- (1.) All these appeals are connected and arise out of the judgment of a division bench of the Madras High court. The appellant was the father of one Rajan who is alleged to have been murdered. The case was originally on the file of Sessions Judge, Kozhikode, Kerala State but on account of furore raised by the public against the accused and political overtones given to the case, the Supreme court in order to ensure a fair trial, transferred the case to the file of Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu State. Seven persons were arrayed as accused in the trial and the learned Sessions Judge acquitted accused 1, 2, 4 and 7 and convicted 3, 5 and 6 under S. 348/34, 330/109 and 201 Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them of undergo RI for six months, one year and four months respectively. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. The three convicted accused filed three separate appeals and the State filed an appeal challenging the acquittal of all the seven accused of the major charges and it also filed another appeal for enhancement of the sentence awarded to accused 3, 5 and 6. The division bench dismissed the appeals filed by the State and allowed the appeals filed by the three convicted accused. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has filed these appeals challenging the acquittal of accused 3, 5 and 6 in respect of the offences for which they were convicted by the trial court. Neither the State of Kerala not the State of Tamil Nadu has filed any appeal challenging the judgment of the High court. Consequently there are only three respondents namely accused 3, 5 and 6 before us and the question is whether their convictions as ordered by the trial court should be restored.
(2.) The gravamen of the case was that all the seven accused ersons, who were police officials, entered into a criminal conspiracy to investigate, by illegal means, a case relating to the attack on Kayanna Police Station by Naxalites in the early hours of 28/02/1976 which was registered as a crime and in pursuance of the said conspiracy wrongfully arrested among others, the deceased Raj an and Public Witness 1 and took them to a torture camp at Kakkayam and wrongfully confined them and tortured them. Unfortunately it is alleged that Rajan died and the accused persons caused the disappearance of his dead body in order to conceal the evidence of murder and screen themselves from punishment for their wrongful acts. The changes were framed against the accused under S. 348, 331, 326, 302, 201, 120-B and 109 Indian Penal Code but as already stated, the learned Sessions Judge convicted only accused 3, 5 and 6 and acquitted the others.
(3.) It may be mentioned at this stage that the appellant filed a writ petition in the High court of Kerala seeking a writ of habeas corpus causing the production of his son. The secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and other concerned officers, who figured as respondents, filed counter-affidavits and set up a plea that Rajan had not been taken into custody. The High court, however, taking the view that Rajan had been taken into custody, directed the respondents to produce him in the court. Thereupon the Inspector General of Police directed that a case be registered against some of the accused persons and in that backdrop of events the case came to be investigated by a special team of officers headed by a Deputy Inspector General of Police, Public Witness 59 and others and ultimately the charge-sheet was laid against the seven accused. To prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 59 and filed several documents.;