 to 3 went to Melur Government Hospital by Cycle. After taking first aid at Melur Hospital, all the 3 were sent to Madurai Rajaji Government Hospital for further treatment. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ C. P.W.47, Inspector of Police, Melur Police Station, on coming to know about the occurrence at 5.30 P.M. on 30.6.1997, and also about admission of the injured witnesses P.Ws.1 to 3 in Madurai Rajaji Government Hospital, proceeded to the Hospital. At 6.30 P.M., he recorded the statement of P.W.1 and, on the basis of the same, registered a case in Crime No.508 of 1997 under Sections 147, 148, 341, 307 and 302 I.P.C. and Section 3 (1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. He sent Express F.I.R. to the Judicial Magistrate Court, Melur, went to place of occurrence at 8.20 P.M. and handed over copy of the F.I.R to P.W.50, Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch, Madurai. D. On instruction from the Special Cell, P.W.50-Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch, took up investigation of the case by leading the Special Team. Observation mahazar-Ex.P-4 was prepared between 20.30 hours and 21-30 hours. Rough Sketch was prepared under Ex.P-89. M.Os.2 to 15 were recovered from the place of occurrence at 21.30 hours under mahazar-Ex.P-5. P.W.16 is the mahazar witness. Inquest over the body of D-1 was conducted by P.W.50 and Ex.P.92 is the inquest report. Ex.P.91 is the inquest report relating to the head of D-1. Inquest on D-2 was conducted by P.W.48 and the report is Ex.P-87. Inquest on D-4 was conducted by P.W.48 and the inquest report is Ex.P-88. Inquest on D-6 was conducted by P.W.45 and the inquest report is Ex.P-85. Inquest on D-3 was conducted by P.W.48 and the inquest report is Ex.P-86. During inquest, P.W.50 examined P.Ws.4, 5, 8, 9, 10 and 11. Observation mahazar regarding the bus is Ex.P-6. M.O.30-bloodstained stone was recovered from the Bus under mahazar Ex.P-93. P.W.50 examined P.Ws.13, 16 and 17 and went to Government Hospital, Madurai, where he examined P.Ws.1 to 3, the injured witnesses on 01-7-1997. E. P.W.21-Dr.Meyyalagan, attached to the Government Hospital, Madurai, conducted post-mortem on the dead bodies of D-6, D-1, D-4 and D-5 on 01-7-97. Exs. P-35, 37, 39 and 41 are the post-mortem certificates issued by him in respect of the above deceased. P.W.22- Dr.Maharani attached to the Government Hospital, Madurai, conducted post-mortem on the dead bodies of D-3 and D-2 on 1-7-1997. Exs.P-43 and P-45 are the respective post-mortem certificates. F. On 01.07.1997, at 2-30 P.M., P.W.50 arrested A-20, A-22, A-23, A-25, A-26, A-27 and A-39 and, in pursuance of their statements, M.Os.1, 31, 32, 33 and 34 were recovered from the accused. He arrested A-28 on 3.7.97 at 00.30 hours and recovered Aruval-M.O.35 and M.O.36 from him. On 12.7.97, at 10.30 A.M., he arrested A-7, A-17, A-29 and, in pursuance of their statements, recovered M.Os.37, 38 and 39. A-13 was arrested on 13-7-97 at Anna Bus Stand, Madurai. On 21-7-97, A-1 and A-10 surrendered before Judicial Magistrate, Kulithalai. On 4-8- 1997, P.W.50 arrested A-16, A-30 & A-31 and recovered M.Os. 40, 41 & 42. On 4-8-1997, A-11 and A-12 surrendered before the Judicial https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Magistrate, Sivagangai, and M.Os. 43 and 44 were recovered on 13-8- 1997. On 14-8-1997, A-32, A-38 and Jayaraman (died) surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate, Sivagangai, and, in pursuance of their statement, M.Os.45, 46, 47 and 48 were recovered on 20-8-97. P.W.50 arrested A-8, A-14, A-35 and one Vadivelu on 25-8-1997 and recovered weapons-M.Os.49, 50 and 51 in pursuance of their statements. A-3 surrendered before Judicial Magistrate, Sivagangai, on 18-8-97. P.W.50 recovered Aruval (M.O.52) from him. A-33 was arrested on 28-8- 1997 at 18-30 hours and M.O.53 knife was recovered from him. A-36 was arrested on 01-9-1997 at 14.00 hours and M.O.54 aruval was recovered from him. A-2 surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul on 26-8-97. P.W.50 recovered M.O.55 pattaknife from A-2 on 3-9-97 at 15.20 hours. He arrested A-6 on 4-10-97 at Naithampativilakku. P.W.6-Head Constable, Melur Police Station, arrested A-40r on 23-10- 2000. G. After getting the chemical examination report-Ex.P-51, Serologist report-Ex.P-52 and completing the investigation, P.W.50 filed charge sheet on 25-9-1997. 4. The prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 50, marked Exs. P-1 to P- 121 and produced M.Os.1 to 55. On the side of the defence, 2 witnesses were examined as D.Ws.1 and 2 and Exs. D-1 to D-19 were marked. 5. When questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied having any complicity in the commission of the crime and also pleaded innocence. 6. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Salem, on appreciation of the evidence, both oral and documentary, convicted 17 out of 40 accused under Section 302 read with Sec.34 IPC and Section 148 IPC and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment, and acquitted the remaining 23 accused of all the charges. Questioning the conviction and sentence, the Criminal Appeals have been filed; and aggrieved by the acquittal of 23 accused, the injured witnesses filed the Criminal Revision Case. However, the State has not preferred appeal against the acquittal of some of the accused. 7. Heard Mr. B. Sriramulu, learned Senior Counsel for appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 803/2001; Mr. S. Ashok Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 863/2001, for appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 871/2001; Mr. M. Balasubramanian for appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 871/2001; Mr. V. Gopinath, learned senior counsel for petitioner in Crl.R.C.No. 285/2002; Mr. P. Rathinam, for petitioner in Crl.M.P. No.9069/05 in Crl.R.C. No.46495/2005; and Mr.N.R.Chandran, learned Advocate General for Respondent/State. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8. The points for consideration in the Criminal Appeals are: i) Whether the prosecution has proved the charges framed against Accused 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 20, 21, 22 and 40?. ii) Whether the learned Sessions Judge was right in convicting those accused under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and imposing life imprisonment on them?; The only point that arises for consideration in the Criminal Revision case is, Whether the finding of the trial Court in acquitting the rest of the accused is correct/justified or any interference is called for? 9. Before proceeding to consider the arguments advanced on either side, it is pertinent to note that in the post mortem certificates issued by the Doctors, they opined that the deceased persons would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries. In respect of deceased Murugesan, the opinion is that he would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries including the decapitation injury. That being so, this Court has no difficulty to come to the conclusion that the deceased died of homicidal violence. 10. The following points have been urged by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants: i) The origin and genesis of the occurrence was not brought out in the F.I.R and the original F.I.R, which came into existence at the earliest point of time, was suppressed by the prosecution to suit their convenience. For that purpose, the learned Senior Counsel relied upon Ex. D-19, the Report of the Collector to the Chief Minister, wherein, it is stated that as per the complaint of P.W.1, a case was registered in Crime No. 508/1997, on the file of Melur Police Station, under Sections 147, 148, 324, 307 and 302 I.P.C. read with Section 3 (1) and (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, against Duraipandi, Ambalam and 14 known persons. The said Report is dated 30-06-1997. They also relied on Ex.D.13, Report of the Tahsildar to the District Collector as well as Ex. D-1, an affidavit filed by P.W.1 before the High Court in a Writ Petition. In the said affidavit, at paragraph No.4, P.W.1 stated about the role of A-2 and others in the crime. In para 5, it is stated that one Kannan chopped the head of Murugesan. Pointing out the above https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ aspects, the learned Senior Counsel would argue that the original F.I.R., which contains the truthful events, was suppressed and that, for the reasons best known to the police, all the appellants herein were roped in. ii) Secondly, by relying upon the evidence of P.W.47, it is contended that the case was not immediately registered and that even though the court and the police station are in the same area, there was a delay of three hours in forwarding the F.I.R. to the Magistrate, which is fatal to the prosecution case. They also referred to the serial numbers in the F.I.R book and contended that, in the absence of a particular order in which the related events should follow each other in the F.I.R., it leads to a presumption that the original F.I.R. had been suppressed. Even though they asked for the F.I.R book, the same was not produced before the Court. According to them, all these aspects would go to show that the prosecution did not come forward with the truth, hence, the benefit of doubt should be given to the appellants/accused and they should be acquitted. iii) Thirdly, it is contended that when PWs-1 to 3 turned hostile and when there are contradictions between the evidence of the alleged eye witnesses, the trial court should not have considered their evidence to convict the accused. iv) Fourthly, it is argued that since the witnesses to the recovery turned hostile, the recovery made by the police could not be believed. v) Fifthly, it is pointed out that for some of the accused, only one witness speaks to about the overt act. In a case of this kind, the evidence of a single witness will not be enough to base the conviction. 11. Mr. N.R.Chandran, learned Advocate General, appearing for the State met all the contentions by placing relevant materials. Mr.V.Gopinath, learned Senior Counsel and Mr.Rathinam, appearing for the Revision Petitioners insisted that the matter has to be remitted back to the trial court for fresh consideration of evidence in so far as the acquitted accused. 12. Before going into the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants, let us ascertain as to whether the prosecution has established 'motive' for the occurrence. The prosecution party belongs to Adi-Dravida community and the accused party belongs to Ambalakarar community. Often, there used to be skirmish and disputes between these two communities even for trivial https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ matters. One such contentious issue was the contest in the election to the post of Village Panchayat President, Melavalavu, after Government of Tamil Nadu declared Melavalavu as a reserved constituency in the year 1996. Enraged by this declaration, the Ambalakarar community warned that no Adi-Dravida/Dalit candidate should contest in the Panchayat elections. Till 1996, A-1 was the President of the Panchayat. After it became a reserved constituency and when Panchayat elections were announced, no one filed nomination from the Adi-Dravida community for the post of President fearing reprisal at the hands of the people belonging to Ambalakarar community. Elections were announced for the second time. Government assured the prospective candidates from Adi-Dravida community that protection would be given and, based on such promise, Murugesan (D1) filed his nomination for the post of Village President. Infuriated by the action of the deceased, some miscreants set fire to the houses of few people belong to Adi- Dravida community and consequently the elections were again postponed. Thereupon, elections were announced for the third time. This time also, the deceased filed his nomination. He was also given sufficient protection. Initially, the elections went on smoothly, but later, there was an ugly turn when people belonging to Ambalakarar and Kallar communities seized the ballot boxes, because of which, the counting of votes could not be done and the elections were cancelled. Thereafter, elections were announced for the fourth time in this caste-dominated village. This time too, the deceased (D1) filed his nomination and he won the election. Even though he took oath, he could not occupy the post of Panchayat President in view of the stiff opposition from communities other than those belong to Adi-Dravida community. They were also angry, because, in the ballot box seizure case, two persons, viz., A-3 & A-21, were convicted. 13. The finding of the trial Court that there was no prior motive or intention to commit the offence is controverted by the evidence let in by the prosecution. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that A-8 Manoharan was in the Collector Office, Madurai, when Murugesan (D1) and others came to meet the Collector. A-1, A-2, A-4, A-5 and A-6 got into the bus at Melur in which the deceased and P.Ws.1 to 3 were travelling. When the Bus reached Melavalavu Agraharam Kallukadai, A-2 shouted at the driver to stop the bus. When the bus was stopped, all the accused under the leadership of A-40 armed with weapons, surrounded the bus. They attacked D-1, the President; D-2, the Vice President; other deceased persons and the injured witnesses, all belong to the Scheduled Caste. The above sequence of events unequivocally establish that it is a premeditated and pre-planned attack on the unarmed victims. P.W.50, the Investigating Officer, clearly stated that of the 40 accused, A-5, A-6, A-19, A-25, A-26, A-28, A-30 and A-40 were from surrounding villages and they belong to Ambalakarar community. All of them were armed with weapons as the other accused were. Thus, it is very clear that the incident arose as a sequel to the reservation of the Panchayat exclusively for members of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Scheduled Caste and that the hostility of the other communities towards the SC candidates contesting in the elections was not confined to Melavalavu alone. The fact that so many accused from other surrounding villages had come armed with weapons, targeting the S.C President and other elders, clearly shows that the entire attack was pre-planned, premeditated and targeted at SCs. It is to be noted that the bus was plying over the route, covering a long distance. However, the bus was stopped at the instance of A-2 at an unscheduled place and it was surrounded immediately by the armed accused. From this, it is apparent that A-2 was clear and successful in executing a part of their plan, that is, to stop the bus. These clear sequence of events unerringly points towards the pre-planned nature of the attack. Added to this, P.Ws.14 and 13, the bus driver and conductor respectively, though turned hostile, have clearly testified that the stopping was indeed unscheduled and that the occurrence had taken place