JUDGMENT E.K. Moidu, J. Twenty-seven accused persons who are accused Nos. 1 to 12, 14 to 21, 23, 24 and 26 to 30 have been tried by the Additional Sessions Judge (Special Court), Palghat, for different offences under the Indian Penal Code as well as under the Indian Arms Act and the Indian Explosive Substances Act. After trial 13 accused persons, who are accused Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 20, 23 and 24 had been convicted under S.302, 396, 399, 148, 395 and 447, read with S.149, of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each to life imprisonment under the first count, each to seven years' rigorous imprisonment under the second count, each to five years' rigorous imprisonment under the third count and each to one year's rigorous imprisonment under the fourth count. No separate sentence was awarded either under S.447 or under S.395 IPC. 2. Of the aforesaid 13 accused persons except accused Nos. 11 and 12, the rest have also been convicted under S.448 IPC., but no separate sentence was awarded 3. The 20th accused was also convicted and sentenced separately for the substantive offence under S.302 IPC. and sentenced to lite imprisonment. Similarly accused Nos. 2, 8, 9 and 20 have been convicted for the substantive offence under S.396 and 395 IPC. and sentenced each to life imprisonment under S.396 IPC. without entering separate sentence under S.395 IPC. 4. Accused Nos.1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 17, 20, 23, 24, 26 and 28 have been convicted and sentenced each to life imprisonment under S.120B IPC. 5. Though accused Nos. 1, 2, 10, 15 and 17 have been convicted under S.342 IPC, accused Nos. 2,17 and 20 under S 506 (2) IPC., accused Nos. 9 and 15 under S.427 IPC and accused No.20 under S.461 IPC, no separate sentence has been imposed on them. 6. Accused Nos. 20, 26 and 28 have been convicted under S.4 (b) and S of the Indian Explosive Substances Act, accused Nos. 20 and 26, however read with S.109 IPC. and sentenced each to two years' rigorous imprisonment under S.4 (b) without entering any sentence under S.5. The period of imprisonment undergone by the 16th accused up to the date of the judgment of the lower court was found to be sufficient on his conviction under S.411 IPC. 20 and 26, however read with S.109 IPC. and sentenced each to two years' rigorous imprisonment under S.4 (b) without entering any sentence under S.5. The period of imprisonment undergone by the 16th accused up to the date of the judgment of the lower court was found to be sufficient on his conviction under S.411 IPC. The sentences are directed to run concurrently by each of the accused persons. 7. Accused Nos. 15 and 18 have been acquitted of the charge under S.120B, the 24th accused under S.395 and 396 IPC., accused Nos. 26 and 28 under S 148, accused Nos. 8, 20 and 24 under S.342, accused Nos. 1, 8, 10 and 15 under S.506 (2) IPC., accused Nos. 9 and 20 under S.45 IPC and the 9th accused under S.27 of the Indian Arms Act. Accused Nos. 3 to 7, 14, 19, 21, 27, 29 and 30 have been acquitted of all the charges. The State has not come up in appeal against the acquittal. However, the State has filed a criminal revision petition questioning the inadequacy of the sentences awarded to those 13 accused persons, namely accused Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 20, 23 and 24 and for awarding enhanced sentence, under S.302 and 396 IPC. 8. There are 36 accused persons in the police charge. Of them only 26 accused persons who are accused Nos. 1 to 26 were only apprehended when the charge was laid. The remaning 10 accused persons are accused Nos. 27 to 30 and six others who were then absconding. As against accused Nos. 1 to 26 committal proceedings were conducted and they were committed to the Sessions which was the subject-matter of Sessions Case No. 32 of 1971. Then accused Nos. 27, 28 and 29 were apprehended and they were also committed to the Sessions under another proceedings. Sessions Case No. 52 of 1971 was directed against those three accused persons. Finally the 30th accused was apprehended when he too was committed to the Sessions which is in Sessions Case No. 65 of 1971. Before the trial commenced in the Sessions Court, accused Nos. 1, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 20, 22 and 25 had escaped from the jail custody But out of them accused Nos. 1, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 20 were arrested later. Accused Nos. Before the trial commenced in the Sessions Court, accused Nos. 1, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 20, 22 and 25 had escaped from the jail custody But out of them accused Nos. 1, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 20 were arrested later. Accused Nos. 13, 22, 25 and the six accused in the original charge were still absconding The learned Additional Sessions Judge consolidated at the three cases and conducting one trial against accused Nos. 1 to 12, 14, to 21, 23, 24 and 26 to 30, the convictions and sentences are entered as above. 9. The above 13 appeals, in order, are filed by accused Nos. 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 23, 24, 26 and 28 against their conviction and sentences. Accused Nos. 8, 16 and 20 did not file an appeal against their conviction and sentences. 10. The accused persons committed the murder of one Narayanankutty Nair, a rich landlord of Kongad village, Palghat District, at his residence and committed dacoity there on the night of 30th of July 1970 between 8-30 and 9-00 p.m. in pursuance of a criminal conspiracy which was hatched up and planned beginning from the month of May/June 1970 at Mayannur which is in Talappally Taluk of the Trichur District, where accused Nos. 10, 13, 19, 20, 26, 28, 29, 30 and other absconding accused assembled in the house of the 26th accused on the southern bank of Bharathapuzha, 30 kilometres away from Kongad village. There they entered into an agreement to commit dacoity and murder of rich landlords by planning organized upheavals and armed insurrections in different parts of the State of Kerala causing destruction to life and property. With that end in view they wanted to collect more weapons and plunder and loot rich landlords and also to distribute their wealth among the poor. At that meeting accused Nos. 13, 20, 28, 30 and three absconding accused were selected as members of the State Committee of the Naxalite Party. Study classes under the leadership of accused Nos. 13 and 20 were attended by accused Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 17, 19, 22, 23, 24 and three others. 11. During the next stage they met on the 12th and 13th July 1970 in Kondazhi and Mayannur in the house of the 26th accused in Mayannur and at Kondazhi meeting accused Nos. 13 and 20 were attended by accused Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 17, 19, 22, 23, 24 and three others. 11. During the next stage they met on the 12th and 13th July 1970 in Kondazhi and Mayannur in the house of the 26th accused in Mayannur and at Kondazhi meeting accused Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18 to 28 and pw. 28 participated. They resolved to concentrate their activity in Palghat District in the first instance. Accused Nos. 10 and 13 and another person were selected as squad leaders for that purpose. The 20th accused was appointed as General Officer Commanding. Arms training was organised consisting of the above accused persons along with pws. 30, 31, 56 and 67. They made necessary preparations. The 20th accused managed to get country bombs manufactured for that purpose. Money collection was also undertaken. The 26th accused received monetary help from the absconding accused persons for the manufacture of country bombs. The 19th accused spent his own money for the manufacture of explosive substances. pw. 40 manufactured bombs at the instance of accused Nos. 20 and 26. The 23rd accused collected weapons like daggers, knives, sword-sticks, choppers and crowbars etc. Accused Nos. 9 and 13 procured a gun from pw. 38. One such gun which they obtained was a country made single barrel gun for the use in the dacoity at the residence of Narayanankutty Nair. After successfully getting possession of the weapons the accused party decided upon to attack the residence of Narayanankutty Nair on the night of 30-7-1970. 12. Deceased Narayanankutty Nair was a rich landlord getting an annual rental of 2000 paras of paddy in addition to his properties in direct possession. He lived in a fairly big upstair building with an out-house which is called 'padipura' or gate house. The house was built in a 4-acre compound which is surrounded by paddy fields on the south and east. On the western side of the compound there is a hillock which slopes down to the south of the compound. The main house and the gate house face to the north Some few days prior to the incident accused Nos. 10, 13, 22 and 23 had a survey and reconnoitring visits in the locality. On the western side of the compound there is a hillock which slopes down to the south of the compound. The main house and the gate house face to the north Some few days prior to the incident accused Nos. 10, 13, 22 and 23 had a survey and reconnoitring visits in the locality. Before the assault on the house of Narayanankutty Nair there was again a secret meeting at the residence of the 13th accused and pw. 35 in Mundur on 28-7-1970. It was attended by accused Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27 and three absconding accused as well as pws. 30 and 31. Each of them was given a token number for identification in future action. On 29-7-1970 the accused party collected all the weapons which they gathered and they were taken to a secret place very near the residence of Narayanankutty Nair. It was at the instance of accused Nos. 2, 8, 13 and 23 that the weapons were shifted. On 30-7-1970 the 22nd accused collected chloroform, cotton, etc from the shop of pws. 33 and 34 at Palghat. They collected some petrol from Chittur. The 13th accused deputed accused Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 to cut telegraph and telephone wires on the road between Mannarghat and Palghat. On that basis accused Nos. 3, 4 and 5 cut the telephone wires on the posts at Kanhirangatkunnu paramba in Olavakkot-Mundur road and accused Nos. 6 and 7 cut telegraph wires on the Mundur-Mannarghat road. The wires were cut a few hours before the incident. 13. In pursuance of the conspiracy as hatched and planned by accused Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27 and three absconding accused they formed themselves into an unlawful assembly carrying deadly weapons, assembled at the hillock by the side of the house of Narayanankutty Nair and proceeded towards the house. Accused Nos. 10, 13 and 20 gave instructions to the party to march forward. They had been given pieces of cotton cord necessary for tying down the inmates of the house. During the march the 13th accused carried a sword-stick and a gun and the 1st accused chloroform and allied articles as well as a dagger. Accused Nos. Accused Nos. 10, 13 and 20 gave instructions to the party to march forward. They had been given pieces of cotton cord necessary for tying down the inmates of the house. During the march the 13th accused carried a sword-stick and a gun and the 1st accused chloroform and allied articles as well as a dagger. Accused Nos. 2, 10, 11, 12, 17, 20, 25, 27 and two others had daggers in their hands. The 8th accused had a crowbar and petrol tin. Accused Nos. 21 and 24 were armed with choppers and accused Nos. 9 and 23 with crow-bars. Accused Nos. 15 and 22 had each a chopper. Some of them had also carried wall-posters. The 18th accused had country bombs with him. The party under the leadership of accused Nos. 10, 13, 20 and another person marched into the residence of Narayanankutty Nair. When they reached the southern side of the house, they divided into two groups, one group entering the house through the gate house which is to the north of the main building. The gate house consisted of two rooms in the first floor and two rooms in the down-floor intervened by a corridor in between the rooms. The corridor in the ground-floor is a passage to go in and to go out from the courtyard of the main building. But there is a door on the northern entrance to the corridor. The staircase is from the lower corridor towards the corridor in the upstairs. 14. Pw. 1 is the widow of Narayanankutty Nair. pws. 7 and 16 are his sons and pws. 3 and 4 are his daughters. pw. 9 is the husband of pw. 3. pw. 4 was unmarried. pws. 10 and 11 were husbands of Narayanankutty Nair's daughters, who pre-deceased him. pw 8 is younger brother of pw. 1 and husband of pw. 2. pw. 12 is the son of Narayanankutty Nair's deceased brother. pw. 13 was one of his temporary cooks. pw. 14 was a relative of deceased Narayanankutty Nair. pws. 5, 6 and 17 were his servants and pw, 15 was a maid-servant. He had three more servants who lived in the house. One of them, Kesavan Nair, was a dumb person. Those three persons were not examined in court. pws. pw. 13 was one of his temporary cooks. pw. 14 was a relative of deceased Narayanankutty Nair. pws. 5, 6 and 17 were his servants and pw, 15 was a maid-servant. He had three more servants who lived in the house. One of them, Kesavan Nair, was a dumb person. Those three persons were not examined in court. pws. 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 came in the afternoon of 30-7-1970 at the house of Narayanankutty Nair to attend the death anniversary of Chinnakutty Nair, the elder brother of Narayanankutty Nair, which was to be celebrated on 31-7 1970. 15. The western room in the upstairs of the main building was occupied by pw. 3 and the eastern room by pw. 2. In the downstairs of that building there is a portico from which the entrance is to the verandah and from that verandah there is an entrance to the drawing room which is west of the building, and then from the verandah to a corridor which opens itself into three rooms, the western room, the middle room and the eastern room. Parallel to the verandah, corridor and the eastern rooms there is the dining hall which lies north to south. Adjacent to that dining hall is the kitchen which is on the east. The store room is to the north of the dining hall. It is through flight of steps that entrance is made to the gate house and there is another flight of steps leading to a tank which is on the north-west of the house. 16. At the time of the incident pws. 7, 9, 10, 11 and 12 were in the eastern room and pw.13 and two other servants were in the western room in the upstairs of the gate house. pw 5 was lying down on a cot under the staircase of the gate house, while pw. 6 was in the western room adjacent to the staircase. While so all the accused persons entered the premises of Narayanankutty Nair's house at about 8-30 p.m. Accused Nos. 2, 9, 13, 15, 17, 18 and 20 and some absconding accused got into the gate house, while the 11th accused got into the courtyard. Accused Nos. 10 and 23 entered the verandah of the main house. The 1st accused entered the dining hall, when the 25th accused entered the drawing room. 2, 9, 13, 15, 17, 18 and 20 and some absconding accused got into the gate house, while the 11th accused got into the courtyard. Accused Nos. 10 and 23 entered the verandah of the main house. The 1st accused entered the dining hall, when the 25th accused entered the drawing room. The 12th accused went to the western courtyard. The 27th accused stood in the backyard of the house. The 21st accused stood in the eastern courtyard While so accused Nos. 8, 22 and 24 entered the main house. Accused Nos. 9, 13 and 20 made forcible entry into the eastern and western rooms of the the gate house. They also entered into the main house later. 17. The accused persons caused criminal intimidation to the inmates of the main house and the gate house including Krishnankutty Nair. The accused persons threatened to cause their death and tied the hands and legs of all the inmates. During the course of tying pw. 5 sustained an injury on his hand. The 1st accused administered chloroform mixed in cotton to pws. 1 to 4 and accused Nos. 8, 20, 22 and 24 took pw. 1 to the bed room and forced her to open the locked almirah, and accused took possession of the currency notes to the value of Rs. 1000 out of that almirah along with an umbrella fountain pen, rings, ear-rings, electric shaver, wrist watches, spectacles and a hand bag. The 13th accused intimidated pws. 2 to 4 and forcibly removed from them several jewels including ear-rings, gold chains, etc., some of which belonged to their children. The 20th accused in his turn got the jewels worn by pw. 1 removed from her person Accused Nos. 2 and 9 robbed wrist watches, table lights, torches and umbrellas belonging to pws. 10 and 11. The 15th accused damaged a radio by cutting it with a chopper at the upstairs of the gatehouse. The 9th accused destroyed certain idols and clock with a crow-bar. The 20th accused broke open an almirah kept in the upstairs of the main house. The 13th accused smashed certain photos fixed on the walls of the verandah. The total loss was estimated at Rs. 5,000, for the articles they lost during the incident and Rs. .00 in respect of articles destroyed at the spot. Thereafter pws. The 20th accused broke open an almirah kept in the upstairs of the main house. The 13th accused smashed certain photos fixed on the walls of the verandah. The total loss was estimated at Rs. 5,000, for the articles they lost during the incident and Rs. .00 in respect of articles destroyed at the spot. Thereafter pws. I to 4 and 15 and the children were intimidated and locked up in the store room by tying the bolt from outside with a rope. Those accused persons took Narayanankutty Nair, both his hands tied, to the courtyard in front of the gate house. All the accused persons assembled there when the 22nd accused cut him with a chopper on the right back side of the neck causing a fatal injury with the result that he fell down there. While so the accused Nos. 13, 20, 22 and another person, who is absconding, cut and severed his bead from the body. The 22nd accused then carried the head and placed it on the footsteps leading to the tank. Thereafter the accused persons left the place shouting slogans of victory. On their way they threw away their weapons as well as some stolen articles in a tank in which they also took a bath. There was distribution of the stolen cash among the accused persons at that place, but the jewels were carried away by them. They were kept by the 13th accused. It was the 16th accused who purchased those jewels from him The accused party (hereafter dispersed to different directions. 18. Pws. 1 to 7 and 9 to 16, who were tied down in the gate house, as well as in the main house, got themselves extracted. While in the store room pws 1 to 4 and 15 pushed the door when the rope could be cut with knife which was picked up by pw. 15 from the store room. When they went out of the main house pw. 7 came there and they were directed to go to the upstairs and remain there. Until the next day morning they did not know about the death of Narayanankutty Nair. 19. Pw. 8, who is the brother of pw. 1, had gone out of the house before the incident had begun. When they went out of the main house pw. 7 came there and they were directed to go to the upstairs and remain there. Until the next day morning they did not know about the death of Narayanankutty Nair. 19. Pw. 8, who is the brother of pw. 1, had gone out of the house before the incident had begun. So when he came back at about 10-30 p m. he found that Narayanankutty Nair bad been murdered and that a dacoity had been committed in the house. pw 7 gave the information as to how the incident took place. pw. 5 was then directed to give information to the police. It was accordingly that pw. 5 proceeded to the Kongad Police Station where he gave Ext. P1 first information at 3-00 a.m. to pw 133 Sub Inspector on the basis of which a crime was registered. He gave express reports of the crime to his superior officers. 20. The investigation was taken up by one deceased Govinda Panicker, Inspector, at about 4-00 a.m. on reaching the place of occurrence. pw. 5 was sent to the hospital for his examination The Inspector held the inquest over the deadbody of Narayanankutty Nair. Ext. P2 was the inquest report. Mo. 1 bloodstained cloth worn by the deceased, Mo. 2, coir rope pieces and Mo.37 blood-stained earth were seized at the spot during the inquest. The dead body was found lying in the courtyard of the gate house without the head and the head was separately seen on the steps leading to the tank. The Inspector prepared Ext. P3 scene mahazhar under which Mo. 3 broken pieces of the idol and Mo, 4 damaged clock, which was found stopped at 9-40 p.m. were seized. mos. 5 to 8, broken and damaged photos, mos. 36 and 40 series, pieces of coir, were seized at the scene from various places in the gate house and the main house. Mo. 9, broken pieces of wooden almirah kept in the upstairs of the main house, Mo. 38 series wall posters, and Mo. 39 series quarter sheets of paper with manuscript writing were seized from various places within the gate house and the main house. Mo. 39 series contained writings of Naxalite slogans. They were found pasted on walls and pillars of the main house. Mo. 38 series wall posters, and Mo. 39 series quarter sheets of paper with manuscript writing were seized from various places within the gate house and the main house. Mo. 39 series contained writings of Naxalite slogans. They were found pasted on walls and pillars of the main house. Mo. 32 damaged radio was seen in the eastern room of the upstairs of the gate house. It was also seized under the scene mahazar. 21. Pw. 111, Assistant Surgeon, conducted the autopsy on the dead body and issued Ext. P115 post-mortem certificate. He sent the cut surfaces of the vertebra and mandible to pw. 113, Professor of Forensic Medicine, Calicut Medical College, for further examination. On examination pw. 113 prepared Ext. P116 report to the effect that the bead and the trunk belonged to one and the same person. On that basis pw. 111 sent Ext. P118 final report. 22. The 1st accused pointed out the spot at which the accused persons assembled near the house of Narayanankutty Nair before they entered the house. Ext. P169 was the relevant statement of the 1st accused. On 5-8-1970 one five-rupee currency note (Mo. 95), was seized from his person during his arrest, under Ext. P166 mahazar. Mos 41, 49 and 50 to 57 articles were recovered out of the place where they assembled near the house of Narayanankutty Nair on the night of the incident. They were seized under Ext. P30 mahazar. The 1st accused pointed out the tank in which they threw away some of their weapons. mos. 20 and 58 to 60 were the articles recovered from the tank. Mo. 20 lady's hand bag contained Mo. 83 granite stone, Mo. 59 leather belt and Mo. 60 bottle. They were recovered under Ext. P32 mahazar mos. 14 (a), 14 (b) and 14 (c) crow-bars were seized out of another tank as pointed out by the 1st accused under Ext. P35 mahazar. 23. The 2nd accused was arrested on 12-8-1970. Then he pointed out the spot at which Mo 16 gun, Mo. 19 (b), Mo. 19 (c) two daggers, Mo. 67, Mo. 69 and Mo. 70 were concealed as per his confession in Ext. P170. They were seized under Ext. P38. Under another mahazar, Ext. P39, Mo. 27 series cartridges were seized from the same place as pointed out by him. In pursuance of the statement, Ext. P171, by the 3rd accused, Mo. 19 (c) two daggers, Mo. 67, Mo. 69 and Mo. 70 were concealed as per his confession in Ext. P170. They were seized under Ext. P38. Under another mahazar, Ext. P39, Mo. 27 series cartridges were seized from the same place as pointed out by him. In pursuance of the statement, Ext. P171, by the 3rd accused, Mo. 43 series and Mo. 44 (cut pieces of telephone and telegraph wires) were recovered under Ext. P40 mahazar. The 4th accused gave Ext. P172 statement on the strength of which Mo. 42 cutting plier was recovered under Ext. P21 mahazar. Mo. 17 chopper was recovered as pointed out by the 6th accused under Ext. P41 mahazar. The 8th accused gave Ext. P174 statement after his arrest on 19 8 1970 in pursuance of which Mo. 66, a petrol tin containing petrol, was recovered at a spot where he abandoned it, under Ext. P42 mahazar. Till then Govinda Panicker, Inspector, was in charge of the investigation. But he fell ill on 23-8-1970. Thereafter the investigation was conducted by pw. 135, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Shoranur. Later, Inspector Govinda Panicker died at the District Hospital, Palghat. mos. 90 to 94 clothes of the 23rd accused were taken into custody from pw. 121 dhobi to whom they were given for washing, under Ext. P156 mahazar. The 10th accused gave Ext P175 statement after his arrest on 1-9-1970. Mo. 72 sword-stick was seized under Ext. P43 mahazar on the basis of his statement from the hair cutting saloon of pw. 77. Accused Nos 11 and 12 were separately questioned after their arrest on 2-9-1970. Mo. 19 (d) dagger and Mo. 73 dagger together with Mo. 74 and Mo. 75 wrappers were seized under Ext. P44 mahazar in pursuance of the 11th accused's statement as per Ext. P176. 24. The 15th accused gave Ext. P178 statement and the 16th accused Ext. P179 statement. Mo 18 knife was abandoned by the 15th accused. It was seized under Ext. P48. mos. 10 and 13, wrist watches, were recovered from pw. 81 in pursuance of the statement by the 13th accused. They were recovered under Ext. P45 mahazar. Mo. 77 gold ingot, Mo. 11 series blue stones, Mo. 12 series red stones, Mo. 13 series white stones, Mo. 24 rolled gold earring, Mo 28 green beads, Mo. 29 series red beads, and Mo. 81 in pursuance of the statement by the 13th accused. They were recovered under Ext. P45 mahazar. Mo. 77 gold ingot, Mo. 11 series blue stones, Mo. 12 series red stones, Mo. 13 series white stones, Mo. 24 rolled gold earring, Mo 28 green beads, Mo. 29 series red beads, and Mo. 30 white beads were recovered in pursuance of the statements of accused Nos. 13 and 16 from the house of the 16th accused under Ext P46 mahazar. pws. 1 to 4 identified those articles. The 17th accused caused the recovery of Mo. 19 (c) chopper on the basis of his Ext. P181 statement under Ext. P49 mahazar. The 18th accused while he was arrested on 25-5-1970 was found in possession of Mo. 23 spectacles which was seized under Ext. P50 mahazar. He had also given Ext P182 statement to the police on the strength of which Ext. P52 series to Ext. P63 books and pamphlets containing Mao Tse Tung's teachings pertaining to the revolutionary ideologies were recovered under Ext. P51 mahazar. The 18th accused had also pointed out places where some country bombs and explosive substances were concealed. They were seized under Ext. P64 mahazar and then they were examined by pw. 114, the Assistant Inspector of Explosives. Ext. P127 was his report. pws. 3 and 9 identified Mo. 23 spectacles. 25. When the 20th accused was arrested, he was found in possession of Mo.19 (h) dagger which was seized under Ext. P183 mahazar When he was questioned, he gave Ext. P184 statement as a result of which Exts. P72 to P80 pamphlets and books were recovered from the house of pw. 110 under Ext. P71 mahazar. The 20th accused stayed in the house of pw. 89 after the incident. On the basis of the same statement, Ext. P184, the recovery was made of Mo. 33 torch, Ext. P66 diary, Ext. P67 note book, and Ext. P68 card from the house of pw. 89 under Ext. P65 mahazar. mos. 21, 22 and 25 wrist watches, and a rolled gold earring, were recovered near a caw-shed in the house of pw. 92 as pointed out by the 20tb accused under Ext. P69 mahazar. His Mo. 84 cloth was seized under Ext. P70 mahazar as pointed out by him from pw. 93. Mo. 26, transistor radio, Mo. 27 batteries, Ext. P11 books, Ext. P12 and Ext. P13 letters and Ext. 92 as pointed out by the 20tb accused under Ext. P69 mahazar. His Mo. 84 cloth was seized under Ext. P70 mahazar as pointed out by him from pw. 93. Mo. 26, transistor radio, Mo. 27 batteries, Ext. P11 books, Ext. P12 and Ext. P13 letters and Ext. P14 manuscript were recovered from the house of pw. 41 as pointed out by the 20th accused. They were seized under Ext. P10 mahazar. 26. After these recoveries, pw. 105, the proprietor of Kerala Bhoomi Press at Wadakkancherry, gave information which led to the recovery of Exts. P96, 97 and 98 series materials which were printed on the basis of the order placed by the 26tb accused They were recovered under Ext. P95 mahazar. The 24th accused gave Ext P185 statement on the strength of which Mo. 86 chopper was recovered from the place pointed out by him as per Ext. P92 mahazar. The 23rd accused, after his arrest on 29-11-1970 gave the statement Ext. P186 in pursuance of which Mo. 19(f) dagger was recovered from the place where it was thrown by him after the incident as per Ext. P93 mahazar. The 22nd accused gave Ext. P187 statement on the strength of which he pointed out the petrol bunk of pw. 68 and the Co-operative Medical Stores of Pws. 33 and 34 wherefrom Mo. 40 series and Mo 41 were purchased. Mo. 85 series currency notes and Ext. P82 manuscripts were seized as pointed out by him from pw. 97, the proprietor of PGM. and Sons Press. The accused was then taken to his house at Badagara. Exts. P84, 85 and 86 were seized from that place, under Ext. P83 mahazar. Ext. P188 series were also taken into custody under the same mahazar. Ext P87 letter was produced by pw. 100 on the basis of the information furnished by the 22nd accused. Mo. 31 pen was produced by pw. 135 on the basis of the statement of the 22nd accused and it was seized under Ext. P88 mahazar. mos. 21, 22, 25 and 31 were identified by pws. 1 and 4. 27. Pw. 120, the Additional First Class Magistrate, Trivandrum conducted the test identification parade on 2-1-1971 when pw. 1 identified accused Nos. 1, 2, 20, 23 and 25; pw. 2 accused Nos. 20 and 24; pw. 3 accused Nos. 1, 8, 10, 20 and 24; pw. 4 accused Nos. 1 and 4. 27. Pw. 120, the Additional First Class Magistrate, Trivandrum conducted the test identification parade on 2-1-1971 when pw. 1 identified accused Nos. 1, 2, 20, 23 and 25; pw. 2 accused Nos. 20 and 24; pw. 3 accused Nos. 1, 8, 10, 20 and 24; pw. 4 accused Nos. 1, 8, 9, 10 and 20; pw 5 accused Nos. 2 and 17; pw. 6 accused Nos. 11, 13, 15 and 20; pw. 7 accused Nos. 2, 13, 15, 18 and 20; pw. 9 accused Nos. 2, 9, 13, 15, 18 and 20; pw. 10 accused Nos. 2, 15, 18 and 20; pw. 12 accused Nos. 15 and 20; pw. 14 the 23rd accused; pw. 16 accused Nos. 1, 8, 10, 12, 17, 20, 21, 23 and 24; and pw. 17 the 1st accused. Ext. P134 was the report of identification. On 16-2-1971 one more accused person was identified. He was the 22nd accused, who is now absconding. Ext P155 was the final report of identification held on 16-2-1971. 28. Accused Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13 (absconding), 15, 16, 18, 19 and 20 made a detailed confession of the guilt before pw. 119, Additional First Class Magistrate, Ottapalam. Exts. P131, P135, P137, P139, P141, P143, P145, P146, P14/, P149, P151 and P153 are respectively the confession statements of those accused persons under S.164 Cr. PC. 29. The Ist accused implicated accused Nos. 8 to 10, 13, 17, 20 and 22 to 24 as much as himself to the crimes committed, Similarly, the 2nd accused implicated accused Nos. 1, 8, 13, 17, 20, 23 and others to the charge of conspiracy and accused Nos. 8, 9, 13, 17, 20, 82, 23/24 and others to the incidents in the house of Narayanankutty Nair. The 8th accused implicated accused Nos. 1, 8, 9, 10, 13, 17, 20, 22 and 24 to the conspiracy and accused Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 13, 17, 20, 22, 23 and 24 to the incidents in the house. The 9th accused implicated accused Nos. 1, 8, 9, 10, 13, 17, 20, 22, 30 and 31 to the conspiracy and accused Nos. 1, 2, 8, 10, 13, 17, 20, 22 and 24 to the crimes committed in the house. The 10th accused in his confession implicated his co-accused Nos. The 9th accused implicated accused Nos. 1, 8, 9, 10, 13, 17, 20, 22, 30 and 31 to the conspiracy and accused Nos. 1, 2, 8, 10, 13, 17, 20, 22 and 24 to the crimes committed in the house. The 10th accused in his confession implicated his co-accused Nos. 1, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 17, 20, 22, 24, 25 and 27 to the conspiracy along with him and accused Nos. 1, 8, 9, 10, 13, 17, 20, 22, 23, 24 and 25 were implicated by him in the incident at the house of Narayanankutty Nair. The 12th accused, while implicating himself, in his confession, he had also implicated accused Nos. 10, 11, 13,14, 19, 20, 25 and 26 to the conspiracy and at the same time implicated accused Nos. 11 12, 13, 18, 20, 22, 23, and 25 to the actual incidents in the main house as well as in the gate house. Accused Nos. 8, 15 and 24 were the co-accused mentioned by the 15th accused in his confession statement as participants to the conspiracy. He had, however, implicated only the 15th accused in the incident relating to the murder of Narayanankutty Nair. The 18th accused stated in his confession that accused Nos. 10, 11, 12, 17 and 20 participated along with him at a meeting held in Mayannur. However, he implicated accused Nos. 10, 11, 12, 17 and 20 as participants to the crime at the house of Narayanankutty Nair. The 16th accused stated in his confession that the 13th accused gave him some gold jewels some two days after the incident and he melted those jewels. He was alleged to have purchased them for Rs. 1200 and later the stones, pearls and beads were recovered from him. The 19th accused made a similar confession implicating co-accused Nos. 11, 12, 13, 14, 19, 20, 25, 26 and 28 to a criminal conspiracy. Regarding the incident at the house of Narayanankutty Nair, he stated that on the next day at 10 a.m., the 20th accused and another told him as to what had transpired there. The 20th accused who was credited to have made a lengthy confession statement, giving even minute details of the incidents, implicated accused Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, P, 18. 22, 23 24, 25 and 27 to the criminal conspiracy and accused Nos. The 20th accused who was credited to have made a lengthy confession statement, giving even minute details of the incidents, implicated accused Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, P, 18. 22, 23 24, 25 and 27 to the criminal conspiracy and accused Nos. 1, 2, 8 to 13, 17, 18, 21, 22, 24 and 25 as participants of the incidents in the house of deceased Narayanankutty Nair. 30. On completion of the investigation, the charge was laid by pw. 135 on 17-19-1271. 31. The accused had no specific defence to make in their S.342 statement. But they denied the truth of every part of the prosecution case and stated that the case was foisted on them on the ground that they are members of Marxist-Leninist Party, which believed in Chairman Mao Tse Tung and his thoughts. They however, pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against them. Exts. P 190, P 191, P 197 to P 201, P 203, P 205, P 206, P 208, P 210 to P 212 and P 214 are the S.342 statements which accused Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12,15, 17, 18, 20, 23, 24, 26 and 28, respectively, made in the committal court. They did not examine any defence witness in the Sessions Court. 32. Pws. 1 to 7 and 9 to 17 were the eye-witnesses who unfolded the prosecution case regarding the incidents which took place in the main house and the gate house culminating in the dacoity and murder on the night of 30-7-1970. pw. 17, however, escaped from the kitchen and took shelter in an adjacent paramba which belonged to one Chinnu. That paramba is about 15 metres away from the kitchen. He remained concealed there till day-break. pws. 18 and 19 were the attestors to Ext. P2 inquest report. mos. 1, 2, 35 and 27 were some of the articles recovered during the inquest. pw 19 was the attestor to Ext. P3 scene mahazar. It was drawn up by pw. 134 Sub Inspector under the supervision of the Inspector mos. 4, 5, 6 to 9, 38 series, 39 series and 40 were taken into custody while the scene mahazar was prepared. pw. 20 was examined to establish the close association between accused Nos. 17 and 20 He stood surety for the 20th accused in a security proceeding at the instance of the 17th accused pw. 4, 5, 6 to 9, 38 series, 39 series and 40 were taken into custody while the scene mahazar was prepared. pw. 20 was examined to establish the close association between accused Nos. 17 and 20 He stood surety for the 20th accused in a security proceeding at the instance of the 17th accused pw. 21 is the father of accused Nos. 3, 4 and 13. The combined evidence of pws. 20 and 21 established the friendly relationship among accused Nos. 3, 4, 13, 17 and 20. 33. Pws. 22, 23 and 25 are related to the 10th accused. They were examined to prove the movements of the 10th accused before and after the incident. pw. 24 is the brother of the Ist accused. He was examined to establish the association between accused Nos. 1 and 8. pw. 26 was cited to prove the secret meetings and study classes held in her house. 34. Pws. 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31 were examined to prove the criminal conspiracy which led to the meeting held in the building of the 26th accused in Mayannur and the meetings held in Wandazhi and Mundur pws. 28, 30 and 31 sought to prove the last important meeting during the course of the conspiracy. pw. 29 occupied the building of the 26th accused in Mayannur when he was able to watch some of the activities of the conspirators. pw. 37 was a servant of the Nambudiri Illom of which the 19th accused is a member. The building referred as in the possession of the 26th accused is in the western side of the Illom of the 19th accused. 35. Pw. 32 was a tea-shop owner in the vicinity of the house of Narayanankutty Nair, The 23rd accused during his reconnoitring met pw. 32 and asked him whether a milch cow was available for sale. pw. 32 directed him to go to one Appu who was a neighbour of Narayanankutty Nair. 36. Pws. 33 and 34 were managers of Palghat Co-operative Medical Store. They proved that the 22nd accused purchased cotton, etc. on 30-7-1970 from their shop. Exts. P6 and P6 (a) were the relative bill and bill book to evidence the sale. Mo. 41 was recovered as pointed out by the 1st accused who used them during the incident and it was identified by pws 33 and 34. 37. Pw. They proved that the 22nd accused purchased cotton, etc. on 30-7-1970 from their shop. Exts. P6 and P6 (a) were the relative bill and bill book to evidence the sale. Mo. 41 was recovered as pointed out by the 1st accused who used them during the incident and it was identified by pws 33 and 34. 37. Pw. 35 was examined to prove that the last meeting was held in the house of pw. 35 in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy. pws. 36 to 38 were examined to prove that the 13th accused got possession of Mo. 16 gun which was used during the dacoity and murder. Their evidence established that accused Nos. 9 and 13 approached pw. 38 and they got Mo. 16, unlicensed gun, from him for their private use. The gun was manufactured by pw. 36 on the basis of an order placed by pw. 37. pw. 37, in his turn, sold the gun to pw. 38 at its cost-price. It was accordingly that the 13th accused got possession of the gun from pw. 38. 38. Pw. 39 was a clerk in the District Industries Office, Alleppey. He sent Rs. 50 by telegraphic money order to the 26th accused at the end of June, 1970, for the alleged purpose of meeting the cost of preparation for an upheaval in the Palghat District. pw. 39, however, turned hostile to the prosecution. pws. 43 to 45 were the employees of the Telegraph Department to prove the receipt and delivery of the money order to the 26th accused. Exts. P15 to P19 (a) were the connected postal records regarding the money order in question. 39. Pws. 40 and 41 manufactured country bombs at the instance of accused Nos. 20 and 26. The 28th accused demonstrated to pw. 40 as to how they were to be manufactured and the 28th accused himself produced some of the bombs. 40. Pws. 46 and 47 were examined to show that they were asked by the 22nd accused to cut the telephone and telegraph wires on Mannarghat-Olavakkot road just before the incident. pw. 46 turned hostile and pw. 47 refused to comply with the request of the 22nd accused. pw. 48 was cited to prove Ext. P21 recovery of the plier used for cutting the wire. 41. Pws. pw. 46 turned hostile and pw. 47 refused to comply with the request of the 22nd accused. pw. 48 was cited to prove Ext. P21 recovery of the plier used for cutting the wire. 41. Pws. 49, 54, 55, 64, 67, 72, 73, 75 to 78, 81, 82, 84, 87 and 102 to 104 were examined to prove the procurement of weapons at the instance of the accused persons and their recovery after the incident under separate mahazars. 42. Pw. 54 handed over Mo. 40 (a), (b) and (c) crow-bars to the 23rd accused a few days prior to the incident. pw. 55 made those weapons at his instance. As pointed out by the 1st accused, they were recovered under Exts. P31 and P32 mahazars. pw. 64 was an attestor to those mahazars. Similar recovery of weapons was made under Ext. P35 which was attested by pw. 67. Mo. 16 gun and two knives were recovered under Ext. P38 mahazar which was attested by pw. 72. It was recovered at the instance of the 2nd accused. Similar recovery of Mo. 71 series was made under Ext. P39 mahazar at the instance of the 2nd accused. pw. 73 was an attestor to that mahazar. 43. Pw. 81 was the attestor to Ext. P45 mahazar under which mos. 10 and 34 (watches) were recovered. pw. 82, another attestor, proved the recovery though Pwi 81 turned hostile. Mo. 18 was recovered at the instance of the 15th accused under Ext. P48 mahazar in which pw. 84 figured as an attestor. Mo. 19(e) was recovered at the instance of the 17th accused under Ext. P49. Mo. 17 crow-bar was seized under Ext. P41 mahazar at the instance of the 6th accused Mo. 66 tin with petrol was recovered at the instance of the 8th accused. Pw.76 was the attestor to the recovery mahazar. Country bombs were recovered under Ext.P64 mahazar at the instance of the 18th accused. pw 87 was an attestor to that mahazar. Under Ext.P92 mahazar, Mo. 8 crow-bar was recovered at the instance of the 24th accused. pw. 102 attested that mahazar. pw. 103 proved the recovery of Mo. 19 (f) at the instance of the 23rd accused under Ext. P93 mahazar. Mo. 19 (g) was recovered under Ext. P94 mahazar at the instance of the 25th accused. 44. Pws. Under Ext.P92 mahazar, Mo. 8 crow-bar was recovered at the instance of the 24th accused. pw. 102 attested that mahazar. pw. 103 proved the recovery of Mo. 19 (f) at the instance of the 23rd accused under Ext. P93 mahazar. Mo. 19 (g) was recovered under Ext. P94 mahazar at the instance of the 25th accused. 44. Pws. 50, 51, 56 and 57 were examined to prove the criminal conspiracy and the preparations made in pursuance of the conspiracy at the Railway Colony, Olavakot. pw. 56 is the brother of the 17th accused. pws. 52, 53 and 58 to 62 were examined to prove the cutting of telegraph and telephone wires. pws. 52 and 53 were alleged to be eye-witnesses to the cutting. pw. 58 witnessed the recovery of the broken wires under Ext. P28 mahazar. pws 59 and 60 were the linemen who restored the line after the wires were cut. pws. 61 and 62 were the telegraph employees to prove the case against accused Nos. 3 to 7. pws. 79 and 80 were examined as against accused Nos. 11 and 12 who were employees of the Postal Department to establish that from 2-7-1970 the 11th accused was on leave for one month and that the 12th accused did not attend to his duty since 3-30 p. m. on 30-7-1970. 45. Pw. 83 gave evidence regarding the recovery of Mo. 77 gold ingot and other jewels from the house of the 16th accused. They were recovered at the instance of accused Nos. 13 and 16. The gold ingot weighed 120 gms. 46. The 20th accused lived with pw. 89 after the incident. Mo. 33 torch and Exts. P66 to P68 were recovered at the instance of the 20th accused from the residence of pw. 89. pw. 88 proved that after the incident, the 20th accused made an extra-judicial confession of the guilt to him. The 20th accused was apprehended at the residence of pw. 89 due to the information furnished by pw. 91. Exts. P72 to P82 were recovered from pw. 110 to whom they were handed over by the 20th accused. pws. 105 to 109 were the proprietors or managers of printing presses. pw. 111 was the doctor who conducted the autopsy on the dead body and pw. 89 due to the information furnished by pw. 91. Exts. P72 to P82 were recovered from pw. 110 to whom they were handed over by the 20th accused. pws. 105 to 109 were the proprietors or managers of printing presses. pw. 111 was the doctor who conducted the autopsy on the dead body and pw. 113 was the doctor who gave expert opinion to the effect that the head recovered from the footsteps leading to the tank in the compound was that of the trunk which was seen in the courtyard. Ext. P1I5 was the post-mortem certificate and Ext. P1I6 was the report of pw. 113. Ext. P118 was the final report of pw. 111. 47. Forty-three items of material objects were sent to the Chemical Examiner out of which mos. 34 to 43 were despatched to pw. 115, Assistant Director of Forensic Laboratory, Trivandrum. He was not able to give a definite opinion as to whether the telegraph and telephone wires were cut with a chopper or a plier. However, the Chemical Examiner was of opinion that mos. 1 and 2 contained traces of human blood. Ext P121 was the report of the Chemical Examiner. Ext P122 was the report of pw. 115, the Assistant Director of Forensic Laboratory. pws. 116 and 117 were the police officers who effected recovery of weapons and other articles when they were pointed out by the 1st accused. 48. Ext. P 165 was the wound certificate of pw. 5 who was examined by another doctor who was not available for examination. So pw. 131 doctor proved Ext. P 165 wound certificate. pws. 122 to 130 and 132 to 135 were the police officers who were in one way or other connected with the investigation. 49. The prosecution had relied upon the evidence mainly of Pws.1 to 7 and 9 to 17 to prove the incidents which occurred within the main house and the gate house on the night of 30-7-1970. The relationship among these witnesses and deceased Narayanankutty Nair had already been stated. They were the only witnesses who could have seen the incident which was planned and executed in utmost secrecy without even the knowledge of the residents of the locality. The relationship of these witnesses with the deceased was not a circumstance to discard or discredit their evidence. The relationship among these witnesses and deceased Narayanankutty Nair had already been stated. They were the only witnesses who could have seen the incident which was planned and executed in utmost secrecy without even the knowledge of the residents of the locality. The relationship of these witnesses with the deceased was not a circumstance to discard or discredit their evidence. Ordinarily they were not likely to have foisted a false case against the accused persons if really the crime had been commuted by someone else. The learned Additional Sessions Judge had chosen to believe their evidence on consideration of all the aspects including their demeanour in court while they were examined. The learned Judge was satisfied that the evidence of these witnesses was reliable, trustworthy and dependable to enter a conviction against accused Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 20, 23 and 24 under S.302, 395 and 396 of the Indian Penal Code. Except accused Nos. 8 and 20 and also the 16th accused who was convicted under S.411 IPC., the rest of the accused persons who have been convicted have preferred appeals against their conviction and sentences. The question, therefore, is whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt against these accused persons. 50. That there was a dacoity in the house of Narayanankutty Nair and that he was murdered by those dacoits on the night of 30-7-1970 at his house admits of no dispute. The gang of persons who committed the dacoity there had also caused destruction to the movable properties kept in the house. The scene mahazar, Ext. P3, gave a picture of the destruction caused to the movables. Mo. 3, Lord Krishna idol, Mo. 4 clock, Mo. 5 photo of Chinnakutti Nair, the elder brother of the deceased, Mo. 6 photo of Mahatma Gandhi, Mo. 7 photo of deceased's father, Mo. 8 photo of Guruvayoorappan, and several other articles had been destroyed completely. Mo. 14 series crow-bars. Mo. 15 chopper, Mo. 16 gun, Mo. 18 chopper and Mo. 19 series (8 in number) were some of the weapons recovered during the investigation as having been used by the dacoits during the incident. 7 photo of deceased's father, Mo. 8 photo of Guruvayoorappan, and several other articles had been destroyed completely. Mo. 14 series crow-bars. Mo. 15 chopper, Mo. 16 gun, Mo. 18 chopper and Mo. 19 series (8 in number) were some of the weapons recovered during the investigation as having been used by the dacoits during the incident. The trunk portion of the body of Narayanankutty Nair with head separated was seen on the northern courtyard of the gate house while the head separated from the body was seen a little away on the steps leading to the tank. Large items of jewels and other articles had been carried away by the dacoits as booty when they left the place. These circumstances established beyond doubt that the dacoity and murder took place in the manner alleged by the prosecution. 51. It was at about 8.30 p. m. that the inmates of the house of Narayanankutty Nair heard the approach of some persons armed with crowbars, choppers, daggers and gun to the bouse It was just then that some of them bad their food and retired to the respective rooms However, Narayanankutty Nair and his wife pw. 1 did not take food. Narayanankutty Nair had been to the bath room for a bath while pw. 1 carried the wearing apparel in her hand to go to the bath room. Bath room is adjacent to the dining room. pw. 2 was in the central room and pw. 3 was in the western room of the first floor of the main building. pws. 4 and 16 were in the western room in the down-floor. pw. 14 was lying on a cot in the verandah. pw. 17 was in kitchen along with Kesavan Nair, the dumb servant. pw. 15 was washing dishes in a closed space outside the kitchen. pws. 1 to 4 and 14 to 17 were in the main house while pws. 5 to 7 and 9 to 13 were in the gate house during the incident. 52. In the gate house, pw. 5 had laid down to sleep behind the staircase in the corridor, while pw. 6 was in the western room adjacent to the staircase, pws. 7, 9, 10, 11 and 12 were in the eastern room of the upstairs of the gate house going on talking after food when pw. 13 and two others were in the western room. 53. 5 had laid down to sleep behind the staircase in the corridor, while pw. 6 was in the western room adjacent to the staircase, pws. 7, 9, 10, 11 and 12 were in the eastern room of the upstairs of the gate house going on talking after food when pw. 13 and two others were in the western room. 53. Pws. 15 and 17 sighted some of the accused persons first when they entered the courtyard of the house. One among them also entered the kitchen. While so pw. 15 cried out and ran towards the room in which pws. 4 and 16 went to sleep. On hearing the cry, pw. 16 came out of that room followed by pws. 4 and 15. By that time pw. 1 and Narayanankutty Nair also came out of the bath room. pws. 2 and 5 also arrived at the downstairs on hearing the commotion Some of the accused tied the hands and legs of Narayanankutty Nair and tied him to the leg of the dining table. Pointing out a dagger against pw. I, the accused persons asked pw 1 to produce all the cash and jewels they had in the house. When she produced the key, she was taken to the western room in the upstairs and got the almirah there opened. Then they removed Rs. 1,000 kept in the almirah They opened the table and ransacked all the papers. They had also removed jewels studded with coloured stones. Mo. 10 wrist watch and other watches were also removed out of the room. pw. 16 who came to the dining ball was chased when he fell down. He was then caught and tied down to a bench in the verandah pw. 14, a 75 year-old man who slept on a cot in the verandah, was also tied down to a pillar Chloroform mixed in cotton had been administered to pws. 2, 3, 4 and 15; while so, a man holding a gun kept watch over Narayanankutty Nair in the dining hall. Some of the accused persons got into the room in the upstairs and removed Mo. 20 hand bag. pws. 2, 3 and 4 were asked to remove all the jewels they wore and place them on the table. When pw. 1 was brought back to the dining hall, she was also asked to remove all her jewels. Some of the accused persons got into the room in the upstairs and removed Mo. 20 hand bag. pws. 2, 3 and 4 were asked to remove all the jewels they wore and place them on the table. When pw. 1 was brought back to the dining hall, she was also asked to remove all her jewels. Those jewels were taken by the accused persons in the band bag which they removed out of the western room in the upstairs. The two persons who came into the rooms of pws. 2 and 3 in the upstairs bad crow-bar and chopper in their bands., Out of 25 to 30 persons who committed dacoity, pw. 1 was able to identify only accused Nos. 20 and 23 in court, while pw. 2 identified the 24th accused alone. Pw. 3 identified in court accused Nos. 1, 8, 20 and 24. pw. 4, however, identified in court accused Nos. 1, 8, 9, 10 and 20. pw. 16 identified large number of accused persons who committed dacoity in the house. They were accused Nos. 1, 8, 9, 10, 12, 17, 20, 21, 23 and 24. pw. 17 could identify only the 1st accused in court. 54. Pw. 17 could not give any evidence of the incident as be ran out of the kitchen when he was frightened by the intruder showing a crowbar against him and he took refuge in the adjacent compound of one Chinnu, He came back from that place only on the next day morning pw. 16 had attributed overt acts to each of the accused persons he identified. The 9th accused was found to be breaking all the idols in the house. The 23rd accused, with a crowbar in his hand, stood as a guard over pws. 14 and 16 The 12th accused was found by the side of Narayanankutty Nair after he was taken from the dining hall to the portico. The 24th accused was one of the two who took Pw. l from the downstairs to the upstairs to get the almirah opened. The 1st accused appeared in the dining hall with a dagger in his hand after getting out of the kitchen. The 17th accused was seen with the crowd after Narayanankutty Nair was brought in the courtyard. The 20th accused brought pw. l from the downstairs to the upstairs to get the almirah opened. The 1st accused appeared in the dining hall with a dagger in his hand after getting out of the kitchen. The 17th accused was seen with the crowd after Narayanankutty Nair was brought in the courtyard. The 20th accused brought pw. 1 to the corridor along with four others The 8th accused came into the dining hall first with another person with a crow-bar. The 10th accused tied down pws. 14 and 16 with a cord. The 21st accused came there when pw. 16 fell while he was being chased through the dining hall. 55. Pw. 5 who went to the staircase room in the gate house for sleeping was awakened from his sleep when he heard the cry "Naxalbari Zindabad". He saw 5 or 6 persons armed with crow-bar, chopper and daggers. He cried out for help. They went nearer to him and tied him down there. But while he was being pulled out of the cot for tying him down to the bar of the staircase he sustained an injury on his hand as a result of his hand coming into contract with the floor. They then entered the adjacent room on the west of the staircase, where pw. 6 used to sleep on a wooden bin. His hands were tied on his back and he was also tied down in the same room. pws. 5 and 6 heard a cry "Naxalbari Zindabad" from the courtyard of the gate house, 56. Pws. 7 and 9 to 12 who were in the eastern room in the upstairs of the gate house heard the cry "Naxalbari Zindabad" from'outside immediately before they heard the cry of pw. 5 from the downstairs of the building. Then pw. 11 looked outside when he saw some persons coming upstairs. Then he closed the door and pressed it against the intruders. But he was overpowered by the accused persons by their forcible opening of the door. On seeing them, pws. 7, 9 and 12 went below the cot. One of those persons had a dagger in his hand. They asked the inmates of the room not to talk and one of them pointed a gun against them. Then they tied the hands and legs of pws. 7 and 9 to 12. They were guarded at the spot. 7, 9 and 12 went below the cot. One of those persons had a dagger in his hand. They asked the inmates of the room not to talk and one of them pointed a gun against them. Then they tied the hands and legs of pws. 7 and 9 to 12. They were guarded at the spot. While so, they removed torch light, wrist watch and table lamp out of the room. The radio kept in the room was smashed into pieces by cutting it with a chopper. mos. 21 and 22, wrist watches, Mo. 23 spectacles, Mo 26 transistor, Mo. 27 batteries, Mo 33 torch which belonged to pw. 11, Mo. 31 fountain pen and Mo. 10 wrist watch of the deceased, and Mo 34 Seiko wrist watch were taken away by the accused persons. Mo. 32 radio was smashed at the spot. Mo. 34 was forcibly got removed from pw. 11, pw. 13 was also tied down in his room. Of the accused persons who committed the dacoity, pw. 5 identified accused Nos. 2 and 17, and pw. 5 accused 11 and 15 in court. pw. 7 identified in court accused Nos. 2, 15, 18 and 20. pw. 9 in his turn identified in court accused Nos. 2, 9, 15 and 20. pw. 10 identified accused Nos. 2, 15, 18 and 20 and pw. 12 identified only the 15th accused. pw. 11 could not be present at the test identification parade. So he was able to identify accused Nos. 2, 9, 15, 18 and 20 in court. 57. After the dacoity was successfully committed, the accused persons took the deceased Narayanankutty Nair with bis hands tied, to the portico and then to the corridor of the gate house. The accused persons surrounded him while he was being taken to the corridor. Then he was led to the courtyard. He was asked to cry out "Naxalite Zindabad", three times. While he was being led in that manner, the 22nd accused cut him on his neck with a chopper, with the result he fell down when the 20th accused and some absconding accused cut him again. His head was separated from the body when it was carried by the 22nd accused and kept on the steps leading to the tank leaving the trunk on the eastern side of the courtyard. His head was separated from the body when it was carried by the 22nd accused and kept on the steps leading to the tank leaving the trunk on the eastern side of the courtyard. pw 6 who got himself extricated could see through the window deceased Narayanankutty Nair being paraded from the corridor to the courtyard. Deceased Narayanankutty Nair was reported to have said, "Where are you taking me, don't do any harm to me". Immediately thereafter he heard the sound of a fall. Then he saw a person taking something in his hand and carrying it towards the steps leading to the tank. He saw him then placing it on those steps. There was electric light throughout the house and gate house on the night of the incident. The accused persons, after committing the murder of Narayanankutty Nair, left the place giving expression to their happiness shouting" Naxalbari Zindabad". 58. Pw. 5 identified accused Nos. 2 and 17 as according to him they pointed out dagger on his face. pw. 6 stated specifically that as soon as the accused persons were sighted, he was the 11th accused standing in the southern courtyard and the 15th accused entering the room. pw.7 stated that the 2nd accused tied his hands and legs, that the 15th accused demolished Mo. 32 radio, that the 18th accused brought a bomb into the room and the 20th accused directed them to come out from beneath the cot. pw 9 identified the 2nd accused as the person who tied his bands and legs. The 9th accused tied his mouth with a muffler. The 20th accused was alleged to have pointed out a dagger on Him intimidating that it he were to open his mouth he would be killed. The 15th accused also came in their company and he was alleged to have demolished the radio. pw. 10 who identified accused Nos. 2, 15, 18 and 20 stated that the 2nd accused carried the hand-bag Mo. 20 which belonged to pw. 2, the 15th accused demolished the radio, the 18th accused produced the bomb and the 20th accused intimidated him showing a dagger. Similar overt acts had been attributed to accused Nos. 2, 9, 15, 18 and 20 by Pw.11. pw. 12 identified the 15th accused as the person who demolished the radio. pw. 20 which belonged to pw. 2, the 15th accused demolished the radio, the 18th accused produced the bomb and the 20th accused intimidated him showing a dagger. Similar overt acts had been attributed to accused Nos. 2, 9, 15, 18 and 20 by Pw.11. pw. 12 identified the 15th accused as the person who demolished the radio. pw. 16 who was tied down in the verandah was able to identify accused Nos. 1, 8, 9, 10, 12, 17, 20, 21, 23 and 24. The 1st accused was seen by him coming from the kitchen to the dining ball with a dagger. The 8th accused was one of the two persons who came into, the dining hall with a crow-bar. The 9th accused was assigned the role of talking during the course of which he was said to have cried out, "Down with landlords". The 10th accused tied the hands and legs of pws. 14 and 16. The 12th accused was seen by the side of the deceased at the spot where he was made to stand after his exit from the dining hall where he was tied down. The 17th accused was seen by the side of the deceased when he was brought in to the courtyard of the main house. The 20th accused joined as the fifth man in the company of four men who led pw. 1 to the corridor. The 21st accused came towards pw. 16 when he fell down. The 23rd accused who carried a crow-bar was described in the evidence of pw. 16 as an elderly person. The 24th accused was one of those five men who took pw. 1 to the upstairs. 59. On the basis of the identification made in court as well as in the test identification parade, it could be said that accused Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 20, 23 and 24 were the participants to the crime of dacoity at the residence of Narayanankutty Nair. pws. 3, 4, 16 and 17 identified the 1st accused. pws. 5, 7, 9, 10 and H identified the 2nd accused. pws. 3, 4, 16 and 17 identified the 1st accused pws. 5, 7, 9, 10 and 11 identified the 2nd accused. pws. 3, 4 and 16 identified the 8th accused. pws. 4, 9 and 16 identified the 9th accused. pws. 4 and 16 identified the 10th accused. pws. pws. 5, 7, 9, 10 and H identified the 2nd accused. pws. 3, 4, 16 and 17 identified the 1st accused pws. 5, 7, 9, 10 and 11 identified the 2nd accused. pws. 3, 4 and 16 identified the 8th accused. pws. 4, 9 and 16 identified the 9th accused. pws. 4 and 16 identified the 10th accused. pws. 6 and 16 identified accused Nos. 11 and 12, respectively. pws. 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 12 identified the 15th accused. pws. 5 and 16 identified the 17th accused. pws. 7, 10 and 11 identified the 18th accused. pws. 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 16 identified the 20th accused. pws. 1 and 16 identified the 23rd accused and pws 2, 3 and 16 identified the 24th accused. 60. In this case test identification parade had been conducted during the investigation. pw. 120, the Additional First Class Magistrate (Special), Trivandrum, conducted the parade on 2-1-1971 which was about five months after (he incident. Most of these accused persons had been arrested in August September 1970. But until the parade was over the accused persons had no case that the witnesses had any occasion or opportunity to meet them after their arrest. pw. 120 stated that he conducted the parade in accordance with law and no objection had been raised before him as to the manner and method of the parade which he conducted. After the witnesses identified the accused persons as participants of the crime they filed statements before the Magistrate trial most of the witnesses had opportunities to see them even long before the identification parade and that the identification parade was itself tainted with irregularity or illegality. The accused persons sat on the fence until the test identification parade was over and so the objection they raised was belated. There was nothing on record to show that pw. 120 conducted the parade in any manner prejudicial to the accused. There was also no evidence to show that the witnesses had opportunities to meet the accused persons before the test identification parade conducted during the investigation. A mere assertion by the accused persons in their S.342 statements that the witnesses had occasion to meet them earlier was not sufficient to dislodge their evidence in court which was corroborated by their identification during the test identification parade. 61. A mere assertion by the accused persons in their S.342 statements that the witnesses had occasion to meet them earlier was not sufficient to dislodge their evidence in court which was corroborated by their identification during the test identification parade. 61. The substantive evidence of a witness is his statement in court; but the purpose of identification is to test that evidence and the safe rule is that the sworn testimony of witnesses in court as to the identity of the accused who are strangers to the witnesses, generally speaking, requires corroboration which should be in the form of an earlier identification proceeding However, whether a witness has or has not identified the accused during investigation is not of itself relevant at the trial. Identification parade belongs to investigation stag. The actual evidence regarding identification is that given by the witnesses in the court. It is therefore relevant to consider whether the evidence of pws 1 to 7, 9, 10, 12, 16 and 17 who identified accused Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15,17,18, 20, 23 and 24 in court could be relied on as worthy of acceptance. 62. The eye-witnesses who identified the accused persons were the inmates of Narayanankutty Nair's household on the fateful night. It is admitted that pws. 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 16 and 17 made no mistake of the identification of the accused persons. They identified the same accused persons as they pointed out during the test identification parade. So nothing could be said against their evidence as to the identity of the accused persons they bad chosen to identify in court. 63. As against pw. 1 the argument was that she identified accused Nos. 8, 9, 17, 20 and 23 in the identification parade, but during the trial she could identify only the 20th accused and the 23rd accused and therefore her evidence could not be safely relied upon. This argument was not based upon any sound reason. It alto did not take into consideration the overall picture of the case as it emerged from the entire evidence. The 20th accused was identified by pws. 3, 4, 7, 9, 12 and 16, both in court and in parade, as participants to the crime. Similarly pw. 16 had also identified the 23rd accused at both the places. There was therefore corroboration in the evidence of pw. The 20th accused was identified by pws. 3, 4, 7, 9, 12 and 16, both in court and in parade, as participants to the crime. Similarly pw. 16 had also identified the 23rd accused at both the places. There was therefore corroboration in the evidence of pw. 1 with regard to the identification of accused Nos. 20 and 23. There was no ground to discard the evidence of pw. 1 as to the identification of accused Nos. 20 and 23. In the some manner the evidence of pw. 2 could also be relied upon as to her identification of the 24tb accused in court, though she had chosen to identify also accused Nos. 1, 9 and 24 during the parade. pws. 3 and 16 were the two other witnesses who identified the 24th accused in court as well as in parade So it would be difficult to brush aside the evidence of pw. 2. pw. 3 identified accused Nos. 1, 8, 20 and 24 in court though she had added the 10th accused also in her identification during the parade. There was effective corroboration of the identity of the accused Nos. 1, 8, 20 and 24 as persons who participated in the crime. The omission of the 10th accused did not in any manner affect the truth of her evidence pw. 6 identified accused Nos. 11, 13, 15 and 20 in the test identification parade. He made some additions and omissions in the number of accused she identified in court. In court pw. 6 stated that accused Nos. 11, 12, 15 and 27 were participants to the crime. As a matter of fact he never identified accused Nos. 12 and 27 before the Magistrate who conducted the parade. He also omitted the 20th accused in his evidence in court; instead he attributed to the 12th accused the overt acts which he had attributed to the 20th accused in the committal court. On this ground it is argued that the identification of accused Nos. 11 and 15 by pw. 6 in court shall not be accepted. By the time pw. 6 was examined in court the 13th accused had absconded. His identification of accused Nos.11 and 15 in court could not be discarded. pws 7, 9, 10 and 12 had also identified the 15th accused in court, though there was only the testimony of pw. 6 in court shall not be accepted. By the time pw. 6 was examined in court the 13th accused had absconded. His identification of accused Nos.11 and 15 in court could not be discarded. pws 7, 9, 10 and 12 had also identified the 15th accused in court, though there was only the testimony of pw. 6 to implicate the 11th accused to the crime. pw. 12 identified accused Nos. 15 and 20 during the parade while he identified only the 15th accused in court. Accused Nos. 15 and 20 had been identified by large number of other witnesses both in court and in parade, and there was no substantial ground to belittle the evidence of pw 12 pw. 14 could not identify the 23rd accused in court, though he was identified by him during the parade. pws. I and 16 had however identified the 23rd accused both in court and in parade. The evidence of pw. 17 identifying the 1st accused in court as well as in parade was corroborated by the evidence of pw. 5. The evidence of pws. 1, 2, 6, 12 and 17, in view of the circumstances pointed out, could not be brushed aside. The evidence of those witnesses, coupled with the evidence of pws. 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10 and 16 established beyond dispute that accused Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 20, 23 and 24 had property been identified. 64. Pw. 1 attributed overt acts to accused Nos. 20 and 23 whom she identified in court. To the 20tb accused she attributed the part of getting her jewels removed forcibly from her person. The 23rd accused was alleged to have kept watch over pw. 16, the son of pw. I, while be remained with his hands and legs tied. pw. 2 identified the 24th accused as the person who came into her room with a chopper in his hand. pw. 3 identified the 1st accused as the person who applied cotton to her nose. The 8th accused was identified by her as one of the two persons who came to her room with a crow-bar in his hand. pw. 4 assigned to the 1st accused the same part which pw. 3 assigned to him during the dacoity. The 8th accused was one of those four persons who surrounded pw. The 8th accused was identified by her as one of the two persons who came to her room with a crow-bar in his hand. pw. 4 assigned to the 1st accused the same part which pw. 3 assigned to him during the dacoity. The 8th accused was one of those four persons who surrounded pw. 1 to take her to the upstairs with a crow-bar in his hand. The 9th accused was engaged in profuse talk while the 10th accused was also in the company of the other accused persons. The 20tb accused was found to be holding Mo. 20 vanity bag in his hand. 65. Pw. 5 described accused Nos 2 and 17 as the two persons who pointed oat daggers and caused intimidation to him. pw. 6 identified the 11th accused as the person who stood in the southern courtyard, and the 15th accused who tied his hands. The presence of the 11th accused in the southern courtyard was very significant. It had come out in evidence that certain persons had been deputed in the first instance to guard round the courtyard as watchmen. So the presence of the 11th accused could be explained in that manner. pw. 7 stated that the 2nd accused tied his hands and legs. The 18th accused, according to him, brought a bomb inside the room. The 15th accused was said to have demolished Mo. 32 radio. The 20th accused directed pws. 7, 9 and 12 to come out from beneath the cot they where hiding pw.9 assigned the same work to accused Nos. 2 and 15 as assigned by pw. 7 to them. To the 9th accused he ascribed that he tied his mouth with a muffler. The 20th accused was alleged to have intimidated pw. 9 showing a dagger and stating that if he were to open his mouth he would be killed 66. Pw. 10, while identifying accused Nos. 2, 15, 18 and 20, stated that the 15th accused demolished the radio, the 2nd accused tied his hands and legs, the 18th accused held the vanity bag, along with a bag, on his shoulder, and the 20th accused intimidated him holding out a drawn dagger in his hand. pw 12 who identified the 15th accused stated that he demolished the radio Of the ten accused persons whom pw. pw 12 who identified the 15th accused stated that he demolished the radio Of the ten accused persons whom pw. 16 identified, the 1st accused was alleged to have entered the dining hall from the kitchen with a dagger in his hand, the 8th accused was one of the two persons who entered the dining room with a crowbar, the 9th accused broke the idols talking incessantly, the 10th accused tied pw. 4 and pw. 16 with a cord, the 12th accused stood by the side of deceased Narayanankutty Nair after he was taken out of the hall, the 17th accused was seen among others when the deceased was brought in the courtyard, the 20th accused was the fifth man who joined the four other men to take pw. 1 out of the dining hall, the 21st accused came from the side of the well when pw. 16 fell down while he was chased, the 23rd accused came and stood near the place, where pw. 14 and pw. 16 were tied down, with a crow-bar in his hand, and the 24th accused was one among the two persons who came from the north and joined with others to take pw. 1 to the upstairs. pw. 17 identified the 1st accused as he forced him to smell cotton during the incident. pw. 11 had no opportunity to identify any of the accused persons during the parade. But he identified accused Nos. 2, 9, 15, 18 and 20 in both the lower courts describing overt acts to each one of them in the same manner as other witnesses ascribed in respect of those accused persons. Though the identification of the accused persons by pw 11 in court was not supported by the test identification, his substantive evidence in court was corroborated by the evidence of other witnesses. As such his evidence could not be relied upon. There was no ground to shut out his evidence. On a consideration of the entire evidence it could safely be held that accused Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 20, 23 and 24 were the participants to the crime at the residence of deceased Narayanankutty Nair on the night of 30-7-1970. 67. There was no ground to shut out his evidence. On a consideration of the entire evidence it could safely be held that accused Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 20, 23 and 24 were the participants to the crime at the residence of deceased Narayanankutty Nair on the night of 30-7-1970. 67. That these accused persons formed into an unlawful assembly carrying deadly weapons in their hands, with the common object to commit dacoity at the residence of Narayanankutty Nair and to commit his murder there, on the night of 30-7-1970, had been established from the conduct and manner in which they assembled in the house. The place outside the premises of the house, where they assembled before their attack on the house, was pointed out by the 1st accused to the investigating officer after his arrest on 5-8-1970. The 1st accused made Ext. P169 confession which led to the discovery of certain articles at the place where they assembled. Those articles were Mo. 41 surgical cotton wrapper, Mo 49 a piece of wrapper of cylindrical shape made of match box and paper, Mo. 50 veneer intended for the manufacture of march box, Mo. 51 cotton cord of 226 cm. in length, Mo. 62 coir having a length of 154 cm Mo. 53 two pieces of country twine, Mo. 54 wrapper of Passing Show cigarette, Mo. 55, wrapper of Scissors cigarette, Mo. 56 pieces of polythene paper and Mo. 57 piece of white thin paper. They were recovered under Ext. P30 mahazar which was attested by pw. 63. That the gang of persons who entered the house demolished various items of furniture, photo and idols and that they carried away several items of valuable articles and cash had also been established by the evidence, supported by the seen; mahazar Ex. P3 which was prepared soon after the incident. That the same gang committed the murder of Narayanankutty Nair during the same incident and at the same time had also been established beyond dispute When such large number of persons assembled at a place carrying deadly weapons at an untimely hour of the night, the irresistible conclusion to be drawn from the conduct of those persons was that they formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the object of attacking the inmates of Narayanankutty Nair's house and kill and plunder them. That most of the accused persons were imbued with the ideal of loot and murder as members of Naxalbari group of the Marxist-Leninist-Party on the lines of the thoughts of Mao Tse Tung of China, had been brought out in the case, the details of which would be considered at a later stage. It is sufficient now to say that these accused persons believed in the cult of violence in achieving their objective of capturing power in the State. They wanted to eliminate the rich landlords and wanted either to destroy their property or plunder them for distribution among the poor and the needy. The evidence against them was conclusive that they believed in the cult of violence. Apart from the evidence, accused Nos. 2, 8, 9, 11, 12, 18, 20, 23 and 24 made no secret of their objective, since in their S.342 statements before the trial court, they stated that they were Naxalbaris who followed the tenets and ideals of Mao Tse Tung. The Naxilbari existed for the liquidation of feudal landlordism by use of force and for robbing their wealth for free distribution among the poor and the needy class of the people. When such men assembled in the house of Narayanankutty Nair on the night of the incident with deadly weapons in their hands, raising slogans "Naxalbari Zindabad" and 'Down with landlords', the natural inference to be drawn from their conduct was that they were members of an unlawful assembly with the common object to do away with Narayanankutty Nair and plunder his wealth. There were posters pasted on the walls of his house during the incident, which was indicative of the fact that they were Naxalbaris. Those posters had been seized during the preparation of Ext. P3 mahazar. That such posters had been pasted on the walls of the house during the incident had also been proved, through the eyewitnesses in the case. Mo. 38 series were six of such posters seized at the spot when the scene mahazar was prepared. The significant inscription in the posters was the cry for the killing of unwanted landlords and feudal chiefs. They wanted guerilla squads to be organised and system of election to be done away with. Mo. 38 series were six of such posters seized at the spot when the scene mahazar was prepared. The significant inscription in the posters was the cry for the killing of unwanted landlords and feudal chiefs. They wanted guerilla squads to be organised and system of election to be done away with. There could be no difficulty for arriving at the conclusion that these accused persons were members of an unlawful assembly with the common object of committing the murder of Narayanankutty Nair and causing dacoity at his house. 68. If it was established that these accused persons committed dacoity at the residence of Narayanankutty Nair, it would follow that they would have also committed his murder. The commission of dacoity and murder in this case was so closely related to each other that it could be predicated that the dacoits themselves committed the murder. Since the accused persons committed dacoity conjointly, they could be held liable to an offence of murder as the murder was committed while they committed dacoity. The accused persons did not leave the premises of the house with the booty they carried until Narayanankutty Nair was murdered. Murder and dacoity formed part and parcel of the same transaction. There was also evidence in the case that Narayanankutty Nair was taken out of the main house, with his hands tied, first to the portico of the house and finally to the northern courtyard of the gate house. pws. 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 16 gave evidence regarding the details of the incident, how Narayanankutty Nair was taken out of the main house to the courtyard of the gate house pw. 6 could have seen the incident through the window of the room where he was tied down. He got himself extricated from the knot, when he looked through the northern window of the room. According to him, four persons cut Narayanankutty Nair on his neck with a chopper. He saw one of the accused persons carrying something in his hand from the place where the victim was beheaded to the foot-steps leading to the tank and placing it on the steps. Before be was beheaded he was asked to repeat the slogan "Naxalbari zindabad" thrice. These witnesses also heard Narayanankutty Nair asking the accused persons 'Where are you taking me? Don't do me any harm'. Before be was beheaded he was asked to repeat the slogan "Naxalbari zindabad" thrice. These witnesses also heard Narayanankutty Nair asking the accused persons 'Where are you taking me? Don't do me any harm'. They also heard the sound of cuts and the sound of Narayanankutty Nair falling on the ground. There was a cry of "Naxalbari zindabad" after the murder was committed. It was followed by a sudden silence, when all of them left the place crying once again the victorious slogan "Naxalbari zindabad". None of the eye-witnesses had been the accused cutting the deceased with a chopper. That the fatal cut on the most vital part of the body with a weapon like a chopper, of course, would cause his death admits of no dispute. The circumstantial evidence was so conclusive against the accused persons that they as members of the unlawful assembly, committed the murder as well as dacoity, as every one of that assembly knew that murder of Narayanankutty Nair would be committed in prosecution of the common object. 69. It is relevant at this stage to consider the recovery of weapons which the accused persons handled during the incident on the basis of the information which was furnished by them to the police during investigation. Mo. 14 series (3 crow-bars) of different dimensions were recovered from a tank as pointed out by the 1st accused under Ext. P35 mahazar which was attested by pw. 67. The 1st accused gave Ext. P169 confession statement which led to the recovery. Mo. 14 series were the identical weapons which pw. 55 blacksmith made for pw. 54. The 23rd accused asked pw. 54 about a week prior to the incident to get them to be used as agricultural implements. Accordingly pw. 54 placed an order with pw. 55 to make them. pw. 54, after getting Mo. 14 series made, handed them over to the 23rd accused. There was evidence that these crow-bars were thrown into the tank, out of which they were recovered on the basis of the information furnished by the 1st accused, when the gang of dacoits passed that way after the murder and dacoity were committed. pws. 1, 3, 9 and 16 identified Mo. 14 series weapons as they were seen in the hands of the accused persons. Under Exts. P31 and P32 mahazars Mo. 15 chooper, Mo. 19(a) dagger, mos. pws. 1, 3, 9 and 16 identified Mo. 14 series weapons as they were seen in the hands of the accused persons. Under Exts. P31 and P32 mahazars Mo. 15 chooper, Mo. 19(a) dagger, mos. 61 and 62 dagger and its broken piece, were recovered from another tank on the basis of the statement given by the 1st accused to the police. The tank was under police guard until they were recovered. M. O.15 was identified by pws. 1, 9 and 16. Mo. 19(a) was identified by pws. 1 and 9. Mo. 16 gun was recovered under Ext. P38 mahazar. The 2nd accused pointed out the place where it bad been concealed. The 2nd accused got the gun from 13th accused after the incident. It was concealed in the property of pw 70 along with Mo. 19(b) and Mo. 19(c) daggers pw. 72 was an attestor to Ext. P38 mahazar. Mo. 19(b) and Mo. 19(c) were recovered along with Mo. 16 from the same place under Ext. P38 mahazar. pws. 1, 3, 9 and 16 identified Mo. 16 gun as it was found during the incident in the possession of the dacoits. pws. 36.37 and 38 also identified it. mos. 19(b) and (c) were identified by pws, 1, and 9 and Mo. 19(d) was identified by pw. 3. Mo, 18 chopper was recovered on the foot of the statement of the 15th accused as per Ext. P178. The recovery was under Ext. P48 mahazar. pw. 84 was an attestor to Ext. P48. pws. 1 and 3 identified if. The fact that the 15th accused had a chopper in his hand during the incident was also proved against him Mo. 19(d) and Mo. 73 daggers were recovered under Ext. L44 mahazar at the instance of the 11th accused. Mo 19 (e) knife was recovered at the instance of the 17th accused under Ext. P49 mahazar which was attested by pw. 84 There was evidence that during the incident the 17th accused was in possession of a knife. At the instance of the 23rd accused Mo. 19 (f) dagger was recovered under Ext. P93 mahazar. pw. 103 attested that mahazar. Mo. 19(g) dagger was recovered from the premises of pw. 104 who stated that the 25th accused (absconding) placed it there. It was recovered as per Ext P94 mahazar. At the instance of the 23rd accused Mo. 19 (f) dagger was recovered under Ext. P93 mahazar. pw. 103 attested that mahazar. Mo. 19(g) dagger was recovered from the premises of pw. 104 who stated that the 25th accused (absconding) placed it there. It was recovered as per Ext P94 mahazar. The 25th accused pointed out the premises of pw 104 after his arrest and before he escaped from the jail. Mo. 19(h) dagger was found on the person of the 20th accused when he was arrested. It was seized under Ext P 183 mahazar. Mo. 19 (d) and Mo 19 (h) were identified by pws 1 and 9. Mo. 71 series cartridges were recovered from the residence of the 2nd accused, after his arrest, under Ext. P 39 mahazar which was attested by pw. 73 Mo 73 sword-stick was seized from the barber shop of pw, 77. The 10th accused pointed out that place to the police. The place where it was concealed could he known only to the 10th accused It was recovered under Ext. P 43 mahazar Pw 77 was an attester to it. The 24th accused pointed out the place where Mo 86 chopper was concealed and it was seized under Ext. P 92 mahazar which was attested by pw. 102. pws. 2 and 3 gave evidence that the 24th accused held a chopper like Mo. 86 during the incident. 70. The police had also recovered pieces of ropes, cotton cord, tin containing petrol, cotton and country bombs, which the accused persons were alleged to have brought with them for the purpose of attacking the house of Narayanankutty Nair. Mo. 2 cotton coir and Mo 36 series of cotton cord, and Mo. 40 series cotton cord were recovered during the inquest and preparation of Ext. P 3 scene mahazar Mo. 66, tin containing petrol, was recovered, as pointed out by the 8th accused, under Ext. P 42 mahazar. pw. 76 was an attestor to Ext. P 42. mos. 81, 82, 87 series, 88 and 89 were the remnants of country bombs and explosive substances recovered at the instance of the 18th accused under Ext. P64 mahazar. pw. 87 was an attestor to that mahazar. pw. 114 examined those articles. pws. 9 to 12 gave evidence that the 18th accused was in possession of a bomb and be held a bag on his shoulder. P64 mahazar. pw. 87 was an attestor to that mahazar. pw. 114 examined those articles. pws. 9 to 12 gave evidence that the 18th accused was in possession of a bomb and be held a bag on his shoulder. The recovery of these articles was proof positive that these accused persons were directly concerned in the dacoity and murder. 71. The valuable articles kept in the house of Narayanankutty Nair bad been traced to the accused persons during the investigation. That was one of the circumstances to show that the accused persons were parties to the dacoity. Mo. 10 wrist watch, with the inscription of the name of pw. 15 and Mo. 34 wrist watch, were recovered at the instance of the 13th accused. The 13tb accused handed over the watches to pw. 81 after the incident. They were pointed out by him as a result of which they were recovered under Ext. P 45 mahazar pw. 82 was an attestor to that mahazar. Though pw. 81 turned hostile to the prosecution he admitted his signature in Ext P P45. However, there was the evidence of pws. 82 and 135 to prove the recovery pw. 11 identified Mo. 34 as the identical watch which was lost during the incident. Mo. 34 was also identified by pws. 9 and 10. Mo. 10 was identified by pws. 1, 3, 9 and 11 Mo. 11 series, Mo. 12 series, Mo. 13 series, Mo. 24, Mo. 28 series, Mo 29 series, Mo. 30 series and Mo. 77 were recovered at the instance of the 13th accused under Ext. P 46 mahazar from the house of the 16th accused Except Mo. 77, the other articles were valuable stones of different shades used in jewelry. Mo. 77 was ingot of gold The 13th accused gave information which led to the recovery of these articles pws. 1, 3 and 4 identified these articles as they were lost from their house on the night of 30-7-1970. After the incident, the 13th accused sold all the jewels to the 16th accused who, in his turn, converted them into Mo. 77 ingot. pw 83 was an attestor to Ext. P 46 mahazir. Mo. 24 was a gold ring. It belonged to pw 4. Its recovery from the 16th accused was not disputed. The contention of the 16th accused that he got Mo 24 for repair could not be accepted. Mo. 77 ingot. pw 83 was an attestor to Ext. P 46 mahazir. Mo. 24 was a gold ring. It belonged to pw 4. Its recovery from the 16th accused was not disputed. The contention of the 16th accused that he got Mo 24 for repair could not be accepted. Mo. 20 hand-bag was recovered from the tank at the instance of the Ist accused under Ext P 31 mahazar. pws 1, 2, 3 and 4 identified Mo. 20. It was alleged to have been thrown into the tank after the incident along with Mo. 58 granite stone kept inside it for immersion into water. mos. 21 and 22 wrist watches and Mo. 25 ear-stud were recovered at the instance of the 20th accused. They were handed over to pw. 92 by the 20th accused for safe custody. pw. 92 is a brother of the 19th accused. But on hearing that they were likely to be stolen articles from the house of the deceased, pw. 92 concealed them in his house compound. However, after arrest, the 20th accused pointed out pw. 92 on the basis of which mos. 21, 22 and 25 were recovered under Ext P 69 mahazar. pws. 92 and 135 proved the recovery. pw. 92 was an attestor to Ext P 69. pws. 3, 4 and 9 identified them as their property. Mo. 23 spectacles was seized from the 18th accused at the time of his arrest under Ext. P 50 mahazar pws. 3 and 9 identified Mo, 23. Mo. 26 transistor radio and Mo. 27 its batteries were recovered under Ext P 10 mahazar at the instance of the 20th accused. pws 41 and 135 proved the recovery. pws. 3, 9 and H identified Mo. 26 and Mo. 27 series pw, 11 made a present of Mo. 26 to pw. 9. Mo. 27 series batteries were taken out of Mo. 26 after its seizure on the basis of the information furnished by pw. 11. Mo. 27 series were the original Hitachi cells. 72. After the incident, the 22nd accused worked in Kushal Nagar under pw. 100 in a hotel. One Moidu was also an employee in that hotel. The 22nd accused handed over Mo. 31 fountan pen to him. On the basis of the information furnished by the 22nd accused (vide Ext. P87) Mo. 31 was recovered under Ext. P88 mahazar to which pw. 100 in a hotel. One Moidu was also an employee in that hotel. The 22nd accused handed over Mo. 31 fountan pen to him. On the basis of the information furnished by the 22nd accused (vide Ext. P87) Mo. 31 was recovered under Ext. P88 mahazar to which pw. 100 was an attestor. That Mo. 31 belonged to deceased Narayanankutty Nair admitted of no dispute. It was also identified after recovery. Mo. 33 torch was recovered under Ext. P65 at the instance of the 20th accused. pws. 89 and 90 were the attestors to Ext. P65. pws. 7, 9, 10 and 11 identified Mo. 33 as the torch which was stolen from their house on the night of 30-7-1970. Mo. 33 was a Winchester torch which belonged to pw. 11. One five-rupee currency note (Mo. 95) was recovered from the 1st accused while he was arrested, under Ext. P166 mahazar, The 1st accused had also pointed out to the police the place on the south-western side outside the premises of Narayanankutty Nair's house, where the accused persons assembled before the attack was launched on his bouse, Ext. P30 mahazar was prepared in respect of the place as well as for recovery made thereunder. mos. 41, 49 series, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, and 57 were seized under the mahazar from that place. pw. 63, who figured as an attestor to Ext. P30, gave evidence in support of the recovery. pw 33 gave evidence that Mo. 41 was sold from his shop. pw. 33 stated that cotton was used for the application of chloroform. Then there was the recovery of mos 90 to 94 clothes from pw. 121 washerwoman under Ext. P156 mahazar. They were given to her by the 23rd accused at 6.00 a.m. on 31-7-1970 for washing. pw. 121 stated that some of those clothes were wet. It was probably due to the fact that the 23rd accused was drenched in rain or he took a bath in the tank. Ext. P66, diary maintained by the 20th accused after the incident, revealed that the heinous crimes of murder and dacoity were committed as a result of a pre-arranged plan. These recoveries established beyond dispute that the accused persons involved in those recoveries were participants to the dacoity as well as the murder of Narayanankutty Nair. It was established by clear evidence that accused Nos. These recoveries established beyond dispute that the accused persons involved in those recoveries were participants to the dacoity as well as the murder of Narayanankutty Nair. It was established by clear evidence that accused Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 20, 23 and 24 had weapons in their hands when they marched into the house of Narayanankuty Nair. The common object of the unlawful assembly was not only to commit dacoity but also to commit the murder of rich landlords like Narayanankutty Nair. The direct evidence as well as the circumstantial evidence in the case led to the irresistible conclusion that the offence of dacoity and murder had been proved against these accused persons beyond a reasonable doubt. That conclusion will be justified in view of another important circumstance which was borne out from the judicial confessions which some of the accused persons made before pw. 119, Additional First Class Magistrate. 73. Accused Nos. 11, 17, 23 and 24 did not make a confession under S.164 Cr.P.C., though they have also been convicted under Ss 302, 395, 396 and 120B, IPC. Of the other persons, the 13th accused is still absconding. So his confession cannot be taken into consideration in this case. These confessions were recorded by pw. 119 during the course of the investigation after the arrest of these persons. It is clear from S.164 Cr. P.C. that where a confession is made before a Magistrate in the course of the investigation or at any time before the commencement of the enquiry or trial, it must be recorded in the manner prescribed by that section. Recording of a confession is a very solemn act and the Magistrate must see that the requirements of S.164 Cr. P. C. are fully complied with. The evidence of pw. 119 did not establish that he did not comply with the provisions of S.164 Cr P. C. On the other hand, he stated that he recorded the confession in full compliance with S.164, Cr. P. C. 74. There was no case that there had been any promise of secrecy or any practice of deception or artifice on the accused, much less any attempt of threat or any other malpractice to elicit the confession. P. C. 74. There was no case that there had been any promise of secrecy or any practice of deception or artifice on the accused, much less any attempt of threat or any other malpractice to elicit the confession. S.29 of the Evidence Act makes it clear that a confession otherwise relevant does not become irrelevant because of promise of secrecy or inducement by trick or fraud. 75. It is argued that the Magistrate who recorded the confession did not conform to certain well laid practice. It it pointed out that the Magistrate did not give the accused persons 24 hours' time for reflection after they were questioned first in court. In support of that position reliance may also be placed upon the pronouncement of the Supreme Court. We are concerned in this case with the confession of 11 accused persons of whom 7 had been given a period of 24 hours for reflection; the rest of the accused persons got only lesser period ranging from 20 to 22 hours for reflection. It was pointed out further that the 1st accused was in police custody from 5-8-1970 to 13-8-1970, the 15th accused from 31-8-1970 to 15-9-1970, the 18th accused from 25-9-1970 to 28-9-1970 and the 20th accused from 9-10-1970 to 13-10-1970 before they were produced before Magistrate for recording their confessions These circumstances were relied upon for the purpose of showing that the police had a chance or opportunity to make use of malpractice such as threat or coercion or torture to elicit confessions from them in which case it was vehemently stressed during the argument that the confessions were not true and voluntary. 76. First of all the rule of 24 hours period for reflection is not an invariable rule. R.85(3) of the Madras Criminal Rules of Practice applicable to the area where the occurrence took place states as follows: 'If the Magistrate has any doubt whether the accused is going to speak voluntarily, he may, if he thinks fit, remand him to a Sub Jail, before recording the statement; and ordinarily the accused shall be withdrawn from the custody of the police for 24 hours before his statement is recorded When it is not possible or expedient to allow so long a time as 24 hours, the Magistrate shall allow the accused at least a few hours for reflection." 77. The Magistrate in this case had not deviated from this rule at least in respect of accused Nos. 1, 2, 15, 16, 18, 19 and 20 Lesser period than 24 hours was however given for reflection to accused Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 12. They had at any rate no complaint that they were kept unduly for a long time in police custody before they were produced before the Magistrate for giving their confession. In the case reported in Sarwan Singh v. The State of Punjab (1975 SCR 953), the prisoner was in police custody from 25th November to 30th November, when he was produced at 2.30 p.m. on the last day for giving a confession before a Magistrate. The Magistrate, however, gave him only half an hour time for reflection and thereafter his confession was recorded. Under such circumstances the Supreme Court held in the above decision: "However, speaking generally, it would, we think, be reasonable to insist upon giving an accused person at least 24 hours to decide whether or not he should make a confession Where there may be reason to suspect that the accused has been persuaded or coerced to make a confession, even longer period may have to be given to him before his statement is recorded." 78. The Supreme Court has pointed out even in the above decision that it is not an invariable rule rule that a period of 24 hours or more should be given for reflection. The time to be afforded for reflection to the accused persons depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In Subodh Kumar Dhar Ray v State (1966 Crl. LJ. 323) the Magistrate gave only three hours' time for reflection to the accused person before his confession was recorded. Commenting upon that period of time granted for reflection, the Calcutta High Court held: "That the accused persons were in custody for a short period and such a stay in the police custody did not prima facie warrant the conclusion that the ingredients as stated in S.24 of the Evidence Act were not complied with of that any threat inducement, or tutoring was done in the case of these accused persons. Furthermore the Magistrate whose duty was to record a confession did so in his judicial capacity and he was satisfied as to the voluntary nature of the confession. Furthermore the Magistrate whose duty was to record a confession did so in his judicial capacity and he was satisfied as to the voluntary nature of the confession. There was no material on record to show any threat, coercion or inducement was offered by the police to the accused persons before they made their confession during their short stay in the police custody. The Magistrate was also satisfied that three hours 'time for deliberation was sufficient for making a voluntary confession in the instant case." The Calcutta High Court therefore distinguished Sarwan Singh v. The State of Punjab (1957 SCR. 953) from the case they dealt with. The case reported in Aliya v The State (AIR. 1953 M.P. 87) has no application to the facts of the present case In that case the accused was produced before the Magistrate from Police custody for recording confession and the confession was recorded from day today the accused remaining in police custody throughout. The Magistrate also did not conform to the precautions and safeguards laid down in S.164 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code So the confession bad rightly been rejected in that case. 79. In Akal Ali v. The State (1970 Crl. L. J. 781) the fact that the accused was not given 24 hours' time for reflection was not taken as a ground for concluding that confessions were involuntary. It was held there that: "Where the accused was sent to the Magistrate for recording his confession following the day of his arrest and the confession was recorded after the accused was given 3 1/2 hours' time to decide whether or not he should make is, the confession, in the absence of any suggestion to the Magistrate of the fact of police torture could not be said to be involuntary merely because 24 hours' time was not given to the accused before his confession was recorded." 80. In the decision reported in Nathu v. State of Uttar Pradesh ( AIR 1956 SC 56 ) the accused was in police custody from 8th June to 20th August and on the 20th August he was sent back to the judicial custody. On the 21st August confession was made before a Magistrate. The Supreme Court held: "The prolonged custody immediately preceding the making of the confession is sufficient, unless it is properly explained, to stamp it as involuntary. On the 21st August confession was made before a Magistrate. The Supreme Court held: "The prolonged custody immediately preceding the making of the confession is sufficient, unless it is properly explained, to stamp it as involuntary. The fact that the accused made various suggestions in the cross-examination of the C.I.D. Inspector such as that he was given bhang and liquor, or shown pictures, or promised to be made an approver, and they have been rejected as unfounded does not relieve the prosecution from its duty of positively establishing that the confession was voluntary and for that purpose, it is necessary to prove the circumstances under which the unusual step was taken." These observations have no bearing on the case in hand. Either in the Supreme Court ruling, or in the earlier decisions referred to there, there was no case that any time had been given to the accused persons for reflection. On the contrary, the accused persons were seen to have been taken to the Magistrate straight from the police custody for giving their confessions. In such cases it was for the prosecution to establish conclusively that the confession was not tainted with exercise of coercion, threat or inducement practised upon the accused persons while they were in police custody. But in each of the confessions placed before us in this case, the Magistrate has given sufficient opportunity to the confessing accused for reflection whether they would make a confession or not. The investigation had also explained in this case why accused Nos. 1 and 20 were kept in police custody for unduly long time before they were produced before the Magistrate for giving the confession. During the period they were in police custody they were taken from place to place for recovery of the articles which they secreted after the murder and dacoity. There was no ground to discard that explanation. After they were produced before the Magistrate on the first day questions were put to them as to whether they would make a voluntary confession or not. Identity of the Magistrate as a court was made known to them. They were produced before the Magistrate from the judicial custody and throughout the period of the confession they were kept only in the judicial custody. They were also sent back to the judicial custody after the confession was recorded. Identity of the Magistrate as a court was made known to them. They were produced before the Magistrate from the judicial custody and throughout the period of the confession they were kept only in the judicial custody. They were also sent back to the judicial custody after the confession was recorded. It was also significant to note that the accused persons bad been remanded to judicial custody after their arrest and the police got their custody from time to time for effecting the recovery when they were in the judicial custody. So this was not a case where the accused persons were taken straightaway to the Magistrate from police custody for the purpose of recording the confession. They were also given reasonable time for reflection. During the period of reflection they were in the judicial custody. The learned counsel who appeared for the accused persons contended that the court should drawan inference that the police would have tortured the accused persons for eliciting a confession. The accused themselves had no such case. They denied any police ill-treatment when they were produced before the Magistrate. Even before the Sub-Magistrate who remanded them to judicial custody within 24 hours of their arrest they had no complaint of ill-treatment. On the other hand, they stated to the Magistrate that they were not ill-treated in any manner by the police. The fact that the confessions contained materials which were not the subject-matter of the evidence of pws. 1 to 7 and 9 to 17, the eye-witnesses in the case, was a circumstance to show that the confession came voluntarily from the accused persons without any influence from any outside agency. No circumstance was brought to bear upon the evidence in the case that there had been any occasion for any inducement, threat or promise to the accused persons to make the confession. They thought it tit to make a confession. They are believers of a strange political theory that by armed insurrections and revolt the rich landlords could be eliminated and their properties looted with the object of establishing authority by workers and peasants. They did not believe in courts and rule of law. Accused Nos. 8, 20 and 28 did not participate in the trial as they refused to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses. They maintained even in their S.342 statements that they believed in violence of Marxist-Leninist Party based upon Mao's thoughts. They did not believe in courts and rule of law. Accused Nos. 8, 20 and 28 did not participate in the trial as they refused to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses. They maintained even in their S.342 statements that they believed in violence of Marxist-Leninist Party based upon Mao's thoughts. It was not strange therefore for those accused persons to have confessed voluntarily before the Magistrate as true and faithful adherents of Mao and members of Marxist-Leninist Party that they committed the crime. There was no reason to think that the confession they made was involuntary and untrue. The confessions were stamped with truth and they were also voluntarily made. The retraction from the confession was an after thought which was invented as an expediency in defence and therefore the earlier confession statement was found to be truly and voluntarily made. On an overall consideration of the entire evidence and the other circumstances there is no difficulty for holding that the recording of the confession was not in any manner tainted with any irregularity pointed out in court. 81. We have to consider next each of these confessions to ascertain whether any of those accused persons had confessed the guilt of either dacoity or murder in such a manner so us to enable as to rest upon it as an additional circumstance for upholding the prosecution case. 82. The 1st accused in his Ext. P131 confession admitted the overt acts attributed to him by the prosecution with regard to the dacoity. The portion relating to the murder is counced in the following words: "The deceased man was asked to stand on the steps leading from the 'padippura'. All of us were directed to come out of the premises of the house by the l3th accused. All of us got out of it. Immediately the 22nd accused asked for a chopper. 'Don't harm me' said the deceased. Then 4 or S persons has stood around him, among whom there was Bhaskaran (the 22nd accused) and Chandran. Then I heard a voice 'Ayyo'. It was the voice of the deceased. I heard the fall of a man. I saw the deceased lying down in the courtyard. At that time 1 saw 4 or 5 persons causing injuries to the persons lying down. After some time the 22nd accused took the head of the deceased in his hand." The 1st accused implicated accused Nos. It was the voice of the deceased. I heard the fall of a man. I saw the deceased lying down in the courtyard. At that time 1 saw 4 or 5 persons causing injuries to the persons lying down. After some time the 22nd accused took the head of the deceased in his hand." The 1st accused implicated accused Nos. 1, 8, 9, 10, 13, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24 and 25 to the incident in the house of Narayanankutty Nair. 83. The 2nd accused having admitted his participation in the incidents at the house of the deceased in Ext. P135 confession implicated also accused Nos. 1, 8, 9, 13, 17, 20, 22, 23 and 24 to those incidents. 84. In Ext P137 confession of the 8th accused he had implicated accused Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 13, 17, 20, 22, 23 and 24 to the incident in the house. Regarding the murder he stated: "The 22nd accused was seen taking Narayanankutty Nair with his hands tied. The 13th accused was going in front of them Behind the 20th accused Raghavan and Chandran and others rot known by name came. Narayanankutty Nair was brought outside the 'padippura'. Cry of 'ayyo' and sound of fall were then heard. Then the 13th accused said: 'Don't flush blood.'" The 9th accused refers to his own participation in the incident at the house in his Ext P139 confession. Regarding the murder he stated: "On reaching the courtyard a sound was heard from behind On looking out that side Narayanankutty Nair was found lying down there. He has fallen either due to stab or cut. By his side the 17th accused the 22nd accused and some others were seen standing. They were all seen cutting. The 22nd accused put the head on the footstep." The 10th accused, while implicating himself, had also implicated accused Nos.1, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17, 18, 20, 22, 24, 25 and 27 to the incident of murder. He stated as follows: "After some time one man was brought out forcibly. That person was deceased Narayanankutty Nair. Behind him the 13th accused stood with a gun in his hand. Accused Nos. 13, 20, 22 and Chandran accompanied him Then he was brought outside the 'padippura'. When I got out I heard a cry 'ayyo". Following it, I heard the sound of a fall. That person was deceased Narayanankutty Nair. Behind him the 13th accused stood with a gun in his hand. Accused Nos. 13, 20, 22 and Chandran accompanied him Then he was brought outside the 'padippura'. When I got out I heard a cry 'ayyo". Following it, I heard the sound of a fall. Then I turned to that side. The 20th accused and Chandran were found withdrawing knives from the person of the deceased who was lying down. Thereafter the 13th accused and Chandran cut him on his body. The 22nd accused removed the head and placed it on the footstep." 85. The 12th accused admitted his participation in the incidents at the house along with accused Nos. 10, 11, 13, 14, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24 and 25. Ext. P143 was his confession statement. As regards the murder of Narayanankutty Nair he stated: "The deceased Narayanankutty Nair was seen pulled out to the courtyard. There was cry 'cut', 'cut',. The accused Nos. 13, 20 22 and Raghavan cut him. Thereafter the 22nd accused picked up the head." 86. The 15th accused in his Ext. P146 confession stated that all persons assembled in the hillock marched to the house of Narayanankutty Nair at about 8.00 p.m. He described as to how Narayanankutty Nair was brought to the courtyard with his hands tied and the chopper from his hand was taken. However he did not see the actual murder. 87. The 16th accused gave Ext. P-147 confession in which he admitted the purchase of jewels from the 13th accused and their conversion into ingot. He purchased the jewels for Rs. 1,200 from the 13th accused some two days after the incident The 18th accused in Ext. P149 confession admitted his participation in the incident at the house. He implicated also accused Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13 and 20 to the incident. 88. The 19th accused in Ext. P 151 confession stated that he knew about the incident on the next day from the 20th accused. 89. The 20th accused gave Ext. P153 confession implicating himself as well as accused Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9,10, 11, 12, 13, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25 and 27 to the incidents in the house. On the murder of Narayanankutty Nair he stated. "Every one was asked to come out. Narayanankutty Nair was made to stand in the centure. His hands were tied. P153 confession implicating himself as well as accused Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9,10, 11, 12, 13, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25 and 27 to the incidents in the house. On the murder of Narayanankutty Nair he stated. "Every one was asked to come out. Narayanankutty Nair was made to stand in the centure. His hands were tied. Slogans were raised. As previously planned the 22nd accused cut him on his neck from behind with a chapper when he was standing on the foot-steps with the result he fell to the courtyard. Thereafter I cut along with accused Nos. 13, 22 and Chandran. The head was separated except for the skin portion from the trunk. I separated the head from the trunk. The 22nd accused placed that head in the footsteps." He had given a detailed version of the occurrence at the house. He had also mentioned in his confession that all the accused persons would not be in a position to give a detailed version of the incident as different types of work was assigned to each at different places in the house or its premises. 90. The evidence of eye-witnesses regarding the dacoity and murder had been fortified by the confession of the accused persons implicating themselves as well as others who are their co-accused in respect of those offences: The rule as to the respective use of retracted confessions in evidence has been formulated in several decisions. It is therefore necessary to ascertain the scope and effect of a retracted confession. A confession is not to be regarded as involuntary or unlawfully induced merely because it has been retracted at the trial. In arriving at a conclusion the court has to take into consideration not only the reasons given for making the confession or retracting it, but all the circumstances in the case. 91. As against the maker, a retracted confession may form the basis of a conviction if believed to be true and voluntarily made. But the better point of view is that a retracted confession must be regarded with suspicion and as a rule of practice and prudence it is unsafe to base a conviction on retracted confession without independent corroboration. The use of such a confession is a matter of prudence rather than of law, 92. But the better point of view is that a retracted confession must be regarded with suspicion and as a rule of practice and prudence it is unsafe to base a conviction on retracted confession without independent corroboration. The use of such a confession is a matter of prudence rather than of law, 92. As against co-accused, although a retracted confession may be taken into consideration, the rule is now firmly established that its value against a co-accused is practically nil, and that it cannot form the basis of a conviction without substantial and independent corroboration as to the crime and the criminal. 93. The Evidence Act nowhere provides that a retracted confession cannot be taken into consideration against the confessing accused or co-accused. The Act also makes no distinction whatever between a retracted confession and un-retracted confession and both are equally admissible and may be taken into consideration against the accused though it may be that less weight would be attached to a retracted confession. The use to be made of such confession is a matter of prudence rather than of law, the business of the court being to make up its mind in accordance with the dictates of commonsense whether it is safe to believe the confession or not. 94. At page 254 of Sarkar On Law of Evidence (12th Edition-1971), a summary of law as to retracted confession is furnished on the basis of the principles laid down in decided cases, and it is worthwhile to quote it: "The true rule appears to have been stated in a case where it has been held that if a Judge believes that a confession made by a prisoner, although subsequently withdrawn, contains a true account of that prisoner's crime, the Judge is bound to act so far as the prisoner is concerned, on that confession, which he believes to be true. When a confession is not supported by the evidence of witnesses, the Judge must examine carefully to see whether it gives details which indicate that it is natural narrative of what took place in the presence of the man making it, and it is not at variance with any evidence in the case which is believed and is not merely a parrot-like repetition of a story put into the man's mouth. The amount of credibility of a retracted confession depends on the circumstances of each particular case." 95. The amount of credibility of a retracted confession depends on the circumstances of each particular case." 95. Now let us see what the Supreme Court stated regarding the nature of the retracted confession and it value as evidence in a case. In Pyare Lal Bhargava v. The State of Rajasthan ( AIR 1963 SC 1094 ) its is held that: "A retracted confession may form the legal basis of a conviction if the court is satisfied that it was true and was voluntarily made. But it has been held that a court shall not base a conviction on such a confession without corroboration. It is not a rule of law, but is only a rule of prudence. It cannot even be laid down as an inflexible rule of practice or prudence that under no circumstances such a conviction can be made without corroboration, for a court may, in a particular case, be convinced of the absolute truth of a confession and prepared to act upon it without corroboration; but it may be laid down as a general rule of practice that it is unsafe to rely upon a confession, much less on a retracted confession, unless the court is satisfied that the retracted confession is true and voluntarily made and has been corroborated in material particulars." The later decisions of the Supreme Court do not insist upon an absolute corroboration of retracted confession of material particulars. In Subramania Goundan v. The State of Madras ( 1958 SCR 428 ) Govinda Menon, J. for the Bench stated: "......there can be no absolute rule that retracted confession cannot be acted upon unless it is corroborated materially. But as a matter of prudence and caution, which has sanctified itself into a rule of law, a retracted confession cannot be made solely the basis of conviction unless it is corroborated. It is not necessary that each and every circumstance mentioned in the confession regarding the complicity of the accused should be separately and independently corroborated, nor is it essential that the corroboration must come from facts and circumstances discovered after the confession was made. It is not necessary that each and every circumstance mentioned in the confession regarding the complicity of the accused should be separately and independently corroborated, nor is it essential that the corroboration must come from facts and circumstances discovered after the confession was made. It would be sufficient if the general trend of the confession is substantiated by some evidence which would tally with what is contained in the confession." In that particular case the recovery of cloth stained with human blood for which the accused had no explanation was found sufficient circumstance for acting upon the same. The principles set out in the decision was followed in a later decision of the Supreme Court in Bharat v. State of U. P. [1970 (1) S.C.W R.683] where it is stated: "Confessions can be acted upon if the court is satisfied that they are voluntary and that they are true The voluntary nature of the confession depends upon whether there was any threat, inducement or promise and its truth is judged in the context of the entire prosecution case. The confession must fit into the proved facts and not run counter to them. When the voluntary character of the confession and its truth are accepted it is safe to rely on it. Indeed a confession, if it is voluntary and true and not made under any inducement or threat or promise, is the most potent piece of evidence against the maker. Retracted confession, however, stands on a slightly different footing. As the Privy Council once stated, in India it is the rule to find a confession and to find it retracted later. A court may take into account the retracted confession, but it must look for the reasons for the making of the confession as well as for its retraction, and must weigh the two to determine whether the retraction affects the voluntary nature of the confession or not. If the court is satisfied that it was retracted because of an afterthought or advice, the retraction may not weigh with the court if the general facts proved in the case and the tenor of the confession as made and the circumstances of its making and withdrawal warrant its user. All the same, the courts do not act upon the retracted confession without finding assurance from some other sources as to the guilt of the accused. All the same, the courts do not act upon the retracted confession without finding assurance from some other sources as to the guilt of the accused. Therefore, it can be stated that a true confession made voluntarily may be acted upon with slight evidence to corroborate it. but a retracted confession requires the general assurance that the retraction was an afterthought and that the earlier statement was true." 96. The scope and applicability of a co-accused's confession came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in an earlier decision reported in Hariharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar ( AIR 1964 SC 1184 ) where it was held: "As a result of the provisions contained in S.30. Evidence Act. the confession of a co-accused has to be regarded as amounting to evidence in a general way, because whatever is considered by the court is evidence; circumstances which are considered by the court as well as probabilities do amount to evidence is that generic sense. Thus, though confession may be regarded as evidence in that generic sense because of the provisions of S.30. the fact remains that it is not evidence as defined by S.3 of the Act. The result, therefore, is that in dealing with a case against an accused person the court cannot start with the confession of a co-accused person; it must begin with other evidence adduced by the prosecution and after it has formed its opinion with regard to the quality and effect of the said evidence, then it is permissible to turn to the confession in order to receive assurance to the conclusion of guilt which the judicial mind is about to reach on the said other evidence." 97. Still further elucidation was given on the co-accused's confession in closing portion of the judgment at page 1190 which reads: "As we have already indicated it has been a recognised principle of the administration of criminal law in this country for over half a century that the confession of a co-accused person cannot be treated as substantive evidence and can be pressed into service only when the court is inclined to accept other evidence and feels the necessity of seeking for an assurance in support of its conclusion deducible from the said evidence In criminal trials, there is no scope for applying the principle of moral conviction or grave suspicion. Ia criminal cases where the other evidence adduced against an accused person is wholly unsatisfactory and the prosecution seeks to rely on the confession of a co-accused person, the presumption of innocence which is the basis of criminal jurisprudence assists the accused person and compels the court to render the verdict that the charge is not proved against him, and so, he is entitled to the benefit of doubt." The principle of law enunciated in these rulings has to be kept in mind when the confession of an accused person and that of his co-accused is taken into consideration The amount of credibility to be attached to retracted confession would depend upon the circumstances of each particular case. Although a retracted confession is admissible against the accused by virtue of S.30 of the Evidence Act as a matter of prudence and practice a court would not ordinarily act upon it to convict an accused without the strongest and fullest corroboration on material particulars. The confession of a co-accused stands even on a lower footing than that of the evidence of an accomplice and it cannot therefore be accepted without material corroboration connecting the accused with the crime. It does not come within the definition of evidence contained in S.3 of the Evidence Act. Such a confession cannot be made the foundation of a conviction and can only be used in "support of other evidence". The proper way to make use of the co-accused's confession is first to marshal the evidence against the accused excluding the confession altogether from consideration and see whether if it is believed a conviction could safely be based on it. If it is capable of belief independently of the confession then of course it is not necessary to call the confession in aid. But cases may arise where the Judge is not prepared to act on the other evidence as it stands even though, if believed, it would be sufficient to sustain a conviction. In such an event the Judge may call in aid the confession and use it to lend assurance to the other evidence and thereby fortify himself in believing what without the aid of the confession he would not be prepared to accept. In such an event the Judge may call in aid the confession and use it to lend assurance to the other evidence and thereby fortify himself in believing what without the aid of the confession he would not be prepared to accept. It is clear that the law is well settled that the confession of a co-accused is not substantive evidence in the sense that the conviction on that alone must stand and S.30 has merely given the court a discretion to call in aid in appropriate cases. It can be used only for lending assurance and is to be merely an element in considering the evidence in the case. If there is no other evidence or if the other evidence in the case is insufficient to establish the case against the accused, the confession cannot be taken into consideration against the co-accused. It cannot be called in aid to supplement evidence otherwise insufficient and in no case can it be used to fill up gaps in the prosecution evidence. 98. Bearing in mind these principles on the basis of the law which is found clearly stated in various decisions regarding confession of an accused person as well as confession of co-accused, it can be said unhesitatingly that in this case there bad been evidence against the accused persons regarding their participation in the dacoity and murder at the residence of Narayanankutty Nair. The accused persons convicted for dacoity and murder bad been specifically identified by the eye-witnesses attributing to every one of them one or the other of many overt acts on the basis of which they committed dacoity which was followed by the murder of Narayanankutty Nair. That they had a common object to commit murder and dacoity could not, in the circumstances of the case, be controverted. The confession of the 20th accused established that be was one of the persons who cut Narayanankutty Nair with the chopper. The 20th accused was one of the persons who cut deceased Narayanankutty Nair. Confession of other co-accused also led to the inference that the 20th accused who was in the close vicinity of Narayanankutty Nair could have cut him. The confession of the 20th accused established that be was one of the persons who cut Narayanankutty Nair with the chopper. The 20th accused was one of the persons who cut deceased Narayanankutty Nair. Confession of other co-accused also led to the inference that the 20th accused who was in the close vicinity of Narayanankutty Nair could have cut him. The details of the dacoity were furnished by the accused persons in the respective confessions and that version was consistent with the particulars of the evidence which the eye-witnesses stated in court, as regards the manner in which dacoity was committed. There was no reason to bold that the prosecution version of the case was untrue or undependable. (Paras 99 to 113 deal with the examination of the evidence against each individual accused persons and they are omitted.) x x x x x x x x 114. It is, however, argued that the recovery of Exts. P 72 to P 80 on the basis of Ext. P184 statement of the 20th accused cannot be supported as a recovery under S.27 of the Evidence Act and therefore the recovery against the 20th accused as well as that of some of the other accused persons in the similar circumstances could not be relied upon as a piece of evidence to hold that they were the likely participants to the crime. In Ext. P 184 statement the 20th accused stated that he handed over Exts. P 72 to P 80 to pw. 110 and that be would be able to point out that person for the purpose of the recovery of those articles. Accordingly the police took the 20th accused to the residence of pw. 110 when pw. 95, the father of pw. 110, produced Exts P 72 to P 80 as a result of which they were seized under Ext. P 71 mahazar. pw. 110 was definite that the 20th accused entrusted Exts. P 72 to P 80 for safte custody with him and that he kept them at his house with the knowledge of pw. 95. pw. 96 was an independent attestor to Ext. P 71. pw. 95 handed over Exts. P 72 to P 80 to the police when the 20th accused took them to the residence of pw. 110 on the basis of his Ext. P 184 statement. 95. pw. 96 was an independent attestor to Ext. P 71. pw. 95 handed over Exts. P 72 to P 80 to the police when the 20th accused took them to the residence of pw. 110 on the basis of his Ext. P 184 statement. The question is whether the recovery was under S.27 of the Evidence Act. S.27 allows proof of such part of the information as relates distinctly to the fact discovered. If the police officer wants to prove the information, the court would have to consider whether it relates distinctly to the fact discovered. If he does not want to prove the information, S.27 does not come into operation. Thus when the police officer stated that in consequence of certain information given by the accused he took him to pw. 110 or his father pw. 95 whereupon be pointed out the house where they lived, as a result of which the recovery was made from that house, the evidence of pws. 95, 96 and 110 would be admissible against accused No. 20 without operation of S.27. In a similar case in Ramkishan Mithanlal Sharma v. The State of Bombay [ 1955 (1) SCR 903 : AIR 1955 SC 104 ] the accused took the police officers to a certain house where he pointed out a witness who was the wife of the accused, when at the instance of the accused the wife brought from somewhere inside their house a steel box which contained the relevant articles, viz, currency notes involved in the dacoity. In that case Jagannadha-das, J. held that the recovery as an item of evidence is admissible against the accused though S.27 recovery was not applicable. The learned Judge held: "In the present case, however, even if the evidence of the police officer that the recovery was at the instance of or in consequence of information furnished by the first accused is ruled out, there is still the fact spoken to by him that the trunk containing the currency notes was produced by Kamalabai, wife of the first accused at her native place. This item of evidence is clearly admissible against the first accused as indicating his connection. Therefore no prejudice can be said to have been caused." 115. This item of evidence is clearly admissible against the first accused as indicating his connection. Therefore no prejudice can be said to have been caused." 115. In Himachal Pradesh Administration v. Om Prakash ( AIR 1972 SC 975 ) the position as to the admissibility of the evidence apart from S.27 was made clear. In that case the accused furnished the information that he purchased the weapon in question from one Ganga Singh who was pw. 11 in the case and that he took the police party to that person. It was contended in that case that the information given by the accused that be purchased the dagger from pw. 11 followed by his leading the police to his place and pointing out that place is inadmissible under S.27 of the Evidence Act. This contention was accepted by the Supreme Court, but it was held that part of the evidence of the police officer combined with the evidence of the witness who figured at the recovery would be admissible under S.8 of the Evidence Act as conduct of the accused. The Supreme Court held: "A witness cannot be said to be discovered if nothing is to be found or recovered from him as a consequence of the information furnished by the accused and the information which disclosed the identity of the witness will not be admissible. But even apart from the admissibility of the information under S.27. the evidence of the investigating Officer and the panchas that the accused had taken them to pw. 11 and pointed him out and as corroborated by pw 11 himself would be admissible under S.8 of the Evidence Act as conduct of the accused " 116. On a reading of the evidence of pws. 95, 96, 110 and 135 it was clear that the 20th accused pointed out pw. 110 with whom entrusted Exts. P 72 to P 80 as a consequence of which his father pw. 95 unearthed those articles in the presence of pws. 96 and 135. Pw. 96 was an independent witness who attested Ext. P71 mahazar and pw. 135 was the police officer who was taken by the 20th accused to the house of pw. 110, for the purpose of recovery: The recovery of Exts. 95 unearthed those articles in the presence of pws. 96 and 135. Pw. 96 was an independent witness who attested Ext. P71 mahazar and pw. 135 was the police officer who was taken by the 20th accused to the house of pw. 110, for the purpose of recovery: The recovery of Exts. P 72 to P 80 and similar recoveries involved in this case in respect of the accused persons was not tainted in any manner with any bar of in admissibility and as such those recoveries are proved validly against the accused persons. It is relevant to point out that the 20th accused did not cross-examine any of the witnesses who gave evidence against him in Sessions Court and he also did not file any appeal against the conviction and sentence 117. Though the 23rd accused made no confession of his guilt under S.164 Cr.P.C, there was the recovery of Mo. 19(f) dagger from him under Ext. P93 mahazar. Recovery was made on the strength of his Ext. P186 statement to pw. 135, the Investigating Officer on 29-11-1970, the date on which he was arrested. pw. 103 was attestor to Ext. P93. pws. 1 and 16 identified him as participant to the incident at the house of Narayanankutty Nair. pws. 1 and 16 were consistent in their evidence that the 23rd accused kept watch over the spot where pw. 16 was tied down. pw 16 also stated that when he saw him he had a crow-bar in his hand. Mo. 91 khaki trouser. Mo. 92 slack shirt, Mo. 93 white full shirt and Mo. 94 baniyan were recovered under Ext. P156 mahazar from pw. 121, dhobi woman to whom the 23rd accused gave them for washing on 31-7-1970. pw. 121 figured as attestor to Ext. P156. The 23rd accused approached pw. 54 some few days before the incident for getting some crow-bars. He wanted them for his agricultural operations. pw. 54 got Mo. 14(c) made and mos. 14 (a) and (b) sharpened by pw. 55 who is a blacksmith. Afterwards, pw. 54 handed over mos. 14 (a), 14 (b) and 14(c) to the 23rd accused. The identical crow-bars were recovered under Ext. P35 mahazar which was attested by pw. 67. He proved the recovery on the strength of the information furnished by the first accused. 14 (a) and (b) sharpened by pw. 55 who is a blacksmith. Afterwards, pw. 54 handed over mos. 14 (a), 14 (b) and 14(c) to the 23rd accused. The identical crow-bars were recovered under Ext. P35 mahazar which was attested by pw. 67. He proved the recovery on the strength of the information furnished by the first accused. Though the recovery under S.27 was proved against the 1st accused, the fact remained that the identical weapons were produced by the 23rd accused during the incident. The evidence of pws. 1, 14 and 16 together with the recovery in the case revealed that the 23rd accused had a crow-bar in his hand during the incident. The evidence of pws 54 and 55 was conclusive. The alleged enmity between pw. 54 and the 23rd accused was not a material circumstance to disbelieve pw. 54. The connection between accused Nos. 1 and 23 with regard to Mo. 14 series crow-bars was amply brought out in the case and consequently their participation in the crime on the basis of a conspiracy could also be interred from the circumstances of the case. There was, therefore, sufficient evidence to hold that he committed the offence as a member of the unlawful assembly with the common object of that assembly and as such a member of that assembly be knew that they were likely to commit the offence in prosecution of the common object. 118. As against the 24th accused, the direct evidence was that of pws. 2, 3 and 16. They identified him in court as well as in the identification parade. He was arrested on 8 11 1970 by pw. 124. He then gave Ext. P185 statement which led to the recovery of Mo. 86 chopper under Ext. P92 mahazar on 9-11-1970. pw. 102 was an attestor to the mahazar. pws. 2 and 3 described the 24th accused as the person who came to their room with a chopper in his hand during the incident. pw. 16 also described him in the same manner, but added that he was one among the four or five persons who took pw. 1 to the upstairs. Though the 24th accused himself did not make a confession of his guilt, accused Nos. 1, 2, 8, 10, 13 and 20 implicated him to the incident in the house as well as the part he played in the criminal conspiracy. 1 to the upstairs. Though the 24th accused himself did not make a confession of his guilt, accused Nos. 1, 2, 8, 10, 13 and 20 implicated him to the incident in the house as well as the part he played in the criminal conspiracy. That may not be strictly admissible against the 24th accused. The evidence of pws. 1 to 4, 15 and 16 that the 24th accused was armed with a chopper during the incident was corroborated by the subsequent recovery of Mo. 86 chopper from him under Ext. P92 mahazar. The case against each of these accused persons having been dealt with regarding their complicity to the crime which was committed at the bouse of Narayanankutty Nair, the only conclusion possible in the circumstances of the case is that they were members of an unlawful assembly with the common object of committing the murder of Narayanankutty Nair and dacoity at his house on the night of 30-7-1970 Wherever direct evidence was available, the additional circumstance of the recovery made in respect of each accused had also been taken into consideration. After establishing the case against the accused persons for the offences they committed the confession of each of the accused persons had also been taken into account. Finally, the confession of the co-accused was also taken into consideration though it was of a lesser value as evidence. On a reappraisal of the entire evidence and the circumstances of the case, the only conclusion possible in the case is that accused Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 20, 23 and 24 are guilty of the offences under S.302, 395 and 396 read with S.149 of Indian Penal Code. 119. The next important question for consideration is whether prosecution had successfully proved their case against the accused persons Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 17, 20, 23, 24, 26 and 28 who were alleged to have entered into a criminal conspiracy to commit the murder of Narayanankutty Nair as well as to commit dacoity at his house in Kongad on the night of 30 7 1970. Except accused Nos. 26 and 28, the rest of these accused persons including accused Nos. 15 and 18 have been convicted for murder and dacoity. However, the lower court found that accused Nos. Except accused Nos. 26 and 28, the rest of these accused persons including accused Nos. 15 and 18 have been convicted for murder and dacoity. However, the lower court found that accused Nos. 15 and 18 did not enter into a criminal conspiracy to commit murder and dacoity along with others. 120. All the accused persons were originally the members of the Communist Party of India (Marxist). They differed from the Marxist Party on ideological ground inasmuch as they believed in violence for the establishment of political freedom. So the adherents of the new ideology formed themselves into a separate party known as the Kerala Marxist-Leninist Party, holding meetings and distributing literature for strengthening their party. Study classes were also held. The first meeting of that Party was held in a building which was in the occupation of the 26th accused in May-June 1970. That building is to the west of Pidikaparambu Mana. That meeting was attended by accused Nos. 1, 2, 8 to 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 26, 28, 29, 30 and six others who are absconding. The object of that meeting was to chalk out a programme to commit dacoity at the houses of rich landlords and commit their murder as well as to organise violent upheavals and armed insurrections in different parts of the State. In furtherance of that objective, a Kerala State Committee was formed at the meeting with accused Nos. 13, 20, 28, 30 and three others as members. On the strength of the decisions arrived at the meeting, study classes were conducted under the guidance of accused Nos. 13 and 20 for concentrating the attention on dacoity and murder. 121. While so, the second meeting was held on the 12th and 13th July 1970 at Kondazhi and Mayannur in Palghat District. The decision at that meeting was that they should conduct dacoity at the residences of rich landlords and commit their murder within Palghat District for which they resolved to make preparations. They appointed accused Nos. 10, 13 and one Chandran (absconding) as squad leaders and the 20th accused as the Officer-Commanding Accused Nos. The decision at that meeting was that they should conduct dacoity at the residences of rich landlords and commit their murder within Palghat District for which they resolved to make preparations. They appointed accused Nos. 10, 13 and one Chandran (absconding) as squad leaders and the 20th accused as the Officer-Commanding Accused Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 21 to 25, 27 and pws 30, 31, 56 and 57 as well as the three absconding persons were made the members of the squad for action On the basis of these decisions, the 20th accused made arrangements for making country bombs. One V. S. Narayanan, absconding, was said to have sent cash to the 26th accused and the 19th accused sent his own cash for the purchase of gun-powder and other explosive substances to make bombs. One Rama Warrier, absconding, was alleged to have purchased gun-powder and handed it over to pw 41. pws. 40 and 41 then made bombs at the instigation and in the presence of accused Nos. 20 and 23 with the help of the 28th accused. The 23rd accused collected weapons like daggers, crow-bar, chopper, sword-stick, stick, etc. to be used in the contemplated armed insurrection. Accused Nos. 9 and 13 procured Mo. 16 gun from pw 38. pw. 36, a blacksmith, made that gun for the use of pw. 37. pw. 37 sold the gun in his turn to pw. 38. Accused Nos. 9 and 13 got it as a loan for use during their agricultural operations. During the second meeting, accused Nos. 1, 2, 8 to 13, 15, and 17 to 28, along with the absconding accused, participated in the deliberations. 122. It was at the last meeting held on 27th and 28th July, 1970, that a final decision was arrived at among the accused persons to commit dacoity at the residence of Narayanankutty Nair and commit his murder there on the 30th of July, 1970. After the meeting, the 13th accused took accused Nos. 10, 22, 23 and one absconding accused to the vicinity of the house of Narayanankutty Nair for reconnoitring work. The 23rd accused had also in his own way made some reconnoitring work. He met pw. 32, a tea-shop keeper in the neighbourhood of the house of Narayanankutty Nair. The 23rd accused pretended that be wanted a milch cow to be purchased and so he asked pw. The 23rd accused had also in his own way made some reconnoitring work. He met pw. 32, a tea-shop keeper in the neighbourhood of the house of Narayanankutty Nair. The 23rd accused pretended that be wanted a milch cow to be purchased and so he asked pw. 32 whether he could get one anywhere there when he replied that he could enquire one Appu who lived near the house of Narayanankutty Nair. Accordingly, the 23rd accused went towards that place evidently to ascertain the location and condition of the house of Narayanankutty Nair. On the night of 28-7-1970, they assembled at the residence of the 13th accused when pw. 35 and the 26th accused were also present. While so, the 20th accused gave detailed instructions to accused Nos. 1, 2, 8 to 12, 15, 17, 18, 21 to 25, 27 and the absconding accused. pws. 30, 31, 50 and 57, along with accused Nos. 2, 8, 13 and 23, took the weapons so far collected by the 23rd accused as well as the gun which was procured by accused Nos. 9 and 13 and concealed them at a place on the hillock behind the residential compound of Narayanankutty Nair on 29-7-1970. On 30-7-1970, the 22nd accused collected chloroform in a bottle, petrol in a tin, cotton cord, coir rope and wall-posters written up with slogans. The 13th accused, in his turn, deputed accused Nos. 3 to 7 to cut off the telephone and telegraph wires on the Mannarghat-Palghat road. While the 20th accused gave instructions, accused Nos. 1, 2, 8 to 12, 15, 17, 18, 21, 23, 24 and 27 were present there at the meeting. 123. Even prior to the conspiracy was hatched up, some of the accused persons were known to each other and they lived in perfect harmony and friendship. The close and friendly relationship among the accused Nos. 13, 17 and 20 was sought to be proved through pws. 20 and 21. pw. 20 himself stood surety for the 20th accused at the instance of the 17th accused in one security proceeding initiated against the 20th accused. The 17th accused being a neighbour of pw. 20, they lived on best of terms. The 13th accused is the son of pw. 21. pw. 21 also figured as a surety for the 20th accused. pw. 41 gave evidence, that the 20th accused had been living with pw. The 17th accused being a neighbour of pw. 20, they lived on best of terms. The 13th accused is the son of pw. 21. pw. 21 also figured as a surety for the 20th accused. pw. 41 gave evidence, that the 20th accused had been living with pw. 26 Neeli for quite a long time. The close relationship of pw. 26 with the 20th accused was revealed by her subsequent conduct. Her conduct, supported by the evidence of pw. 41, revealed that the holding of meeting by accused Nos. 20 and 28 at her residence was probable. The evidence of pw. 24 that accused Nos. I and 8 were friends remained unchallenged. 124. On 22-6-1970, pw 39, a clerk in the District Industries Office, Alleppey, sent a sum of Rs. 50 through telegraphic money order to the 26th accused. The evidence of pws 42, 43, 44 and 45, the postal clerks and delivery peons, proved beyond doubt that the aforesaid sum of Rs. 50 despatched by pw.39 through the Court Post Office in Alleppey had been delivered over to the 20th accused. pw. 39 would have it that he sent the amount towards the cost of some publication on communism. But it was a surprise that pw. 39 did not raise his little finger after the cash was despatched to ascertain whether the contemplated parcel of book was sent to him or not. At one stage, he stated that the cost of the particular pamphlet he required would only be 75 paise. The T.M.O. was sent through the Court Post Office, but the nearest post office to his residence was the Iron Bridge Post Office in Alleppey. He bad no explanation to offer why it was sent from the Court Post Office. The evidence of pw. 39 coupled with all the surrounding circumstances, in the case revealed that he would have sent the T. M. O. to the 26th accused for some nefarious activities which were in progress. 125. Apart from the oral evidence, there were other circumstances to show that the accused persons entered into a criminal conspiracy. Conspiracy can seldom be proved by means of direct evidence and has almost invariably to be inferred from circumstantial evidence consisting generally of evidence as to the conduct of the parties on certain occasions and in relation to certain matters. It is not always possible to give direct evidence about conspiracy. Conspiracy can seldom be proved by means of direct evidence and has almost invariably to be inferred from circumstantial evidence consisting generally of evidence as to the conduct of the parties on certain occasions and in relation to certain matters. It is not always possible to give direct evidence about conspiracy. From the circumstances proved, the conduct and behaviour of the parties during the period of conspiracy, the common object with which the parties moved after the agreement or decision was arrived at and the manner in which they executed their plan are the various ingredients which required consideration in proof of criminal conspiracy If on a night a number of persons entered a house armed with deadly weapons such as gun, chopper, sword-stick, crow-bar, dagger, knife, stick and bombs it cannot be with any legitimate object. The weapons they carried being of a dangerous nature, if there is any evidence to show that the accused persons had the use of one or the other of the weapons in inflicting the injuries on the deceased and they intimidated and restrained the other inmates of the house for effective commission of dacoity, it is easy to infer that they proceeded to the scene with a preconceived plan as a result of criminal conspiracy. However, to substantiate a charge of conspiracy the prosecution must prove the agreement between two or more persons to do an unlawful act or a lawful act by unlawful means. Such agreement can be proved by direct evidence or inferred from other proved facts. But the inference of fact may be drawn only when circumstances are such as to be incapable of any other reasonable interpretation. The law requires specific proof against each of the conspirators participating in a particular design to do a particular criminal thing. The object of the conspiracy must be proved as laid down. 126. There was no difficulty for holding that the object of the conspiracy had successfully been executed by the conspirators in this case both in letter and spirit. The rich landlord of Kongad, Narayanankutty Nair, had been beheaded and his household articles, including valuables and cash, had been ransacked and carried away by the conspirators. 126. There was no difficulty for holding that the object of the conspiracy had successfully been executed by the conspirators in this case both in letter and spirit. The rich landlord of Kongad, Narayanankutty Nair, had been beheaded and his household articles, including valuables and cash, had been ransacked and carried away by the conspirators. The specific decision which they arrived at in the months of May June-July, 1970, in the course of three meetings in Kondazhi, Mayannur and Mundur, was to kill rich landlords and commit dacoity in their houses. That was their common object which pervaded every activity of these persons after May-June, 1970, had been established from the conduct, utterances and publications they made from time to time until they carried away the booty which they secreted after committing dacoity and murder. 127. The collection and procurement of weapons which were ultimately recovered from the accused persons or at their instance would throw some light that those weapons were in their custody and possession for the specific purpose of committing dacoity and murder at the residence of Narayanankutty Nair. Mo. 14(a), Mo. 14(b) and Mo. 14(c), crow-bars, were recovered at the instance of the 1st accused of these weapons. Mo.l4(c) was made and Mo.14(a) and Mo.14(b) were sharpened at the smithy or pw. 55 at the instance of pw. 54 who was a cultivator. The 23rd accused pretended that be wanted them for his agricultural operations. So the 23rd accused got a loan of Mo. 14 series from pw. 4. There was evidence that the 23rd accused bad been deputed for collection and procurement of weapons as part of the conspiracy. pws. 1, 3, 9 and 16 had identified those weapons when they were handled by the assailants during the incident Mo. 15 chopper, Mo. 19 (a) dagger and Mos 61 and 62. dagger and its broken piece, were recovered at the instance of the 1st accused. Mo. 15 was identified by pws. 1, 9 and 16 and Mo. 19 (a) by pws. 1 and 9. Mo 16 gun was recovered at the instance of the 2nd accused pw. 70 stated that the 13th accused handed over the gun to the 2nd accused after the incident. Accused Nos. 9 and 13 got the gun from pw. 38 and pw. 38 from pw. 37. pw. 36 made it for the use of pw. 37. Along with Mo. Mo 16 gun was recovered at the instance of the 2nd accused pw. 70 stated that the 13th accused handed over the gun to the 2nd accused after the incident. Accused Nos. 9 and 13 got the gun from pw. 38 and pw. 38 from pw. 37. pw. 36 made it for the use of pw. 37. Along with Mo. 16, two daggers, Mo. 19 (b) and Mo.19 (c) had also been recovered. pws. 1, 3, 9 and 16 identified Mo. 16. Mo. 19 (b) was identified by pw. 3 and Mo 19 series by pws. 1 and 9. Mo. 18 chopper was recovered at the instance of the 15th accused. pws. 1 and 3 identified it. Mo. 19 (d) and Mo. 73 daggers were recovered at the instance of the 11th accused. There was evidence that accused Nos.11 and 12 had daggers in their hands during the incident. Mo. 19 (e) knife was recovered at the instance of the 17th accused. There was evidence that he wielded a knife during the incident. At the instance of the 23rd accused, Mo. 19 (f) dagger was recovered. Mo. 19 (g) dagger was with the 25th accused. He handed it over to pw. 104. So it was recovered from him when the 25th accused pointed out pw. 104 as well as the place at which it was concealed. Mo. 19(h) was another dagger which was seized from the person of the 20th accused when be was arrested. That he was in possession of a dagger during the incident could not he disputed. mos. 19(h) and 19(d) were identified by pws, 1 and 9. Mo. 71 cartridges were seized at the residence of the 2nd accused. The 10th accused pointed out Mo. 72 sword-stick at the barber shop of pw. 77 when it was seized by the police. Mo. 86 chopper was recovered at the instance of the 24th accused. pws. 2 and 3 stated that the 24tb accused held a chopper like Mo. 86 during the incident. 128. There was evidence that the assailants brought to the place of occurrence cotton cords, rope, a tin of petrol and bombs to be used during the dacoity. Mo. 2 cotton coir, Mo. 36 cotton cord, Mo. 40 series cotton cord, Mo. 38 series wall-posters and Mo 39 series sheets of paper with manuscript writings were recovered at the spot while Ext. Mo. 2 cotton coir, Mo. 36 cotton cord, Mo. 40 series cotton cord, Mo. 38 series wall-posters and Mo 39 series sheets of paper with manuscript writings were recovered at the spot while Ext. P3 scene mahazar was prepared at 11.00 a.m. on the next day. Mo. 66 tin was recovered at the instance of the 8th accused on his pointing out a water channel into which he threw it after the incident. mos. 81, 82, 87 series and 89 were the remnants of bombs and explosive substances recovered at the instance of the 18th accused pws. 9 to 12 gave evidence that accused Nos. 2 and 18 were in possession of bombs during the incident. These recoveries established that accused Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 15, 17, 18, 20, 23 and 24 had been directly involved in the collection and procurement of deadly weapons and that the only inference possible from those circumstances was that they collected weapons and raided the house of Narayanankutty Nair in pursuance of a criminal conspiracy by which they decided to commit his murder as well as to commit dacoity at his house. That they had committed dacoity and carried away several articles had also been proved beyond doubt. That accused Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18, 20, 23, and 24 were the participants of the murder and dacoity had been established beyond dispute. That they were imbued with the Naxalite ideology alleged to have been preached by Mao Tse Tung of China and that the practical application of that ideology was murder and loot had also been brought out in evidence. They did not make a secret of the fact that they were the members of the Marxist-Leninist group in the Communist Party of India wedded to violence and armed revolt. There was their S.342 statement as an additional circumstance to hold that they were the members of the Marxist-Leninist group which preached violence and armed revolt. 129. Within a few hours after the first information was lodged, the place of occurrence had been visited by the Inspector when he seized M.O. 38 series (6 in number) wall-posters written, in red ink and Mo. 39 series quarter sheets of paper with manuscript writing, under Ext P3 sence mahazar along with other articles. The contents of Mo. 38 and Mo. 39 spoke for themselves. Mo. 39 series quarter sheets of paper with manuscript writing, under Ext P3 sence mahazar along with other articles. The contents of Mo. 38 and Mo. 39 spoke for themselves. Mo. 38 series and Mo. 39 are similarly worded. Mo. 39 reads: (1) Exterminate dirty chieftains and cruel landlords. (2) Organise Guerilla Squads to expand struggles. (3) Punish oppressors deterrently. (4) Establish red political supremacy in villages. (5) Do away with Election system. Use your hands for taking arms and not to vote. (6) Be organised against the old and new Revisionists who fight Red Flag with Red Flags in their hands. (7) Study, propagate and practise Mao's thoughts. (8) Take arms to get rid of yourselves from hunger, poverty and unemployment; Fight your enemy. (9) Only Mao's thoughts, which is the Marxism-Leninism of the present era, can lead Indian Revolution to success. (10) Expose the anti-Revolutionaries who are in the assumed garbs of the Revolutionaries: (11) Expose the opportunists and Revisionists like Ambadi, Kosla, KPR. Company. Guard against petty Bourshua left Sectarian Kunnikkal group. (12) Long live Indian Communist (Marxist Leninist) Party. 130. These writings required no explanation as to what the conspirators said and what they committed at the spot in accordance with their ideologies which contained in mos. 38 and 39. Their conduct at the spot was further revealed from another circumstance which came into evidence through the recovery made at the instance of the 1st accused pointing out a place just at the entrance to the compound of Narayanankutty Nair. That was said to be the place where the conspirators assembled in a body before they began the operation. mos. 41 and 49 to 57 were recovered from that place at the instance of the 1st accused under Ext P30 mahazar on 6-8-1970. That was a circumstance to show that the gang halted there with different materials in their hands to attack the residence of Narayanankutty Nair. They could reach there armed themselves with deadly weapons only as a result of an antecedent hatched up plan for an attack at the residence of Narayanankutty Nair. 131. It is relevant at this stage to indicate other source of recovery such as books, pamphlets and literature which the individual accused person secreted and they were unearthed during the investigation at the instance of those accused persons. We may begin with such recoveries made from the 20th accused. 131. It is relevant at this stage to indicate other source of recovery such as books, pamphlets and literature which the individual accused person secreted and they were unearthed during the investigation at the instance of those accused persons. We may begin with such recoveries made from the 20th accused. He pointed out pw. 41 as the person to whom he entrusted such books and literature after his arrest. The 20th accused lived with pws 41 for some time during the period of the conspiracy. Ext. P11 and Ext P11 (b) the books on 'Mao Tse Tung', Ext. P11 (a). Declaration of Kerala State Committee of Marxist-Leninist group, Ext. P11 (c) "Advance on the lines of October Revolution", Ext. P11 (d), "Spring Thunder in the Indian Horizon", Ext. P11 (c) Turning point in the history of Indian Revolution and Ext. P11(f), "It is only through Mao's thoughts that the Indian Revolution can be led to Success", Ext P12 and Ext. P13 (two letters) and Ext P14, a circular in manuscript for distribution among party workers. Along with these articles, Mo 26 Transistor Radio and Mo. 27 series batteries (which where the subject matter of dacoity; had also been recovered under Ext. P10 mahazar to which pw. 41 was an attestor. 132. The 18th accused pointed out the building which was occupied by the 26th accused in Mayannur, where the 20th accused was alleged to have secreted Ext. P 52 series, 40 copies of the printed books entitled "Political Report, Lin Piavo", Ext. P 53, 12 copies of books entitled "Chairman Mao Tse Tung's Peoples Democracy and Proletarian Dictatorship", Ext. P 54 series pamphlets 10 copies "Armed Revolution is the Universal Law of the Working Class Struggles", Ext; P55. Ext. P-55 (a), and P 55 (b), Exts P56, Exts. P56 (a), P57, P 58, P 59, P 60, P 60 (a), P 60 (b). P6l, P61 (a), P 62 and Ext. P 63. They were recovered under Ext. P 51 mahazar. It was attested by pw. 86. The 26th accused was an employee under pw. 86 and it was proved that the 26th accused was in actual possession of the building out of which these books and pamphlets were recovered at the instance of the 18th accused. 133. After the incident, the 20th accused lived along with pw. 89 for some time. The 20th accused placed Ext. The 26th accused was an employee under pw. 86 and it was proved that the 26th accused was in actual possession of the building out of which these books and pamphlets were recovered at the instance of the 18th accused. 133. After the incident, the 20th accused lived along with pw. 89 for some time. The 20th accused placed Ext. P 66, a diary bound in plastic cover, with Exts. P 66 (a), P 66 (b), P 66 (c) and P 66 (d) entries in ink, Ext. P 67 bound book containing handwritten constitution of the Marxist Leninist party and Ext. P 68 Party, Guerilla, Peoples army and Theory'. The 20th accused pointed out the place where they were kept in the room of the house, where he lived and on that information, they were recovered under Ext. P 65 mahazar to which pws. 89 and 90 were attestors. 134. During the progress of the conspiracy, the 20th accused handed over Ext. P72 to Ext. P80 to pw. 110 for safe custody and during the investigation the 20th accused pointed out pw. 110 as a result of which pw. 95, the father of 20th accused caused the production of these documents before the police at the residence of pw. 110 when they were seized under Ext. P71 mahazar to which pws. 95 and 96 were attestors. Ext. P72 referred to the revolts in Thirunelli, Thrissileri, Tellicherry and Pulpally. Ext. P73 referred to the formation of the State Committee and direction to organise armed revolt and guerilla activities. Ext. P73 related to a meeting held on 2-6-1970 and certain decisions taken then Ext P74 gave details of the programme of the Marxist-Leninist party and its constitution. Ext. P75 manuscript writings on three sheets of paper "Take weapons in your own hands". Ext. P76 was a manuscript writing on a foolscap paper with the bead line "The Palghat Pradesika Organisation was formed". It showed that the said organisation was formed on 22-7-1970 for carrying on the propaganda for the party. Ext. P77 referred to three meetings held on the 13th, 14th and 19th July, 1970. The exhortation in Ext. P77 showed that the party wanted to exterminate feudal chiefs and landlords by organising guerilla squads and armed insurrection. Ext. P78 was another report of the party. Ext. Ext. P77 referred to three meetings held on the 13th, 14th and 19th July, 1970. The exhortation in Ext. P77 showed that the party wanted to exterminate feudal chiefs and landlords by organising guerilla squads and armed insurrection. Ext. P78 was another report of the party. Ext. P79 was an exhortation to the people of Kerala to rally round Marxist-Leninist party led by Comrade Charu Majumdar and organise revolt in the model of Naxalbari and Sree-kakulam. Ext. P80 was printed notice exhorting people to get ready with weapons in their hands. 135. Exts. P96 to P101 were recovered under Ext. P95 mahazar. Ext. P96 and Ext. P97 were manuscript writings alleged to have been presented by the 26th accused to pw. 105 printer at Wadakkancherry for printing at his press. Ext. P96 is the report of the 9th Congress of the Chinese Communist Party. Ext. P97 was a note by the publisher. Ext. P98 is a printed book, "Political report Lin Piavo". Ext. P98 (a) is the publisher's note. Ext. P101 was the bill book Ext. P99 was the counterfoil bill in Ext. P101. Ext. P100 was the letter by which the 26th accused entrusted the manuscript for printing. Ext. P101 (a) is the carbon copy of Ext P101 The connection of the 26th accused with the printing of these books and pamphlets was brought out through the evidence of pw. 105 136. Ext. P108 is a manuscript entitled "The birth is the offspring of death." Ext. P110 is the printed proof of Ext. P108 with corrections. The 22nd accused presented Ext. P108 and Ext. P110 for printing to pw. 108, a press owner at Palghat. According to pw. 108, some 2000 copies of Ext. P110 were printed at his press at the instance of the 22nd accused (absconding). Similarly Ext. P82 manuscript was given by the 22nd accused to pw. 97, another press proprietor, Palghat to be published in the name of Jayaprakash, Palghat Victoria College, Organizer, Marxist-Leninist Party. There was reference in it to organise Naxalbari revolt and spread it all over India. Mo. 85 series and Mo. 82 series were seized under Ext. P81 mahazar from that press. 137. The 14th accused gave Ext. P113 (a) manuscript for printing Ext. P114 book entitled "Mao Tse Tung" was printed at the press of pw. 109. Ext. There was reference in it to organise Naxalbari revolt and spread it all over India. Mo. 85 series and Mo. 82 series were seized under Ext. P81 mahazar from that press. 137. The 14th accused gave Ext. P113 (a) manuscript for printing Ext. P114 book entitled "Mao Tse Tung" was printed at the press of pw. 109. Ext. P113 (b) was the acknowledgment under which the bundle of books was handed over to the 14th accused. Ext. P113 (a) manuscript was on the last cover of Ext. PI13. They were seized under Ext. P112 mahazar. Ext. P114 contained the ideology of the Marxist-Leninist Party. 138. Before dealing with the admissibility and evidentiary value of these documents, it is also necessary to consider the nature and effect of the judicial confessions of the accused persons implicating themselves to the conspiracy as well as their co-accused to the same conspiracy. Those confessions had already been referred to. Exts. P131, 135, 137, 139, 141, 143 and 153 were the relevant confessions respectively of the accused Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 20 before pw. 119, Additional I Class Magistrate. We have held that these confessions were truly and voluntarily made, though they were retracted as an after-thought in defence at their convenience. The first accused implicated himself to the conspiracy in his confession and the accused Nos. 2, 8 to 10 and 20 had also implicated the Ist accused to the conspiracy in their respective confessions. The accused Nos. 2, 8 and 20 implicated the 2nd accused in their confessions while the 2nd accused himself implicated to the conspiracy in his own confession. The accused Nos. 1, 9, 10 and 20 implicated the 8th accused to the conspiracy while the 8th accused himself implicated to it in his own confession. The 9th accused also implicated himself to the conspiracy while the accused No.1, 8, 9, 10 and 20 implicated him. Similarly the 10th accused was implicated himself in his own confession while the accused Nos.1, 2, 9 and 20 implicated him. The 12th accused bad also been implicated in the respective concessions of the co-accused Nos. 10 and 20. The 12th accused was himself implicated in his own confession. The 20th accused had also been implicated to the conspiracy by the accused Nos. The 12th accused bad also been implicated in the respective concessions of the co-accused Nos. 10 and 20. The 12th accused was himself implicated in his own confession. The 20th accused had also been implicated to the conspiracy by the accused Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9 and 10 in their confessions while the 20th accused implicated himself in his own confession. 139. It is now necessary to consider as to whether we could place reliance on any of the documents recovered in the case and also as to the confessions of the co-accused against others who were jointly tried with them under S.10 of the Evidence Act. There is no difficulty in relying upon the confession of a co-accused for crimes other than criminal conspiracy if the provisions or S.30 are strictly complied with bearing in mind that the co-accused's confession is not strictly evidence under S.3 of the Evidence Act. However, the co-accused's confession is weighed along with other string evidence fortifying the prosecution case. Any way, the co-accused's confession stands on a different footing under S.10 of the Evidence Act It is now necessary to consider the scope and effect of S.10 of the Evidence Act. 140. S.10 of the Evidence Act reads: "Where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit an offence or an actionable wrong, anything said, done or written by any one of such persons in reference to their common intention, after the time when such intention was first entertained by any one of them, is a relevant fact as against each of the persons believed to be so conspiring, as well for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy as for the purpose of showing that any such person was a party to it " This section lays down that in prosecution for conspiracy when concert and connection between the persons charged have been sufficiently established, the statements, acts or declarations of each conspirator in reference to their common intention are admissible as evidence against others. This rule is based upon the principle that identity of interest exists between parties to the conspiracy. There is a principle of agency working in their relationship. This rule is based upon the principle that identity of interest exists between parties to the conspiracy. There is a principle of agency working in their relationship. So once a concerted action is proved the agency contemplated in S.10 comes into operation making one party an agent of the other, so much so the acts done by one in pursuance of the common plan or design, are admissible against the fellow conspirators. 141. The scope and applicability of S.10 of the Evidence Act as evidence after a person is found to be a party to the conspiracy is explained in Bhagwan Swarup v. State of Maharashtra ( AIR 1965 SC 682 ). It reads: "This section......will come into play only when the Court is satisfied that there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit an offence or an actionable wrong, that is to say, there should be a prima facie evidence that a person was a party to the conspiracy before h is acts can be used against his cot-conspirators. Once such a reasonable ground exists, anything said, done or written by one of the conspirators in reference to the common intention, after the said intention was entertained, is relevant against the others, not only for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy but also for proving that the other person was a party to it. The evidentiary value of the said acts is limited by two circumstances, namely, that the acts shall be in reference to their common intention and in respect of a period after such intention was entertained by any one of them " 142. The acts and declarations of the conspirators and their admissibility are stated in In re M. Rangarajulu Naidu ( AIR 1958 Mad. 368 ) to be as follows: "The principle underlying S.10 is that a conspirator is an agent of his associates ia carrying out the object of the conspiracy. His acts and declarations are therefore admissible against the other conspirators on the same principle as the acts and declarations of an agent are receivable against his principal Prima facie proof of conspiracy and of the accused's connection with it must be given before giving evidence of the act, declaration or writing of a conspirator. His acts and declarations are therefore admissible against the other conspirators on the same principle as the acts and declarations of an agent are receivable against his principal Prima facie proof of conspiracy and of the accused's connection with it must be given before giving evidence of the act, declaration or writing of a conspirator. It is not necessary that it should be established by direct evidence that the accused and the person whose acts, statements or writings are sought to be given in evidence against the prisoner entered into a formal consultation or agreement to commit offence as in a case of conspiracy direct evidence is seldom available. It may be proved by the surrounding circumstances or by the antecedent or subsequent conduct of the accused." 143. The common intention referred to in S.10 must be intention existing at the time when the thing was said done or written. Things said, done or written by one of them after the common intention or conspiracy was no longer operating and had ceased to exist is not admissible against co-conspirators. The leading English case as to principle of admissibility of what was done, written or spoken to carry out the common intention as admissible and inadmissible in conspiracy was R. v Blake [1844 (6) Q.B. 126] When explaining the law as laid down in that case, Lord Wright said in Mirza Akbar v King Emperor ( AIR 1940 PC 176 ) as follows: "The words of S.10 are not capable of being widely construed so as to include statement made by one conspirator in the absence of the other with reference to past acts done in the actual course of carrying out the conspiracy, after it has been completed. The words 'common intention' signify a common intention existing at the time when the thing was said, done or written by one of them. Things said, done or written while the conspiracy was on foot are relevant as evidence of the common intention, once reasonable ground has been shown to believe in its existence. But it would be a very different matter to hold that any narrative or statement or confession made to a third party after the common intention or conspiracy was no longer operating and had ceased to exist is admissible against the other party. But it would be a very different matter to hold that any narrative or statement or confession made to a third party after the common intention or conspiracy was no longer operating and had ceased to exist is admissible against the other party. There is then no common intention of the conspirators to which the statement can have reference." Following the Privy Council pronouncement in the above case, the Patna High Court held in Shamsher Bahadur Saxena v. The State of Bihar ( AIR 1956 Pat. 404 ): - "Section 10 deals with things said or done by conspirator in reference to common design'. Anything said, done or written by any of the conspirators in the course of carrying out the conspiracy or the common intention or design in pursuance of it would be admissible against the other; but if anything is said, done or written by any fellow conspirator after the conspiracy was no longer operating and bad ended or ceased to exist, it will be inadmissible against the other, because there is then no common intention or design of the conspirators to which the things said, done or written by a fellow conspirator can have any reference, and it had nothing to do with carrying the conspiracy into effect." Ngangam Mahendra Singh v. Manipur State ( AIR 1952 Manipur 4 ), while explaining the scope and application of S.10, gave further elucidation to the principle in respect of documents found in the possession and custody of a conspirator in the following manner: "In case of conspiracy it is always difficult to secure outside and independent evidence. It is to be proved by circumstances. Conspiracy can be proved by conduct of the accused. When a letter is found with a conspirator accused and its writer and addressee are known, it is admissible against the conspirators. Conspiracy can also be inferred from beliefs, associations, activities of the accused and even from statements they made in court Statements, acts or declarations of each conspirator in reference to their common intention are admissible as evidence against others Evidence of conspiracy makes statements of a conspirator evidence against co-conspirators. The possession of a document creates an inference that the possessor was aware of its contents. To establish conspiracy the agreement may be inferred from circumstances raising a presumption of common concerted plan to carry out the unlawful design." 144. The possession of a document creates an inference that the possessor was aware of its contents. To establish conspiracy the agreement may be inferred from circumstances raising a presumption of common concerted plan to carry out the unlawful design." 144. Though a confession of an accused person can be admitted in evidence against him under certain circumstances, the confession of a co-accused cannot be admitted in evidence against his co-conspirators under S.10 of the Evidence Act since the confessional statements refer to past events and can have no reference to any common intention animating the co-conspirators In State v. Shankar Shakharam Jadhav (AIR 1957 Bombay 226) it is held: "Anything said, done or written by one of co-conspirators must be in reference to the common intention and it is difficult to say, once the object of criminal conspiracy is carried out. that any common intention existed with reference to the criminal conspiracy Where the confessional statements made by accused are made after the object of criminal conspiracy is carried out, the confessional statements refer to past events and can have no reference to any common intention animating the co-conspirators". This ruling again followed the Privy Council ruling already cited. On the authority of the Privy Council ruling, the Supreme Court again stated the law regarding the scope of admission of evidence under S.10 in confession of co-accused, in Sardul Singh Caveeshar v. The State of Bombay ( AIR 1957 SC 747 ). At p. 764 it it pointed out: "But it is necessary to appreciate clearly that what is sought to be admitted in such a case is something said, or done, or written by any one of the co-conspirators behind the backs of the others as being in law attributable to the others and what is sought to be proved by such evidence taken by itself is the existence of the conspiracy as between the alleged conspirators and the fact that a particular person was a party to the conspiracy. It is such evidence that is inadmissible otherwise than under S.10 of the Evidence Act. Quite clearly, in the normal class of cases, such evidence is admissible as against himself and not against others, excepting where there is relationship of agency or representative character or joint interest (See S.18 of the Evidence Act). It is such evidence that is inadmissible otherwise than under S.10 of the Evidence Act. Quite clearly, in the normal class of cases, such evidence is admissible as against himself and not against others, excepting where there is relationship of agency or representative character or joint interest (See S.18 of the Evidence Act). In civil cases it is well settled at a principal is bound by the acts of his agent if the latter has an express or implied authority from the former and the acts are within the scope of his authority. Therefore acts of an agent are admissible in evidence as against the principal. An analogous principle is recognised in criminal matters in so far as it can be brought in under S.10 of the Evidence Act. It is recognised on well established authority that the principle underlying the reception of evidence under S.10 of the Evidence Act of the statements, acts and writings of one co-conspirator as against the other is on the theory of agency. The admission of such evidence, in proof of conspiracy or of the fact that he was a co-conspirator, is in its essence, admission not as against himself but as against the others who are on trial. To the extent that such an issue, i. e., of there being a conspiracy and of his being a co-conspirator is relevant at the trial, it must be proved only by evidence under S.10, Evidence Act, which is an exceptional section limited in its application to conspiracies to commit an offence or to commit an actionable wrong. .........the evidence of conduct admissible under S.8. Evidence Act. is of conduct of a person who is a party to the action. It is thus reasonably clear that evidence of acts, statements or writings of a co-conspirator either under trial or not on trial but outside the period of conspiracy, would not be admissible in proof of the specific issue of the existence of the conspiracy " More or less the same view was held in Emperor v. G.V. Paishampayan (AIR 1932 Bombay 56). It reads: "Narratives coming from the conspirators as to their past acts cannot be said to have a reference to their common intention. The word 'intention' implies that the act intended is in the future and the section makes relevant statements made by a conspirator with reference to the future. It reads: "Narratives coming from the conspirators as to their past acts cannot be said to have a reference to their common intention. The word 'intention' implies that the act intended is in the future and the section makes relevant statements made by a conspirator with reference to the future. The words 'in reference to their common intention' mean in reference to what at the time of statement was intended in the future. The principle on which S.10 is based is that of agency. It can scarcely be said, however that one conspirator has any implied authority to make a confession after his arrest or even to give a description of past events to his co-conspirator." 145. In in re Santhaveerappa Aradhya [1967 (II) MLJ. (Crl.) 72] an exhaustive review of the Privy Council case and Sardul Singh's case of the Supreme Court referred to above has been made. The reasons in support of the decision are at pp 80 and 81 thereof. At page 81 it is stated: "It is pointed out that the point of time of occurrence of either the deed or act or word sought to be admitted under S.10 may be 'either before a person enters the conspiracy or after he leaves it'. It is therefore argued that a statement made by a conspirator even after he had left the conspiracy is available as evidence against his quondam co-conspirators It appears to me that that is not the correct view to take. The conspirator referred to as either entering a conspiracy or leaving it is not the conspirator whose act or deed is sought to be admitted in evidence but a conspirator against whom such evidence is sought to be given. Hence the act or deed or statement of a conspirator sought to be admitted in evidence against his co-conspirator must be something said, done or written by a conspirator when be continues to be a conspirator and still retains the character of a conspirator and must have relation to the common intention of the conspiracy which is the binding force not only between the conspirators inter se but also between them and the conspiracy." 146. The rulings cited above established that S.10 of the Evidence Act comes into play only after a prima facie case is proved against some persons that they are members of a criminal conspiracy. The rulings cited above established that S.10 of the Evidence Act comes into play only after a prima facie case is proved against some persons that they are members of a criminal conspiracy. Evidence not admissible under S.10 as proof of the two issues to which it relates, viz., of the existence of the conspiracy, and of the fact of any particular person being a party to that conspiracy, is not admissible at all. What is attempted to be admitted in such cases is, something said, or done, or written by any one of the conspirators behind the backs of the others as being in law attributable to the others. In such cases what is sought to be proved by such evidence taken by itself is the existence of the conspiracy as between the alleged conspirators and the fact that a particular person was a party to the conspiracy. It is such evidence that is inadmissible otherwise than under S.10. In ordinary circumstances such evidence is admissible as against the maker and not against others. However, it may be admissible if there was relationship or agency or representative character or joint interest. The position of a principal and agent is different in civil cases. The analogous position is brought to bear upon S.10. It is on the basis of that theory that the statements, acts and writings of a co-conspirator as against the others are made admissible under S.10. But the exception to the rule in the criminal cases on the strength of S.10 is that the alleged agency confines itself to the acts of the co-conspirator within the period during which it can be predicated that the acts were "in reference to the common intention", viz., things said, done or written while the conspiracy was in progress and while it was being carried out. So if the allegation was that the period of conspiracy began with an agreement and ended with the execution of the common object in pursuance of the conspiracy, the evidence of the acts of the conspirators outside the said period is not receivable in evidence. This is not a hard and fast rule in respect of offences like criminal breach of trust which takes into consideration various other circumstances during and after the termination of the period of the conspiracy. This is not a hard and fast rule in respect of offences like criminal breach of trust which takes into consideration various other circumstances during and after the termination of the period of the conspiracy. Any way, the confession of the co-accused cannot be pressed into service as against other accused persons. It can be used against the maker to the extent of its application under law or practice, The reception of other documents, such as letters, books, pamphlets, wall-posters, and large number of other literature, both hand-written and printed, would depend upon the nature and contents of those documents with reference to the period they might relate, subject, however, to the proof that they were validly received in evidence. 147. It is imperative and necessary that the requirement of S.10 should always be borne in mind. Otherwise there is the danger of falling into error that under S.10 a person has to be proved to be a conspirator before any act, saying or writing of his can be used against the other accused persons. S.10 does not make mention of any of that sort. All that it requires is that there should be ''reasonable ground to believe" in the existence of a conspiracy. The concluding words of the section (viz., as well for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy) also make this clear. When the above condition is fulfilled, viz, when once reasonable grounds are made out for belief that two or more persons have conspired to commit an offence, anything done or said by each conspirator with reference to the common design is admissible against each of the others, whether the words were spoken, or written or the thing was done in their presence or absence, or before or after they entered the conspiracy, both for proving the existence of conspiracy as also for proving that any such person was a party to it. Stated differently, before the acts, sayings or writings of any such person may be used against any other such person or persons, there must be some reasonable ground to believe that there was a conspiracy. Stated differently, before the acts, sayings or writings of any such person may be used against any other such person or persons, there must be some reasonable ground to believe that there was a conspiracy. The principle of this section is merely to ensure that one person shall not be made responsible for the acts and deeds of another until some bond in the nature of agency has been established between them, and the acts, words or writings of another, which is proposed to be attributed vicariously to the person charged, must be in furtherance of the common design and after such design was entertained. 148. In the light of the conclusions arrived at on the analysis of the rulings under S. 10, it is necessary to examine the contents of certain documents recovered in the course of the investigation No objection could be raised as to the contents of mos. 38 series and 39 series, which were recovered at the spot soon after the incident, when Ext P3 seen mahazar was prepared. The contents of mos. 38 series and 39 series had already been referred to. They speak for themselves that the accused persons who participated in the incidents in the house of Narayanankutty Nair subscribed to the ideology of violence through murder and dacoity. They were proof positive that the gang of those persons acted in pursuance to the ideology which they preached and which were made manifest in Exts. P38 series and 39 series. 149. Reference may then be made to some of the documents which were found relevant to the issue. Ext. P11 series came into existence about a month prior to the first meeting of the conspirators held in May-June 1970. It could not be said that they came into existence after the conspiracy was ceased or that they had nothing to do with the common intention. There was evidence that even before the meeting of May-June 1970, study classes bad been conducted by the accused persons as members of the Marxist-Leninist Party Ext. It could not be said that they came into existence after the conspiracy was ceased or that they had nothing to do with the common intention. There was evidence that even before the meeting of May-June 1970, study classes bad been conducted by the accused persons as members of the Marxist-Leninist Party Ext. P11(a) dated 22-3-1970, at page 4, reads : "In the attack on the Tellicherry and Pulpally Police Stations, on the 22nd and 24th November, 1968, the revolutionary act of attacking the centre of the armed forces of the enemy class an act which his to be carried out in the final phase of the process of destroying the Government was carried out at the very outset. Instead of adopting the path of guerrilla warfare, the struggle was organised in the military way, instead of putting up a continuous war against the reactionary governing class, some of us have, by declaring that the revolution has failed and by betraying a tendency to surrender before the enemy, given opportunity to the enemy class, the reactionaries and the revisionists, to prevent a tarred picture of the entire revolutionary programme through their newspapers. Instead of directing the spearhead f the revolution against the class enemies in the rural areas at the outset, it was again directed to the Kuttiadi Police Station." Page 5 of Ext. P11(a) reads: "The revolutionaries of Kerala have acted vigorously realising the present day importance of the suggestion of Charu Majumdar, the leader of the Indian Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist), that 'Guerilla Squads should be organised and the struggle should be started immediately' and fully understanding the most correct thesis set forth in the distinguished work Long Live the Victory of the people's War" of Vice Chairman Lin Piao. This is what Comrade Lin Piao has stated: 'The only way to prepare for the struggle and to utilise the full force against the enemy is guerilla warfare'. The peas not revolutionaries of Kerala had to undergo a lot of sufferings to reach this great truth" In Ext. P11 (d) no date is furnished. But its contents are in line with the contents of the other documents seized It is an instance to show that the ideology is the same, whether it is in Ext. P11 (d) or Ext P11(a). Ext. P11 (d) no date is furnished. But its contents are in line with the contents of the other documents seized It is an instance to show that the ideology is the same, whether it is in Ext. P11 (d) or Ext P11(a). Ext. P11(d) reads: "But, however closely the imperialists, the Indian reactionaries and the neo-revisionists co-operate in their subversions and suppressions the torch of armed struggle, kindled by the revolutionaries of the Indian Communist Party and by the revolutionary peasants of Darjeeling will never be put out. 'An insignificant spark can set off a terrific wild fire'. That spark of Darjeeling will set off a terrific wild fire. Its flames will spread all over the wide regions of India. It is an indisputable fact that a big storm of the revolutionary armed struggle will, in course of time, stick all over India, from one end to the other. Even though the path of the revolutionary struggle be a long and difficult one, the Indian revolution guided by the great Marxism-Leninism and the thoughts of Mao Tse Tung, will certainly attain the ultimate success." Ext. P11(e) at page 7 reads: "196" is also the year in which the 'Parliamentary path', which has been followed by Namboodiripad and Jyoti Basu and by other Indian revisionists besides, was further exposed and became burnt out and reduced to ashes." Ext P11 (e) at page 8 reads: "These Indian revisionists, having committed themselves to subserve the Indian reactionaries, have given assurance that armed force will never be used to topple the reactionary Goveinment of India." Ext. P11(f) pages 15 and 16 reads: "The people of India have a rich tradition in revolution. The conditions for such revolutionary transition hive ripened. What they want is only a rear revolutionary party which acquires proficiency in Marxism Leninism and the thoughts of Mao Tse Tung, learns from the lessons of the Chinese revolution, establishes bases for the revolution, by daringly awakening the peasants, who constitute the overwhelming majority of the Indian population, organises and expands the revolutionary forces, properly handles, by remaining steadfast in the long struggle, the armed suppressions unleashed by the imperialists and the reactionary forces and they are, for the time being, more powerful than the revolutionary forces and utilises the rural areas to encircle and ultimately capture the towns. These are the flexible strategy and tactics of the people' war formulated by Comrade Mao Tse Tung. That is what has led to Chinese revolution to nation-wide success 'The basic function of the revolution and its highest manifestation are to capture power and to resolve problems through war'. This Marxist Leninist doctrine about revolution is universally a line for China and for all other countries applicable" 150. The contents of these documents proved beyond doubt that the 20th accused believed in the ideology contained in those documents and the ideology referred to in them was the common ideology of every other accused who were members of the Marxist-Leninist Party. That the accused persons who are convicted under S. 120B IPC. were members of the Marxist-Leninist Party admits of no dispute It was already indicated that in the S.342 statements accused Nos.1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 20, 23, and 24 had categorically admitted that they were prominent members of the Marxist-Leninist Party and that they believed in class warfare and violence. The writings in mos. 38 series and 39 series had also established that the participants of the dacoity and murder were the believers in the ideology of violence. Their conduct was consistent from the very beginning of the conspiracy until they accomplished their common object of murder and dacoity. They could have done it successfully only through a conspiracy which they hatched up antecedent to the action. It was also revealed from Ext. P67 note book which was maintained in respect of the Marxist-Leninist Party. It is dated 18-8-1969. It was recovered at the instance of the 20th accused. Though the date 18-8-1969 was seen in Ext. P67 evidence was that the Marxist-Leninist Party had already been formed even prior to the meeting held in May-June 1970 and that propaganda had already been started. The conspirators who assembled at that meeting were members of the Marxist-Leninist Party. The Party's Constitution is seen in Ext. P67. It reads: "Repose faith in the peasantry, organise bases, keep engaged in continuous armed struggle. Making use of the rural areas, ultimately encircle and capture the towns. This is our strategy in the people's war." It was recovered along with Exts. P66 and P68. The recovery had been proved beyond doubt through pws. 89, 90 and 134. P67. It reads: "Repose faith in the peasantry, organise bases, keep engaged in continuous armed struggle. Making use of the rural areas, ultimately encircle and capture the towns. This is our strategy in the people's war." It was recovered along with Exts. P66 and P68. The recovery had been proved beyond doubt through pws. 89, 90 and 134. There was also evidence that the Marxist-Leninist Party had come into existence in Kerala during the period of the conspiracy. Ext. P67 could have been therefore written up during that period to co-ordinate and carry on the functions of the Party. Similarly Exts, P66(a), (b) and (c) and paras 2, 3, and 4 of Ext. P80 may be seen. Exts. P66 (a), (b) and (c) are seen to have been written during the progress of the conspiracy. Every sentence contained in Exts, P66 (a), (b) and (c) indicated that the Party was in the move for an action. Exts. P66 (a), (b) and (c) came into existence during the course of the conspiracy. Those documents could be admitted in evidence to show that the members of the Marxist-Leninist Party had determined to commit murder and dacoity. Ext. P79, page 5, is an exhortation to the public of Kerala. It is dated 20-6-1970, which was during the course or the conspiracy. It reads: "TO THE PUBLIC OF KERALA" Comrades, Friends, In the year 1967-1968 when the ideologies of Marxism-Leninism and Mao Tse Tung's thoughts started spreading from one end to the other in India, a Naxalbari movement got inspired under the leadership of Charu Manjumdar lining behind the red flag of Mao's thoughts, intended to spread the idea that capture of power can be had only through an armed rebellion. Like the party factions in the other States, we in Kerala also, fought hard, slowly but surely, to spread Mao's thoughts and the historical lessons of Naxalbari armed rebellion. Page 6 of Ext. P79 reads: "The formation of this committee and the heralding of the Naxalbari flag inspired all active workers at the different levels. They spent thrilling homages to the Naxalbari martyrs and swore to fight under the Naxalbari revolutionary leadership." Again in para 2 of Ext. P80 an exhortation is made in the following lines. "Prepare to take up arms; Prepare to change your own destiny: The class-struggle between these two classes has now been highly intensified in India. They spent thrilling homages to the Naxalbari martyrs and swore to fight under the Naxalbari revolutionary leadership." Again in para 2 of Ext. P80 an exhortation is made in the following lines. "Prepare to take up arms; Prepare to change your own destiny: The class-struggle between these two classes has now been highly intensified in India. When this method of exploitation is killing crores of people by starvation and unemployment, the only way to end this massacre is to finish off these exploiting murderers The blond spilled in the operation in exterminating these parasites of society is pure". Para 3 thereof reads: "The sparks struck from the armed peasants' revolution in Naxalbari have created history in Andhra. Bengal. Bihar. Orissa. U.P. and Kerala. The flag of armed rebellion was hoisted in Kerala first at Tellicherry and Pulpally, and then at Kuttiyadi The spark that fell on the dark mountains of Wynad, the brave armed revolution led by the courageous martyr Verghese at Thrissilery and Thirunelly, shines like a bright beacon. Belying the fond dreams of reactionaries and revisionists that with the assassination of Com. Varghese, the flame of rebellion in Kerala can be quenched, the fire started in the mountains of Wyanad has today spread to the plains and to the southern portions of the Sahya ranges." Para 4 of Ext. P80 reads: "The flame which struck like a lightning at the coffers of the cruel exploiting feudal barons and profiteers, and raised by the courageous Com. Verghese, has instilled fresh inspiration into thousands of exploited hearts. Thousands of Vergheses rose up from among the exploited class. In the Cherukunnu village, these flames caused the extermination of an explorer of the people" 151. A reading of the contents of Exts. P79 and P80 revealed that extermination of the landlord class and commission of dacoity at their houses were the two cardinal tenets which the members of the Marxist-Leninist Party believed and that which they wanted to put into practice. There was no argument necessary to implicate the accused persons to a criminal conspiracy in the light of these various documents which came into light during the investigation of the case. 152. There was also very strong oral evidence against the accused persons. It may be noted that the confession of the co-accused persons should not be relied upon to implicate the accused persons to a criminal conspiracy. 152. There was also very strong oral evidence against the accused persons. It may be noted that the confession of the co-accused persons should not be relied upon to implicate the accused persons to a criminal conspiracy. The nature and contents of these documents showed that they could have been written only before the incident at the residence of Narayanankutty Nair. Their contents showed that the party moved on the basis of the ideology they preached from time to time with the determination to do away with the rich landlords and plunder their properties These documents could be admitted in evidence under S.10 of the Evidence Act as they came into existence during the currency of the conspiracy affecting the common intention of all the persons who participated in it. Exts. P 79 and P 80 also came in so existence in June-July 1970. There could be no dispute regarding the recovery of these documents. pws 95, 96, 110 and 135 proved their recovery under Ext. P 71 mahazar at the instance of the 20th accused. 153. Accused Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 20 are bound by their confessions which under S.14 of the Evidence Act could be relied upon to implicate them to a conspiracy. However, their confessions would be put in the scale last when the entire evidence is weighed against the accused persons. They however could not get ride of the oral evidence adduced against them. Their confessions strengthened the evidence 154. The oral evidence regarding the criminal conspiracy was that of pws. 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 36, 37, 38, 39, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46 and 47. Of these witnesses, pws. 28, 30 and 31 were participants to the meetings held in the months of May, June and July 1970 at the instance of the accused persons to decide upon their line of action to commit murder and dacoity. At the outset it can be pointed out that the prosecution did not attempt to give direct evidence of a concluded agreement among the accused persons for launching an attack on the residence of Narayanankutty Nair for the purpose of murdering him and for committing dacoity at his residence. It would be impossible to make such an attempt in the circumstances of the case. It would be impossible to make such an attempt in the circumstances of the case. However, from the proved circumstances it would be possible and the prosecution would also be justified in such circumstances to draw an inference that there existed a criminal conspiracy among the accused persons to commit murder and dacoity. 155. Pw. 28 is an advocate who started practice in the Waddakkan-chtrry Bar. While so he was a member of the Congress Party. Later he joined the Communist Party of India (Marxist). Still later his sympathies were with the Marxist-Leninist Party though he did not subscribe to the violent activities of the accused persons. He attended the meetings, one in Mayannur and the other in Kondazhi. The Mayannur meeting was in May-June, 1970. He was invited to that meeting by the 26th accused. He helped the Marxist Party in those days by preparing "record of rights applications'' on the lines of the Land Reforms Act as be himself was President of the peasants organisation. At one time the 26th accused gave him the report of the 9th congress of the Chinese Communist Party for writing a revised version. So when the Mayannur meeting was commenced in May-June 1970 he was also invited to be present. pw. 28 did not subscribe to the ideology of the 13th accused at the meeting. The 13th accused preached violence as a remedy for liquidation of rich and powerful landlords for capturing political power and creating a classless society. At the next meeting on the 12th and 13th July also pw. 28 was present. That meeting was presided over by the 13th accused. pw. 28 felt that the accused persons present at that meeting had taken a decision for armed insurrection. pw. 28 pointed out at the meeting that the isolated revolts and violent action were not in the contemplation of Mao as revealed from his thoughts. The 13th accused was opposed to that view. He wanted armed revolt to be commenced forthwith. During the meetings ad hoc committees had been formed The Marxist-Leninist Party as such had also come into existence. Meetings were held in a building in the possession of the 26th accused. That building is to the west of one Padikka-parambu Mana. pw. 27 was an employee of that Mana. pw. 27 referred to the meetings held in that building. pw. Meetings were held in a building in the possession of the 26th accused. That building is to the west of one Padikka-parambu Mana. pw. 27 was an employee of that Mana. pw. 27 referred to the meetings held in that building. pw. 27 saw the 26th accused and three other accused persons in the building attending the meeting. According to him after the incident of 30-7-1970 none of them was seen in that building. pw. 28 identified the accused Nos. 20, 26, 28 and others as persons present at the meetings held in May, June, July 1970, where they decided to start violent action against rich landlords; pws 30 and 31 implicated accused Nos. 1, 8, 9, 17, 20 and 24 as participants to the last meeting when they decided for violent action. pws 30 and 31 used to attend meetings of the party even prior to May-June 1970. Accused Nos. 13, 22 and 24 used to supply them with books containing the teachings of Mao. Along with the 10th accused they conducted study classes which were attended by pws 30 and 31 when Mao literature used to be read at those meetings. They attended a meeting in Mundur at the instance of the 1st accused. When they went to the house next to the house of the 13tb accused they found that accused 10 to 17 had already assembled there. The 13th accused declared at the meeting that the plan for "action" had already been announced and that those present at the meeting should procure weapons. Number was also allotted to every one present there for the purpose of identification. Thereafter it was not by names but it was by number that each one was known. Any way the details of the action were agreed to be announced by the 24th accused later. But pws. 30 and 31 did not comply with the request of the 24th accused when he came to pw. 30 asking him to accompany him. It was 2 days later that the Kongad incident took place. There was reconnoitring and inspection of the place by the 13th accused on his part and the 23rd accused separately some days prior to the incident pw. 32 directed the 23rd accused to one Appu, who lived near the house of Narayanankutty Nair as the 23rd accused was found in search of a milking cow for purchase. There was reconnoitring and inspection of the place by the 13th accused on his part and the 23rd accused separately some days prior to the incident pw. 32 directed the 23rd accused to one Appu, who lived near the house of Narayanankutty Nair as the 23rd accused was found in search of a milking cow for purchase. The evidence of pws. 30 and 31 established conclusively that the accused persons whom they identified as well as those who attended the meetings were ready for some violent action and the incident in Kongad was the result of that action. Their evidence also established that they bad decided upon the action in Kongad some days prior to the incident There was no ground to reject or discard the evidence of pws. 28, 30 and 31. There was absolutely no ground or circumstances to treat them as accomplices The lower court relied upon their evidence as straightforward and true witnesses giving reasons in support of the acceptability of their evidence. Though pw. 28 did not prove the agreement for conspiracy, the circumstances and the trend of talk that took place at the 3 meetings attended by pw 28 and the last meeting attended by Pws 30 and 31 established that the accused persons were likely to have come into some agreement at the various meetings that their object was to attack the house of Narayanankutty Nair and murder him as well as to commit dacoity in that house. 156. Pw. 29 was a tailor trainee who lived in a room in the building which was in the possession of the 26th accused. pws. 28 and 29 stated that meetings used to be held in that building by the accused persons. pw. 26 bad seen accused Nos. 10, 20, 26, 28 and others attending meetings in that building, pw. 86, the employer of the 26th accused stated that pw. 29 was also an occupant of the building which was in the occupation of the 26th accused As an occupant of the building his evidence that the accused Nos. 10, 20, 26 and 28 used to attend meetings in the building would corroborate other evidence in the case that meetings were held there in pursuance of a concerted action to batch up plan to attack the house of Narayanankutty Nair. 157. The evidence of pws. 10, 20, 26 and 28 used to attend meetings in the building would corroborate other evidence in the case that meetings were held there in pursuance of a concerted action to batch up plan to attack the house of Narayanankutty Nair. 157. The evidence of pws. 20 and 21 was already considered in connection with the relationship of the accused Nos. 13, 17, and 20. pw. 26, though declared hostile had given evidence that the accused Nos. 20 and 28 used to live with her and that meetings used to be held in her house. There was inexplainable conduct on the part of pw. 39 regarding the sum of Rs. 50 which he sent by T.M O. to the 26th accused during the course of the conspiracy. The prosecution case was that the amount was sent to meet the cost of the armed insurrection directed against the landlords. It was in that connection pws. 42, 43, 44 and 45 were examined. That the amount was sent to purchase books and that the 26th accused paid the amount to pw. 28 to comply with the request of pw. 39 was not even suggested to pw. 28 while he was examined in court the suggestion of the 26th accused in that regard could only be discarded as unworthy of credit. pw. 39 was likely to have seat the amount for the unlawful activities in which the 26th accused and his fellow conspirators were indulged during the above conspiracy. pw. 46 only stated that accused Nos. 1, 10 and 22 belonged to the Naxalite group. pw. 47 stated that he attended study classes conducted by the accused Nos. 10 and 22 at Poochira. The evidence of pws. 36, 37 and 38 revealed that the accused Nos. 9 and 13 took away Mo. 16 gun from pw. 38 few days before the incident. pws. 54 and 55 gave evidence that the crow-bars were shortened and manufactured during the period of the conspiracy. Most of the weapons which had been in use during the incident had been recovered from the accused persons. They could not give any explanation either for the recovery of weapons or the stolen and damaged articles at the residence of Narayanankutty Nair. 158. The evidence against the first accused was that of pws. 30 and 31. According to them the 1st accused was present at the Mundur meeting. They could not give any explanation either for the recovery of weapons or the stolen and damaged articles at the residence of Narayanankutty Nair. 158. The evidence against the first accused was that of pws. 30 and 31. According to them the 1st accused was present at the Mundur meeting. He bad also attended some earlier meetings. The Ist accused's confession had to be taken into account to establish that he was a party to the conspiracy. The Mundur meeting was held at the house of pw 35 where the decision was taken to attack the house of Narayanankutty Nair. The 1st accused was an active participant of the incident at that house. He was identified by witnesses and over act was attributed to him during the incident. Mo. 14 series crow-bars were recovered at his instance The participation in the incident was a clear circumstance to hold that he was a party to the criminal conspiracy. Recoveries had also been made from him. 159. The evidence against the 2nd accused was also that of pws. 30 and 31. The 2nd accused was an active participant in the incident in which murder and dacoity were committed. His confession revealed that he was an active participant at the meetings held in May, June and July 1970. pws. 5, 7, 9, 10 and 11 identified him during the incident. Mo. 16 gun, mos. 19 (b) and 19 (c) daggers were recovered at the instance of the 2nd accused. Accused Nos. 9 and 13 were actively associated with Mo 16 pws 36, 37 and 38 identified that gun. The complicity of the 2nd accused in the conspiracy was beyond doubt. 160. Pws 30 and 31 implicated the 8th accused as the participant of the conspiracy. His association with the 1st accused was clearly brought out in the evidence. That be attended study classes and that he attended Mundur meeting at the house of pw. 35 was clear from his own confession The evidence of pws. 30 and 31 was substantive evidence. That was fortified by other circumstances in the case. There was no need to prove that he was a party to any agreement at the meeting held at Mundur; it was sufficient if his participation in the conspiracy was established by other facts and circumstances. He was an active participant to the incident on 30-7-1970 pws. That was fortified by other circumstances in the case. There was no need to prove that he was a party to any agreement at the meeting held at Mundur; it was sufficient if his participation in the conspiracy was established by other facts and circumstances. He was an active participant to the incident on 30-7-1970 pws. 3, 4, and 16 identified him during that incident. Overt act was attributed to him. That be was a dacoit and a murderer was clear from seizure of Mo. 38 and Mo. 39 series which were left behind at the place of occurrence. It was established that the gang of persons including the 8th accused subscribed to the ideology laid down mos. 38 and 39 series: The same view was found in many other recoveries made in the case. The one idea that prevailed among all these accused persons was the murder and dacoity since they believed in armed insurrection to capture power through the barrel of the gun Mo. 66 petrol tin was recovered at his instance from a water channel which he pointed out. That he was found in possession of Mo. 66 was proved in the case. Recovery was made on the basis of Ext. PI37 confession. The complicity of the 8th accused was proved beyond doubt that he was a conspirator. 161. Pws. 30 and 31 implicated the 9th accused also to the conspiracy. The presence of the 9th accused at the meeting in Mundur just on the eve of incident having been proved, the inference to be made was that he participated at the meeting as a party to the conspiracy with others. After the meeting he pursued his object by taking part in the action. Evidence of pw. 38 was conclusive that he handed over Mo. 16 gun to accused Nos. 9 and 13. The gun was in use during the incident. pw. 38 had no axe to grind against the 9th accused. The confession of the 9th accused was an additional circumstance that he was a conspirator with others. The evidence against him has to be accepted as conclusive that he was a conspirator 162. The evidence against the 10th accused was that of pws. 30 and 29. pw. 29 sighted the 10th accused on several occasions at the 26th accused's building in the meetings used to be held there. pw. The evidence against him has to be accepted as conclusive that he was a conspirator 162. The evidence against the 10th accused was that of pws. 30 and 29. pw. 29 sighted the 10th accused on several occasions at the 26th accused's building in the meetings used to be held there. pw. 29 lived in one of the rooms of that building. He was also found attending study classes with the accused 17, 24 and 25. Mo. 72 sword-stick together with Mo. 72(a) sheath was recovered from behind a photo frame at the barber shop of pw. 77 in whose presence the 10th accused kept it there after there incident. The confession of the 10th accused-vide Ext. P175 led to their recovery under Ext. P43 mahazar which was attested by pw. 77. The recovery would not be disputed. pws. 4 and 16 identified him during the action. Overt act was also attributed to him. The 10th accused's judicial confession led to the conclusion along with other strong evidence that he was also one of the conspirators The evidence of pws. 29 and 30 was fortified by the circumstances pointed out against him. That he was guilty of the criminal conspiracy bad to be upheld. 163. Accused Nos.11 and 12 were employees of the Postal Department. Mo. 19(d) dagger and Mo.73 dagger wrapped in Mo. 74 polythene paper, Mo.75 newspaper and Mo 75 cloth were recovered at the instance of the 11th accused as a result of his Ext. P176 statement before pw. 135. It was recovered under Ext. P44 mahazar. pw 78 attested the mahazar. Recovery was proved against him by pws. 78 and 135. The recovery could not be disputed. His presence at the place of occurrence was proved by pw 6 He was one of those who was directed to stand in the courtyard as a guard when the dacoity was being committed: He was found to be on leave from his office with effect from 2-7-1970 for a period of one month. pw. 79, Postmaster, gave that evidence against him. That was a circumstance to show that he had the opportunity to attend the Mundur meeting and participate in the action. He was therefore found to be a conspirator with the other accused persons. 164. It may also be noted that in S.342 statement in the trial court accused Nos. pw. 79, Postmaster, gave that evidence against him. That was a circumstance to show that he had the opportunity to attend the Mundur meeting and participate in the action. He was therefore found to be a conspirator with the other accused persons. 164. It may also be noted that in S.342 statement in the trial court accused Nos. 11 and 12 made it very clear that they were members of the Naxalite Party which believed in armed insurrection. 165. The 12th accused was a colleague of the 11th accused. He was also on off duty with effect from 3-30 p m. on 30-7-1970 and returned to duty only on the next day. pw. 80, Postmaster, gave that evidence against "him. pw. 16 identified him as a participant of the dacoity at the residence of Narayanankutty Nair. The evidence of pw. 16 was consistent with the judicial confession of the 12th accused in material particulars. He stated in his confession that he entrusted a bomb and a knife to the 11th accused. There was no reason to hold that be did not enter into a conspiracy with others. If he was found to be a participant of the action he could subscribe to the ideas set out in mos. 38 and 39 series which were seized at the place of occurrence as they were left behind by the accused persons after the dacoity and murder. The 12th accused is found to be a conspirator. 166. The 17th accused was implicated to the conspiracy by pws. 29, 30, 31 and 35. He was present at the Mundur meeting pws. 30 and 35 pointed out the 17th accused as one of the participants of that meeting. pw, 35 identified the 17th accused as the person who came along with the 13th accused to attend that meeting. pw. 29 had also given evidence regarding his attendance at the meetings held in the building which was in the possession of the 26th accused. The 20tb accused was closely associated with the 17th accused. Mo. 19(e) chopper was recovered from him under Ext. P49 mahazar. pw. 84 was an attestor to the mahazar pws. 5 and 16 identified him at the place of occurrence. The overt act attributed to the 17th accused by pws. 5 and 16 was conclusive to show that he was an active participant in the action. Mo. 19(e) chopper was recovered from him under Ext. P49 mahazar. pw. 84 was an attestor to the mahazar pws. 5 and 16 identified him at the place of occurrence. The overt act attributed to the 17th accused by pws. 5 and 16 was conclusive to show that he was an active participant in the action. There was no explanation for the 17th accused regarding the recovery. The complicity of the 17th accused in the conspiracy led to his participation in the action. He was not likely to have joined hands with other other accused persons in dacoity and murder unless he had subscribed to their ideology of loot and murder He had no explanation other than his membership of Marxist-Leninist Party why he joined the incidents at the house of Narayanankutty Nair. He can therefore be found as a participant of the conspiracy. 167. It is not necessary to mention a detailed account of the complicity of the 20th accused to the conspiracy. The lower court described him as one of the ring-leaders in the conspiracy as well as in the incident at the residence of Narayanankutty Nair pws. 28, 29, 30 and 31 implicated him to all the meetings held in May, June and July 1970 to decide upon an attack on the residence of Narayanankutty Nair The decision at the first meeting to start armed insurrection in Kerala was followed by another decision to restrict it to Palghat District and the third meeting finally decided upon an attack at the residence of Narayanankutty Nair, in Kongad. There was only one conspiracy beginning from May, June 1970 and ending in the final assault at the house of Narayanankutty Nair. The charges framed in the case also indicated that it was in pursuance of the decision taken at the meetings in May and June 1970 that the subsequent meetings were held culminating in dacoity and murder on 30-7-1970. So there was only one conspiracy on the basis of the ideology of the Marxist-Leninist Party to which these accused persons belonged and the object of that party was to commit murder of rich landlords, dacoity in their houses and to organise upheavals and armed insurrections involving loss of life, plunder and loot properties by collecting arms. So there was only one conspiracy on the basis of the ideology of the Marxist-Leninist Party to which these accused persons belonged and the object of that party was to commit murder of rich landlords, dacoity in their houses and to organise upheavals and armed insurrections involving loss of life, plunder and loot properties by collecting arms. Whether it was confined to Kerala or the Palghat District did not matter so long as the accused persons were able to commit murder of landlords and plunder their property. The plan to attack Narayanankutty Nair's house and murder him was decided upon only much later after the conspiracy was entered into at the several meetings held in Mayannur, Kondazhi and Mundur and pws. 30 and 31 stated even at the last Mundur meeting the 13th accused who led the party then did not reveal to them or others that the plan of action was against Narayanankutty Nair. They kept it a secret until 2 days prior to the incident. The conspiracy as pointed out by the lower court was not planned in water-tight compartment one for whole of Kerala, the other for the district of Palghat and the 3rd at the residence of Narayanankutty Nair in Kongad. On the other hand the three meetings formed part of the same transaction one depending on the other for the final and conclusive assault on Narayanankutty Nair and members of his family. Large number of literature by way of printed books, pamphlets and manuscripts recovered at the instance of the 20th accused revealed that be believed in the ideology at loot and murder Even while accused No. 20 was arrested Mo. 19 (h) folding dagger was seized from his person Other recoveries made from him had already been referred to. The recovery showed that he was a party both to the conspiracy as well as the action in pursuance of the conspiracy. mos. 2,22,23, 25, 26, 27, 33 and 83, stolen articles from the house of Narayanankutty Nair were recovered from him. The evidence of pws. 28, 29, 30, and 31 complied with the recoveries led to the irresistible conclusion that he was one of the leading conspirators. pws 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10. 11 and 16 implicated the 20th accused as one of the dacoits. His confession under S.164 also added weight to that evidence. The evidence of pws. 28, 29, 30, and 31 complied with the recoveries led to the irresistible conclusion that he was one of the leading conspirators. pws 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10. 11 and 16 implicated the 20th accused as one of the dacoits. His confession under S.164 also added weight to that evidence. The lower court was therefore correct in coming to the conclusion that he was one of the conspirators with others. 168. Though the 23rd accused did not give a confession under S.164 Cr. P.C. or that his presence and participation of the meetings held in May, June and July 1970 were not referred to in the evidence of pws 27, 28, 29. 30 or 31 there was ample other evidence in the case to implicate him to a criminal conspiracy. Even prior to the incident in the bouse of Narayanankutty Nair the 23rd accused was found making some reconnoitring work to locate his house. He met pw. 32, a tea-stall keeper some two days before the incident and asked him whether a milking cow could be available for purchase anywhere there. pw. 32 directed him to go to one Appu who was said to have lived near the house of Narayanankutty Nair. It was accordingly that the 23rd accused went about going near that house. The fact that the 13th accused took another party of the accused persons during his reconnoitring work towards the house of Narayanankutty Nair would not in any manner weaken the evidence of pw. 32. No suggestion was made to pw. 32 why he had chosen to implicate the 23rd accused with a false story. There was no reason to discard his evidence. The 23rd accused approached pw. 54 for getting a loan of some crow-bars alleging that he required them for agricultural operations. pw. 54 got Mo. 14 (c) made and mos 14 (a) and 14 (b) sharpened at the smithy of pw. 55 some days before the incident. pw. 54 delivered them over to the 23rd accused. The alleged enmity of accused No. 23 with pw 54 bad its beginning only on 30-7-1970. It could not be said that the alleged event was sufficient to discard the evidence of pw. 54 much less that of pw. 55. 169. It is significant to observe that the identical weapons. Mo. pw. 54 delivered them over to the 23rd accused. The alleged enmity of accused No. 23 with pw 54 bad its beginning only on 30-7-1970. It could not be said that the alleged event was sufficient to discard the evidence of pw. 54 much less that of pw. 55. 169. It is significant to observe that the identical weapons. Mo. 14 series, were recovered at the instance of the 1st accused out of a tank into which they were thrown after the incident under Ext. P-35 mahazar. The 1st accused pointed out mos. 14 series lying in a tank This was an instance to show that there was conspiracy to which accused 1 and 23 were parties. Mo 19 (b) dagger was also recovered at the instance of the 23rd accused under Ext P-93 mahazar. Pw. 103 was its attestor, pws. 1 and 16 identified the 23rd accused during the incident at the residence of Narayanankutty Nair. Specific overt act bad been attributed to him during that incident. There was yet another recovery from pw. 121 as per Ext. P 156. The 23rd accused gave his Mo. 90 to Mo 94 clothes for washing to pw. 121 who was a dhobi woman. pw. 121 herself was an attester to that mahazar. pw. 121 stated that the clothes were partly wet when the 23rd accused handed over them to her on the morning of 31-7-1973 for washing. There was the suggestion that the 23rd accused had a bath in the tank on his way back from the residence of Narayanankutty Nair after the dacoity and murder. Recovery of mos. 90 to 94 as per Ext. P-156 was proved by pws. 121 and 133. If he was a participant of the incident at the residence of Narayanankutty Nair there was reasonable ground to hold that he would have joined the conspiracy. The evidence against the 23rd accused was beyond doubt. He can be classified as one of the conspirators. 170. Pws 30 and 31 implicated the 24th accused to the conspiracy. After his arrest he gave Ext. P184 statement before pw. 135 as a result of which Mo. 86 chopper was recovered from the western side of a paddy field which was within the special knowledge of the 24th accused. It was recovered under Ext. P92 mahazar on 9-11-1970. pw. 102 was an attestor to Ext. P92 The evidence of pws. After his arrest he gave Ext. P184 statement before pw. 135 as a result of which Mo. 86 chopper was recovered from the western side of a paddy field which was within the special knowledge of the 24th accused. It was recovered under Ext. P92 mahazar on 9-11-1970. pw. 102 was an attestor to Ext. P92 The evidence of pws. 102 and 135 was conclusive as to the recovery of Mo 86 from him. There was the evidence of pw. 30 that 3 or 4 days prior to the Mundur meeting the 24th accused went to him asking him to accompany the 23rd accused and to inform pw. 31 also to join them. That was on the 14th of Karkitagom which was on 28-7-1970, the date of the incident. pw. 30 was not prepared to go with him. By that time pw. 30 knew that the 24th accused and his fellow-conspirators were on war path. pw. 30 also did not give information to pw. 31. So the 24th accused had to go away. Two days later pw. 30 came to know about the Kongad incident. It was then Pw. 30 realised that the 24th accused wanted him to accompany in order to take part in the Kongad incident. pws. 30 and 31 identified the 24th accused along with others at the meeting held in Kondazhi when the final decision was taken. There was therefore unimpeachable evidence against the 24th accused that be was an active participant to the conspiracy. 171. As against the 26th accused the evidence was that of pws. 27, 28 and 29. The meetings bad been held at Mayannur in the building which was in the occupation of the 26th accused. That he was in possession of that building could not be disputed. Even his employer gave evidence that he was in actual possession of that building. There was also the evidence of pws 28 and 29 that the building was in the possession of the 23rd accused. pw. 28 took part in the meeting at the instance of the 26th accused. The evidence of pw. 39 that he sent Rs. 50 by T.M.O. to him could not be controverted. There was also the evidence of pws 28 and 29 that the building was in the possession of the 23rd accused. pw. 28 took part in the meeting at the instance of the 26th accused. The evidence of pw. 39 that he sent Rs. 50 by T.M.O. to him could not be controverted. The evidence and all the relevant circumstances revealed that pw 39 sent the amount to the 26th accused to meet the cost of the preparation for some action by putting into practice the objective of the Marxist-Leninist party. It was at the building of the 26th accused that the formation of 3 squads was announced. pw. 26 had also implicated the 26th accused as some meetings were held at her residence through the efforts of the accused 20 and 26 Exts. P96 to P101 were seized under Ext. P95 mahazar from the printing press of pw. 105 at Wadakkancherry Exts P99, P100 and P101 established that the 26th accused entrusted the manuscripts for printing with pw. 105. 172. Pw. 28 gave evidence that the 28th accused participated at the meeting held in Mayannur. In the ad hoc committee formed there the 28th accused was also included as a member. pw 29 had also seen the 28th accused along with others at the building of the 26th accused attending meetings. The fact that he did not participate in the action at the residence of Narayanankutty Nair was not a circumstance to exclude him from the criminal conspiracy. There was no reason to discard the evidence of pws. 28 and 29. The evidence of pw. 28 was fortified by the evidence of pw 29. There was nothing to show that the 28th accused did not subscribe to the ideas of his party men. Except pws. 28, 30 and 31 no other member at the various meetings expressed any dissent against the declaration made by the 13th accused that armed insurrection should be started against the rich landlords. If the evidence of pws. 28 and 29 was acceptable there was every reason to think that the 28th accused would have agreed to the declaration made at the meeting as to the armed insurrection. The 28th accused had no case that he did not subscribe to the view of the other members present at the meetings that armed insurrection was the only remedy for the liquidation of feudal landlords. The 28th accused had no case that he did not subscribe to the view of the other members present at the meetings that armed insurrection was the only remedy for the liquidation of feudal landlords. His case was that he did not attend any such meetings. So it was clear that the presence of the 28th accused at the meetings would indicate that he had also subscribed to the ideas of the other members who attended the meetings It follows that the 28th accused was also proved to be a conspirator along with others. 173. The result of the enquiry so far made established that accused Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 17 20, 23, 24, 26 and 28 were members of a criminal conspiracy with the object to commit the murder of Narayanankutty Nair and commit dacoity at his residence on 30 7 1970. The conclusion arrived at by the lower court that they are guilty of the offence under section l20B IPC. is correct There was no ground to interfere with the conviction or sentence of lite imprisonment under S.120B. 174. The 20th accused was in the first instance convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment under S.302 IPC. as the principal offender. Then he was again convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment under S.302 read with S.149 of the IPC along with the 12 other accused persons. It may also be noted that the accused 2, 8, 9 and 20 were convicted under S.395 and 396 IPC. and sentenced them each to life imprisonment under S.396 IPC., without awarding separate sentence under S.395 IPC. They had also been convicted again along with the rest of the accused persons under Ss, 396 and 395 read with S.149 IPC., and sentenced each to 7 years rigorous imprisonment under S.396 read with S.149, however without any separate sentence under S.395 read with S.149. There appears to have some confusion of thought in the manner in which the lower court entered conviction under these sections. 175. There was no direct evidence to establish that the 20th accused inflicted any cut injury on the deceased Narayanankutty Nair with any kind of weapon which he used during the incident. The prosecution case was that the accused Nos. 13, 20, 22 and one Chandran cut the deceased on bis neck with chopper or a cross-bar and caused his death. There was no direct evidence to establish that the 20th accused inflicted any cut injury on the deceased Narayanankutty Nair with any kind of weapon which he used during the incident. The prosecution case was that the accused Nos. 13, 20, 22 and one Chandran cut the deceased on bis neck with chopper or a cross-bar and caused his death. Accused 13, 22 and Chandran are still absconding. pw. 6 who was alleged to have witnessed the entire incident of murder looking through the window on the northern side of the room in the gate house could not identify the person who cut the deceased with chopper, much less the person who surrounded him during the incident. He had also made a contradiction in his versions of the incident, In the committal court he stated that the 20th accused cut him and in the trial court he stated that the 12th accused cut him. The prosecution bad no case that the 12th accused inflicted any cut injury to the deceased. It was true that the medical evidence had probabilised the prosecution case to some extent as to the manner of inflicting injuries. It is in this connection that we have to examine the confessions of accused Nos. 10, 12, 18 and 23. The 20th accused admitted that he cut the deceased along with accused Nos. 13 and 22 and Chandran jointly on his neck each with a chopper after he fell down in the courtyard as a result of the first cut which the 22nd accused inflicted on his neck from behind. pw.111, the Surgeon who issued Ext. P 115 post-mortem certificate gave evidence that the injury No. 4 was the one which could have been caused while the victim was standing during the infliction of the cut from behind. He stated further that injury Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6 could also be caused by cutting with a chopper or crow-bar on the neck while the victim was lying down. Injury No. 5 was ligature marks caused on both the wrists due to the tying of the hand with cotton cords. It was pointed out that one of the four injuries (injury Nos. l, 2, 3 and 6) could be caused by the 20th accused cutting with a chopper or crowbar. Injury No. 5 was ligature marks caused on both the wrists due to the tying of the hand with cotton cords. It was pointed out that one of the four injuries (injury Nos. l, 2, 3 and 6) could be caused by the 20th accused cutting with a chopper or crowbar. It was true that the 20th accused stated in his confession statement that he cut along with accused Nos. 13 and 22 and Chandran jointly after the victim fell down. He further stated in the confession that he removed the head from the trunk while it was lying attached there on the skin. The medical evidence tallied that the aforesaid 4 injuries could be caused when the victim was lying down, but it could not be concluded from that circumstance that the 20th accused was one among those 4 persons. It is necessary for the prosecution to produce some evidence or circumstance that the 20th accused alone could have caused one of the four injuries referred to above. There was no evidence either direct or circumstantial to coma to the conclusion that the 20th accused cut the deceased Narayanankutty Nair except his own confession. The prosecution has relied upon the confession of the co-accused Nos. 10, 12 and 18. The confession of the 18th accused was in conflict with the prosecution case. The confessions of accused Nos. 10 and 12 however implicated the 20th accused as the person who cut the deceased. On a strict interpretation of S.30 of the Evidence Act it would be seen that the confession must implicate the maker and the accused mall the offences for which they were being jointly tried. In this case the accused Nos. 10 and 12 did not implicate themselves to an offence of murder. So in the absence of strict compliance of the provisions of S.30 it would not be said that the prosecution could rely upon the confession of the accused Nos.10, 12 and 18. Accordingly the conviction and sentence of the 20th accused for the offence under S.302 I. P. C. simpliciter will not stand. 176. However the 20th accused is liable to an offence under S.302 read with S.149 of the IPC. along with the other accused persons, who are accused Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 23 and 24. 176. However the 20th accused is liable to an offence under S.302 read with S.149 of the IPC. along with the other accused persons, who are accused Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 23 and 24. It was established from the evidence that the dacoits committed the murder of Narayanankutty Nair. That the accused Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 11,12,15, 17, 18, 20, 23 and 24 were the dacoits admits of no doubt. Recovery had been made from the accused Nos. 1, 8, 9 and 20 in respect of the articles which were removed from the residence of Narayanankutty Nair. Eye witnesses had identified all the accused persons as participants to the dacoity. The evidence against the 20th accused was conclusive as the volume and quality of evidence adduced against him established that he was the outstanding culprit much more than the other accused persons. Then oral and documentary evidence bad been fortified by the confessions which each of the accused persons made followed by the confession of the co-accused. This established beyond doubt that these accused persons and they alone committed the dacoity and murder. If one of the dacoits commits murder all the persons who were proved to be participants to the dacoity would be held liable to the murder with dacoity. If the murder was committed in the course of that dacoity under S 396 IPC. it is not required that the murder should be committed by a certain individual or by one amongst the dacoits to the knowledge of the rest of the persons involved in the dacoity. Mere commission of murder in the course of dacoity is enough to invoke the provisions of S.396 of the IPC. against all the persons who conjointly committed the dacoity. 177. S.396 is enacted to declare the liability of other persons as co-extensive with that of the actual murderer, and for this purpose, all that is required to be proved is that they should have been conjointly committing the dacoity and any death caused by a dacoit in the course of the dacoity would be murder and attributed to all of them. The death need not be proved against any one of the dacoits in particular, to long as the death is the result of cumulative effect of the violence used by the gang of persons who committed the dacoity. The death need not be proved against any one of the dacoits in particular, to long as the death is the result of cumulative effect of the violence used by the gang of persons who committed the dacoity. The only thing to be proved in such cases are: (1) that there was a dacoity; (2) which was the conjoint act of the persons concerned; and (3) that the murder was committed in the course of the dacoity in question. There was such evidence in the case. 178. It would be appropriate to point out now that the argument that the murder was not committed during the course of the dacoity and that the accused persons could not conjointly be held liable was based upon an incorrect appreciation of the evidence in the case. It would be an admitted fact that the dacoits did not escape from the house before the murder was committed. On the other hand they were all then standing surrounded the deceased Narayanankutty Nair. The process of dacoity was in continuation in as much as the deceased was taken in procession from the dining ball to the front verandah of the gate house through the portico of the main house and then to the courtyard with bis hands tied. The accused persons were armed with deadly weapons when they followed him. The definition of robbery will include putting a person in fear of instant death or hurt or unlawful restraint. Without committing any of these offences it would not be possible for the accused persons to have committed dacoity. The murder was committed at the spot when the dacoity was also committed. The time lag in between murder and dacoity in the circumstances of the case was not sufficient to hold that the murder was not part of the transaction of dacoity. The words used in S.396 of the IPC. are "in so committing a dacoity." That consists that the murder should have been committed at the spot where dacoity was committed as part and parcel of the same transaction. On a reading of the entire fact and evidence there is no doubt whatsoever that, the murder was committed during the course of and in furtherance of the commission of dacoity. 179. The conviction of the accused Nos. On a reading of the entire fact and evidence there is no doubt whatsoever that, the murder was committed during the course of and in furtherance of the commission of dacoity. 179. The conviction of the accused Nos. 2, 8, 9 and 20 under S.396 and 395 as principal offenders also does not appear to be correct in the circumstances of the case. Under S.391 which is the definition section of dacoity no distinction is sought to be made between persons who committed a robbery and persons present aiding or attempting to aid such commission. So both the principal offender as well as the persons who aided or attempted to aid the commission of robbery are designated as dacoits. A person present and aiding the commission or attempt to commit robbery stands in the same footing for the purpose of S.391 as the persons actually committing or attempting to commit robbery It is incumbent under S 395 or 396 that there shall be 5 or more persons conjointly committing robbery as principals or aiders to constitute the offence of dacoity. The word "conjointly" is used in the section manifestly refers to united or concerted action of the persons participating in the transaction. So the offence made out against the accused Nos. 2, 8, 9 and 20 stands in the same footing as the offence proved against the rest of the accused persons. The conviction and sentence of life imprisonment against accused Nos. 2, 8; 9 and 20 separately under S 396 cannot stand The conviction and sentence of 5 years' rigorous imprisonment under S.339 IPC. entered against accused Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 20, 23 and 24 required no alteration or modification. While discussing the overt act attributed to each of the accused persons it was considered that those accused persons were armed with deadly weapons during the incident. The finding of guilt of those accused persons under S 148 by the lower court has only to be ratified. There was evidence in the case that there had been some preparation before dacoity was committed. Detailed account of (he preparation had been considered. There was conclusive evidence to find that these accused persons are guilty of the offence under S.399 IPC. There were two more charges, one under S.447 IPC for criminal trespass and the other under S.448 IPC. There was evidence in the case that there had been some preparation before dacoity was committed. Detailed account of (he preparation had been considered. There was conclusive evidence to find that these accused persons are guilty of the offence under S.399 IPC. There were two more charges, one under S.447 IPC for criminal trespass and the other under S.448 IPC. for house trespass The lower court convicted the accused persons Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 15, 17, 18, 20, 23 and 24 in respect of the charge under S.447 and those accused persons except accused Nos. H and 12 were convicted in respect of charge under S.448 IPC. The very fact that the accused persons entered the premises of the house and various rooms of the main house and gate house led to the irresistible conclusion that these charges had been proved against them. The conviction under those sections are therefore correct. 180. The accused Nos. 2,17 and 20 under S.506 (2), 20th accused under S.461, accused Nos. 9 and 15 under S.427, and accused Nos. 1, 2, 10, 15 and 17 under S.342 have also been convicted without passing separate sentences in respect of individual acts they committed during the course of the dacoity at the residence of Narayanankutty Nair While discussing the main charges these individual acts had also been considered and dealt with. pws. 1 to 4, 11 and others had been intimidated by show of weapons or bombs by each of the accused Nos. 2, 17 and 20. The 20th accused broke open the almirah and smashed it with a crow-bar. The accused Nos. 9 and 15 destroyed the radio by cutting it with a crow-bar. The accused Nos. 1, 2, 10, 15 and 17 put pws 1, 2, 3, 9 and 15 into unlawful confinement by locking them inside the store room. They came out of the room only later by pw. 1 cutting the rope with which the door was fastened from outside. These charges had been proved beyond any shadow of doubt against those accused persons. There is therefore no need to interfere with those convictions. 181. The next separate charge is against the accused Nos. 20, 26, and 28. They came out of the room only later by pw. 1 cutting the rope with which the door was fastened from outside. These charges had been proved beyond any shadow of doubt against those accused persons. There is therefore no need to interfere with those convictions. 181. The next separate charge is against the accused Nos. 20, 26, and 28. As against the 28th accused the charge was that be manufactured bombs in pursuance of the decision arrived at previously at the meetings held to collect weapons and manufacture bombs Accused 20 and 26 instigated pws. 40 and 41 also to make bombs. The charge is under S.4 (a) and S.5 of the Explosive Substances Act against the 28th accused and under the same sections read with S.109 IPC. against the accused 20 and 26. pw. 40 gave evidence that in the month of Karkitagom when he went to the house of the 26th accused he found the 28th accused manufacturing bombs. He had also said to have given training to pw. 40 for the manufacture of bombs. pw. 40 was known to accused 20, 26 and 28. The evidence of pws. 40 and 41 was fortified by the confession of the 20th accused, that the accused Nos. 20, 26 and 28 manufactured bombs. The identical bombs were placed in a bag and carried by the 18th accused during the incident at the house of Narayanankutty Nair Those bombs were later recovered at the instance of the 18th accused. There was no case that the bombs recovered from the 18th accused were not the identical bombs which were manufactured at the instance of these accused persons. mos. 81, 82, 87, 87 (a), 87 (b), 88 and 89 were the remnants of those bombs. They were examined by pw. 114, Assistant Inspector of Explosives. He had previous experience in 'the Ordinance Factory where he was in charge of manufacture of bombs and other explosives. The evidence of pw. 114 coupled with his report Ext. P127 and the Chemical Examiner's report Ext P126 established that the articles which he examined were remnants of the country bombs capable of endangering human life on explosion. There was also evidence against accused Nos. 20 and 26 that they instigated pws. 40 and 41 to make bombs. The evidence of pw. 114 coupled with his report Ext. P127 and the Chemical Examiner's report Ext P126 established that the articles which he examined were remnants of the country bombs capable of endangering human life on explosion. There was also evidence against accused Nos. 20 and 26 that they instigated pws. 40 and 41 to make bombs. The bombs recovered were also found to be identical bombs which they made pws 40 and 41 made bombs at the instance of accused Nos. 20 and 26. There was only one set of bombs made by accused Nos. 20, 26 and 28. There was only one seizure of the bombs. There was no case that any one else made bombs and that the remnants of the bombs seized at the instance of the 18th accused were other than the bombs made by accused Nos. 20, 26 and 28. Even if the evidence of pws. 40 and 41 was found to be tainted as that of accomplices, there were other satisfactory evidence and circumstances, in support of their evidence. It was the identical bombs, which they made, that came to be tested by pw. 114. Added to it there was also the confession of the 20th accused. There was no valid ground therefore to differ from the finding of the lower court as to the conclusion that the 28th accused is guilty of the offences under S.4 (b) and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. The conviction and sentences of the accused 20, 26 and 28 are therefore correct. There is no reasonable ground to interfere with that conviction and sentences. 182. The lower court gave some reasons for awarding lesser sentence of life imprisonment on conviction of the accused persons under S.302 and 396 IPC. Though we may not agree to all the reasons which he set out in his judgment, for awarding lesser of the two sentences, we feel in the circumstances of this case that the life sentence awarded on the accused persons is just and proper. Though we may not agree to all the reasons which he set out in his judgment, for awarding lesser of the two sentences, we feel in the circumstances of this case that the life sentence awarded on the accused persons is just and proper. The accused persons are a set of misguided youth who believed that it was through the ideology of loot, murder and dacoity of rich and recalcitrant landlords and feudal chiefs that birth of a new classless society of peasants and workers could be established and that power and authority could ultimately be, bestowed on on them for the good of the people in this country. The vast majority of the people may not see eye to eye to this view. They believe that it is only through a bloodless revolution that a classless society can be established. They eschew violence in all its aspects in the evolution of a new society which would ensure greater economic and social justice to the people. The antecedent glory of India pervades in the mind of every citizen in this country to work and strengthen a socialistic republic system in our body politic. Whether the accused persons like it or not it is necessary to point out that the path they had chosen was highly suicidal and unsuited to our country. 183. While concluding this judgment it is desirable that we point out the care which the learned Additional Sessions Judge has taken and the great 'perservance arid patience which he has shown in hearing this case. He has been so accurate and exact in his statement of facts that the counsel for the appellants or the defence have not been able to draw our attention to any passage in the judgment which contained a wrong or incorrect statement of fact or gave a wrong reference to Exhibits. Considering that the evidence before him was so vast and his judgment covers so many pages, it is very creditable to him that he has been able to be so particular. 184. As regards the appeals we would like to acknowledge that counsel for both sides have in this court given us great assistance in deciding the case. In particular Sri V. Narayana Menon who appeared for a large number of accused persons obviously had mastered every detail of the evidence and the law involved in the case. 184. As regards the appeals we would like to acknowledge that counsel for both sides have in this court given us great assistance in deciding the case. In particular Sri V. Narayana Menon who appeared for a large number of accused persons obviously had mastered every detail of the evidence and the law involved in the case. He was always able to refer us promptly to relevant evidence or exhibit without any loss of time whatsoever. The Senior State Prosecutor, Sri. M. B. Kurup was also equally helpful to us during the hearing of the appeals. We appreciate the hard work and sincere effort brought to bear up the argument of all the Advocates who appeared before us in this case. 185. In the result, all the 13 appeals are dismissed in the following manner. The conviction and life sentence awarded to each of the accused Nos.1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 17, 20, 23, 24, 26 and 28 under S.120B IPC. are confirmed 186. The conviction and life sentence to each under S.302 IPC. read with S 149 IPC, conviction and sentence of 5 year's rigorous imprisonment each under S.399 IPC. read with S 140 IPC., conviction and sentence of 1 year's rigorous imprisonment each under S 148 IPC., conviction and sentence of 7 years' rigorous imprisonment each under S.396 IPC., read with S 149 IPC. and conviction under S.395, 447 and 448 (except for the accused 11 and 12) read with S 149 IPC. against accused Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 20. 23 and 24 are confirmed. 187. The conviction of the accused Nos. 2, 17 and 20 under S.506(2) IPC.; the conviction of the 20th accused under S 461 IPC ; the conviction of the accused Nos. 9 and 15 under S.427 T. P C and conviction of the accused Nos 1, 2, 10, 15. and 17 under S.342 I P. C.; the conviction of the 28th accused under S.4 (b) and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and the conviction of the accused 20 and 26 under S.4(b) and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act read with S.109 I.P.C and their sentence of 2 vears' rigorous imprisonment under S.4(b) of the said Act are also confirmed. 188. The appeals by the accused 2 and 9 are allowed only to the extent indicated below. 188. The appeals by the accused 2 and 9 are allowed only to the extent indicated below. The conviction and life sentence awarded to the 20th accused under S.302 I. P. C. simpliciter and the conviction and the life sentence awarded to the accused Nos. 2, 8, 9 and 20 under S.396 I. P. C. simpliciter are let aside. 189. The revision petition by the State is dismissed. The sentences awarded will run concurrently by each of the accused persons. Narayana Pillai, J. 190. I agree in disposing of these appeals and Revision Petition in the manner indicated in the judgment of my learned brother. 191. It is to the credit of the trial Judge, Mr. T. K. Govindankutty Menon, that in this case, where a mass of evidence has been let in, be has in a well written judgment clearly analysed and clearly marshalled all the relevant facts. We had also the benefit of learned arguments by counsel on both sides. 192. Some of the accused have in their statements given under S.342 of the Criminal Procedure Code made no secret of the fact that they have no confidence in the existing judicial system. Some of them argued their case in person. According to some of them the present legal system founded by a colonial power that previously ruled the country was useful only to perpetuate a feudalistic and capitalistic class of society on the support of which it existed, that system may be useful in the country of its origin but is unsuited to our genius and it is tyrannical and outmoded. They think that persons trained in the British system can peer only through coloured glasses and that they are interested in perpetuating the existing system. They argue that as the validity of this system and its usefulness to find out truth are themselves in bonafide dispute no finding regarding guilt entered in a trial held under this system can be regarded as based on proof beyond reasonable doubt and so no trial held under this system should end in conviction. According to them as the system itself does not inspire confidence and it is fundamentally ruinous provisions for "Legal aid to the poor" for defending under this system are of no real use to the poor. They made it clear that they bad no faith in the verdict of a court which functioned under this system. According to them as the system itself does not inspire confidence and it is fundamentally ruinous provisions for "Legal aid to the poor" for defending under this system are of no real use to the poor. They made it clear that they bad no faith in the verdict of a court which functioned under this system. 193. The Marxists-Leninists are not alone in criticising this system Some critics say that in an attempt to make this British system work we have corrupted it and the system in turn has completely corrupted us and that if one gets justice out of this system he is just plain lucky. According to them through trial and error it had been discovered that the British system was heavily weighted in favour of those who indulged in lies and falsehood, it had destroyed the morale of the people because to prove the truth one had to tell lies and to disprove a lie he had to tell more lies. They say that even a perfectly good and honest man who would never tell a lie in his own village has no compunction under this system to go to a court and tell any number of lies that when something occurs in a particular area the people of that area know who has done it and would name him if they were given a fair chance and protection and that the more these things were put in the hands of local bodies the greater justice and satisfaction would be provided. They suggest that in any scheme for reform of this system including the use of regional language in proceedings in High Courts and other regional courts the predominant voice should be that of the sufferers under this system and not of Judges and lawyers trained in this system because courts exist not for Judges and lawyers but for the people and it is the convenience, wishes and aspirations of the people which have always to be taken into account in any democratic set up. They plead for the Evidence Act and other Procedural Acts being fundamentally altered as a first step and thereafter for a complete overhaul and re-orientation of the entire system. 194. Probably it was with the growing criticism of the British system in mind that Friedmann in his book on "Legal Theory" has struck the following pessimistic note. They plead for the Evidence Act and other Procedural Acts being fundamentally altered as a first step and thereafter for a complete overhaul and re-orientation of the entire system. 194. Probably it was with the growing criticism of the British system in mind that Friedmann in his book on "Legal Theory" has struck the following pessimistic note. "This world of comparative security, comfort and self-sufficiency is crumbling everywhere, though in many degrees of speed and intensity. Political revolution, social strife and war are laying bare the roots of law, its close and inevitable link with the ethical, political and social foundations of the community in which it operates. Communist and Fascist revolution alike have brought the lawyer face to face with fundamental political issues...... ...........................They demand a new legal technique which cannot be developed without reference to consciousness of the political issues involved" The Marxists-Leninists would add that this world is one of comparative security, comfort and self-sufficiency only for a few and not for all and that the crumbling noticed is a healthy sign of a welcome change in the right direction for the benefit of all. 195. As we are not concerned here with the question whether these criticisms are justified or not we express no opinion on them. Suffice to say that the present legal system here is sanctioned by, and is being worked under, a Constitution. It may not be possible for any system to satisfy all sections of the public and merely because some accused say that they have no confidence in courts the jurisdiction of the courts is not taken away on account of that. It is not the consent of parties that gives jurisdiction to courts and so long as a court has jurisdiction in respect of a matter it has to administer faithfully with regard to it the existing laws. But what the accused have said here is symptomatic of a growing trend, which the appropriate legislatures may, if considered necessary, take note of.