Kooli Saseendran vs The State Of Kerala Home Department

2. Briefly stated the prosecution story is that on 12.10.1999 at 2 about 8.30 a.m. 14 accused persons and 10­20 others formed an unlawful assembly. These persons were armed with deadly weapons like country­made bombs etc. They hurled bombs at Parayil Sasi. One of the bombs exploded and said Parayil Sasi received grievous injuries and succumbed to the same. Report in this regard was lodged by Kollam Kunnummal Achuthan (PW­1) in which he stated that at about 8.30 a.m. on 12.10.1999 he was sipping tea at the tea shop run by Rajeevan (not examined) at Ayithara. He heard the sound of a loud explosion of bomb from the side of L.P. School ground. He got down from the tea shop and stood on the ground. At that time, he saw the 14 accused (named) and about 10­20 other accused (un­ named) running and rushing towards Parayil Sasi and 3 of his associates who were walking through the paddy field on the raised boundary of the same. Kooli Saseendran (Accused 1) said ‘kill him’ and hurled bomb at Parayil Sasi. This bomb hit the face and body of Parayil Sasi, who fell down on the bund of the canal. The other persons with Parayil Sasi turned back and ran away. According to this witness, in addition to bombs, the accused were armed with choppers, spades etc. Immediately after the occurrence they went away. The reason for the attack was that Parayil Sasi was an RSS activist whereas those who hurled bombs at Parayil Sasi and killed 3 him were all CPM workers. The motive of the crime was stated to be political animosity. First information report (FIR) in this behalf was registered at 10.00 a.m. Thereafter investigation was carried out by the police and the accused were charged with having committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 and Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The trial court acquitted the accused. The High Court set aside the order of acquittal and remitted the case to the trial court giving permission to both the prosecution and the defence to lead fresh evidence.

8. In view of these various contradictions and deficiencies in the prosecution case and also the fact that both PW­1 and PW­3 are political rivals of the accused and are also alleged to have committed various offences on that very day prior to the occurrence in question and even earlier, no reliance can be placed on their testimony. The trial court was justified in acquitting the accused. We are constrained to observe that the High Court set aside the well­reasoned judgment of the trial court in a casual manner. The evidence has not been discussed in detail and we are surprised to note that after discussing the entire case and observing that the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited, the appellate court set aside the judgment of the trial court. It is obvious that the High Court also did not find material evidence to convict the accused and, therefore, set aside the judgment and remitted the matter to the trial court. In a criminal case, remand is not to be ordered as a matter of course. It is only if there is a mis­trial or some technical issues have arisen that such an order may be made but in very rare circumstances. This should not have been done especially in the facts of the case discussed hereinabove.

9. In view of the above discussion, we allow the appeals, set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore the judgment of the trial 11 court. Bail bonds, if any, stand discharged. Pending applications(s) if any, shall also stand disposed of.