- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) The four appellants faced trial for allegedly having caused homicidal death of one Kuttappan (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') on 16-6-1994. They were tried for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'the IPC'). The learned Sessions Judge, Kottayam, found all the four accused persons guilty and convicted and sentenced them for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life. Fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default stipulation was also imposed. The accused-appellants unsuccessfully challenged their conviction and sentence before the Kerala High Court which dismissed the same by the impugned judgment.
(3.) Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows : There was previous enmity between accused persons and the deceased. In furtherance of their common intention because of such enmity, the accused persons chased and assaulted the deceased on 16-6-1994 at about 11 p.m. A-2 beat the deceased with an iron rod on his back and when deceased ran away to save his life, all the accused persons chased him and near a roadside junction, A-4 lighted the torch carried by him which enabled the other accused persons to beat the deceased with handles of axe and spade, and iron rod on different parts of the body. The injuries were caused mostly on the hands, legs and ribs. Only one injury was inflicted on the head which was the fatal injury. Though the deceased was taken to the hospital he breathed his last at about 2.25 a.m. on 17-6-1994. 10 witnesses were examined to further the prosecution version. Rajan (PW-2) was said to be an eye-witness. The information was lodged with the police by Anil Kumar (PW-1). Soman (PW-3) was the brother-in-law of the deceased who was informed about the quarrel between deceased and the accused persons. The deceased allegedly made a dying declaration before them implicating the accused persons. The accused persons pleaded innocence. They pleaded that the actual occurrence was suppressed by the prosecution and, in fact, the deceased attacked them and caused injuries on A-1 and A-2. Since the accused persons were attacked, they exercised their right of private defence and tried to protect themselves and if on account of that the deceased sustained injuries there was no offence involved. Trial Court after analyzing the evidence on record came to hold that the plea of right of private defence was not established. A-1 to A-4 were the authors of the crime. It also did not accept the contention of A-4 that no overt act was attributed to him and there was no material to bring him within the field of Section 34, IPC. The trial Court held that evidence of PW-2 inspire confidence. He was a reliable witness and on his evidence alone the conviction has to be recorded, though additionally the dying declaration was there.;