MYLADIMMAL SURENDRAN & ORS.versusSTATE OF KERALA

                        [2010] 10 S.C.R. 916


A               MYLADIMMAL SURENDRAN & ORS.
                                   v.
                        STATE OF KERALA
                 (Criminal Appeal No. 839 of 2006)
                       SEPTEMBER 01, 2010
B
       [B. SUDERSHAN REDDY AND SURINDER SINGH
                      NIJJAR, JJ.]

         Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302, 143, 147, 148 and 341 -
C Death of victim due to political rivalry - Incident witnessed by
     wife and others - Conviction and sentence ulss. 302, 143,
     147, 148 and 341 by Session Court - Order of conviction
     upheld by High Coutt - Death sentence reduced to
    imprisonment for life - Interference with - Held: Not called for
o   - Consistent _eye-witness account of three witness_es-wife,
    PW2 and PW 3, together with the evidence of witnesses for
    the period immediately after the incident - Dying declaration
    corroborates eye-witness account given by wife,. PW2 and
    PW3 - Nature of injuries consistent with the weapons used
E   by assailants - No delay in lodging FIR and in sending the
    copy of FIR to Magistrate - Evidence of wife could not be
    discarded on the basis that she was an interested witness and
    of PW 2 and PW 3 that they were chance/partisan witnesses
    - Non-holding of test identification parade did not cause any
    prejudice to accused - All accused identified in court - Thus,
F
    there is no reason to disturb the concurrent conclusions
    reached by trial court and.High Court- Evidence - Witnesses
    - Interested witness/chance witness/partisan witnesses -
    Identification - Test identification parade - Delay in lodging
G   FIR.
         Many political murders and other crimes took place
    in 'K' district of Kera la. 'MV', an activist of the Communist
    Party of India (Marxist) was murdered. Thereafter, 'PC'-
    leader of BJP, received death threats, thinking to be the
H                                  916
   MYLADIMMAL SURENDRAN & ORS. v. STATE OF                 917
                  KERA LA
   brain behind the murder of 'MV'. 'PC' was then provided        A
   police security. On the fateful day, accused persons-A1
   to AS, armed with deadly weapons, hacked 'PC' to death
   in broad day light, in front of his wife-PW 1. The father of
   the deceased-CW1 also witnessed the incident. Accused-
   A2 absconded. The Court of Session convicted the               B
   appellants-accused persons A1, A3 to AS for the offences
   punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341 and 302
   IPC. They were sentenced to death for the offence under
   Section 302 IPC. For offences under Sections 143, 147,
   148, 341 they were sentenced to undergo rigorous               c
   imprisonment for different periods, varying from two
   months to three years. The High Court upheld the order
   of conviction but converted death sentence to
.' imprisonment for life. Therefore, the appellants filed the
   instant appeals.                                               o
     Dismissing the appeals, the Court

       HELD:. 1.1 Given the seriousness of the allegations
 made as also the imposition of the death penalty by the
 trial court, the High Court correctly considered the entire      E
 evidence with great care and caution. The High Court
 took cautionary approach because this was one of the
 many political murders and crimes which had been
 committed in 'K' district during the relevant time. The
 deceased was a BJP leader and the accused were                   F
 workers of the Marxist Party. It came in evidence before
 the trial court that the deceased was a candidate of the
 BJP in the General Election for the 'P' Assembly
 Constituency. Even though he got only 10,000 votes, he
 was threat~ned that he would be kill~d. Consequently, the        G
 police aid post was established about 1 SO meters near
 the house of 'PC'. The added reason for danger to the life
 of the deceased was that he was suspected to be a
 mastermind behind the murder of a Marxist Party activist
 called 'MV'. Demands were made by the Marxist Party, as
                                                                  H
     918    SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2010] 10 S.C.R.


 A well as the public in general, for the deceased to be
   arrayed as an accused in the said murder. The High Court
   also noticed that the danger to the life of the deceased
   became stronger when the LDF Government came to
   power. The house of the deceased was situated in a
 B disturbed area. [Para 11] (930-A-E]

        1.2 The High Court examined the entire evidence and
   concurred with the conclusions reached by the trial court.
   There is no reason to differ with the conclusions which
 C seem to flow naturally from the evidence on record. [Para
   12] (930-F-G]

         1.3 The wife was an eye-witness to the murderous
    assault, which resulted in the death of her husband. The
    wife-PW1 categorically stated that the accused persons
  D attacked her husband at the stated time and place; and
    that two of the accused persons hacked her husband
    with a billhook. However, she was not aware of the names
    of the accused persons .at that time. The names were
    given to her by CW1, three days after the incident. During
  E her deposition in court, she clearly stated that she-could
    identify the assailants. She actually identified them in the
    court. When questioned in court, she categorically stated
    that her husband tried to turn the motorcycle round on
    the road, but it fell down; that she ran to the house
. F through the very same route where her husband and the
    assailants also followed; and that the persons who
    injured her husband, were_ the persons she identified in
    the court. (Para13 and 14] (930-H; 931-G-H; 932-A-B]

       1.4 The High Court rightly concluded that the
 G evidence of PW1 was consistent with the evidence given
   by PW2 and PW3. PW2 stated that he saw the deceased
   being hacked with\ a billhook with a curved beak. He
   specifically named the accused 'S'. Upon being brutally
   wounded, the deceased fell down. The witness also
 H
 MYLADIMMAL SURENDRAN & ORS. v. STATE OF 919
                KERALA

stated that, thereafter, all the five accused attacked the A
deceased with their respective weapons. He recognized
four of the persons present in the court. He also stated
that he knew the names of each of them and could point
out each person by name; that the name of the
absconding assailant is 'P'; and that A3 was armed with B
an axe and the others with billhook with pointed beak/
curved beak. He identified the weapons of offence. The
evidence of PW2 was reiterated by PW3. The High Court
also noticed that PW4-neighbour also reached the scene
of the assault. He stated that the deceased in reply to a c
question of the policemen stated while groaning with
pain, that 'S and others' were the assailants. He
confirmed that the deceased was facing assassination
threats after the murder of 'MV' at place 'C'. He deposed
that he had seen in the newspaper that Marxist people 0
had gone on Satyagraha in their office demanding
inclusion,of the deceased as an accused in the 'MV'
murder case. The High Court also noticed the evidence
of PW7, who was posted in the police picket near the
ho'use of the deceased. He stated that they had gone to E
the scene of the crime when they were informed by some
workmen that somebody had been stabbed. When they
                              I

reached the place of incident, they saw the deceased
was lying covered with blood in the lap of his father CW1.
                          I

PW 7 stated that on being asked the names of the
assailants, the victim gave the name which he was F
unable to understand. However, he stated that the victim
was conscious at that time. With the consistent eye-
witness account of three witnesses together with the
evidence of the witnesses for the period immediately after
the incident, it would be well-nigh impossible to disturb G
the concurrent conclusions reached by the trial court and
the High Court. [Paras: 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20] [932-C;
H-933-A-C, H; 934-A, C-E; 935-A-D]

                                                          H
    920     SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2010] 10 S.C.R.


A        1.5 The father of the deceased, author of the first
    information statement passed away before the trial. In the
    first information statement which was converted into a
    FIR, he categorically stated that on hearing the screams
    of the daughter-in-law, he ran back towards the place
B   where he had met his son and daughter-in-law. He saw
    that the motorcycle had been abandoned in the road. His
    son was running towards the house and was being
    chased by five to eight persons. They were hacking his
    son with weapons like sword. When he yelled for help,
C   the accused 'S' hacked forcefully on the back of the
    deceased with a sword like weapon in his hand and ran
    away. The High Court correctly observed that the
    statement could not be considered as a substantive piece
    of evidence. [Para 21] [935-E-G; 936-A-B]

D      1.6 The High Court accepted that the dying
  declaration might not be sufficient for conviction of the
  accused. However, it could be considered for
  corroboration of the evidence of other witnesses. PW2
  and PW3 categorically stated that the deceased even
E though badly injured had stated that the assailants were
  'S' and others. The High Court was also cautious to
  ensure that the injured was in a fit state to mal<e the dying
  declaration. Therefore, it examined the evidence of the
  doctor who clearly stated that even after being brutally
F injured, the deceased could have talked for another 20
  minutes. PW10, the doctor, who conducted the post-
  mortem stated that the cause of death was due to
  bleeding and irreversible shock neural and vascular. He
  also stated that Injury Nos. 1, 4, 6, 7, 10, 15, 16, 17 and 21
G could be caused by M01 or a weapon similar to M01.
  Injury No. 12 could be caused by a sharp-edged weapon
  like an axe. The doctor stated that after sustaining injury
  No.12 ,the victim must have received neural shock for
  sometime and, thereafter, he would have been able to talk
H
 MYLADIMMAL SURENDRAN & ORS. v. STATE OF             921
                KERA LA

and drink, approximately for another 20 minutes. The        A
doctor also opined after looking at the injuries that the
same were caused-by persons trained in killing. [Paras
22, 24 and 25] [936-C-D; 939-C-E]

    1.7 The High Court rightly observed that there was      8
no unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and in sending
the copy of the same to the Magistrate. In any event, no
prejudice was caused to the accused persons. [Para 26]
[940-C-D]

     1.8 The evidence given by the wife of the deceased C
was unimpeachable. It could not be discarded, on the
basis that she was an interested witness. If such a wide
proposition was to be accepted the evidence of all the
witnesses who were relatives of a victim of a violent crime
would be _rendered unacceptable. Merely because PW1 D
happens to be the wife of the deceased would not justify
her being branded as an interested witness. The evidence
of the wife is followed by the consistent evidence given
by PW2 and PW3 which was further corroborated by the
dying declaration made by the injured within minutes of E
being assaulted. In such circumstances, it cannot be
accepted that the evidence of the eye-witnesses ought
to be disbelieved. [Para 27] [940-E-G]

     1.9 The evidence of PW 2 and PW 3 could not be
                                                            F
brushed aside on the ground that they were chance as
well as partisan witnesses. The deceased was UC agent.
PW2 wanted to take a loan from UC for construction of
his house. Therefore, he went to meet the deceased at
his house. He was accompanied by his friend PW3. Both
of them left the house of the deceased in the               G
circumstances narrated and clearly witnessed the
second assault on the deceased. Merely because PW2
and PW3 were sympathizers of BJP, their evidence could
not be brushed aside. At best, their evidence has to be
                                                            H
    922      SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2010] 10 S.C.R..


A   carefully scrutinized. On, a car;ul scrutiny of the
    evidence, the trial court and the High Court rightly
    concluded that the evidence of PW ·and PW3 could not
    be discarded. [Paras 28, 30 and 31) [940-H; 941-D-E; 942-
    C-D]
B
        State of Rajasthan vs. Smt. Kalki and Anr. (1981) 2 SCC
    752; Sachchey Lal Tiwari vs. State of UP. (2004) 11 SCC
    410 - relied on.

       1.10 No test identification parade was held. The wife
C and the other eye-witnesses, PW 2 and 3, were asked to
  identify the accused for the first time in the court, some
  eight and a half years after the incident. The widow had
  witnessed the brutal murder of her husband, right in front
  of her eyes in broad day light. In such circumstances, it
D would be difficult, if not impossible, for her to forget the
  faces of the assailants. They would be imprinted on her
  psyche for ever. She had come face to face with the
  assailants. She would have no reason whatsoever to
  falsely implicate the appellants. In court, she categorically
E deposed and identified each of the assailants. She was
  absolutely truthful and straight forward. A1 lives very near
  to the house of the deceased. In such circumstances,
  she could have easily stated that she had known A1
  earlier. There are no embellishments seen in her evidence
F throughout. The High Court rightly rejected that non-
  holding of the test identification parade caused any
  prejudice to the accused. The evidence of PW1 is fully
  supported/corroborated by the evidence of PW2 and PW3
  on the point of second assault. They identified all the
G accused in court. Their identification was further
  strengthened by the fact that all the accused were known
  to the two witnesses earlier. Therefore, they were
  identified by name in court. [Para 34) [943-G-H; 944-A-D]

          Ramanbhai Naranbhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat (2000)
H
  MYLADIMMAl SURENDRAN & ORS. v. STATE OF                   923
                 KERALA

1 sec 358 - relied on.                                              A

    1.11 Upon a due consideration of the entire facts and
circumstances of the case, the judgment of the High
Court does not call for any i_nterference. [Para 35]

                      Case Law Reference:                           B

     (1981) 2 sec 152             Relied on.           Para 29
     (2004) 11 sec 410            Relied on.           Para 30
     (2000) 1 sec 358             Relied on.           Para 33      c
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 839 of 2006.

    From the Judgment & Order dated 16.11.2005 of the High
Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Crl. Appeal No. 159 of 2005.        D

                             WITH

Criminal Appeal No.840 of 2006.

     C.K. Sasi for the Appellants.                                  E

     R. Sathish, S. Geetha for the Respondent.
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

      SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J. 1. These appeals have               F
 been filed against the common judgment passed by the High
 Court of Kerala, at Ernakulam in Criminal Appeal Nos. 214 and
 159 of 2005 filed by the accused/appellant no.1 and accus~d/
appellant no.3 to accused /appellant no.5 respectively whereby
the High Court was pleased to confirm the conviction of the         G
accused/appellants under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 302
read with 149 IPC, but partly allowed their appeals to the extent
that the sentence of death imposed upon by the Sessions Court
_was converted to imprisonment for life.
                                                                    H
      924      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2010] 10 S.C.R.


  A         2. Both the trial court and the High Court have concluded
      that the deceased was killed due to political vendetta. The
      conclusions reached by the two Courts do not seem to be
      without basis. The High Court has noticed that there were many
      political murders and other crimes in Kannur district of Kerala
  B at the time when Sri Panniyannur Chandran was murdered. He
      was murdered to avenge the murder of an activist of the
      Communist Party of India (Marxist), Mamman Vasu within the
      limits of Checkli Police Station. At that time, the deceased, Sri
      Panniyannur Chandran was 'the Secretary of the District
  c 'Committee of BJP. Following the murder of Mamman Vasu,
      death threats were often.received by the deceased. He was
    - thought to be the brain behind the murder of the CPM activist.
     'It was said that such threats were made even in the Peace
      Committee Meetings that followed the killing of Mamman Vasu.
    · The State Special Branch officials being satisfied about the
\ D possible threat to the life of deceased had conveyed the
      information to the local police station of the area in which the
      deceased resided. Consequently, a Police Picket was set up
      near the house of the deceased to provide security. Tragically,
      it appears that in spite of all the security measures, the
  E assailants had their way. He was murdered on 25.5.1996 in
      broad day light, in front of his wife. He was literally hacked to
      death, by trained killers.

            3. We may now notice the facts.
  F
         4. On 25.5.1996, between 2:30 and 3:00 p.m. Sri
   Panniyannur Chandran accompanied by his wife, Arundhuti
   (hereinafter referred to as PW1) went to the Thalassery
   Railway Station riding a motor bike to see off his brother-in-
 G law to Madras. On their return, they met the father of the
   deceased, who told them that he was going to the ration shop
   to buy rice. On their way back, when they had almost reached
   home, they found that the road had been blocked by
   Arayakkanidy Sukumaran @ Suku (hereinafter referred to as
   A 1), Thayyullathil Thazhekuniyil Pavithran @ Pavi (hereinafter
 H referred to as A2), Myladimmal Surendran (hereinafter referred
                         '
  MYLADIMMAL SURENDRAN & ORS. v. STATE OF                     925
      KERALA [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]

to as A3), Kaithayullaparambath Preman (hereinafter referred A
to as A4) and Kunhiparambath Purushothaman @ Purushu
(hereinafter referred to as A5). They were all armed with
deadly weapons. Though the deceased attempted to avoid
them. he was unable to do so, as the engine of the motor cycle
went dead. The wife jumped off the motorcycle just before it fell. B
She ran away. Then from a distance she saw that A 1 assaulted
the deceased with a billhook which injured his left hand. The
deceased started running towards his house hotly chased by
the accused armed with deadly weapons. The wife ran to the
place where they had met CW1 . But hearing her screams, CW1 c
was already coming towards the trouble spot. On meeting CW1,
she informed him about the incident. She then ran to the house
of her husband thinking that the deceased must have reached
home. Finding that her husband was not in the house, she again
ran back, with the sister of the deceased, to the place of ass.ault. 0
She found the deceased lying with his head on the lap of_his
father. According to. the wife, the incident occurred at about .
4:45 p.m. At that time, she did not know the names of the
accused. She was told the names by CW1 after three days.·

     5. The Policemen on picket duty reached the spot and took         E
Panniyannur Chandran to the general hospital where he
breathed his last at 5:50 p.m. The father of the deceased
reported the incident which was recorded by the C.I. of Police,
Thalassery. The investigation was carried on for sometime by
the local Police but eventually for efficient investigation the case   F
was transferred to the Crime Branch. PW17, a Detective
Inspector of the Crime Branch conducted the investigation from
that point onwards. In the mean time A 1 to A5 surrendered
before the Addi. C.J.M, Thalassery and were remanded to
custody. After investigation, PW17 submitted final report              G
against A1 to A5 in the court of Addi. CJM, Thalassery for.
offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341 and 302 read with
149 IPC. At that stage A2 absconded. Therefore the case
against A2 was split up and the case against A 1, A3 to A5 was
committed to the Court of Sessions, Thalassery: Since the              H
    926     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                (2010] 10 S.C.R.


A   accused pleaded not guilty they were duly put on trial.
                 -
         6. By order dated 12.11.2004, the Sessions Court
    convicted the appellants herein for the offences punishable
    under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341 and 302 IPC. For the
    offences punishable under the aforesaid Sections (except
8
    Section 302 IPC) they were sentenced to undergo rigorous
    imprisonment for different periods, varying from two months to
    three years. They were, however, sentenced to death for the
    offence under Section 302, IPC.

C         7. Challenging the aforesaid judgment, A1 filed Criminal
    Appeal No. 214 of 2005 and A3 to A5 filed Criminal Appeal
    No. 159 of 2005 before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam.
    The High Court vide order dated 16.11.2005 confirmed the
    conviction of the accused under Section 302 read with 149 IPC
D   but the sentence of death was converted to imprisonment for
    life. Aggrieved by the said judgment, A 1 filed Crl. Appeal No.
    840 of 2006 and A3 to A5 filed Crl. Appeal No. 839 of 2006
    before this Court.

E       8. We have heard Mr. Surinder Singh, learned Senior
    Advocate for the appellants and Mr. R. Satish on behalf of the
    respondent State.

         9. After taking us through the relevant materials relied on
    by the prosecution, Mr. Surinder Singh learned Senior Advocate
F   raised the following contentions:

                (i)   Ext P1, the First information Statement was
                      given by the father of the deceased (CW1).
                      who died one year before trial. The FIS has
                      been wrongly used as a substantial piece of
G
                      evidence to corroborate the evidence given
                      by the prosecution witnesses. In the First
                      Information Statement, he had stated thafthe
                      incident occurred while his son was returning
                      from the Railway Station together with his
H
MYLADIMMAL SURENDRAN & ORS. v. STATE OF                   927
    KERALA [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]

                  wife (PW1) after seeing off his brother in law. A
                  He had further stated that earlier at about 3
                  p.m., three persons had come to his house
                  and enquired about whereabouts of the
                  deceased. He had told them that his son had
                  gone to the railway station and would be· B
                  coming back by about 4:30 p.m. He had told
                  them to wait for his son in the house. He then
               -::,left for the Ration Shop to buy rice. On his
                  way to the Ration Shop, he had met his son
                  returning on his motorcycle with his wife. On  c
                  enquiry from his son, he had told him that he
                  was going to buy rice from the Ration Shop.
                  Soon thereafter, he heard the cries of his
                  daughter-in-law. He rushed back to the place
                  where he had met his son. There he saw
                                                                  D
                  Arayakkamdy Sukumaran @ Suku and
                  others assaulting the deceased with deadly
                  weapons. He stated that the assault on his
                  son was due to political rivalry.

       (ii)     The FIR is not the correct version of the        E
                assault and the death of the victim. The FIS
                is the earliest version of the incident. ..The
                prosecution cannot thereafter give a different
                version. In the FIS the name of the main
                culprit is given as "Suku of Arayakkamdy         F
                House". The name of the first accused in the
                trial is Suku (short for Sukumaran).

       (iii)    The FIR was not sent to the Magistrate
                forthwith, as is evident from the seal of the
                                                                 G
                court of Magistrate, which is dated 29th May.
                Surprisingly, the Magistrate has initialed the
                FIR on 26.5.1996.

       (iv)     It is then submitted that even if the delay in
                recording the FIR is not fatal, the High Court   H
    928     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 10 S.C.R.


A                       ought to have scrutinized the evidence
                        meticulously.

                (v)     The recovery of the MOS itself was not
                        acceptable under Section 27 of the
                        Evidence Act.
B
                (vi)    The dying declaration that "Suku and others"
                        had committed the crime is unreliable. With
                        so many injuries, it is impossible that the
                        victim would give a coherent answer to any
C                       question. In fact, PW7 at the Police Picket
                        stated that the name uttered by the victim
                        was not clear to him.

                (vii)   The learned senior counsel submitted that
D                       there was suspicion regarding the identity of
                        the accused as no test identification parade
                        was conducted. PW1 identified the accused
                        in court after eight years and three months.
                        Since PW1 did not know the accused it
                        would be unsafe to rely upon her identification
E                       of the accused.

                (viii) The learned senior counsel then attacked the
                       evidence of PW2 and PW3. According to the
                       learned senior counsel, there is no
F                      explanation. why their statements were
                       recorded 3 or 4 days after the incident. Both
                       the witnesses being BJP sympathizers were
                       planted by the prosecution.

               (ix)     Another submission made by the learned
G
                        senior counsel was that if the identify of the
                        accused was known, their names would have
                        been mentioned at the Police Picket.

         10. On the other hand Mr. R. Satish, learned counsel for
H   the State of Kerala, submitted that:
MYLADIMMAL SURENDRAN & ORS. v. STATE OF                  929
    KERALA [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]

       (i)      The trial court and the High Court have          A
                convicted the accused on the basis of the
                eye-witness account of three witnesses.
                PW1 is the wife of the deceased. She had
                no reason to falsely implicate anyone.
                                                                 B
       (ii)     The evidence given by the wife is consistent
                with the evidence of PW2 and PW3, who
                witnessed the second phase of the
                murderous assault.

       (iii)    The presence of PW2 and PW3 cannot be            c
                doubted on the ground that they are chance
                witnesse!} or that they are partisan
                witnesses.

       (iv) . The nature of injuries caused are consistent       D
              with the weapons used, by the assailants.

       (v)      Medical evidence confirms the ocular
                evidence.

       (vi)     The dying declaration also adds further          E
                corroboration to the eye-witness account
                given by PW1, PW2 and PW3.

       (vii)     Non holding of the test identification parade
                 would not weaken the eye-witness account of     F
                 PW1, PW2 and PW3. All ·of them have
               · identified the accused in court.

       (viii) There is no delay in recording the FIR There
              is also no delay in sending a copy of the FIR
              to the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class.             G

       (ix)     Both the courts have given concurrent
                findings, therefore, no case is made out for
                interference by this Court. ·
                                                                 H
    930     SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2010] 10 S.C.R.


A      11. We have considered the submissions made by the
  learned counsel. Given the seriousness of the allegations made
  as also the imposition of the death penalty by the trial court,
  the High Court, in our opjnion, correctly considered the entire
  evidence with great care and---caution. The other reason which
B impelled the High Court to take this,cautionary approach was
  that this was one of the many politi'Cal murders and crimes
  which had been committed in Kannur District during the relevant
  time. It was noticed that the deceased was a BJP leader and
  the accused were workers of the Marxist Party. It had come in
c evidence before the trial court that the deceased had been a
  candidate of the BJP in the General Election for the Peringalam
  Assembly Constituency. Even though he had got only 10,000
  votes, he had been threatened that he would be killed.
  Consequently, the police aid post had been established about
D 150 meters near his house. The added reason for danger to
  the life of the deceased was that he was suspected to be a
  mastermind behind the murder of a Marxist Party activist called
  Mamman Vasu. Demands had been made by the Marxist
  Party, as well as the public in general, for the deceased to be
  arrayed as an accused in the aforesaid murder. The High Court
E also noticed that the danger to the life of the deceased became
  stronger when the LDF Government came to power. To make
  it even worst, the house of the deceased was situated in a
  disturbed area.

F       12. The High Court thereafter examined the entire
  evidence threadbare and concurred with the conclusions
  reached by the trial court. We see no reason to doubt, let alone
  differ with, the conclusions which seem to flow naturally from
  the evidence on record. Although the conviction of the accused
G persons was confirmed, the High Court converted the death
  sentence to imprisonment for life.

         13. At the outset, we may notice that this is one of those
    rare cases where the wife is an eye-witness to the murderous
    assault, which resulted in the death of her husband. She
H
 MYLADIMMAL SURENDRAN & ORS. v. STATE OF                  931
     KERALA [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]

appeared in the Court as PW1. In her evidence, she has clearly A
stated that on 25.5.1996 she and her husband had gone to the
local railway station to see off her brother on the train to
Madras. They had set off from the house between 2.30 p.m. to
3 p.m. on her husband's motorcycle. They left the railway station
after 3.45 p.m. On the way back home, they bought some B
apples from fruit stall and put them in a box attached to the
motor bike. When they reached near the house they met CW1
father of the deceased. On being asked by her husband, CW1
told them that he was going to the Ration Shop to buy some
rice. Whilst they were on their way home, they saw five persons C
standing in the middle of the road at the curve. On being.
obstructed, her husband tried to go round them. Tragically,
however, the engine of the motorcycle somehow got switched
off. She immediately jumped off the motorcycle, which in any
event fell down. She then saw one of the accused persons hack
her husband with a billhook. Her husband tried to block the blow/ D
by raising his left arm which in the process got injured. She ·
started screaming. While running away from the scene, she
saw her husband also running towards the house, hotly pursued
by the five assailants, waving their deadly weapons. She ran
to locate CW1, who was already rushing towards the trouble E
spot, having heard her shrieks. She then witnessed the second
assailant Purushu (AS) hack her husband with the billhook. She
ran to the house of the deceaseu taking the canal road, thinking
that he would have reached home by then. However, finding that
her husband had not reached, she again rushed back to the F
scene of the incident, along with the sister of the deceased. It
was at that time she saw her husband lying on the ground with
his head on the lap of his father CW1. He had injuries all over
his body and he was drenched in blood.
                                                                  G
     14. In her evidence, she had categorically stated that the
accused persons had attacked her husband at t~e stated time
and place. She, however, stated that she was not aware of the
names of the accused persons at that time. The names were
given to her by CW1 three days after the incident. During her     H
    932      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2010] 10 S.C.R.


A   deposition in court, she clearly stated that she can identify the
    assailants. She actually identified them in court. When
    questioned in court, she categorically stated that her husband
    tried to turn the motorcycle round on the road, but it fell down.
    She also stated that she ran to the house through the very same
B   route where her husband and the assailants had also followed.
    She very clearly stated in court that the persons, that injured
    her husband, were the persons she identified in Court.

          15. The High Court has also rightly concluded that the
    evidence of PW1 is consistent with the evidence given by PW2
C   and PW3. According to these witnesses, on 25.9.1996, PW2
    accompanied by his friend PW3 had come to the house of the
    deceased. He had promised to help PW2 to get the loan. On
    reaching the house of the deceased at about 4.30 p.m. they
    met CW1. He informed them that his son (the deceased) had
D   gone to the railway station to see off his brother-in-law. He also
    told them that the deceased was to come back home shortly,
    so they could wait in the house for him. CW1 also told them
    that he was going to Ration Shop to buy some rice. After about
    4-5 minutes, they left the house, after informing the sister of the
E   deceased that they will meet him on the way. When they had
    moved about a 100 meters away from the house they heard
    the shrieks of a woman. They started running towards the
    direction from where the shrieks were coming. At that time, they
    also heard the shouts of some men asking them to come fast.
F   When they were about 50 meters away, they saw the deceased
    being chased by the five accused. They were holding the
    weapons in their hands. When they reached about 30 meters
    away, they saw one of the accused persons attacking (hacking)
    the deceased on the left side of the back. By that time, they
G   were standing about 1O meters away fr9m the deceased and
    the assailants.

        16. PW2 had categorically stated that he saw the
    deceased being hacked with a billhook with a curved beak.
    He specifically named the accused Sukumaran. Upon being
H
  MYLADIMMAL SURENDRAN & ORS. v. STATE OF                    933
      KERALA [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]

 brutally wounded, the deceased fell down. The witness also          A
 stated that thereafter all the five accused attacked the
 deceased with their respective weapons. He recognized four
 of the persons present in court. He also stated that he knew
 the names of each of them and he can point out each person
 by name. The witness then actually pointed out the accused by       B
  name. This witness further goes on to state that the name of
 the absconding assailant is 'Pavithran'. He stated that A3 was
 armed with an axe and the others with billhook with poinfed
 beak/curved beak. He identified the weapons of offence.
 According to this witness, the body of the deceased was badly       c
 cut up. By the time, the father of the victim, CW1 reached the
 spot, the five assailants had fled away. They carried their
 weapons with them. It was only after that an explosion was
 heard from the Southern side of the place of incident. CW1 took
 the head of the victim in his lap who was continuously asking       D
 for water. By that time, two police men came running to the spot.
 One of them wiped out the blood from the face of the victim.
 He asked the victim 'who did this to you'? The victim answered
 'Suku and others'. At the same time, a neighbouring woman
 gave some water to the police men who then dripped the same
                                                                     E
 into the victim's mouth. The neighbour also gave them some
 more clothes which were used for dressing the wounds of the
 victim. This witness, thereafter, helped the police and other
 persons to put the victim into the jeep who was then taken to
 the hospital. The witness categorically stated that the accused
 were known to him earlier as they were regular visitors at the      F
 arrack shop where he worked. He stated that A1 was a Mason,
 A2 Pavithran who is absconding was a carpenter, A3 was a
.bus cleaner, A4 was a coconut tree climber, A5 was a concrete
 worker. The witness even stated that he had given the names
 to the police at the time when the statement was recorded.          G
 Subsequently, when the statement was again recorded, he
again gave the names. This witness was cross-examined at
length but his evidence could not be shaken.

     17. The aforesaid evidence of PW2 has been reiterated           H
    934      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2010] 10 S.C.R.


A by PW3. He also claimed to know all the accused. He also
  stated that he is prepared to identify the accused by naming
  them in court. He also actually identified the accused in court.
  An effort was made to attack the character of this witness. It
  was sought to be projected that he was a BJP sympathizer.
B The aforesaid suggestion was stoutly denied by the witness.
  He, however, admitted that after he had become a prosecution
  witness in this case, a false case had been registered against
  him which is pending. In the aforesaid case, false allegations
  of burning the CPI (M) office had been made.
c      18. In addition to the aforesaid witness, the High Court
  noticed that PW4, the neighbour, had also reached the scene
  of the assault. This witness also stated that the deceased in
  reply to a question of the policemen stated while groaning with
  pain, that 'Suku and others' were the assailants. This witness
D also accompanied the victim to the hospital in the jeep. He
  confirmed that the deceased was facing assassination threats
  after the murder of Mamman Vasu at Checkli: He further
  deposed that he had seen in the newspaper that Marxist
  people had gone on Satyagraha in their office at Checkli
E demanding inclusion of the deceased as an accused in the
  Mamman Vasu murder case. The witness further stated that
  in a public meeting he had heard that they will assassinate the
  deceased. The relevant part of the deposition which has been
  reproduced by the High Court in its judgment is as under :-
F
          "I saw in the news paper, a report of hunger strike by
          Marxist party people in Checkli asking to make
          Chandrettan as an accused in Mamman Murder Case.
          Like wise I am told that there was speech in public
          meeting of CPl(M) that Chandrettan would be killed."
G
    In his cross-examination, he stated that he is a BJP candidate
    and deceased was Kannur District Secretary of BJP. He also
    stated that he had told the doctor that he had seen the
    deceased lying on the road with injuries all over his body.
H
  MYLADIMMAL SURENDRAN & ORS. v. STATE OF                     935
      KERALA [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]

     19. The High Court took notice of the evidence of another        A
important witness PW?, who was posted in the Police Picket
near the house of the deceased. He stated that they had gone
to the scene of the crime when they were informed by some
workmen that somebody had been stabbed. When they
reached the place of incident, they saw the deceased was lying        B
covered with blood in the lap of his father CW1. This witness
stated that he had asked the victim, the names of the assailants.
In reply the victim had given the name which he was not able
to understand. He, however, stated that the victim was
conscious at that time.                                               c
     20. With the aforesaid consistent eye-witness account of
three witnesses together with the evidence of the witnesses for
the period immediately after the incident, in our opinion, it would
be well-nigh impossible to disturb the concurrent conclusions
reached by the trial court and the High Court.
                                                                      0

     21. In this case, unfortunately, the author of the first
information statement passed away before the trial. He was
none other than the unfortunate father of the victim. In the first
information statement which has been converted into a FIR, he         E
has categorically stated that on hearing the screams of the
daughter-in-law, he ran back towards the place where he had
met his son and daughter-in-law. He saw that the motorcycle
has been abandoned in the road. His son was running towards
the house and he was being chased by five to eight persons.           F
They were hacking his son with weapons like sword. When he
yelled for help, the accused Arayakkamdy Sukumaran @ Suku
hacked forcefully on the back of the deceased with a sword like
weapon in his hand and ran away. After narrating the entire
sequence as to how the victim was brought to the hospital he          G
had stated that : -

    "Chandran is the District Secretary of BJP. Sugu and
    others are communists. Politically they are inimical to
    Chandran. They hacked Chandran to death out of this
    political animosity. Necessary action may be taken in this        H
    936         SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2010] 10 S.C.R.


A         respect. The place of occurrence is within the limits of the
          Panoor Police station."

    The High Court, in our opinion, correctly observed that the
    statement could not be considered as a substantive piece of
    evidence.
8
          22. The High Court also accepted that the dying declaration
    in this case may not be sufficient for conviction of the accused.
    It can, however, be considered for corroboration of the
    evidence of other witnesses. It has been noticed earlier that
C   PW2 and PW3 had categorically stated that the deceased even
    though badly injured had stated that the assailants were Suku
    and others. The High Court was also cautious to ensure that
    the injured was in a fit state to make the dying declaration. It,
    therefore, examined the evidence of the doctor who had clearly
D   stated that even after being brutally injured, the deceased could
    have talked for another 20 minutes.

          23. The evidence given by the doctor who conducted the
    post mortem,PW10, was noticed by the High Court minutely.
E   The post mortem certificate Ex.PW7 indicated the following
    injuries on the deceased :-

           1.     4 c.m. x 2 c.m. gaping linear wound on upper scalp
                  (R) side incised.

F          2.     Transverse linear incised wound on top of scalp
                  8c.m. x 3 c.m. from (L) top parietal region to past
                  the midline of the middle of the scalp cutting the
                  bone.

           3.     A slashed (RY) eyebrow hanging over the eye with
G                 a piece of underlying bone, 7 c.m.

           4.     ® side of the nose is cut open and hanging (flesh}
                  incise 'U' shaped inverted.

           5.     (L) car is transversely-sras-hed from the tragus and
H
MYLADIMMAL SURENDRAN & ORS. v. STATE OF                   937
    KERALA [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]

        through the middle of the pinna into two, 7 c.m.         A
        incised wound gracing occiput bone and mastoid.

  6.    13 c.m. x 6 c.m. transverse incised wound on the
        neck at the level of the (L) ear lobe gracing on the
        mastoid.                                                 B
  7.    On the back, (L) side below neck, gaping 7 c.m. x
        5 c.m. transverse wound and its tail extends
        superficially, 8 c,.m. more laterally and downward (in
        L Shape).
                                                                 c
  8.    A linear incised wound 4 c.m. x 3 cm. just below
        this wound.

  9.    4. c.m. x 3 c.m. incised transverse wound 12 c.m.
        below the neck:.
                                                                 D
  10.   2.5 c.m. long incised wound on skin over (L)
        shoulder olade.

  11.   Four linear slashed incised wounds on the back of
        head with marks on the skull from above downwards        E
        (from R to L 10 cm x 3 cm, 8 cm x 2.5 cm, 4.5 cm
        x 2.5 cm and 7 cm x 6 cm.

  12.   11 c.m. long x 8 c.m. deep transverse incised cut
        on the back of neck at the level of the 5th cervical
        spine and cutting it and the spinal cord.                F

  13.   12 c.m. long transversely oblique incised wound
        cutting open the posterolateral left thigh and knee
        joint 7 c.m. deep exposing the femoral condyle and
        cutting it.                                              G
  14.   15 c.m. oblique gaping incised wound on (L) lateral
        thigh middle, cutting part of the muscles and 4 c.m.
        deep.

  15.   9 c.m. linear cut exposing the (L) shoulder 5 c.m.       H
    938     SUPREME COURT REPORTS               . [2010] 10 S.C.R.


A               deep and cutting the (L) humeral head incising and
                exposing it.

          16.   Superficial transverse 5 c.m. long wound on back
                of (L) upper forearm (incised).
B         17.   6 c.m. long incised slash separating the ulnar
                metacarpals of the (L) hand from the wrist 3.5 c.m.
                deep and oblique.
                                                •
          18.   Superficial incised 2.5 c.m. transverse wound over
c               the (L) wrist over the radial styloid.

          19.   The right cubical fossa is slashed open 7 c.m.
                oblique incised and 4 c.m. deep.

          20.   6 c.m. long through and through cut of® wrist on
D               its back with opening of skin 2.5 cm. on he ventral
                aspect in the corresponding oblique direction.

          21.   Oblique wound 6 c.m. incised exposing the M.C.P.
                tendons of ® little ring and middle fingers on the
E               back of the ® palm, transverse.

          22.   Linear contusions dark and in two number 68 c.m.
                each in length on ® shoulder and transverse dark
                linear contusion on ® arm 6 c.m. long and 4
                c.m.long linear contusion ® mid-forearm back.
F
          23.   Minor contusion, abrasions three in number on (L)
                shoulder, two transverse and one linear.

          24.   Dark patches (L) flank abdomen (contusion) and on
                (L) knee, (L) le, ® shin, ® knee and ® Side
G
                abdomen.

          25.   Skull is cut from midline to (L) parietal regions
                transversely reaching the dura, but without bleeding
                or injury to the brain.
H
   MYLADIMMAL SURENDRAN & ORS. v. STATE OF                      939
       KERALA [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]

       26.   Another 4 cuts on (L) occiput obliquely and over (L)      A
             mastoid.

       27.   Abdomen contains partially digested food
             materials.

       28.    Internal viscera pale, intact, including brain matter,   8
              liver, lungs, stomach, spleen, viscera and heart."

      24. The doctor PW10 had stated that the cause of death
 was due to bleeding and irreversible shock neural and vascular.
 He had also stated that Injury Nos. 1, 4, 6, 7, 10, 15, 16, 17        C
 and 21 can be caused by weapon like M01. Injury Nos. 2: 3,
 5, 8 and 9 can be caused by M01 or a weapon similar to M01.
 Injury Nos. 11, 13, 14, 18, 19 and 20 can be caused by M02.
 Injury No.12 can be caused by a sharp-edged weapon like and
 an axe.                                                               D
        25. On specifically being asked, he had stated that it would
  be possible for the injured to speak even after sustaining the
. injuries mentioned above. The doctor had stated that after
  sustaining injury No.12 the victim must have received neural
  shock for sometime, say for about 5 minutes, and thereafter he       E
· would have been able to talk and drink, approximately for
  another 20 minutes. The doctor also opined after looking at the
  injuries that the same were caused by persons trained in killing.

       26. The High Court also rejected the submissions with           F
 regard to the delay in the registration of the FIR or with regard
 to the delay in transmission of the same to the Magistrate. It
 was noticed by the High Court that the Judicial Magistrate, 1st
 Class had initially received the FIR at 11.30 a.m. on 26.5.1996.
 The incident occurred around 4.45 p.m. on 25.5.1996. The              G
 injured was brought to the Government Hospital at 5.40 p.rri.
 The FIS of the father of the deceased was recorded at 7 p.m.
 It reached Panoor Police Station at 9 p.m. Thereafter, the FIR
 was registered. It reached the residence of the Judicial
 Magistrate, 1st Class at 11.30 a.m. on 26.5.1996. The High
                                                                       H
I




        940     SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2010] 10 S.C.R.


    A Court notices the submission on behalf of the accused that the
      seal of the court on the FIR was affixed on 29.5.1996. It was,
      however, obseryed that the genuineness of the signature of the
      Magistrate on 26.5.1996 was not questioned by the accused
      at any time. This apart, it was noticed that the investigating
    B officer was not questioned regarding-the authenticity of the
      signature of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class. It was also
      noticed that 28th was a holiday, being Muharam, therefore, the
      seal being affixed on 29.5.1996 would not be extraordinary. The
      High Court also found that in case the recording of the FIR was
    c actually delayed, as suggested by the accused, it would not be
      necessary to name only one accused person therein. If the FIR
      was fabricated then all the accused could have been
      incorporated. In our opinion, it was rightly observed by the High
      Court that there was no unexplained delay in lodging the FIR
    0 and in sending the copy of the same to the Magistrate. In any
      event, no prejudice bas been caused to the accused persons.

           27. In our opinion, the evidence given by the wife of the
      deceased in this case was unimpeachable. It could not be
      discarded, as stated by the learned senior counsel on the basis
    E that she was an interested witness. If such a wide proposition
      was to be accepted the evidence of all the witnesses who were
      relatives of a victim of a violent crime would be rendered
      unacceptable. Merely because PW1 happens to be the wife of
      the deceased would not justify her being branded as an
    F interested witnesses. The evidence of the wife is followed by
      the consistent evidence given by PW2 and PW3. This is further
      corroborated by the dying declaration made by the injured
      within minutes of being assaulted. In such circumstances, it
      would be difficult to accept the submissions of the learned
    G senior counsel that the evidence of the eye-witnesses ought to
      be disbelieved.

           28. In our opinion, the High Court rightly rejected the
      submission, which was also reiterated before us, that the
      evidence of PW2 and PW3 should be rejected on the ground
    H that they were chance as well as the partisan witnesses.
  MYLADIMMAL SURENDRAN & ORS. v. STATE OF 941
      KERALA [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]

     29. We may at this stage notice the observations made         A
by this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Smt. Kalki
and Another [(1981) 2 sec 752] which is as under:-

    "True, it is she is the wife of the deceased, but she cannot
    be called an 'interested' witness. She is related to the
                                                                 8
    deceased. 'Related' is not equivalent to 'interested'. A
    witness may be called 'interested' only when he or she
    derives some benefit from the result of a litigation; in the
    decree in a civil case or in seeing an accused person
    punished. A witness who is a natural one and is the only C
    possible eye witness in the circumstances of a case
    cannot be said to be 'interested' in the instant case PW1
    had no interest in protecting the real culprit, and falsely
    implicating the respondents."

     30. In our opinion, the aforesaid observations are fully D
applicable to the evidence of the PW1 in this case. Similarly,
the evidence of PW2 and PW3 cannot be brushed aside as
chance witnesses. It has come in evidence that the deceased
was the UC agent. PW2 wanted to take a loan from the UC
for construction of his house. He, therefore, went to meet the E
deceased at his house. He was accompanied by his friend
PW3. Both of them left the house of the deceased in the
circumstances narrated above and clearly witnessed the
second assault on the deceased. This Court had occasion to
disapprove the attitude of casually branding material witnesses F
to crimes of violence as chance witnesses in the case of
Sachchey Lal Tiwari Vs. State of UP. [(2004) 11 SCC 410].
It was observed as follows:-

    "Murders are not committed with previous notice to
    witnesses, soliciting their presence. If murder is committed   G
    in a dwelling house, the inmates of the house are natural
    witnesses. If murder is committed in a street, only passerby
    will be witnesses. Their evidence cannot be brushed aside
    or viewed with suspicion on the ground that they are mere
    'chance witnesses'. The expression 'chance witness' is         H
    942       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2010] 10 S.C.R.


A         borrowed from countries where every man's home is
          considered his castle and everyone must have an
          explanation for his presence elsewhere or in another man's
          castle. It is quite unsuitable an expression in a country
          where people are less formal and more casual, at any rate
B         in the matter of explaining their presence."

         31. In our opinion, these observations of this court are of
    tremendous relevance given the cultural ethos of this country.
    For the same reasons, we are unable to accept the submission
    of the learned senior counsel that the evidence of the PW3
C   ought to be rejected on the ground that they are partisan
    witnesses. Merely because PW2 and PW3 are sympathizers
    of BJP, their evidence cannot be brushed aside. At best, their
    evidence has to be carefully scrutinized. On such careful scrutiny
    of the evidence the trial court and the High Court have clearly
D   and in our opinion rightly concluded that the evidence of these
    witnesses could not be discarded.

          32. Now, this brings us to the most important submission
    made by the learned senior counsel. Mr. Surinder Singh,
E   submitted that since no test id7ntification parade was held, prior
    to the witnesses deposing in court, the identity of the accused
    has not been established. Learned counsel has submitted that
    it is in fact a case of a blind murder. The deceased was a
    political activist; he had political enemies. The prosecution has
F   unnecessarily dragged in the names of the accused appellants.
    Learned senior counsel had also pointed out the numerous
    weaknesses in the investigation of the case. He submitted that
    the benefit of doubt clearly had to be extended to the accused
    in the peculiar circumstances of this case. We have carefully
    examined the aforesaid submissions.
G
         33. Earlier, this Court had the occasion to consider similar
    submissions in the case of Ramanbhai Naranbhai Patel Vs.
    State of Gujarat, (2000) 1 sec 358. In that case also, the
    murder of the husband had been committed in front of the wife.
H
  MYLADIMMAL SURENDRAN & ORS. v. STATE OF                      943
      KERALA [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]

Justice S.S. Majmudar speaking for the Court observed as               A
. follow~:

      " ...... there is direct eyewitness account deposed to by the
      witness Dhirubhai Mohanbhai (brother of the deceased),
      witness Dhirubhai Premjibhai, PW 5, the tenant residing          8
      in the locality and Dilipbhai, the younger brother of the
      deceased. These witnesses have clearly deposed that they
      knew the accused. In fact, Dilipbhai was the person who
      was involved in the incident of the previous day wherein
      Accused 1 and his accomplices had a quarrel with him and         C
      his supporters. That part of the evidence of these
      eyewitnesses had remained well sustained on record. So
                                                      is
      far as witness Niruben was concerned, she the wife of
      the deceased Ramanbhai Mohanbhai. The accused
      mounted an assa.ult on her husband in her bedroom and
      even though she might not be knowing the accused                 D
      earlier, the faces of the accused mounting such an
      assault and which caused fatal injuries to her husband
      can easily be treated to have been imprinted in hermind
      and when she could identify these accused in the Court
      even in the absence of an identification parade, it could        E
      not be said that her deposition was unnatural .or she was
      trying to falsely rope in the present accused by shielding
      the real assaulters of her husband." (Emphasis supplied)

 In our opinion these observations would be fully applicable to        F
 the situation in this case.

       34. Undoubtedly, no test identification parade was held in
 this case. It is also not disputed that the wife and the other eye-
 witnesses PW 2 and 3 were asked to identify the accused. for
 the first time in the court, some eight and a half years after the    G
 incident. We have noticed in detail the manner in which the
 widow in this case witnessed the brutal murder of her husband,
 right in front of her eyes in broad day light. In such
 circumstances, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for her to
 forget the faces of the assailants. They would be imprinted on        H
    944      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2010] 10 S.C.R.


A   her psyche for ever. She had come face to face with the
    assailants. The murder was committed in broad day light. She
    would have no reason whatsoever to falsely implicate the
    appellants. In court, she had categorically deposed and
    identified each of the assailants. She has been absolutely
B   truthful and straight forward. It has come in evidence that the
    accused (A 1) lives very near to the house of the deceased. In
    such circumstances she could easily have said that she had
    known A 1 earlier. There are no embellishments seen in her
    evidence throughout. The High Court, in our opinion, rightly
c   rejected the submission that non holding of the test identification
    parade has caused any prejudice to the accused. The evidence
    of PW1 is fully supported/corroborated by the evidence of PW2
    and PW3 on the point of second assault. Further more they
    have identified all the accused in court. Their identification is
    further strengthened by the fact that all the accused were known
0
    to the two witnesses earlier. Therefore, they were identified by
    name in court.

          35. Upon a due consideration of the entire facts and
    circumstances of this case. we are of the considered opinion
E   that the judgment of the High Court does not call for any
    ihterference. The appeals are dismissed.

    N.J.                                        Appeals dismissed.