Jobin Sebastian, J.

1. These appeals have been preferred, challenging the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed against the accused in S.C. No. 25/2009 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-II, Thalassery, for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 447, 324, and 302 r/w Section 149 of the IPC. Apart from that, accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 5 were also found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 148 of the IPC, and accused Nos. 1 and 5 were further found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. Out of these appeals, Crl. A. No. 1040/2019 has been preferred by accused No. 1, Crl. A. No. 913/2019 by accused No. 2, and Crl. A. No. 775/2019 by accused Nos. 3 to 5. By the impugned judgment, accused Nos. 6 to 16 were acquitted.

2. The prosecution case in brief is as follows:

                  Yackoob, the deceased in this case, was a CPI(M) activist, and the accused are activists of RSS/BJP. Due to political rivalry, under the leadership of accused No.14, the accused hatched a criminal conspiracy to murder Yackoob and in pursuance of the said plot, on 13.06.2006, at 9:15 p.m, they formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with dangerous weapons including country bombs and in prosecution of the common object of the said unlawful assembly criminally trespassed into the courtyard of the residential house of one Janaki (PW4), where Yackoob and other CPI(M) activists were present at that time. Scared of the accused, although Yackoob and those who were present there took to their heels, in the meantime, accused Nos. 1 and 2 voluntarily caused hurt to PW2 and PW3. Moreover, all the accused chased Yackoob, who ran towards the house of one Jameela (PW6), and accused No.5 hurled a bomb aiming at the head of Yackoob, which hit his head and exploded resulting in the death of Yackoob. Hence, the accused are alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 324, 120-B, and 302 r/w 149 of the IPC, Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and Section 27(1) of the Arms Act.

3. Upon completion of the investigation, the final report was laid before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Mattannur. Being satisfied that the case is one triable exclusively by a Court of Session, the learned Magistrate, after complying with all the necessary formalities, committed the case to the Court of Session, Thalassery, under section 209 of Cr.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge, having taken cognizance, made over the case for trial and disposal to the Additional Sessions Court-II, Thalassery. On appearance of the accused before the trial court, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing both sides under section 227 of Cr.P.C. and upon perusal of the records, framed a written charge against the accused for offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 120B, 447, 324, 302 r/w 149 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substsances Act and Section 27(1) of the Arms Act. When the charge was read over and explained to the accused, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. During the trial, from the side of the prosecution, PW1 to PW24 were examined and marked Exts.P1 to P49. MO1 to MO14 were exhibited and identified. The contradictions in the 161 statements of the prosecution witnesses were marked as Exts.D1 to D19 from the side of the defence. After the completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused were questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., during which they denied all the incriminating materials brought out in evidence against them. Thereafter, both sides were heard under Section 232 of Cr.P.C., and since it was not a fit case to acquit the accused under the said provision, they were directed to enter on their defence and to adduce any evidence that they may have in support thereof. From the side of the accused, DW1 to DW6 were examined and marked Exts. D20 to D34. Thereafter, both sides were heard in detail, and finally, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found accused nos. 1 to 5 guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 447, 324 and 302 r/w 149 of the IPC. Apart from the said offences, accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 5 were found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 148 of the IPC, and accused Nos. 1 and 5 were further found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. However, accused Nos. 6 to 16 were acquitted of all the charges.

5. The accused Nos. 1 to 5 were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 143 of the IPC, rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence punishable under Section 147 of the IPC, rigorous imprisonment for three months each for the offence punishable under Section 447 of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment for two years for offence punishable under Section 324 r/w 149 of the IPC. For offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 149 of the IPC, the accused Nos. 1 to 5 were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, the accused were ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Further, the accused Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for offence punishable under Section 148 of the IPC. For the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, accused Nos. 1 and 5 were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of ₹10,000/- each. For the offence punishable under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, accused Nos. 1 and 5 were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of ₹10,000/- each. In default of payment of the fine imposed for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, accused Nos. 1 and 5 were directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two years each. The sentences were ordered to be run concurrently. The trial court also directed the District Legal Service Authority to assess the amount of compensation payable to the dependents of the deceased, if any, under the Victims Compensation Scheme. Challenging the said finding of guilt, conviction, and the order of sentence passed, the accused have preferred these appeals.

6. We heard Sri.P.Vijayabhanu, learned senior counsel, Sri. S. Rajeev, learned senior counsel, Sri.Pratheesh Kurup, and Sri. T. R. Renjith, the learned Public Prosecutor.

7. This is another incident in which a young man aged 24 years lost his life as a victim of the political rivalry that existed between CPI(M) and BJP, two political parties, in Kannur district. The incident occurred on 13.06.2006 at 9:15 p.m. The law was set in motion in this case on the strength of the FIS given by one Shanavas, who was also in the house of PW4 when the assailants trespassed there with dangerous weapons.

8. When the first informant was examined as PW1, he deposed in the following lines:

                  The deceased in this case was his friend. On 13.06.2006, at 8:15 p.m., he, along with Yackoob, Riyas, and Ashique, went to the house of Babu (PW2). When they reached there, the brothers of Babu, namely Sudheesh (PW3) and Subhash, were also present. While all of them were talking to each other, between 9:00 and 9:15 p.m., he heard the sound of someone coming from the backside of Babu’s house. When he turned back, he saw Sankaran Master (A1), Manoj (A2), Vijesh (A3), Prakasan (A4), Kavyesh (A5), and ten others rush to the verandah of Babu’s house, uttering that they would kill them. Then he attempted to flee from the spot by running, and in the meantime, A3 attempted to hack him with a sword. Then he, as well as Yackoob, ran towards the house of Jameela (PW6) and hid inside the bushes. Yackoob ran towards the kitchen portion of the house of PW6, where a toilet is also located. He then saw Yackoob entering the verandah close to the kitchen of PW6. Suddenly, A5 hurled a bomb towards the head of Yackoob, and the same exploded. Immediately thereafter, the 1st accused approached Yackoob and said, The 1st accused then hurled and exploded another bomb, and all the accused fled from the spot through the side of the house of one Suharabi (PW5), which is situated on the front side of the house of PW6, Jameela. After five minutes, a police jeep came, and the police took Yackoob to the hospital. He remained hidden in the bushy area and trembled in fear. After a short while, he went to his house. Thereafter, one of his friends came to his house and informed him that Yackoob was dead. Then he, along with the said friend, went to the Police Station, Iritty, and gave a statement to the police. Ext. P1 is the FIS, so given by him. At the time of the occurrence, A3 was holding a sword in his hand, and A1 and A2 were holding iron sticks in their hands. He saw the incident in the light emitted from the house of PW2. Thereafter, he attended the funeral ceremony of Yackoob. Apart from Yackoob, PW2 and PW3 also sustained injuries, and he had only hearsay knowledge about the injuries sustained by PW2 and PW3. Earlier, a case was registered alleging that the deceased Yackoob and one Subhash had assaulted one S.T. Suresh (A8), a BJP worker. The incident in this case was a retaliation for that incident. At the time of the incident, the deceased Yackoob was wearing a full-sleeved T- shirt and a maroon-coloured dhoti. The said T-shirt and dhoti were identified by PW1 and marked as MO1 and MO2, respectively. All the accused were identified by PW1 before the court.

9. Apart from the above evidence of PW1, the prosecution also relies upon the evidence of PW2 and PW3, who allegedly sustained injuries in the very same incident. Upon examination before the court, PW2 and PW3 vividly narrated the entire sequence of events that transpired in the case. They deposed on lines similar to those spoken to by PW1.

10. Before adverting to the discussion regarding the reliability of the ocular version of the eyewitnesses, it is apposite to refer to the evidence of the Doctor (PW8), who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased. The post-mortem certificate issued by him was marked as Ext. P5. PW8 deposed that, during the post-mortem examination, he noted the following ante-mortem injuries on the body of the deceased:

                  “A lacerated wound with irregular edges of 13x12 cm with loss of scalp tissue from the region of the wound, with an irregular bony defect on right side of head of 13x12 cm, involving frontal, parietal and temporal bones. The bony defect extends from 4 cm above right eyebrow in front to back and transversely from 2.5 cm above right ear towards midline.

                  Scalp margins of the wound showed charring and singeing of hair, with multiple split lacerations extending to forehead and other side of scalp blackish charred scalp tissue of 4x3 cm present 2.5 cm above and in front of right ear along the wound margin.

                  A linear tear of 13x3 cm, bone deep extend from the margins of wound 3 cm above and outer aspect of right eyebrow, to inner end of left eyebrow. A linear tear of 4x1 cm bone deep in front of right ear, extending from margin of the wound 2.5 cm above right ear, downwards.

                  Dura underneath the above bony defect in torn, with loss of dura underneath the bony defect and wound exposed empty skull cavity, brain lost, except for a lacerated remnant of cerebellum of 4x3x3cm attached to brain stem.

                  Multiple fractures extending from the above bony defect to all aspects of skull bone, causing comminution of skull.”

11. Referring to the post-mortem certificate, PW8 opined that the post-mortem findings are consistent with death due to blast injury to the head, with total loss of the brain. A conjoint reading of the evidence of the Doctor and the post-mortem certificate issued by him undoubtedly reveals that the death of Yackoob was homicidal and that the injury sustained to the head resulted from a bomb blast.

12. As already stated, this is a case in which the prosecution relies upon the direct ocular evidence of eyewitnesses to establish the occurrence. Significantly, out of the three eyewitnesses examined by the prosecution, two allegedly sustained injuries in the very same incident. As discussed earlier, PW1, who lodged the FIS in this case, is one of the eyewitnesses to the occurrence. He deposed that, on the fateful day, the accused trespassed into the house of PW4 armed with deadly weapons, and when PW1, along with the deceased and their other friends, attempted to flee from the spot, one of the accused brandished a sword at him. But, he did not sustain any injury.

13. However, PW2 and PW3, the other eyewitnesses, have a case that they sustained injuries in the incident and thereafter sought medical treatment from a nearby hospital at Iritty, where they were treated as inpatients. The wound certificates pertaining to the examination of PW2 and PW3 were marked as Exts. P7 and P6, respectively. The doctor who examined them and issued the said wound certificates was examined as PW9.

14. On examination before the court, PW9 deposed that it was on 14.06.2006, at 8:40 p.m., while working as Assistant Surgeon at the Community Health Centre, Iritty, that he examined one Sudheesh (PW3). According to PW9, the alleged history was an assault by the BJP activists (Shankaran, Manoj, Vijesh, Sujeesh, Pavi, Prakashan, etc., armed with iron rods and a bomb). Likewise, PW9 deposed that on examination of PW3, he had noted the following injuries: i) two linear abrasions on the right chin; ii) abrasion on the sole of the right foot; iii) abrasion on the back of the left ring finger. Referring to Ext. P6, the wound certificate, PW9 deposed that the injuries noted by him could have been caused as alleged.

15. PW9 further deposed that on the same day, at 8:50 p.m., he examined one Babu (PW2), and the alleged history was an assault by BJP activists named Pavi, Vijesh, Prakashan, and Krishnan and Referring to Ext. P7, the wound certificate, PW9 deposed that PW2 was having complaints of pain and swelling in the right wrist, pain and bleeding on the left shin, pain and bleeding on the left big toe, and pain and bleeding on the right big toe. However, according to PW9, on examination, he noted an oedema on the right wrist, a contusion over the right wrist, two abrasions on the left shin, an abrasion on the left big toe, and an abrasion on the lower surface of the right big toe. Moreover, a contusion on the right wrist was also diagnosed. Referring to the injuries, PW9 deposed that the injuries could have been caused by using an iron rod or could result from a fall.

16. While analysing the aforesaid medical evidence, it is apposite to refer to the testimonies of PW2 and PW3 regarding the overt acts attributed to the accused. During examination, PW2 categorically deposed that upon seeing the armed accused, he ran towards the house of Jameela (PW6) and while attempting to do so, A9 struck him on his right hand with an iron rod causing injuries. PW2 further stated that, while running towards the house of Jameela, he fell down and consequently sustained injuries to his knee. Similarly, the evidence of PW3 discloses that, being frightened by the accused, he attempted to run away from the house of PW4, and at that time, the first accused struck him on his right leg with an iron rod, causing injury. In the meantime, A2 rushed towards him and attempted to strike him on the head with an iron rod. However, PW3 warded off the blow with his left hand and, in doing so, sustained injuries to the ring finger and middle finger of his left hand.

17. A conjoint reading of the testimonies of the injured witnesses, the evidence of the doctor, and the wound certificates issued by him clearly establishes that the injuries noted during the medical examination of the injured persons correspond to the overt acts attributed to the accused. Furthermore, the nature of the injuries indicates that they are not self-inflicted. Therefore, we find no reason to doubt the presence of PW2 and PW3 at the scene of occurrence or their testimony that they witnessed the incident in question.

18. While analyzing the evidence of PW2 and PW3, it is significant to note that they are injured witnesses. It is trite that the testimony of injured witnesses carries special evidentiary value. Ordinarily, such a witness would not falsely implicate an innocent person, thereby letting the actual assailant go unpunished. In Brahm Swaroop and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in AIR 2011 SC 280, the Supreme Court held that:

                  “The testimony of an injured witness has its own relevancy and efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence, and this lends support to his testimony that he was present at the time of occurrence. The testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law. Such a witness comes with a built in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailants in order to falsely implicate someone. Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness. Thus, the evidence of an injured witness should be relied upon unless there are grounds for the rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein.”

19. In essence, there is no illegality in convicting an accused in a criminal case on the basis of the evidence of injured witnesses, provided such evidence is convincing and reliable. The evidence that the injured witnesses guarantee is primarily with respect to their presence at the scene of occurrence and the fact that they sustained injuries during the incident. However, it can not be laid as an inflexible rule that the testimony of an injured witness must be considered as gospel truth in every circumstance. If there is a reasonable possibility of false implication or if contradictions and material discrepancies are apparent in their evidence, such testimony must be viewed with care and circumspection. In the present case, the evidence of PW2 and PW3, the injured witnesses, is convincing and reliable. They withstood the cross- examination successfully, and their evidence is free from material contradictions and omissions. More pertinently, the evidence is amply corroborated by the testimony of PW1, who was also allegedly present at the time of the commission of the offence and had no apparent motive to falsely implicate the accused.

20. The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that, if PW2 and PW3 had sustained any injuries in the incident, they would have sought medical assistance immediately thereafter. According to the learned counsel, the records reveal that PW2 and PW3 were examined at the hospital only on 14.06.2006 at 8:40 p.m., i.e., on the night of the day following the incident. It was therefore argued that such delay in approaching the hospital creates serious doubt regarding the credibility of their evidence and suggests that the treatment records were fabricated with a view to falsely project that PW2 and PW3 had also sustained injuries in the incident.

21. It is true that the occurrence in which PW2 and PW3 sustained injuries took place on 13.06.2006 at about 9:15 p.m., and that they sought medical aid only on 14.06.2006 at 8:40 p.m. However, the mere fact of delayed medical attention does not ipso facto falsify their case that they were injured in the incident. We are unable to accept the contention advanced by the learned counsel in this regard. While appreciating this argument, it cannot be overlooked that the incident resulted in the tragic death of a close friend of PW1 to PW3. The evidence on record indicates that the funeral ceremony was conducted on 14.06.2006 between 3:30 p.m. and 4:00 p.m., subsequent to the inquest and post-mortem examination. PW2 and PW3 have deposed that they attended the said ceremony. In such circumstances, it is only natural that they may not have attached much significance to the comparatively minor injuries sustained by them and instead prioritised the immediate events and rituals attendant upon the untimely demise of their close friend.

22. Therefore, the mere fact that they did not rush to the hospital immediately after the occurrence cannot be treated as unnatural or suspicious, particularly since the medical evidence on record is consistent with the overt acts attributed to the accused by PW2 and PW3. Moreover, the nature, location, and character of the injuries do not indicate that they were self-inflicted. Consequently, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the delay in seeking medical consultation does not in any manner undermine the reliability of the testimony of PW2 and PW3.

23. Notably, the evidence of PW1 and PW2 reveals that upon seeing the armed assailants, they scattered and concealed themselves in a bushy area near the house of PW6, within whose compound the deceased was killed by the hurling of a bomb. The evidence of PW1 and PW2 further shows that the police arrived at the scene of occurrence approximately five minutes after the incident, and at that time, both of them were still hiding inside the bushes. It has also come out in evidence that the accused had fled from the spot about five minutes prior to the arrival of the police.

24. It is significant to note that, although the police had reached the place of occurrence, PW1 and PW2 did not approach them or immediately inform them of the incident. The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that such conduct on the part of PW1 and PW2 is highly suspicious and that, if they were in fact present near the place of occurrence and hiding in the bushes when the police arrived, they would naturally have approached the police and reported the incident.

25. However, while considering the said contention, it is relevant to note that during cross-examination, PW1 deposed that when the police arrived, he was trembling with fear. He further stated that it was only three or four minutes after the police had left the scene with the injured that he came out of the bushes. Similarly, PW2 deposed that he was frightened and therefore remained concealed. Moreover, when a specific question was put to PW2 by the learned defence counsel as to whether he believed that, even in the presence of the police, the accused might attack him, and whether it was for that reason that he did not approach the police, PW2 replied in the affirmative.

26. In considering whether the conduct of PW1 and PW2 in not approaching the police is, by itself, sufficient to discard their testimony, it must first be observed that individuals react differently when confronted with traumatic or life-threatening situations. No uniform or rigid pattern of behaviour can be expected from persons placed in similar circumstances. In the present case, both PW1 and PW2 have categorically stated that they were frightened on witnessing the incident and therefore remained concealed in the bushes for a short while. The evidence further establishes that the police arrived within a few minutes of the occurrence, and that even at that time, PW1 and PW2 continued to remain hidden out of fear. In such circumstances, we find no reason to disbelieve their presence at the scene merely on the ground that they did not immediately approach the police to inform them of the incident.

27. In Rana Partap v. State of Haryana [(1983) 3 Supreme Court Cases 327], the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows:

                  “Yet another reason given by the learned Sessions Judge to doubt the presence of the witnesses was that their conduct in not going to the rescue of the deceased when he was in the clutches of the assailants was unnatural. We must say that the comment is most unreal. Every person who witnesses a murder reacts in his own way. Some are stunned, become speechless and stand rooted to the spot. Some become hysteric and start wailing. Some start shouting for help. Others run away to keep themselves as far removed from the spot as possible. Yet others rush to the rescue of the victim, even going to the extent of counter-attacking the assailants. Every one reacts in his own special way. There is no set rule of natural reaction. To discard the evidence of a witness on the ground that he did not react in any particular manner is to appreciate evidence in a wholly unrealistic and unimaginative way.”

28. Another contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that, although PW1 and PW2 deposed that they had hidden in a (bushy area) near the house of Jameela, the evidence of the Investigating Officer allegedly establishes that no such existed near the said house. While considering this contention, it is pertinent to note that the Investigating Officer who prepared the scene mahazar (Ext. P11) was examined as PW23. During his cross-examination, the defence counsel suggested that Ext. P11 does not mention the existence of any near the house of Jameela. In response to the said suggestion, PW23 deposed that the scene mahazar clearly records the presence of grown-up ‘theruva grass’ near the house of Jameela. A perusal of Ext. P11 further shows that it specifically notes the growth of ‘theruva grass’ at or near the place of occurrence.

29. Therefore, merely because the Investigating Officer did not use the specific expression (“bushy area”) in Ext. P11, it cannot be concluded that no such bushy growth existed near the place of occurrence where PW1 and PW2 had allegedly concealed themselves. It is common knowledge that a cluster or thick growth of ‘theruva grass’ would constitute a bushy area. The expressions and grown-up are often used interchangeably by local residents to describe dense vegetation. Hence, the absence of the specific term in the scene mahazar does not, in any manner, discredit the version of PW1 and PW2 regarding the existence of a bushy area near the house of Jameela, particularly when the presence of grown-up theruva grass is expressly recorded in the scene mahazar and has been duly spoken to by the Investigating Officer who prepared the said document.

30. The learned counsel for the appellants attempted to persuade us that there exists a material discrepancy in the evidence of PW1 and PW2 regarding the incident in question. According to the learned counsel, PW1 deposed that he saw Yackoob, the deceased, running and entering the verandah situated near the kitchen of Jameela’s house, and that it was at that moment the fifth accused hurled a bomb at the head of the deceased. On the other hand, it was contended that PW2 deposed that he saw the third accused opening the door of the toilet in Jameela’s house, and upon the door being opened, he saw the deceased coming out of the toilet and running towards the verandah situated at the rear side of the house, whereupon the fifth accused hurled the bomb.

31. Upon a careful consideration of the above submissions and the evidence on record, it is evident that the testimonies of PW1 and PW2 are not contradictory but are, in fact, mutually corroborative on the material aspect of the occurrence. Both witnesses have consistently stated that it was when the deceased was on the verandah at the rear side of Jameela’s house that the fifth accused hurled the bomb. The core of the prosecution case, namely the place where the deceased was standing and the act of the fifth accused in hurling the bomb, remains consistent in both versions.

32. It is true that PW1 did not specifically state that, prior to the hurling of the bomb, the third accused had opened the toilet door and that the deceased had emerged from there before running to the verandah. However, while narrating an incident, it cannot be expected that every witness would recount each and every minute detail with mathematical precision. Minor variations in the narration of preceding events are natural and, in fact, lend assurance to the genuineness of the testimony rather than detract from it.

33. Further, the evidence of PW1 and PW2 indicates that although both were hiding in a bushy area near the house of Jameela, they were positioned at different spots within that area. Consequently, their respective angles of vision and perception would necessarily have differed. It cannot be insisted as a rule of law that whatever is seen or noticed by one witness must invariably have been seen by another witness as well. The fact that PW1 did not notice the deceased emerging from the toilet, as spoken to by PW2, does not render their evidence mutually contradictory. On the contrary, such variation on peripheral details indicates that the witnesses were not tutored and that their testimonies bear the ring of truth. The essential and material particulars of the prosecution case stand consistently supported by both PW1 and PW2.

34. The learned counsel for the appellants attempted to impress upon us that there was a delay in lodging the FIR in the present case, and, therefore, the possibility of deliberation, consultation, and exaggeration cannot be ruled out. According to the learned counsel, the evidence on record establishes that within five minutes of the incident, PW15, a Police Constable attached to Iritty Police Station, who was on flying squad duty, reached the scene of occurrence as instructed by the Sub Inspector of the said police station through a wireless message. The learned counsel further submitted that, within about five minutes thereafter, PW19, the Sub Inspector of Police, himself reached the place of occurrence and found the injured lying in a pool of blood. He directed PW15 and the other police constables in the flying squad team to take the injured to the hospital. The learned counsel contended that, in the above circumstances, it is highly suspicious as to what prevented the Sub Inspector of Police from registering an FIR then and there, particularly when he was convinced that a cognizable offence had been committed.

35. While considering the above contention, it is first to be noted that the evidence of PW19, the Sub Inspector of Police, clearly reveals that it was on the basis of a telephonic message received from his superior officer that he instructed the flying squad team to reach the scene of occurrence. During cross-examination, he deposed that the information received by him at that stage was not sufficient to register an FIR. His evidence further reveals that when he reached the scene, he found the injured lying in a pool of blood with serious injuries to the head. Therefore, his immediate concern was to ensure that the injured was taken to the hospital without any delay, and for that purpose, he deputed PW15 and other police personnel.

36. The evidence of PW19, as well as that of PW23, his superior officer, further reveals that the incident in question was a political murder, and there was apprehension of escalation of the law and order situation in the locality. In such circumstances, PW19 proceeded on patrolling duty with a view to preventing any breach of peace and to avert possible retaliatory incidents. PW23, the Circle Inspector of Police, Iritty, categorically deposed that their primary concern at that point of time was to prevent further political clashes in the area. PW19 also deposed that his principal objective was to prevent further attacks and to safeguard the life and safety of the people in the locality.

37. Moreover, the evidence on record establishes that by the time PW19 reached the police station after law and order patrolling duty, the FIR in the present case had already been registered by the Additional Sub Inspector of Police, Iritty (PW22), on the basis of the statement given by PW1, an eyewitness to the occurrence. Having regard to the facts and circumstances stated above, we are of the considered view that the delay of about six hours in lodging the FIR stands satisfactorily explained and the same cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution case.

38. The upshot of the above discussion is that the evidence of PW1 to PW3 regarding the incident is convincing and reliable. Moreover, PW2 and PW3, being injured witnesses, are accorded a special status in the eyes of the law, and their testimony is entitled to greater evidentiary weight. As already discussed, the injuries noted in the medical examination of PW2 and PW3 correspond to the overt acts attributed to the accused. Even after rigorous cross-examination, their evidence remains mutually corroborative and unshaken. Although this is a case resting on direct ocular evidence, where proof of motive holds little significance, the fact that the prosecution has successfully proved the motive behind the alleged offence lends considerable weight in establishing the guilt of the accused. The evidence of PW1 to PW3 is wholly reliable, and no further corroboration is required to act upon it. Nevertheless, in the case at hand, there are many other telling circumstances and materials to prove the guilt of the accused. The recovery of the weapon of offence at the instance of the third accused under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act also lends additional support to the case of the prosecution. The evidence of the doctor who conducted the autopsy of the deceased and the postmortem examination report reveals that the deceased sustained a fatal injury to the head, which ultimately led to his death.

39. There are ample materials suggestive of the fact that the offence was committed in prosecution of the common object of an unlawful assembly of which accused Nos. 1 to 5 were active members. Therefore, although the main overt act, i.e., hurling a bomb towards the head of the deceased, is attributed to the 5th accused, all of them are liable in view of Section 149 of the IPC, as the said act was done in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly. The accused who inflicted a grievous injury on the head of the deceased by hurling a country-made bomb and causing an explosion cannot be heard to say that they did not conceive an intention to murder the deceased in this case. The act of the accused does not come under any of the exceptions provided under Section 300 of the IPC.

                  Resultantly, we confirm the findings, conviction, and sentences passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in SC No. 25/2009 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-II, Thalassery, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 324, and 302 r/w Section 149 of the IPC, and Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, and the appeals stand dismissed.