M. K. Mukherjee, J. - (1.) Fourteen persons were tried by the Sessions Judge, Thalassery for rioting, criminal trespass, murder and other cognate offences. The trial ended in an order of acquittal of four of them and conviction and sentence of the other ten under Ss. 143, 147, 447, 449, 427, 324, 326 and 302 read with S. 149, IPC. Against their convictions and sentences the ten convicts filed separate appeals in the High Court. While disposing of the appeals by a common judgment, the High Court acquitted five of them, but upheld the convictions and sentences of the five appellants before us (who were arryed as A1, A4, A6, A7 and A8 in the trial Court and hereinafter will be so referred to).
(2.) Briefly stated, the prosecution case is as under:- (a) Vishwanathan (the deceased) was a member of the Rashtriya Sewak Sangh (RSS) whereas the appellants are the sympathisers of the Communist Party (Marxist), (CPM). These two parties have a long standing political rivalry and it has percolated down to students of some schools. On August 3, 1989, around 9 a.m. a group of students belonging to Kerala Students Union, (KSU) and Akhil Bhartiya Vidya Parishad (ABVP) (which own allegiance to RSS) of Government High School, Aroli in Pappinissery, resorted to strike as a mark of protest against the inadequate facilities given to the students of the local Government Engineering College. Another group of students, who were sympathisers of CPM and members of its students' wing, namely the Students Federation of India (SFI), resisted the strike. Over that issue there was an exchange of blows between the two groups. Following the rumpus, some outsiders belonging to CPM including the appellants, came to the school compound and beat some of the students belonging to ABVP. (b) A little later Vishwanathan (the deceased), a local leader of RSS, along with Kauprath Rajesh (P.W. 5) came there and openly gave out that if any body dared to attack students of ABVP he would be taught a good lesson and then left the place. Muralidharan (P.W. 2), Pramod (P.W. 3) and some other students of their group then proceeded to Keecheri Hills where RSS have a Sakha, (a place where RSS workers meet for their organisational activities). On the way they met Rajendran and Jayarajan (P.W. 4), two other RSS workers, who also accompanied them. When, reaching there, they were discussing with Vishwanathan and Rajesh about the necessity of taking the injured to the hospital for treatment, a mob of 15/20 persons, including the appellants, came there armed with daggers, sticks, iron rods and stones and attacked them. On being so attacked they ran for their life in different directions. While P.W. 4 rushed into the house of Santha (P.W. 6), which is near the Sakha, deceased Viswanathan, P.W. 2 and Rajendran took shelter in the neighbouring house of Parvathi (P.W. 7) and Kunhiraman (P.W. 8). The other RSS workers escaped to the nearby jungle. In chasing them the riotous mob came to the house of P.W. 7 and surrounded it. The mob then started pelting stones towards and hammering the windows of the house. Probably, realising that it was not safe to remain there Vishwanathan opened the door and ran for his life. The mob then chased Vishwanathan who, finding no other alternative, entered the house of one Kumaran, which was at a distance of half a kilometre from the house of P.Ws. 7 and 8. The mob followed him there and after killing him brutally disappeared from the scene. (c) Ashraf (P.W. 1), a resident of the neighbourhood, went to Valapattanam Police Station and lodged a report about the incident. On that report a case was registered by S.I. Domminic (P.W. 19), against unknown members of CPM. Shri P. Jayaraj (P.W. 21), Circle Inspector of Police, took up investigation of the case and first went to the house of Kumaran, held inquest over the dead body of Vishwanathan and sent it for post mortem examination. After completion of investigation he initially submitted a charge- sheet against eight of the accused persons and thereafter supplementary charge-sheets against the other six.
(3.) The appellants denied their involvement in the offences alleged and contended that they had been falsely implicated due to political rivalry.;