JUDGMENT : E.K. Moidu, J. 62 accused persons were tried in Sessions Case No.36 of 1970, three accused persons in Sessions Case No.51 of 1970, and one accused person in Sessions Case No.8 of 1971 by the Sessions Judge, Kozhikode, in respect of offences they committed in the course of the same transaction at 3.30 a.m. on 22nd November 1968 at the Tellicherry police station of Cannanore District, and between 3-30 a.m. and 7.30 a.m. on 24th November 1968 within the limits of Pulpally police station of Kozhikode District, in pursuance of a criminal conspiracy and as members of an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons such as guns, spears, choppers, daggers and explosive substances like country -made bombs and crackers, with the common object to attack the police stations at Tellicherry and Pulpally, 2. The reference to the number of the accused hereafter would be with reference to their numbers in the final charge before court by the police. Altogether there were 149 accused persons in the police charge. 3. The accused in all the three cases stood charged under S.120B of the Indian Penal Code. As against accused Nos. 1 and 62 the charge was under S.25 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (Act 13 of 1885). The charge against accused Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 42, 43, 50, 52, 53, 57, 58, 59, 60, 62, 63, 65, 69, 75, 76, 77, 78, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87,88, 89, 90, 91, 100 and 125 was under S.148 IPC. As against the 2nd accused there was a charge under S.307 IPC. tor attempting to cause the death of Pw. 64, a police constable on sentry duty at the police station, Tellicherry, by throwing a country bomb against him. Accused Nos. 1, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 42, 43, 50, 52, 53, 57, 58, 59, 60, 62, 63, 65, 69, 75, 76, 77, 78, 82 to 91, 100 and 125 were also charged under S.307 read with S.149 IPC. for attempting to cause the death of pw 64. 4. Another set of accused, Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 25, 29, 33, 36, 41, 128, 129, 131, 132, 134, 135, 139, 141, 145, 146, 147 and 149, was alleged to have committed the offences under S.143, 148 and 449 read with S.149 IPC. for attempting to cause the death of pw 64. 4. Another set of accused, Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 25, 29, 33, 36, 41, 128, 129, 131, 132, 134, 135, 139, 141, 145, 146, 147 and 149, was alleged to have committed the offences under S.143, 148 and 449 read with S.149 IPC. (The 4th accused died before the charge was framed). Of these accused persons, accused Nos. 5, 6, 7, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 25, 29, 33, 36, 128 129, 131, 132, 134, 135, 139, 141, 145, 146, 147 and 149 have been charged for the murder of Havildar Kunhikrishnan Nair of Pulpally wireless station, under S.302 read with S.149 IPC. and for attempting to murder Sub Inspector Sankunny Menon, under S.307 read with S.149 IPC. Accused Nos. 5, 6, 7, 16, 128, 129, 135, 145, 146 and 147 were separately charged for the same murder under S.302 read with S.34 IPC. and for attempt of murder ' under S.307 read with S.34 IPC. As against accused Nos. 5, 6, 7, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 25, 29, 33, 36, 41, 128, 129, 131, 132, 134, 135, 139, 141, 145, 146, 147 and 149 there were further charges under S.427, 435 and 380 IPC. read with S.149 IPC. Another set of accused Nos. 5, 6, 7, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 25, 29, 33, 41, 128, 129, 131, 132, 134, 135, 141 and 149, has been charged under S.395 read with S.149 IPC. The sole charge against the 5th accused was under S.40 of the Kerala Police Act, as he committed impersonation by putting on a Sub Inspector's uniform. The 139th accused was charged under S.3 of the Indian Explosive Substances Act (Act VI of 1908). Accused Nos. 5, 14 and 17 were also charged under S.27 of the Indian Arms Act. '-' 5. After trial, accused Nos. 7, 16 and 139 have been convicted under S.427 arid 450 IPC. and sentenced each to two years' rigorous imprisonment on both the counts. They have also been sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment under S.326 IPC. and to three years' rigorous imprisonment on each of the three counts under S.435, 324 and 380 IPC. Accused Nos. 7, 16 and 139 have been convicted under S.427 arid 450 IPC. and sentenced each to two years' rigorous imprisonment on both the counts. They have also been sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment under S.326 IPC. and to three years' rigorous imprisonment on each of the three counts under S.435, 324 and 380 IPC. Accused Nos. 5, 7, 14, 16, 17, 18 and 19 were also convicted and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment each under S.395, read with S.149 IPC. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. The charges under the Kerala Police Act and the Indian Explosive Substances Act were not considered as not pressed at the trial. 6. The first of these appeals is by the 17th accused against his conviction and sentence. The next appeal is by accused Nos. 14, 16, 18, 19 and 139 against their convictions and sentences. Accused Nos. 5 and 7, however, did not prefer any appeal against their convictions and sentences. The Sessions Judge acquitted the rest of the accused persons in the two cases, S. C.Nos. 36 and 51 of 1970, in respect of all the charges. The State has come up in appeal against those accused persons who have been acquitted of all the charges as well as against the convicted persons in respect of those offences for which they stood charged before the Sessions Judge but were acquitted. The next two State appeals in order are those directed against all those accused persons in the two cases, S. C. Nos. 51 and 36 of 1970. However, no appeal has been preferred against accused Nos. 52, 53 and 100. The last appeal in order is against the 6th accused who has been acquitted of all the charges in S. C. No.8 of 1971. As against accused Nos. 9, 40 and 91 separate Sessions trial, S.C. No.51 of 1970 was conducted as they were apprehended long after the other accused persons were committed to the Sessions. During the trial of S.C.Nos. 36 and 51 of 1970, after Pw.230 was examined, the 6th accused jumped bail. The case against him was then split up and after he was arrested a fresh case, S. C. No.8 of 1971, was started against him. 7. During the trial of S.C.Nos. 36 and 51 of 1970, after Pw.230 was examined, the 6th accused jumped bail. The case against him was then split up and after he was arrested a fresh case, S. C. No.8 of 1971, was started against him. 7. The accused persons originally belonged to the Communist Party (Marxist) for short C.P.M. They did not believe in co-existence with other political parties including the Communist Party (Marxist) and the Communist Party of India for short C. P. I. Their ideology was to capture power through violent agitation and revolution. They misinterpreted the teachings of Mao Tse Tung to suit their convenience and declared that only by mass insurrection the rural feudalism in India could be liquidated for the betterment of workers ' and peasants. They found that the condition of labourers and peasants in Cannanore and Kozhikode Districts in 1967-68 was congenial to put their ideology in action. There was at that time discontentment among the peasants in the South Wyanad area in Kozhikode District and unrest among the labourers in Cannanore District. More than 16000 workers went out of employment in Beedi, industry in Cannanore and eviction of tenants out of their holdings was in progress in Wyanad. The accused called themselves "Naxalites" and the new party they formed the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist Party for short, M. L. M. and they started organising themselves taking advantage of the situation in the State. Accused Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6 used to meet at the Kepees Tutorial College, Tellicherry, which belonged to the 2nd accused. They met at the residence of the 1st accused in Calicut, on 30-10-1968 when accused Nos. 1 to 7 hatched a plot to take up arms against the feudal landlords, attack police stations and police officers, and commit dacoity in whatever manner they could do it and spread terror and discontentment among the public with the ultimate object of capturing power in the Stats. They detested the ruling party in power as well as the C.P.M. In order to educate the public the objective of their Party, study classes and camps were held every now and then. The 1st accused is the husband of the 3rd accused and father of the 7th accused. Accused Nos. 3 and 7 left their residence after accused Nos. 1 and 3 sold away their properties to Pw.93 in November 1968. The 1st accused is the husband of the 3rd accused and father of the 7th accused. Accused Nos. 3 and 7 left their residence after accused Nos. 1 and 3 sold away their properties to Pw.93 in November 1968. The 3rd accused was a teacher of Gujarathi High School in Calicut. She resigned that job in order to join the movement. The 2nd accused in his turn, sold away his property including the furniture in the Tutorial College at about the same time. The 8th accused who was employed in a co-operative society resigned his job to become an active member of the Party with effect from 15-11-1968. He gave a gift of his property in favour of his wife, Pw.37. From the first week of November 1968 the 10th accused absented himself from duty at the office of Pw.34 under whom he worked as an accountant. The 14th accused applied for leave from the school where he was employed as a teacher with effect from 6-11-1968. But when the leave was refused, he entered on medical leave with effect from 19-11-1968. The 18th accused, another teacher, entered on medical leave with effect from 6-11-1968. The 57th accused absented himself from duty as an accountant of Pw.31 with effect from 15-11-1968. The 77th accused was another teacher who entered on leave from 20-11-1968. The 78th accused had applied for leave from his school with effect from 25-11-1968. During the first week of November 1968, the 1st accused contacted the 15th accused by correspondence at Vellathooval in Munnar and directed him to go over to Tellicherry on 15-11-1968. The 2nd accused, in his turn, visited Manantoddy in the first week of November 1968 and organised study classes there with the help of the local residents. On 7 11 1968 accused Nos. 3 and 7 visited the 40th accused at his residence in Manantoddy to organise a study class and prepare the villagers in Vellamunda in the house of the 18th accused. They came into contact with accused Nos. 5, 36, 40, 41 and 149 and others who belonged to Pulpalli area. In the meanwhile the 6th accused sold his radio to the husband of Pw.36 and joined the organisation in the Pulpally side. . 8. They came into contact with accused Nos. 5, 36, 40, 41 and 149 and others who belonged to Pulpalli area. In the meanwhile the 6th accused sold his radio to the husband of Pw.36 and joined the organisation in the Pulpally side. . 8. By about the second week of November 1968, the 2nd accused was able to organise a meeting at his Kepees Tutorial College, Tellicherry, which was attended by accused Nos. 1, 2, 11, 12, 44, 58, 60 and 62. They were also in search and collection of weapons. Accused Nos. 11, l3, 58, 60 and 62 gathered some weapons either by manufacture or by borrowing from Pws.52, 53, 54 and 55. A meeting was then held on 15-11-1968 at the Kepees Tutorial College where many others including accused Nos. 1, 11 and 15 took part. At another meeting in the same place on 17-11-1968, accused Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 8 to 11 and 91 and others took part. Of those persons, the 4th accused represented the group from Pulpally side while the 5th accused represented the group from Manantoddy side. The plan was to attack the Tellicherry police station. After taking that decision accused Nos. 4 and 5 left on the next day for Manantoddy where they met accused Nos. 3 and 7 and others at the residence of the 40th accused. Thereafter the 4th accused proceeded to Pulpully and contacted the 6th accused. The 5th accused met the 18th accused at Manantoddy along with others. On the morning of 18-11-1968 the 5th accused gave his radio set to Pw.28 for repairs; but as it could not be got repaired that day, he borrowed M.O. 7 transistor from Pw.29. The 14th accused collected firearms from Pws.56, 57 and 58 on 18-11-1968. The 40th accused arranged through accused Nos. 36 and 50 and Pw.165 to shift the 3rd accused to the house of Pw.123. Pw.227 took the 3rd accused and others in his car along with a daughter of the 40th accused for shifting. The 7th accused shifted her residence to another house. 9. On, 19-11-1968 by about 10.30p.m. accused Nos. 5, 7, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 25, 29, 33, 36, 40, 41 and 149 and Pw.119 arrived at the residence of Pw.120. It was at this meeting that the 5th accused announced the contemplated attack on Pulpalli police station. The 7th accused shifted her residence to another house. 9. On, 19-11-1968 by about 10.30p.m. accused Nos. 5, 7, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 25, 29, 33, 36, 40, 41 and 149 and Pw.119 arrived at the residence of Pw.120. It was at this meeting that the 5th accused announced the contemplated attack on Pulpalli police station. After midnight the party proceeded when the 14th accused carried all the weapons so far collected with the aid of Pw.154 and two others. They went via. Panamaram to the Kenichira forest and reached there by dawn on 20-11-1968. On that day Pws.120 and 154 and other workers who had accompanied to Kenichira returned. By about noon, 5th accused and his party reached Kannarampuzha and they took rest there. Accused Nos. 5 and 33 from that group went south and brought provisions from Pw.61 and others and returned to the company of the 5th accused at Kannarampuzha. By about 3.30 a.m. all of them went to the residence of 141st accused. The party marched with all the arms and other articles to the Chithalayam forest where they met accused Nos. 6, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 139 and 144 who belonged to the Pulpalli group led by the 6th accused. They then conducted study class as to how to handle a firearm. They also pooled their cash to purchase rice and other foodstuffs to sustain them during the campaign. On 22-11-1968 they prepared sticks, spears and other weapons. 10. By that time the Tellicherry incident had taken place, about which they got news through the radio announcement. The original plan was to attack the Tellicherry police station on 20-11-1968, but it fizzled out as the security arrangement in Tellicherry was very strong. So the party that moved into the Tellicherry town on the night of 20-11-1968 marched back to Kunduchira, which is in the outskirts of Tellicherry town. At the dam site at Kunduchira the party decided to meet again at the stadium ground, Tellicherry, on the night of 21-11-1968. It was accordingly that accused Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 42, 43, 50, 57, 58, 59, 60, 62, 63, 65, 69, 75, 76, 77, 78, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91 and 125 armed themselves with spears, choppers, daggers, knaves, sticks and other materials assembled at the stadium ground. Accused Nos. It was accordingly that accused Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 42, 43, 50, 57, 58, 59, 60, 62, 63, 65, 69, 75, 76, 77, 78, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91 and 125 armed themselves with spears, choppers, daggers, knaves, sticks and other materials assembled at the stadium ground. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were the leaders of the gang. -To begin with their operation, accused Nos. 1 and 62 cut telephone wires near the Telephone Exchange Office, which is located a little away from the police station, Tellicherry. Their all of them marched in a body towards the police station where they arrived at about 3.30 a.m. The first accused attempted to open the closed wooden gate of the police station, while the second accused stood behind him at the gate. The second accused threw a bulb which was filled with explosive substances. The throw was aimed at Pw.64, the police-man who was on sentry duty at the station. The bulb-throw did not hit Pw.64 but it hit M.O. 21 wooden notice board which was hung on the wall of the station causing a loud explosion as a result of which glass pieces fell on the floor and traces of ash discolouration with smoky colour were seen in the middle of the board bearing a circular mark which depicted the impact of an explosion. An Assistant Sub Inspector and six Armed Reserve Constables were on duty there that night. When the bomb was thrown they were asleep, but the alarm raised by Pw.64 awakened them. They came running to the gate. Pw.63 was the Assistant Sub Inspector and Pws.65, 66, 70, 71, 73 and 74 were the constables who were on duty that night. By that time the accused persons made good their escape by running through the by lanes and roads. However, accused Nos. 42 and 43 could not run along with others and they were arrested. Accused Nos. 42 and 43 were then armed with daggers in their hands. 11. The Pulpally group met at 1.30 a.m. on 24-11-1968 at the Chithalayam forest from where they marched to Pulpally which is about 13 miles from that forest. Their target of attack was the wireless station at Pulpally before they attacked the police station there. Accused Nos. 42 and 43 were then armed with daggers in their hands. 11. The Pulpally group met at 1.30 a.m. on 24-11-1968 at the Chithalayam forest from where they marched to Pulpally which is about 13 miles from that forest. Their target of attack was the wireless station at Pulpally before they attacked the police station there. The police station is to the north-west of the wireless station and the accused persons wanted to dismantle the wireless set first. The wireless set was installed in the eastern room where deceased Havildar Kunhikrishnan Nair and Pw.94 Wireless Operator slept on that day. Pw.92, a constable was sleeping in the western room. One Sankunny Menon, a Sub Inspector who died later, slept in the southern room which is on the western side of the building. Pw.230, another Sub Inspector was the occupant of the other southern room which is on the east of the building; but on that night he was not there. But he had his uniform and other articles kept in that room. The 139th accused, while the rest of the accused persons surrounded the building, threw a bomb on the northern side touching a window, while others broke open the door of the room where Havildar Kunhikrishnan Nair and Pw.94 slept. Those accused persons entered that room with weapons in their hands. Pws.119, 124, 165 and two others were in the company of those accused persons either as cooks or carriers of their personal belongings. It was at about 3.30 a.m. that the attack against the wireless station began. Accused Nos. 4, 6, 7, 16, 129 and 139 were the persons who entered the room breaking open the door. While they entered, the fourth accused had a chopper, the 16th accused a stick, and accused Nos. 6, 7, 129 and 139 spears in their hands. They attacked Havildar Kunhikrishnan Nair and caused injuries to him while he was sleeping on a cot and they attacked Pw.94 also. However, Pw.94 warded off the attack with M. O.26, piece of plank which he held in his hand. He was also able to scale over the partition wall and get out of the room. Pw.94 sustained an injury on his index ringer with the thrust of a spear. Then accused Nos. 145 and 146, in their turn, attacked Pw.92 who slept in the western room. He was also able to scale over the partition wall and get out of the room. Pw.94 sustained an injury on his index ringer with the thrust of a spear. Then accused Nos. 145 and 146, in their turn, attacked Pw.92 who slept in the western room. He was kicked and he had also sustained a gun shot wound on the back to his left thigh evidently while he was running. The 14th accused was the only person who had a gun in his hand during the incident. Pw.94 escaped into a nearby bush and hid himself there, while Pw.92 went to the shop of Pw.95 who sent him in the company of Pw.96 to Pw.97, a doctor who practised in the neighbourhood. Havildar Kunhikrishnan Nair died in the eastern room itself due to the injuries he sustained during the incident. The accused persons also broke open the door of the southern room where the Sub Inspector, Sankunny Menon, slept. They entered that room with deadly weapons in their hands and caused injuries to him. Some of the official records kept in the room were taken to the courtyard and burnt. Then they entered the eastern room in the south of the building by breaking open its door and all the uniforms and other articles were removed out of that room. Uniforms which belonged to Sankunny Menon had also been removed out of his room. The wireless set kept in the eastern room on the north of the building had been damaged completely. Books, records and other articles taken out of the rooms were burnt partly and the rest were carried by the accused persons. Sub Inspector, Sankunny Menon, who sustained injuries during the incident, was examined as Pw.30 in the committal court. But he died before the Sessions trial started and so his committal court deposition was brought on record in the Sessions trial. Ext. P107 was his deposition. After committing all these offences the accused party left the place at about 4.00 a.m. marching towards the Pulpally police station which was their next target. 12. The party marched through the road towards the police station. While they walked hardly 200 feet towards west shouting slogans of victory an unfortunate calamity fell upon one of the accused persons. The 139th accused had held a country bomb in his hand. 12. The party marched through the road towards the police station. While they walked hardly 200 feet towards west shouting slogans of victory an unfortunate calamity fell upon one of the accused persons. The 139th accused had held a country bomb in his hand. When he fell down accidentally the bomb burst with the result that the right palm of the 139th accused was practically severed from the hand. The 4th accused seeing the position of the injury went to his rescue and severance of the palm was completed by removing the palm. M. O.277 was the said palm which was recovered on the same day at the spot during the investigation. Due to the unforeseen accident the party gave up their idea to attack the police station. So they proceeded to Chekadi which is about six miles away from Pulpally with the idea to attack and plunder the landowners of that place. 13. Chekadi is in a forest region adjacent to Mysore State border. Pw.106 Thimmappan Chetty, and Pw.117 Dassan Chetty, were the two important landowners of that place. In between their residential houses there was a tea-cum-statronery stall which was conducted by Pw.116, the son of Pw.106. The distance between the residential houses of Pws.106 and Pw.117 was about two and a half furlongs and the shop of Pw.116 was in between the two houses. The first target of attack was the house of Pw.106. There were no other houses in the immediate neighbourhood. The adivasies in the locality worked as labourers under them. The accused party reached Chekadi at about 6.00 a.m. Of the accused persons only accused Nos. 5, 6, 7, 16, 18, 19, 121, 128 and 135 entered the varandah of the house of Pw.106. When they reached there the wife of Pw.106 was there. They asked her to ask Pw.106 who was in the upstairs to come down. When Pw.106 came he was made to sit on a chair; while so other accused persons surrounded him. The 128th accused pointed a gun at the chest of Pw.106, directing him not to get up from the place. While he was detained there in that manner, Pw.110, a son of Pw.106, returning from the compound, made some hue and cry when he too was restrained after removing a torch which he had in his hand. The 128th accused pointed a gun at the chest of Pw.106, directing him not to get up from the place. While he was detained there in that manner, Pw.110, a son of Pw.106, returning from the compound, made some hue and cry when he too was restrained after removing a torch which he had in his hand. The 7th accused had pointed a spear against Pw.106 while the 128th accused pointed a gun. The 5th accused was in Sub Inspector's uniform. He wanted Pw.106 to surrender guns, if any, he had. In the meanwhile another group of persons consisting of accused Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 135 went upstairs of the building and ransacked all the boxes, kept there. Then the 6th accused came downstairs and removed Pw.106 to another room of the farm-house situated in the compound of that house. The 6th and 135th accused then removed the paddy which was stored in the farm-house and made a free distribution of the same among the adivasies who lived a furlong away. Accused Nos. 14, 17 and 29 caught hold of Pw.110, son of Pw.106, and committed theft of his M. O.69 wrist watch. Several items of jewels and sovereigns were removed out of the houses. Rs. 1020/-was also taken away by them. Then the party moved into the shop of Pw.116 and they removed all the eatables kept there. Accused Nos. 5, 6, 7, 16, 19 and 29 got into the shop to commit theft of the articles kept there. 14. The third and the last place of attack was the residence of Pw.117. The party arrived there at 7.30 a.m. on 24-11-1968. Pw.117 was in his courtyard when the party arrived there. The 5th accused caught him by his neck and pushed him into the verandah of the house. He was also made to sit on the point of gun by accused Nos. 14 and 128. While so the 129th accused intimidated him showing a spear. He was then asked to surrender guns, cash and jewels. While so accused Nos. 4, 5, 7, 16, 19, 21, 133 and 135 forcibly took him to the upstairs of his house. They then opened the boxes and removed cash as well as jewellery. One among the accused aimed a gun at his throat. Pw.117, then invoked the blessings of the deity of Guruvayoor temple. Accused Nos. While so accused Nos. 4, 5, 7, 16, 19, 21, 133 and 135 forcibly took him to the upstairs of his house. They then opened the boxes and removed cash as well as jewellery. One among the accused aimed a gun at his throat. Pw.117, then invoked the blessings of the deity of Guruvayoor temple. Accused Nos. 18 and 121 and others removed the radio set, camera, shirt and several other articles from that house. A photo of Shri E. M. S. Namboodiripad, who is the leader of the C.P.M. was removed by the 6th accused from the wall of the house and it was thrown away and burnt along with valuable documents of properties kept in the house. A licensed firearm, M.O. 73, which belonged to Pw.117 was also removed out of the house alongwith many other valuable movables. Some of the properties recovered during the investigation were M. Os. 73 to 101. M.Os. 71 and 72 were the two weapons which the accused themselves left behind at the house of Pw.117. After successful raids in their houses, the accused party moved into Adakkathodu which is within the forest about 28 miles away from the house of Pw.117. The booty they collected from the two houses as well as from the shop was shared among themselves. 15. They carried the booty in bundles and left Chekadi towards the forest area. They crossed the Kabani river and proceeded a mile when they took rest at Thekkinkadu. Accused Nos. 4, 6 and 7 and others were leading the party. They moved towards north through the forest. When they reached about six to eight miles it was about 10.00 p.m. Then they went to the house of 17th accused at Kattikulam where they had their food. After food they took rest at Thrissilerikunnu where they slept during the night. On 25-11-1968 they started by about 9.00 a.m. and walked till they reached the boundary of the Cannanore District. But they could not meet their counter-part who participated in the Tellicherry incident. In the evening they reached Thirunelli forest where they camped. On the next day by about noon another incident took place. Accused No.138 tied a bundle to the branch of a tree when that bundle fell down with the result the crackers and explosive substances inside exploded causing severe injuries to him. They expected that he would not survive. In the evening they reached Thirunelli forest where they camped. On the next day by about noon another incident took place. Accused No.138 tied a bundle to the branch of a tree when that bundle fell down with the result the crackers and explosive substances inside exploded causing severe injuries to him. They expected that he would not survive. The 4th accused asked the 133rd accused to shoot him down. But he was not prepared to do it. On the other hand 128th accused fired a gun at him as a result of which 138th accused died. He was buried at the spot. After the incident the crowd became frustrated and they went from place to place without any plan. Finally when they reached a little away on 2-12-1968 they abandoned part of the booty within four to nineteen miles in the vicinity of Adakkathodu. 16. Pw. 63, the Additional Sub-Inspector on duty at the Police station, Tellicherry, made a report of the incident as per Ext. P93 first information statement at 5.30 p.m. on 22-12-1968 and on that basis Crime No.203 of 1968 was registered against accused Nos. 42 and 43 and some 300 other persons who were not then known by name. On that basis investigation was taken up forthwith. 17. Pw. 94, police constable, who slept in the eastern room along with deceased Havildar Kunhikrishnan Nair made a report of the incident at the wireless station, Pulpally, as per Ext. P102 first information to the Pulpally police station at 7.00 a.m. on 24-11-1968. Pw.126, Head Constable on duty at the police station, registered the Crime No.39 of 1968 against accused Nos. 136, 139, 147 and others who were not known by name. 18. Pw. 106 filed a complaint petition dated 24-11-1968 on the next day at 7.00 a.m. before Pw.126 Head Constable, Pulpally police station, regarding the incident at his house at 6.00 a.m. on 24-11-1968 on the strength of which Crime No.40 of 1968 was registered. Ext. P105 was the complaint petition of Pw.106. The crime was registered against accused Nos. 16, 138 and others whose names could not be stated. But it was alleged that there was a lady among the accused persons. Pw.106 had also alleged in Ext. P105 that the accused persons had committed similar raid on the provision shop of his son (Pw. P105 was the complaint petition of Pw.106. The crime was registered against accused Nos. 16, 138 and others whose names could not be stated. But it was alleged that there was a lady among the accused persons. Pw.106 had also alleged in Ext. P105 that the accused persons had committed similar raid on the provision shop of his son (Pw. 116) on the same day at about 7.00 a.m. 19. Pw. 117 made a similar report by his complaint petition, Ext. P116 dated 25-11-1968, to Pw.126, Head Constable, regarding the raid at his residence at 7.30 a.m. on 24-11-1968. On the basis of that first information Pw.126 registered Crime No.41 of 1968. Ext. P116 complaint petition was sent by Pw.117 through his son Pw.118 as he was not in a fit condition to walk up to the police station. A separate crime had been registered as Crime No.42 of 1968 on the strength of Ext. P109 first information lodged by Pw.116 with the investigating officer who went to the residence of Pw.106 at about 6.30 p.m. on 25-11-1968 during the course of investigation of Crime No.40 of 1968. The first information related to the incident at the shop of Pw.116 at 7.00 a.m. on 24-11-1968. 20. Pw 201, Inspector, prepared Ext. P139 scene mahazar at 7.30 a.m. on 22-11-1968 of the Tellicherry police station, and its suburbs where from he recovered M.Os.11 to 16, 21 and M.Os. 124 to 194. On the same day at 2.30 p.m. as per Ext. P140 scene mahazar M.Os. 195 to 225 were recovered from the stadium ground, Tellicherry, where the accused persons assembled before they made the attack on the police station. 21. The Kepees Tutorial College belonging to the 2nd accused in Tellicherry was searched on 22-11-1968 at 4.15 p.m. and M.O. 327, Ext. P302, M.O. 323, M.O. 329, M. O.330 and Ext. P303 which are books and literature pertaining to Mao Tse Tung's teachings and Naxelbari ideals were recovered. They were seized under Ext. P301 search list. 22. On 14-12-1968, a mahazar Ext. P104 was prepared by Pw.234, Inspector, Crime Branch, in respect of the telephone wires cut at the Telephone Exchange, Tellicherry, in the course of which M.Os. 33, 34 and 35 were seized. 23. Ext. P165 was the scene mahazar of the wireless station, Pulpally. It was prepared by Pw.231 Inspector at 5.30 p.m. on 24-11-1968. M. Os. P104 was prepared by Pw.234, Inspector, Crime Branch, in respect of the telephone wires cut at the Telephone Exchange, Tellicherry, in the course of which M.Os. 33, 34 and 35 were seized. 23. Ext. P165 was the scene mahazar of the wireless station, Pulpally. It was prepared by Pw.231 Inspector at 5.30 p.m. on 24-11-1968. M. Os. 20, 23 to 26 and 236 to 277 articles were seized under it from the wireless station building and outside. 24. Ext. P364 was the scene mahazar of the residence of Pw.106. It was prepared by Pw.231 on 25-11-1968 at 2.00 p.m. when he seized M.O. 63, M.O. 67 series, M.O. 68 and M.O. 92. Ext. P315 was the scene mahazar prepared by Pw.231 at 5.00 p.m. on 25-11-1968 in respect of the residence of Pw.117 when the same Inspector seized M. Os. 71, 72, 95, 96 and 97. Pw.231 examined the trade premises of Pw.116, the son of Pw.106, and prepared Ext. P314 scene mahazar at 9.00 a.m. on 26-11-1968, but no incriminating article could be seized during the preparation of the mahazar. 25. Pw. 231 held the inquest over the dead body of Havildar Kunhikrishnan Nair on 24-11-1968. Ext. P135 was the inquest report. Pw.161, Assistant Surgeon, conducted autopsy on the dead body and issued Ext. P217 post-mortem certificate. Ext. P269 was the wound certificate issued by one Dr. Jayaraj of Calicut Medical College Hospital in respect of the injuries of Sub Inspector, Sankuny Menon. Pw.184, R. M.O. of the Medical College Hospital, proved it in the absence of Dr. Jayaraj. Ext. P270, wound certificate was issued by Pw.184 Assistant Surgeon for the injuries of Pw.92 constable who was one of the occupants of the wireless station, Pulpally. Pw.162, Assistant Surgeon, examined Pw.94, the first informant and issued Ext. P219 wound certificate on 24-11-1968. 26. The 15th accused was arrested by Pw.201 on 23-11-1968 and accused Nos. 57, 58 and 60 on 24-11-1968. Accused Nos. 62 and 63 were arrested by him on 25-11-1968. Pw.183 arrested accused Nos. 78, 85, 86, 87, 89 and 139 while Pws.183 and 169 arrested accused No.82 and 83 on 27-11-1968. Accused No.132 was arrested on 2-12-1968 by Pw.173 and accused Nos. 3, 6, 7, 14, 16, 18,21 and 25 were arrested by Pws. 175, 232, 179 and 233 on 3-12-1968. Pw.232 arrested accused Nos. 128, 129 and 131 also on 3-12-1968. 78, 85, 86, 87, 89 and 139 while Pws.183 and 169 arrested accused No.82 and 83 on 27-11-1968. Accused No.132 was arrested on 2-12-1968 by Pw.173 and accused Nos. 3, 6, 7, 14, 16, 18,21 and 25 were arrested by Pws. 175, 232, 179 and 233 on 3-12-1968. Pw.232 arrested accused Nos. 128, 129 and 131 also on 3-12-1968. Pw.176 arrested accused No.135 on 5-12-1968 and Pw.181 arrested accused Nos. 145 and 147 on 6-12-1968. Pw.166 arrested the 1st accused on 8-12-1968 and Pw.234 arrested accused Nos. 75 and 88 on the same day. Accused Nos. 20 and 149 were arrested on 9-12-1968 by Pws.235 and 172, respectively. Pw.235 arrested accused No.134 on 12-12-1968 and accused No.33 on 9-1-1969. Accused No.29 was arrested by Pw.234 on 10-12-1968. Pw.170 arrested the 5th accused on 11-12-1968. Pw.168 arrested the 69th accused on 14-12-1968 and the 2nd accused was arrested on 16-12-1968 by the Madras Police. Pw.233 arrested the 36th accused on 31-12-1968. The 59th accused was arrested by Pw.201 on 2-1-1969. Pw.168 arrested the 77th accused on 9-1-1969; The 8th accused was arrested by Pw.167 on 10-1-1969. Pw.177 arrested the 10th accused on 16-1-1969. The 19th accused was arrested by Pw.224 on 17-1-1969. The 141st accused was arrested by Pw.182 on 5-2-1969. The 17th accused was arrested on 13-2-1969 by Pw.180. The 13th accused was arrested on 14 2 1969 by Pw.195. On 18-2-1969 the 84th accused was arrested by Pw.234. The 90th accused was arrested on 19-2-1969 by Pw.167. Pw.225 arrested the 65th accused on 22-2-1969 and the 11th accused on 24-2-1969. 76th accused was arrested on 26-2-1968 by Pw.168. The 146th accused surrendered before the police on 2-9-1969. The 41st accused was arrested by Pw.236 on 26-12-1969 and Pw.180 arrested accused Nos. 125, 50 and 40 on 16-1-1970, 29-1-1970 and 4-3-1970, respectively. The arrest of the 9th accused was on 17-3-1970 and that of the 91st accused on 15-4-1970. The former was arrested by Pw.226 and the latter by Pw.180. 27. During the arrest of the 5th accused on 11-12-1968, M.O. 69 was recovered from his possession by Pw.170 as per Ext. P235 mahazar. M.O. 69 is a Favreleuba wrist watch which belonged to Pw.110 who is the son of Pw.106. Along with the watch Rs. 586.56 (M. O.308) was also recovered from him. M. O.37 gold chain worn by the 17th accused was found to belong to Pw.106. P235 mahazar. M.O. 69 is a Favreleuba wrist watch which belonged to Pw.110 who is the son of Pw.106. Along with the watch Rs. 586.56 (M. O.308) was also recovered from him. M. O.37 gold chain worn by the 17th accused was found to belong to Pw.106. That was recovered under Ext. P335 mahazar from her person by Pw.232 during the arrest on 3-12-1968. M. O.50, one gold sovereign, M. O.51 gold ring, and cash to the tune of Rs. 76 40 (M. O.314) were recovered from the 16th accused by Pw.179 during the arrest under Ext. P253 mahazar. 28. Cash to the tune of Rs. 446 (M. O.359) was seized from the 14th accused during his arrest as per Ext. P. 336. S.27 recovery was effected in respect of M.Os. 17 to 19, 62, 73, 74, 103, 104, 359, 361 to 373, 393, 396 and 397 on the basis of the confession made by. the 14th accused. They were seized under Exts. P338, 339, 368, 341, 342, 343, 344, 346 and 347 mahazars. M.Os. 361, 362 and 366 belonged to Pw.230 Sub Inspector who was the occupier of the eastern room in the southern side of the wireless station, Pulpally. M. Os. 393, 396 and 397 were seized under Ext. P347 separate mahazar on the basis of the same confession made by the 14th accused. Pw.233 effected that recovery. M. O.393 was the whistle which belonged to the Sub Inspector, Sankunny Menon, who was the occupant of the western room in the southern side of the wireless station. The other articles belonged to Pw.230. Under Ext. P346 mahazar, M. O.17 gun, M. O.18 gun, M. O.19 gun, M. O.73 gun, M.O. 74 vessel and M. O.62 box were seized on the strength of S.27 confession of the 14th accused. M. O.376 was seized under Ext. P346 mahazar. M. O.17 gun belonged to Pw.56; M.O. 18 gun to Pw.57; M.O. 19 gun to Pw.58; and M.O. 73 gun and M. O.74 vessel to Pw.117. Pw.106 was the owner of M. O.62 box. 29. Pw. 232 effected the recovery of M. Os. 7, 102 and 356 from the 18th accused under Ext. P334 mahazar. M.O. 102 terylene shirt belonged to Pw.118 and M. O.356 was the sum of Rs. 1642.10. M.O. 7 radio set belonged to Pw.29. It was alleged to have been given to Pw.28 for repair. 29. Pw. 232 effected the recovery of M. Os. 7, 102 and 356 from the 18th accused under Ext. P334 mahazar. M.O. 102 terylene shirt belonged to Pw.118 and M. O.356 was the sum of Rs. 1642.10. M.O. 7 radio set belonged to Pw.29. It was alleged to have been given to Pw.28 for repair. So recovery was made at the instance of the 18th accused. 30. When the room occupied by the 5th accused was searched on 12-12-1968, M.O. 70 torch-light was seized under Ext. P236 search list by Pw.170. It belonged to Pw.116. M.O. 59 gold ring which belonged to Pw.106 was recovered by Pw.235 from the 19th accused as per Ext. P349 mahazar. Pw.232 seized M. Os. 36, 38 to 49, 52 to 58, 60, 77 to 91 and 101 which belonged to Pws.106 and 117 under Ext. P348 mahazar at the Adakkathodu camp of the accused persons who were alleged to have removed them during their raids in the houses of Pws.106 and 117, and the trade premises of Pw.116. M. O.277 palm which severed from the right hand of the 139th accused during an explosion just before the dacoity was seized under Ext. P165 mahazar by Pw.231 at 5.30 p.m. on 24-11-1968. 31. In their statements before court the accused persons denied having had anything to do with the occurrence. One witness, Dw. 1, a staff reporter of the daily "Janatha", was examined on their behalf. 32. It is not disputed that a crowed of persons armed with deadly weapons like spears, daggers, choppers, sticks and dangerous explosives like country bombs, marched through the road and collected themselves at about 3.30 a.m. on the night of 21/22-11-1968 at the front gate of the Tellicherry police station, when one among them threw an explosive substance aimed at Pw.64, constable on sentry duty, but the aim being missed, the substance struck at M. O.21 wooden notice-board which was hung on the wall of the station building. As a result of the throw a loud explosive sound was heard and the substance struck at M. O.21 leaving on it a discolouration with traces of ash and smoke in the middle of which there was a circular mark depicting the substance contacted thereon. Some glass pieces had also fallen on the floor beneath the wall on which M. O.21 was hung. Some glass pieces had also fallen on the floor beneath the wall on which M. O.21 was hung. M. O.124 series were the traces of smoky ash and glass pieces recovered at the spot under Ext. P139 scene mahazar at 7.30 a.m. on 22-11-1968 by Pw.201 who took up investigation soon after the incident. Pw.212, Inspector of Explosives, examined M. O.124 series and issued Ext. P320 report. He found that M. O.124 series contained explosive substances. He stated that on examination of M. O.124 series they were found to contain an explosive mixture of potassium chlorate, aluminium powder and arsenic sulphide. 33. On the night of the incident, Pw. 63, Addl. Sub Inspector, and Pws.64, 65, 66 and 70, constables, and Pws.71, 73 and 74 men of the Armed Reserve, were on guard duty at the police station. Pws.63, 71, 73 and 74 were sleeping at the upstairs of the building, while Pws.64, 65 and 70 were in the downstairs. Pw.64 was on sentry duty at the front verandah of the building. Pw.75 constable was the driver of the police van which was stationed outside the station premises touching the eastern wall of the building. While so the accused persons came and stood in front of the closed gate of the station compound. The 2nd accused was alleged to have thrown the explosive substance against Pw.64, who was on sentry duty. But the throw did not hit him as he stood aside, but it hit M. O.21 notice board. Any way a loud explosive sound was heard by all the inmates of the police station, as well as Pw.75 who was sleeping in the van. Pw.65 also had directed the guard to turn out when he found large number of persons assembled in front of the gate. He had also given warning that the persons assembled there were armed with weapons like spears and sticks. On hearing the order of command followed by the sound of loud explosion, Pw.63 and others who slept with him came to the varandah of the building when they found the 1st accused untying the knot of the rope with which the gate was closed and others pushing the gate. During this process, Pws.63, 64 and 75 identified the 1st accused, Pws.64, 65 and 71 the 9th accused, and Pws.63, 66 and 71 accused Nos. 42 and 43. Accused Nos. During this process, Pws.63, 64 and 75 identified the 1st accused, Pws.64, 65 and 71 the 9th accused, and Pws.63, 66 and 71 accused Nos. 42 and 43. Accused Nos. 8, 10, 11, 13, 15, 57, 58, 60, 62, 63, 65, 69, 75, 76, 77, 78, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 and 91 were also identified as persons who stood before the gate during the incident by the occurrence witnesses. Of these accused persons, the witnesses found weapons like spears or sticks with all except accused Nos. 2, 10, 15 and 58. The 1st accused was found armed with a chopper and the 2nd accused carrying a plastic bag in his hand. 34. On seeing the 1st accused untying the knot of the rope with which the gate was fastened, Pw.63 directed the crowd to disperse. In the meanwhile the police men on duty had mounted on guard occupying positions on either side of the gate inside the premises. The accused persons then ran away from the spot in different directions throwing away all the weapons and other articles they carried with them. Those articles and weapons were found lying all over the place in front of the police station and in the neighbourhood. M.Os. 11 to 16 & 125 to 194 were those articles which were taken into custody under Ext. P139 mahazar soon after the incident. As per another mahazar, Ext. P240, several other articles like M.Os. 195 to 255 were recovered from the stadium ground in Tellicherry, where the persons involved is the incident assembled before they attacked the police station on the same night. Many of the articles and literature seized from the neighbourhood of the police station as well as the stadium ground revealed that the assailants were the followers of Mao Tse Tung of China. 35. Pw. 63 chased the accused persons while they were retreating. But he could not get at them except accused Nos. 42 and 43. They were caught in front of Vimel Store which is on the northern side of the police station and they were taken to the police station. They had thrown away the weapons they carried before they were intercepted. 63 chased the accused persons while they were retreating. But he could not get at them except accused Nos. 42 and 43. They were caught in front of Vimel Store which is on the northern side of the police station and they were taken to the police station. They had thrown away the weapons they carried before they were intercepted. After coming back to the police station Pw.63 went in the Van to different parts of the town to see whether he could get at other persons who had come to the front of the police station but did not succeed. He returned in the Van to the police station at 5.30 a.m. On his return to the station, Pw.63 lodged Ext. P93 first information statement at 5.30 a.m. against accused Nos. 42 and 43 and about 300 other persons. Pw.201, Inspector, entered upon investigation on the same day with effect from 7.30a.m. 36. The charges laid against some of the accused persons are under S.148 and 307 IPC. read with S.149 IPC. The common object of the unlawful assembly which consisted of these accused persons was to trespass into the police station, cause damage and destruction to government property and attack the personnel of the police force by doing them as much harm as possible. The prosecution would have it that one of the common objects of the unlawful assembly was to attempt to cause the murder of Pw.64, the constable on sentry duty, by throwing an explosive substance against him. Before the specifics offence alleged against the accused persons are made out, it is necessary to identify the persons who actually took part in the attack on the police station as participants of the unlawful assembly, 37. The actual attack on the police station was sought to be established by the prosecution on the basis of the evidence of the police officers who were on duty at the police station on the night of the incident. Those officers were the only witnesses who could have seen the occurrence. Their evidence could not be discarded merely because they were police officers on duty. Ordinarily they were the most natural witnesses who could have unfolded the prosecution story. Therefore dependability of the evidence of these witnesses rests only on the truth of their version in the light of the circumstances in the case. 38. Their evidence could not be discarded merely because they were police officers on duty. Ordinarily they were the most natural witnesses who could have unfolded the prosecution story. Therefore dependability of the evidence of these witnesses rests only on the truth of their version in the light of the circumstances in the case. 38. The 1st accused, Kunnikkal Narayanan, and the 2nd accused, K. P. Narayanan, were the two ring-leaders who formed and developed the Naxalite wing of the C.P.M. in Kerala. Even according to Pw.6, Azheecodan Raghavan (since died) a leader of the C.P.M., accused 1 and 2 had been expelled from the C.P.M. in 1967 and since then the 1st accused made use of his residence in Calicut, and the 2nd accused his Kepees Tutorial College in Tellicherry, for the secret meetings of the revolutionary party, M.L.M. There was a meeting of that Party at the residence of the 1st accused on 30-10-1968 and another meeting in the Tutorial College of the 2nd accused on 17-11-1968, in furtherance of the revolutionary policy of the party. Pw.21, the brother of the 1st accused, spoke about the meeting of 30-10-1968 and Pw.23 spoke about the meeting at the Tutorial College of the 2nd accused on 17-11-1968. Their evidence revealed that the Party had chalked out at plan to attack the Tellicherry police station and carry away arms and ammunitions therefrom and then attack the Pulpally police station. With that end in view the members of the party moved from place to place collecting weapons and other articles. That the 1st accused had been expelled from the C.P.M. was also proved through Pw.3. It was also supported by his own publications one of which was marked Ext. P23. It contained the charge levelled against him by the C.P.M. and his defence by way of counter charge against the C.P.M. Ext. P23 was a printed publication by the 1st accused. After he was expelled from the Party, he started publishing Rebel Publication at Kallai Road, Calicut. While Pw.7 lived in Trivandrum with the 6th accused, some Naxalbari publications were sent to them from Calicut. The 1st accused used to meet the 6th accused every now and then. It was then that the Kerala Co-ordination Committee was formed at Ernakulam for strengthening the work and co-ordination of the Naxalbari activities in the State. While Pw.7 lived in Trivandrum with the 6th accused, some Naxalbari publications were sent to them from Calicut. The 1st accused used to meet the 6th accused every now and then. It was then that the Kerala Co-ordination Committee was formed at Ernakulam for strengthening the work and co-ordination of the Naxalbari activities in the State. During that period Pw.7 and the 6th accused were members of the Naxalbari Karshaka Sahaya Samithi. Exts. P6 series and P8 series connected the 1st accused and the 6th accused to the activities of the Party. 39. Exts. P6 to P23 were recovered under Ext. P5 search list, from the residence of the 1st accused after his arrest along with M. O.1. Pw.5 was an attestor to Ext. P5. Ext. P7 was a file with 73 sheets. The contents of the file reveal the method which the 1st accused proposed to adopt in capturing the power in the State. It reads: "An excellent revolutionary situation exists in our country with all its classical systems as enunciated by Comrade Lenin. But neo revisionists leadership of C.P.I. Marxists has betrayed the people and the party and they have betrayed the cause of Indian revolution. It is profitable to recall here that since the inception of our party its leadership has been unsurpassed at different phases by revisionists, adventurists and opportunists. Naxalbari came at a turning point in the history of our party and the country. The revolutionary Commander of Darjeeling District of West Bengal owes its open revolution against the party's revisionists leadership as politics as well as against the organizational slavery imposed by this leadership. So we, the comrades of different States, who have been thinking and fighting in the above line, have decided after meeting in Calcutta to call an All-India Co-ordination Committee. On behalf of this Co-ordination Committee we declare that its main task will be (1) Develop and co-ordinate militant and revolutionary struggle at all levels especially present struggle of the Naxalbari type under the leadership of working classes. (2) To develop militant revolutionary struggle of the working class and other toiling people to combat, economise and to orient these struggles towards an agrarian revolution. (3) To wage an uncompromising ideological struggle against neonism and neo - revisionism and to popularise the thought of Mao Tse Tung which is Marxism arid Leninism of present era. (2) To develop militant revolutionary struggle of the working class and other toiling people to combat, economise and to orient these struggles towards an agrarian revolution. (3) To wage an uncompromising ideological struggle against neonism and neo - revisionism and to popularise the thought of Mao Tse Tung which is Marxism arid Leninism of present era. And unite on this basis all revolutionary elements within and outside the party. (4) To undertake a preparation of revolutionary programme and tactical line based on concrete analysis of the Indian situation in the light of Mao Tse Tung's thoughts. Now it is the time to act and act we must here and now. It is time to start a really revolutionary party." 40. The Party was even in touch with the Embassy of the Republic of China in India at New Delhi. The 90th accused, a close associate of the 1st accused, wrote to that Embassy on 14-2-1967 for a message to be sent during the inauguration of a Bookstall in Calicut. In reply to it the Embassy wrote back on 27-2-1967 to the 90th accused wishing all success to the Bookstall. In the reply letter the Embassy also directed the 90th accused to translate the English version of Mao Tse Tung's thoughts in Malayalam. An English copy had also been sent along with the letter referred to. Ext. P6 letter dated 9-3-1968 was another letter of the Rebel group of Tellicherry. It was addressed to the 1st accused inviting him to attend the special meeting of the Rebel group in Tellicherry. Pw.8 was a new recruit to the Party. He was a railway porter in Trichur. He was introduced to one Haridas, who, in his turn, sent the address of Pw.8 to the 1st accused. A series of pamphlets were sent by the 1st accused to Pw.8. Ext. P24(a) represent the pamphlets which contained Chap.1 to 12 of Mao's thoughts which revealed the revolutionary spirit of the Rebel group. Ext. P24(a) was seized under Ext. P24 mahazar. 41. The next important meeting was on 17-11-1968 at the Kepees Tutorial College, Tellicherry, of which the 2nd accused was the proprietor and principal. The 1st accused was present at that meeting. Ext. P24(a) was seized under Ext. P24 mahazar. 41. The next important meeting was on 17-11-1968 at the Kepees Tutorial College, Tellicherry, of which the 2nd accused was the proprietor and principal. The 1st accused was present at that meeting. Pw.23, who lived in the vicinity of that place in his wife's house; was a regular visitor to the downstair room of the building in which the Tutorial College was conducted in the upstair portion, for the purpose of playing cards. The Party of which accused Nos. 1 and 2 were important members resolved at that meeting that weapons shall be collected and an armed conflict be undertaken. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were known to him for a long time. Pw.23 had stated that the declaration at the meeting was that a revolution through violence shall be organised for which they should collect weapons and then direct an attack against the Tellicherry and Pulpally police stations where from they could collect more and more weapons in furtherance of the revolution. 42. There was an agitation among the farmers of Pulpally area in Wyanad in 1967, when some eviction proceedings against the tenants of the Pulpally Devaswom were in progress. Pw.46 then wrote to the 1st accused to visit Pulpally and strengthen the agitation. The 1st accused, accompanied by his colleagues, arrived in Pulpally when they discussed the future line of action. They decided that Maoism was the only remedy to bring down the landlordism and redress the grievances of peasants and workers. They therefore decided that force shall be used and armed insurrection be started to exterminate and eradicate the rural feudalism. 43. In the meanwhile the collection of arms and recruitment of new members to the Party were in progress. The visit of Pw.76 at the Tutorial College, Tellicherry, revealed that the collection of weapons was in progress and that the 1st accused played an active part in that regard. Exts. P97 and 198 revealed further that the adherents of the new Party believed in the cult of violence to achieve their objective. 44. The 1st accused got printed 1000 copies of Ext. P27 leaflet at the press owned by Pw.15. Pw.15 handed over those leaflets to the 91st accused who was employed in the Bookstall under the 1st accused. Ext. P27 was printed in the address of the Rebel Publication, Kallai Road, Kozhikode. Ext. 44. The 1st accused got printed 1000 copies of Ext. P27 leaflet at the press owned by Pw.15. Pw.15 handed over those leaflets to the 91st accused who was employed in the Bookstall under the 1st accused. Ext. P27 was printed in the address of the Rebel Publication, Kallai Road, Kozhikode. Ext. P27 was seized from Pw.15 who was the proprietor of the press. Ext. P27 revealed that their allegiance was to Mao Tse Tung and that open revolt against the leadership of Shri E. M. S. Namboodiripad and Shri A. K, Gopalan, the two Marxist leaders, was the only remedy for all the ilk. The M. L. M. Party thought an open revolt was an immediate necessity. 45. The 1st accused also used to approach Pw.17, another printer for printing the materials connected with the Marxist Publication. 46. That there was a meeting on 30th October 1968 at the residence of the 1st accused was amply proved in the case. Pw.21, his own brother, spoke about the meeting at which it was decided that the revolutionary party shall come into existence and spread the revolutionary thoughts, of Mao. 47. That the 1st accused had taken active part in organising the developing violence to redress the grievances of workers and peasants was amply borne out from his conduct even as early as two or three months prior to the Tellicherry police station incident. The 1st accused went along with the 4th accused (deceased) and the 5th accused to the business premises of Pw.95 to discuss the Pulpally problem. He was found distributing Mao literature among the public of Calicut during the meeting in October 1967. Pw.127, Head Constable of the Special Branch had made a record of his activity even then. The 3rd accused and the 7th accused assisted him in the distribution of the literature. 48. The next stage during the revolutionary activity of the 1st accused was his preparation for involving himself actively in the Party. He sold his radio set which was found registered in the name of his wife for Rs. 500/- in October 1968. He was noticed by Pw.45 at the residence of the 135th accused in the company of accused Nos. 4 and 6. They were moving in groups from place to place. During the second week of November 1968, accused Nos. 3 and 7 organised volunteers at Edavaka in Wyanad. 500/- in October 1968. He was noticed by Pw.45 at the residence of the 135th accused in the company of accused Nos. 4 and 6. They were moving in groups from place to place. During the second week of November 1968, accused Nos. 3 and 7 organised volunteers at Edavaka in Wyanad. The 7th accused was seen in their company by Pw.44, The 1st accused sold his household furniture to Pw.93, a stationery merchant in Calicut, in 1968. Pw.93 paid the sale proceeds on instalment basis and the last instalment was received by the 3rd accused, the wife of the 1st accused. She remained in Calicut till she drew the arrears of salary in October 1968 after she resigned heir job in the Gujarathi High School. 49. On 19-11-1968 there was some activity in the Kepees Tutorial College, Tellicherry. Pw.76 happened to reach there on that day along with the116th accused (who was discharged) when he found some 10 to 12 persons assembled in the college building. The 1st accused was one among them. By about 3-30 p.m. some other persons had also arrived there. They brought spears, sticks etc. bundled in a gunny bag. They were received by the 1st accused and kept in a safe place in the building. On 20-11-1968 the party moved out of the college as the 1st accused announced that there were strong police movements in the town and that they might watch their presence there. On that day they moved to Kunduchira, which is in the suburbs of Tellicherry, arid they dispersed that day with the direction that they shall meet again at the stadium ground, Tellicherry, on the night of 21-11-1968. They decided at that place that they shall attack the Tellicherry police station on the night of that day. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 handled the weapons at the Tutorial College on 20-11-1968. Pw.85 also saw the 1st accused in charge of the weapons kept there. Pw.80 was the agent of Life Insurance Corporation. On 20-11-1968 he had been to Moolakkadavu, which is near Kunduchira, to meet his friend and on his way back he waited for some vehicle to come to enable him to go home. While so accused Nos. 1 and 2 came in an autorikshaw which was driven by Pw.164 and got down at the spot. On 20-11-1968 he had been to Moolakkadavu, which is near Kunduchira, to meet his friend and on his way back he waited for some vehicle to come to enable him to go home. While so accused Nos. 1 and 2 came in an autorikshaw which was driven by Pw.164 and got down at the spot. The 2nd accused got into the autorikshaw from Mailer's Cafe, which is adjacent to the Tellicherry police station, along with another person, and both of them got out of the autorikshaw at Moolakkadavu. Pw.80 identified the other person as the 1st accused. Pw.80 had a talk with accused Nos. 1 and 2. The 2nd accused was a teacher of Pw.80. Pw.164 was a class-mate of the 2nd accused. It was at about 7-00 p.m. that Pw.80 met accused Nos. 1 and 2 at Moolakkadavu on 20-11-1968. Pw.80 travelled back in the autorikshaw of Pw.164 after meeting his friend at Moolakkadavu which is within 1 1/2 miles from Kunduchira. Pw.86 saw a crowd of about 200 persons at Kunduchira on the date of the incident. He knew from them that they came there for a secret meeting. On the same day Pw.77 saw about 150 persons assembled at 2.30 a.m. in the stadium ground when the 2nd accused was also in their company, and thereafter Pw.78 saw about 300 persons marching along the road by the side of the police station carrying weapons of different descriptions when it was about 3-00 a.m. 50. When the party arrived in front of the police station, the 1st accused was in the front row attempting to untie the knot of the rope with which the gate was closed, after the explosive substance exploded against M.O. 21 notice board, though the attempt of the 2nd accused to hit at Pw.64 sentry on duty by throwing a country bomb against him had foiled. Pws.63, 64 and 75 who were on duty, identified the 1st accused among the crowd of persons who assembled in front of the gate. He had a chopper in his hand during the incident. Just before the incident, Pw.69 had seen accused Nos. 1 and 62 going briskly along the lane near the Telephone Exchange Office. There is a charge against them that they cut the telephone wire at the Exchange before the attack on the police station was begun. He had a chopper in his hand during the incident. Just before the incident, Pw.69 had seen accused Nos. 1 and 62 going briskly along the lane near the Telephone Exchange Office. There is a charge against them that they cut the telephone wire at the Exchange before the attack on the police station was begun. It was admitted that after the incident, the telephone system in the town was completely paralysed and it was also found that the Exchange telephone wire had also been cut. 51. The participation of the 1st accused in the crowd on the night of the incident in front of the police station, armed with chopper in his hand, had been proved by the direct eye-witness account of Pws.63, 64 and 75. Pw.75 knew him for about 5 to 8 years. That part of the evidence of Pw.75 stood uncontradicted. That evidence was corroborated by the evidence of Pws.63 and 64 regarding the identification of the 1st accused. That evidence, coupled with other circumstances in the case, established beyond dispute that the 1st accused was one among the participants who launched an attack on the Tellicherry police station. 52. The conduct of the 1st accused after the incident also confirmed the case against him. He lived in the hotel of Pw.136 at Trichur since 6-12-1968 under an assumed name of Sankarankutty. Pw.137, the watchman of the hotel, identified the 1st accused as the person who lived in the hotel since 6-12-1968 under the assumed name. In Ext. P158, register kept in the hotel, the 1st accused gave his name as Sankarankutty. The entry in Ext. P158 as Ext. P158 (a) was proved by Pw.136. On 8-12-1968 the 1st accused surrendered before the police. On verification with the register, Pw.166 Inspector, ascertained that the 1st accused was the person who lived in the hotel under the false name of Sankarankutty. The guilty mind of the 1st accused was proved beyond doubt coupled with other circumstances in the case. 53. The 2nd accused, like the 1st accused, was a strong adherent of the cult of violence. He was dissatisfied with the work and programme of the C.P.M. Pws.6, 21 and 23 gave evidence against him regarding his participation in violent activities for the Naxalite cult. He was a regular visitor to the house of the 1st accused. 53. The 2nd accused, like the 1st accused, was a strong adherent of the cult of violence. He was dissatisfied with the work and programme of the C.P.M. Pws.6, 21 and 23 gave evidence against him regarding his participation in violent activities for the Naxalite cult. He was a regular visitor to the house of the 1st accused. He was present at the meeting on 30-10-1968 at the residence of the 1st accused at Calicut. Ext. P55 and Ext. P56 publications were attributed to him. Pw.22 of Minerva Printers, Tellicherry, connected the 2nd accused to Exts. P55 and P56. They were published in the name of the Rebel Publication, Kallai Road, Kozhikode, which belonged to the 1st accused. The 2nd accused worked as a close associate of the 1st accused. The evidence of Pw.23, the truth of which could not be disputed, revealed that the party to which the 2nd accused belonged had decided to achieve its objective through the barrel of the gun. 54. The evidence of Pws.24, 25 and 67 revealed that the 2nd accused had been making preparations to join a fight. Pw.24 is the brother-in-law of the 2nd accused. He was a transferee of the furniture which belonged to the 2nd accused, some four or five months prior to the Tellicherry incident. The 2nd accused sold another set of furniture to Pw.25 who was the Principal of another Tutorial College for Rs. 400/- in the first instance and in November 1968 the rest of the furniture of the Kepees Tutorial College was also sold to him. He had also sold away his property to Pw.24 immediately before the incident. Ext. P94 (a) was the entry of the sale deed in the register of the Sub Registrar's Office in favour of Pw.24. The same was proved through Pw.67, the Sub Registrar. The 2nd accused was prepared to join hands with his comrades after selling away all his properties. 55. One important circumstance proved against him was that he gave the building under his control for the purpose of holding meetings and storing weapons on the eve of the attack oh the Tellicherry police station. Pws.76, 77, 80, 82, 85 and 164, whose evidence had already been considered as against the 1st accused, implicated also the 2nd accused to the various activities culminating in an attack on the police station. Pws.76, 77, 80, 82, 85 and 164, whose evidence had already been considered as against the 1st accused, implicated also the 2nd accused to the various activities culminating in an attack on the police station. The evidence of those witnesses could not be brushed aside as improbable. 56 The conduct of the 2nd accused before and after the incident also probabilised his complicity to the crime. Pws.24, 25, 67, 80, 83, 84, 85, 91, 130, 131 and 147 were some of those witnesses who proved his conduct before and after the incident. Pws.83 and 84 were his family friends. Pw.83 was a resident of Madras, and Pw.84 a resident of Tiruppur of Coimbatore District. The 2nd accused, being a classmate of Pw.83, was closely associated with him. On 6-12-1968 the 2nd accused went to Pw.83 at his office and made an extra-judicial confession to him to the effect that he had participated in the Tellicherry revolt and that police was in search of him. However, Pw.83 gave him some money for his expenses and thereafter he met him again on the 14th or 15th of December 1968. When the 2nd accused met Pw.84 in the last week of November, he told him that the police was in search of him. 57. On 19-11-1968, Pw.85, a resident of Karivelloor, went to Cannanore, where from he went to the Kepees Tutorial College, Tellicherry, of the 2nd accused in the company of the 126th accused (discharged). On the next day morning some 15 persons came there and others who came later brought axes, knives, and spears, which were delivered to accused Nos. 1 and 2. Then Pw.85 knew from that place that on the next day there would be an attack on the Tellicherry police station. Pw.130, a room boy of the Grand Lodge, Madras, belonging to Pw.91, identified the 2nd accused as the occupant of a room in the lodge under the assumed name of Venugopal. He lived on 11-12-1968 in Room No.23 which was a double room and later changed into Room No.17 which was a single room. Ext. P100 was the register maintained at the Lodge. Thereafter he was arrested "on 16-12-1968 at Madras. 58. He lived on 11-12-1968 in Room No.23 which was a double room and later changed into Room No.17 which was a single room. Ext. P100 was the register maintained at the Lodge. Thereafter he was arrested "on 16-12-1968 at Madras. 58. Pws.64, 65, 73 and 75 implicated him to the actual incident which took place in front of the police station at about 3-30 a.m. Pw.78 saw him among the other members of the crowd going towards the police station along the road at about 3-00 a.m. just before the explosion was heard from the police station as a result of the throw of an explosive substance. Pw.78 went to Kamalia Restaurant to take his supper as it happened to be the first day of the beginning of the fasting month for Muslims. The restaurant is on the eastern side of the police station, intervened by the road in between. Pw.75, the van driver, was sleeping in the police van stationed touching the astern wall of the police station. Pw.64 was the constable on sentry duty at the police station and Pw.65, a Head Constable, on guard duty. Pw.73 was one among the constables of the Armed Reserve who was specially deputed for guard duty at the police station on the night in question. 59. The evidence of Pw.64 was conclusive that he knew the 2nd accused long before the incident. As a matter of fact the suggestion made to the 2nd accused during cross-examination revealed that the 2nd accused wan noun to Pw.64 even before the incident. If the evidence of Pw.64 was acceptable as regards the identity of the 2nd accused as a person who came and stood in front of the police station and then they having found him throwing an explosive substance against Pw.64, there was no reason to reject the evidence of Pws.65, 73 and 75 who corroborated the evidence of Pw.64 in that regard. Then again there was corroboration of that evidence with the evidence of Pw.78 who saw the 2nd accused along with the same crowd at about 3-00 a.m. going towards the police station. The complicity of the 2nd accused to the crime was proved up to the hilt. 60. Then again there was corroboration of that evidence with the evidence of Pw.78 who saw the 2nd accused along with the same crowd at about 3-00 a.m. going towards the police station. The complicity of the 2nd accused to the crime was proved up to the hilt. 60. The 8th accused was also one of those members of the C. P.M. who came out of that Party after he was expelled from it some time in the second week of November 1968. Pw.6, the leader of the C. P.M., proved his expulsion from the Party. Pw.23 gave evidence that the 8th accused was one of those who attended the meeting on 17-11-1968 at the Kepees Tutorial College, Tellicherry, which belonged to the 2nd accused. It was at that meeting that the most crucial decision was taken to attack the Tellicherry police station as part of their violent activity to capture more weapons and consolidate their position for future attack. The 8th accused took part in the discussion in the meeting. As part of his preparation to join the movement, he gave a gift of his house and property to his wife, Pw.27, on 15-11-1968. Ext. P96 was the registration copy of the gift deed. It was proved through Pw.68, the Sub Registrar. The 8th accused was an employee in a Co-operative Bank. He tendered his resignation from the bank with effect from 15-11-1968 and the arrears of salary due to him was paid to Pw.27. Before resignation he applied for leave. Ext. P69 dated 19-11-1968 was his leave application. The leave was refused by Pw.35, the Secretary of the Co-operative Bank. Since 15-11-1968 he had been absent without leave. Thereafter he resigned his job and filed Ext. P70 application authorising his wife to receive the salary. Exts. P69 and P70 were seized under Ext. P71 mahazar. On the day previous to the incident in Tellicherry, Pw.80 met him at Moolakkadavu when the party assembled in Kunduchira. It was when Pw.80 met accused Nos. 1 and 2 getting out of an autorikshaw of Pw.164 that he had met the 8th accused in the company of accused Nos. 9 and 10. The retreat to Kunduchira was due to the strong police security measures made in Tellicherry on 20-11-1968. It was when Pw.80 met accused Nos. 1 and 2 getting out of an autorikshaw of Pw.164 that he had met the 8th accused in the company of accused Nos. 9 and 10. The retreat to Kunduchira was due to the strong police security measures made in Tellicherry on 20-11-1968. There was also some evidence that the 8th accused was associated with the revolutionary wing of the C.P.M. His house was searched on 10-1-1969, by Pw.167, Inspector, when items 7 and 8 in Ext. P145 search list, along with other items were seized. The literature seized revealed that the cult advocated in that literature was one of violence through the barrel of the gun for capturing power in the State. On the whole there were 19 items of literature in Ext. P145. It was clear from the seized literature that the new Party advocated Marxist-Leninist-Maoist ideology as against the revisionists' line of thought and action. Pw.70 identified the 8th accused as one among the group of persons assembled in front of the police station, Tellicherry, at 3.30 a.m. on 20-11-1968. He was one of the police constables on guard duty on that night at the police station. Pw.70 stated that he knew the 8th accused for about two years before the incident. There was no ground to disbelieve or discredit the evidence of Pw.70 in the circumstances of the case. The presence of the 8th accused in the crowd in front of the police station was proved beyond reasonable doubt. 61. The 9th accused, who was a former police constable, joined the company of the revolutionary Party even in 1967. The evidence of Pw.119 was that the 9th accused conducted a study class in Thettamala Estate in Wyanad where some 22 persons attended the class. Pw.119 cooked food to those persons who attended the class when the 9th accused also helped Pw.119 in cooking food. He was an employee of Pw.10 after the closure of the Ganesh Beedi Company. After he became unemployed due to the strike in the factory, he joined the movement. Pw.10 met him in Mysore. For a long time after the incident he was absconding and was arrested only on 17-3-1970. Pw.80 met him along with accused Nos. 8 and 10 in the vicinity of Kunduchira on the day previous to the incident. After he became unemployed due to the strike in the factory, he joined the movement. Pw.10 met him in Mysore. For a long time after the incident he was absconding and was arrested only on 17-3-1970. Pw.80 met him along with accused Nos. 8 and 10 in the vicinity of Kunduchira on the day previous to the incident. Soon after the incident at about 3-30 a.m. he was seen running away by Pw.79 along with other persons who assembled in front of the police station. The 9th accused was seen to have been used for watching the movements of the police. In that connection he visited the Tellicherry police station four or five days prior to the incident, when Pw.87 was on duty as the station writer at the police station. The 9th accused enquired whether one particular police man was on duty on that day. It transpired that the enquiry he made was for a bogus police man. There was no difficulty for identifying the 9th accused as both the 9th accused and Pw.87 worked as constables in one and the same place. Pw.228 also saw the 9th accused running away along with the other persons in the crowd from the police station side along the road soon after the incident. There was no ground to disbelieve Pw.79 or Pw.228. The identity of the 9th accused among the crowd of persons who stood in front of the police station carrying weapons in their hands was proved through Pws.64, 65 and 71. Pw.64 knew him since one or two months prior to the incident. Pw.65 also gave evidence that he knew him even before the incident. In the same way, Pw.71 claimed acquaintance with him even prior to the incident. There was no ground to reject their evidence in the circumstances of the case. 62. The evidence against the 10th accused was almost the same as the evidence against the 9th accused so far as the part they played at the meeting held at the Kepees Tutorial College, Tellicherry, and their presence near Kunduchira on the day previous to the incident. Pws.23 and 80, whose evidence had already been discussed, would indicate that he was a participant of the meeting on 17-11-1968 and that the 10th accused was one in the company of accused Nos. Pws.23 and 80, whose evidence had already been discussed, would indicate that he was a participant of the meeting on 17-11-1968 and that the 10th accused was one in the company of accused Nos. 8 and 9 going to Kunduchira which was their temporary place of retreat before the attack was launched on the police station on the next day. The 10th accused was an accountant under Pw.34, a provision store keeper of Tellicherry. Upto the first week of November 1968, he worked in that capacity. Ext. P68 would indicate that he wrote the account for Pw.34. Thereafter he left his service without giving notice. He was also associated with the printing of 1000 copies of Ext. P159 (Vide Ext. P160). They were published for and on behalf of the Rebel Publication of the 1st accused. The 10th accused was also the Secretary of the Marxist Cultural Forum, Tellicherry. He criticised the Communist cult of Shri Dange and Shri E. M. S. Namboodiripad, but he upheld the ideology of Mao Tse Tung of China. Pw.139 gave evidence that the 10th accused was closely associated with those publications. Similarly, Pw.215 also stated that in the Tellicherry Municipal Elections held in 1968 the 10th accused got printed from his press certain literature opposing election. Ext. P329 was the proof copy of the pamphlet on Mao literature. Ext. P238 series were the accounts, bills etc. kept at the Surendra Printing Press of Pw.215 from where Ext. P329 was seized under Ext. P330 mahazar. The literature revealed that the 10th accused was bent upon violent activity. Ext. P130 confession made by the 57th accused before Pw.125, Sub Magistrate, under S.164 Cr. P. C. on 29-11-1968 had implicated also the 10th accused as a member of the unlawful assembly as much as the confessor himself. The activities of the crowd of persons beginning from the secret meeting held at the Kepees Tutorial College right upto the attack on the police station were recited in Ext. P130 confession. The confession will lead to the conclusion that the 10th accused along with others was bent upon committing a crime. Pw.65 identified him among the crowd along with others on the night of the incident in front of the police station. He knew him even before the incident. There was no reason to disbelieve Pw.65 in that regard. The evidence against the 10th accused was conclusive. 63. Pw.65 identified him among the crowd along with others on the night of the incident in front of the police station. He knew him even before the incident. There was no reason to disbelieve Pw.65 in that regard. The evidence against the 10th accused was conclusive. 63. The 11th accused who belonged to Cherukunnu, which is in the vicinity of Pappinisseri, had been connected closely with the Rebel Publication of the 1st accused. He got printed at the Sujata Press, Pappinisseri, some 1000 copies of the literature pertaining to the revolutionary activities of the party in the name of Rebel Publication. His name appeared in Ext. P47, bill book maintained at the press (vide page 35) under which Rs. 42/- was seen paid to him by Pw.19. Pw.19 identified the 11th accused who got them printed at his press. On 17-11-1968 he participated at the secret meeting held at the Kepees Tutorial College, Tellicherry. Pw.23 identified him as one of the participants. The 11th accused took active part in the manufacture and collection of weapons. On 19-11-1968 at 8-00 a.m. he went to Pw.54, a blacksmith, for fitting iron made spears on 7 canes which he produced before him. After fitting up with caps of spears on the canes they were delivered by Pw.54 to the 11th accused at 10-00 a.m. on 20-11-1968. After the incident they were seized as M. O.13 and M. O.14 series along with other articles which were found lying outside the police station, under Ext. P139 mahazar. They were identified by Pw.54 as the identical spear-heads which he made for the 11th accused on 20-11-1968. There was further evidence against him that he produced weapons at the Kepees Tutorial College on the afternoon of 20-11-1968 when Pw.76 was present at the college. Pw.76 was able to identify the 11th accused along with others who brought weapons in gunny bags. The 11th accused was one of the active participants with others to collect weapons for attacking the police station. Pw.65, the police constable on duty at the police station, identified the 11th accused as one among others who came to attack the police station at 3-30a.m. on 22-11-1968. The evidence of Pw.65 was conclusive as against the 11th accused as he knew him even before the incident. His participation in the crime was therefore established beyond any doubt. 64. Pw.65, the police constable on duty at the police station, identified the 11th accused as one among others who came to attack the police station at 3-30a.m. on 22-11-1968. The evidence of Pw.65 was conclusive as against the 11th accused as he knew him even before the incident. His participation in the crime was therefore established beyond any doubt. 64. The next accused who participated in the crime was the 13th accused. His main contribution in the development of plot to attack the police station was the procurement of weapons. He approached Pw.55, blacksmith for making four spears and one dagger and drew out a design for making a specific pattern. Accordingly Pw.55 made M. O.15 series (four in number) and M. O.16 dagger. The 13th accused took delivery of those weapons two or three days before the Tellicherry incident and on the early morning of 22-11-1968 they were seized along with other weapons outside the premises of the police station under Ext. P139 mahazar. Pw.71, one of the constables on duty at the police station, knew him before. So he was able to identify him along with others among the crowd who stood in front of the police station at 3-30 a.m. on the night of the attack. Pw.81, who conducted business as a hawker, was a regular visitor to Tellicherry and Calicut and the interior villages adjacent to those towns; and during the ourse of his tour he alighted from a lorry in front of one Mammu Haji's orange shop on the O.V. Road in Tellicherry on his way to Calicut. So he was going towards the bus stand when he found the 13th accused running away from the police station side towards the O. V. Road. Pw.81 knew him before. Thereafter he went in a bus at about 5-30 a.m. to Calicut. Ext. P130 confession made by the 57th accused was also a circumstance to show that the 13th accused was equally liable as the 57th accused for the crime ultimately found proved against them. The presence and participation of the 13th accused at different stages in the development of the preparation for an attack on the police station were clear circumstances to show that he joined the crowd with a guilty mind to carry out their objective. 65. The presence and participation of the 13th accused at different stages in the development of the preparation for an attack on the police station were clear circumstances to show that he joined the crowd with a guilty mind to carry out their objective. 65. The 15th accused was fount standing in front of the police station at 3-30 a.m. along with others by Pw.63, Sub Inspector, who ordered them to disperse. While he was arrested on 23-11-1968, the next day after the incident, two letters were seized from his person. They were Exts. P137 and P138. Ext. P137 was written by the 13th accused and addressed to the 6th accused. But the letter was opened by mistake and retained with the 15th accused. The other letter was written by the I5th accused and addressed to one Vasu. But it was not posted to him. The recovery of these letters was not disputed. On reading these two letters, the evidence was positive that the 15th accused was bent upon raising a violent revolution in consonance with the thoughts of Mao Tse Tung for redressing the grievances of peasants and workers. These letters were seized under Ext. P136 mahazar which was attested by Pw.128. There was not even a suggestion that Pw.128 was not a truthful witness. In the light of the evidence on record, the participation of the 15th accused in the crime was proved beyond dispute. 66. The fact that accused Nos. 42 and 43 had been arrested by Pw.63 on 22-11-1968 admitted of no dispute. The prosecution case was that they were chased and arrested at about 3.45 a.m. when the entire crowd was on the run from the police station as soon as the armed police men on duty came out. A brother of the 43rd accused filed a bail application on 22-11-1968 in which it was admitted that the arrest was at 7-30 a.m. That version was not consistent with the defence version that they were arrested late in the day at some other place. The names of accused Nos. 42 and 43 appeared in Ext. P93 first information statement which was lodged by Pw.63 at 5-30 a.m. That was an indication that these two accused persons could have been arrested earlier. The allegations made against Ext. The names of accused Nos. 42 and 43 appeared in Ext. P93 first information statement which was lodged by Pw.63 at 5-30 a.m. That was an indication that these two accused persons could have been arrested earlier. The allegations made against Ext. P. 93 that it was prepared long afterwards inasmuch as it reached the Sub Magistrate only at 10-00 p.m. on the same day could not be appreciated in the circumstances of the case. The fact that the Sub Magistrate initialled Ext. P93 at 10-00 p.m. would not in any manner indicate that it would have been lodged after 5-30 a.m. As a matter of fact, Pws.64, 65, 66, 70, 71, 73, 74 and 75 had been questioned by the investigating Officer even on 22-11-1968 and almost all the names of the accused persons who participated in the crime had come on record So if the Investigation Agency wanted those names also to be included in Ext. P93, they could have done so before it was sent to the Magistrate. The alleged delay in sending Ext. P93, to the Sub Magistrate was not, therefore, a circumstance either to discard the truth of Ext. P93, first information, or to reject the eye-witness account of the arrest of these two accused themselves before 5.30 a.m. The first information was recorded as early as 5-30 a.m., when Pw.63 mentioned in it that accused Nos. 42 and 43 had been chased and arrested. Dw. 1, the newspaper reporter, had no personal knowledge of the person arrested in connection with the incident. He did not even get admission to the police station after the incident. He was not able to verify whether accused Nos. 42 and 43 had been arrested or not. The news item appeared in the local newspaper in Tellicherry was not based upon the truth of the circumstances existed at the time of its report. It was mere hearsay and, therefore, could not be relied upon. There is no apparent contradiction in the evidence of Pw.63 regarding their arrest. Admittedly, both accused Nos. 42 and 43 sustained some injuries. Evidently, the injuries were caused as a result of a fall while they were being chased. The appearance of simple injuries on the knee and palm was proof positive that they sustained those injuries due to a fall. It was consistent with the prosecution case. Admittedly, both accused Nos. 42 and 43 sustained some injuries. Evidently, the injuries were caused as a result of a fall while they were being chased. The appearance of simple injuries on the knee and palm was proof positive that they sustained those injuries due to a fall. It was consistent with the prosecution case. They were armed with weapons until they were arrested, but before the arrest the weapons were thrown away. The argument was that the failure to recover those identical weapons indicated that the prosecution version that they were armed with weapons was not true. It was in evidence that several kinds of weapons were lying all over the place beginning from the gate of the police station almost upto the bus stand on the road. It would not have been possible to identify those weapons which were thrown away by accused Nos. 42 and 43. It was quite possible that Pw.63 could not have been watchful to ascertain the. type and the nature of those weapons when he was confronted with the immediate arrest of not only these two accused persons but also as many as other persons who were in the crowd. It could not, therefore, be said that the evidence of Pw.63 regarding the nature and type of weapons which were in the hands of accused Nos. 42 and 43 was unreliable. The defence version that the injuries on the persons of accused Nos. 42 and 43 were due to police attack and torture after their arrest could not be accepted. Even during the remand of these accused persons they had no such case. On the contrary they stated that the police did not ill-treat them much less cause any injury on their persons (vide Ext. P300). Pw.158 was the Assistant Surgeon who examined accused Nos. 42 and 43 and issued Ext. P212 and Ext. P213 wound certificates. That accused Nos. 42 and 43 sustained injuries during a fall appeared to be more probable than the defence version in the circumstances of the case. If that be so, the prosecution case had to be accepted that accused Nos. 42 and 43 and issued Ext. P212 and Ext. P213 wound certificates. That accused Nos. 42 and 43 sustained injuries during a fall appeared to be more probable than the defence version in the circumstances of the case. If that be so, the prosecution case had to be accepted that accused Nos. 42 and 43 were chased and arrested by Pw.63 at about 3-45 a.m. Neither the version of Pw.89 nor that of Pw.90 was material piece of evidence as the information furnished to the All India Radio Correspondent, not based upon any authoritative utterance of any police officer much less the investigation agency. The fact of the arrest of accused Nos. 42 and 43 on 22-11-1968 at 7-30 a.m. having been admitted the only conclusion possible in the case is that the evidence of Pw.63 that they were arrested at 3-45 a.m. was true. This version was corroborated by other evidence in the case. There was no difficulty for Pw.63 to identify accused Nos. 42 and 43. Pws.66 and 71 also identified them. The rest of the eye-witnesses also stated that accused Nos. 42 and 43 had been arrested on the road soon after the incident and they were in lock-up. There was no ground to hold that the evidence against accused Nos. 42 and 43 could not be relied upon. The conclusion of the Sessions Judge in favour of accused Nos. 42 and 43 was based upon wrong assumptions without any regard for proved facts and relevant circumstances. The evidence against them was conclusive. 67. Pw.65, the police constable on duty at the police station proved that the 57th accused was one among the crowd of persons who assembled in front of the police station at 3-30 a.m. Pw.65 knew him even before the incident. He worked as an accountant under Pw.31 in Tellicherry in his cloth business, but since 19-11-1968, he absented himself from duty without any valid reason. He was arrested along with accused Nos. 58 and 60 at Thirunelli temple by Pw.201. The entire activities of the 57th accused and that of accused Nos. 1, 2, 10, 58 and 62 were the subject matter of a confession which the 57th accused made under S.164 Cr. P. C., before a Sub Magistrate in Ext. P130. That Ext. He was arrested along with accused Nos. 58 and 60 at Thirunelli temple by Pw.201. The entire activities of the 57th accused and that of accused Nos. 1, 2, 10, 58 and 62 were the subject matter of a confession which the 57th accused made under S.164 Cr. P. C., before a Sub Magistrate in Ext. P130. That Ext. P130 was a true confession could not be disputed in view of the different materials set out in the confession implicating himself and others to a crime as members of an unlawful assembly. In that confession, the 13th accused was dubbed as the group leader of the 57th accused and some others during the attack which was sought to be made on the police station. The descriptive form of the confession showed that every member of the crowd had in mind the dominant idea to attack the police station and the crowd also had carried different types of weapons with them. They marched out of the stadium ground carrying weapons in their hands towards the police station. The fact that the crowd marched with weapons in their hands was not disputed. But when the front line leaders started running the 57th accused also followed their foot-steps in running away. The evidence against him was conclusive that he participated in the crime. 68. The 58th accused was implicated along with others as he took active part in the collection of weapons. Pw.10 identified him as one of those workers who became unemployed on account of the closure of the Ganesh Beedi Works. As he was unemployed, he joined hands with the revolutionary group. Some three weeks prior to the Tellicherry incident, the 14th accused who is still absconding placed an order with Pw.52 black-smith for the manufacture of four iron spears. Four or five days prior to the incident, the 58th accused took delivery of those spears (M.O. 11 series) from Pw.52. M.O. 11 series were seized from the road in front of the police station on 22-11-1968 under Ext. P139 mahazar. The complicity of the 58th accused was traced through Pw.52 and M.O. 11 series. Ext. P130 confession of the 57th accused had brought to light his complicity to the crime. M.O. 11 series were seized from the road in front of the police station on 22-11-1968 under Ext. P139 mahazar. The complicity of the 58th accused was traced through Pw.52 and M.O. 11 series. Ext. P130 confession of the 57th accused had brought to light his complicity to the crime. The evidence of Pw.63, in the circumstances of the case, had to be accepted that he saw him in the crowd which stood in front of the police station at about 3.30. a.m. on 22-11-1968. 69. Accused Nos. 60 and 62 went in a company to Pw.53 blacksmith, three or four days prior to the occurrence and got M.O. 12 chisel made. M.O. 12 together with M.O. 163 another chisel was seized along with many other weapons which were found lying scattered in front of the police station soon after the incident. The prosecution case was that those chisels were used by accused Nos. 1 and 62 for cutting the telephone wire at the Telephone Exchange on the night of the incident. Pw.153, Forensic Expert, on examination of the clipping plank and M.Os. 12 and 163 came to the conclusion that the chisels in question could have been used for cutting the wires which were traced during the investigation. Ext. P384 was the certificate of the Expert. Though there was no direct evidence against accused Nos. 1 and 62 for the alleged cutting of the telephone wire, accused Nos. 60 and 62 were traced to the manufacture of M.O. 12 chisel with which the wires were cut. On the night of the incident, Pw.69, an independent witness against whom no suggestion of any kind was made in cross-examination stated that he saw accused Nos. 1 and 62 going along the by-lane leading to the Telephone Exchange at about 2.00 a.m. Pws.66 and 71, the two constables on duty at the police station, identified the 62nd accused when he stood in front of the police station at about 3-30 a.m. They knew him even before the incident. There was no reason to reject their evidence. The complicity of the 62nd accused was brought home beyond any doubt. In the same way, Pw.64 identified the 60th accused. He had occasion to know the 60th accused one or two months prior to the Tellicherry incident. The 60th accused was equally liable to the crime with which he would ultimately be found guilty. 70. The complicity of the 62nd accused was brought home beyond any doubt. In the same way, Pw.64 identified the 60th accused. He had occasion to know the 60th accused one or two months prior to the Tellicherry incident. The 60th accused was equally liable to the crime with which he would ultimately be found guilty. 70. The 63rd accused was known to Pw.9 who was contractor under the Ganesh Beedi Works. Pws.66 and 71 identified him as one among the persons who assembled with weapons in their hand in front of the police station at about 3-30 a.m. on 22-11-1968. The fact that Pw.66 failed to identify the 58th or 60th accused was not a ground to reject his evidence. Pw.71 also identified him in the crowd. There was no reason for Pws.66 and 71 to implicate the 63rd accused to the crime. There was no reason to reject their evidence. The evidence of Pw.66 was corroborated by the evidence of Pw.71 so far as it related to the complicity of the 63rd accused. The 63rd accused is liable to the crime as much as the other accused persons. Pw.66 had also identified the 65th accused with a spear in his hand standing in front of the police station at about 3-30 a.m. on 22-11-1968. There was no reason to disbelieve that part of his evidence. He had occasion to know the 65th accused even before. That was a circumstance to rely upon his evidence. Pw.66 had no particular reason to implicate the 65th accused to a crime. The complicity of the 65th accused was accordingly proved beyond doubt. 71. The 75th accused was known to Pw.70 prior to the Tellicherry incident. It was under those circumstances that he was alleged to have identified him while he stood in front of the police station at 3-30 a.m. But there was serious doubt about his identity as in the committal court Pw.70 pointed out the 69th accused in the place of the 75th accused. So the complicity of the 75th accused was not proved beyond doubt. 72. The 77th accused was an assistant teacher in the Madayi Government High School, of which Pw.33 was the Headmaster. The 77th accused was on leave on half average pay with effect from 20-11-1968 for 31 days. Ext. P65 was his leave application and Ext. P66 was the order thereon. They were seized under Ext. 72. The 77th accused was an assistant teacher in the Madayi Government High School, of which Pw.33 was the Headmaster. The 77th accused was on leave on half average pay with effect from 20-11-1968 for 31 days. Ext. P65 was his leave application and Ext. P66 was the order thereon. They were seized under Ext. P67 mahazar. Pw.65, the constable on duty knew him even before the incident. There was no reason to discard his evidence. It was clear that the 77th accused entered on leave with a view to join the attack on the police station. Accepting the evidence of Pw.65, the complicity of the 77th accused was proved beyond doubt. 73. The 78th accused was a teacher in the Government High School, Kalliasseri, of which Pw.30 was the Headmaster. The 78th accused worked under him as a teacher. Ext. P61 was his leave application dated 25-11-1968. Leave was granted to him upto 30-11-1968. On account of students' strike the school was closed from 20th November to 25th November. So the 78th accused got an opportunity to avail of the leave as well as the closure of the school to associate himself with the revolutionary movement. Under Ext. P62 mahazar, the leave application was seized. Pw.65 knew him even before the incident. There was, therefore, no difficulty for him to identify the 78th accused as one of the persons who assembled in front of the police station at 3-30 a.m. on 22-11-1968. The case against him had been proved beyond any shadow of doubt. 74. Pw.73, the constable on guard duty at the police station belonged to the locality of accused Nos. 82, 83 and 84. They knew each other and Pw.73, therefore, identified them when they assembled in front of the police station at 3-30 a.m. The evidence of Pw.73 could not be discarded in the circumstances of the case. There had not been any suggestion in the cross-examination that the witness was biased or that he was in any other way inimical towards them. The complicity of accused Nos. 82, 83 and 84 was proved beyond doubt. 75. Pw.74 could identify the 87th accused as one among the crowd of persons who assembled in front of the police station. Pw.74 stated that he knew him even before the incident. There was no ground to disbelieve Pw.74 who had occasion to meet him during the incident. 82, 83 and 84 was proved beyond doubt. 75. Pw.74 could identify the 87th accused as one among the crowd of persons who assembled in front of the police station. Pw.74 stated that he knew him even before the incident. There was no ground to disbelieve Pw.74 who had occasion to meet him during the incident. The presence of the 87th accused with guilty intention to commit a crime was established conclusively. 76. The complicity of the 90th accused with the 1st accused during the stage of preparation for an onslaught on the police station, Tellicherry, was proved through his close connection with the Marxist Publication, Kallai Road, Calicut. While so, the parallel publication was continued at Kallai by the 1st accused. Then Pw.4 sent Ext. P3 letter to the 1st accused. In reply to it 90th accused sent Ext. P4 letter to Pw.4. It was thereafter that the 1st accused started the Rebel Publication at Kallai Road, Calicut. According to Pw.6, the 90th accused had also been expelled from the Marxist party (M.L.M.). Pw.17, the owner of Dhanalakshmi Press, Olavanna, connected accused Nos. 90 and 91 with the 1st accused in getting revolutionary literature printed at his press. All of them had occasion to go to the press to get such matters printed there. Ext P42 was signed both by accused Nos. 90 and 91. The 90th accused signed it for and on behalf of the Marxist Publication. Pw.17 proved the publications like Exts. P40 and P41. The 91st accused signed manuscript literature on behalf of the Rebel Publication, Kallai Road, Calicut. Some of the literature got printed at that press revealed that the authors of the literature had no faith in parliamentary democracy which was sponsored and developed by the C.P.M. and other opposite Parties. The revolutionary group wanted the peasants and workers in the country to rise up in arms and strengthen their hold on the people. According to them, all the parties opposed to them are imperialists and reactionaries who supported the revisionists. They wanted such people to be watched in which case they stated that future would be in their hands. Accused Nos. 90 and 91 subscribed to these views as would be seen from the literature with which they were associated. Pw.75 knew them for about eight years before the incident. They wanted such people to be watched in which case they stated that future would be in their hands. Accused Nos. 90 and 91 subscribed to these views as would be seen from the literature with which they were associated. Pw.75 knew them for about eight years before the incident. He witnessed the incident within 15 feet from the front gate of the police station. He was sleeping in the police van which was parked on the eastern side of the police station building. On getting up from his sleep, it would be easy for him to witness the occurrence. The cross-examination of the witness did not reveal any infirmity in his evidence. The veracity of his evidence could not be disputed in any circumstance of the case. The connection between the 1st accused and the 91st accused was traced through Exts. P27, P28 and P42. These publications would speak for themselves and the authors of these publications believed in the revolutionary theory of violence for the attainment of their objective. Pw.23 had also given evidence against the 91st accused regarding his participation in the secret meeting at the Kepees Tutorial College, Tellicherry. Pw.229 searched the house of the 91st accused when Ext. P358 series were seized under Ext. P359 list. Mao Tse Tung's teachings were incorporated in these books. They would show that the 91st accused was hand-in-glove with the 1st accused. The evidence against accused Nos. 90 and 91 was, therefore, conclusive. 77. The evidence so far discussed established that accused Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 42, 43, 57, 58, 60, 62, 63, 65, 77, 78, 82, 83, 84, 87, 90 and 91 assembled in front of the police station at about 3-30 a.m. on 22-11-1968, when the 2nd accused threw an explosive substance aimed at Pw.64 who was on sentry duty. There was also evidence that except accused Nos. 2, 10, 15 and 58 the other accused persons aforesaid had in their hands arms such as sticks, spears or daggers which were deadly weapons. The explosive substance kept with the 2nd accused was not proved to be a deadly weapon coming within the meaning of that expression in S.148 IPC. 78. There was also evidence that except accused Nos. 2, 10, 15 and 58 the other accused persons aforesaid had in their hands arms such as sticks, spears or daggers which were deadly weapons. The explosive substance kept with the 2nd accused was not proved to be a deadly weapon coming within the meaning of that expression in S.148 IPC. 78. The very fact that the aforesaid accused persons assembled in front of the police station at 3-30 a.m. armed with deadly weapons was proot positive that the common object of those persons was one of those specified in S.141 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused persons who assembled in front of the police station would not have come there as way-farers or sightseers. They were armed with deadly weapons. Those weapons were partly thrown here and there in front of the police station and in its neighbourhood while they were running away. That they had a common object to attack the police station and then to injure the occupants of that station with the weapons in their hands was amply proved not merely by their appearance there with weapons in their hands, but also due to the attempt made by the 2nd accused to cause injury to Pw.64 by throwing an explosive substance against him. The accused person aforesaid held secret meetings beginning from 30-10-1968 at the residence of the 1st accused, and later at Kepees Tutorial College of the 2nd accused at Tellicherry, where they decided to launch an attack on the police stations at Tellicherry and Pulpalli and with that end in view brisk preparation was on foot for making and collection of weapons. Some of those weapons they made or produced had been seized at the road outside the police station premises soon after they dispersed from the place. That they were imbued with revolutionary spirit of violence on the basis of the alleged thoughts of Mao Tse Tung of China was also proved from the various types of literature seized from them during the investigation. It would be legitimate under those circumstances to hold that these accused persons had the common object as members of an unlawful assembly to attack the Tellicherry police station and to cause injury to the police men in charge of the police station. It would be legitimate under those circumstances to hold that these accused persons had the common object as members of an unlawful assembly to attack the Tellicherry police station and to cause injury to the police men in charge of the police station. There was evidence that the 2nd accused threw an explosive substance against Pw.64 by taking it out from a plastic bag which he held under his shoulder. It was also proved that the explosive substance if it had hit Pw.64 or any other person an injury was likely to be caused on them. There was, however, no evidence that as a result of the throw of the explosive substance death of any person was likely to be caused. So the charge of attempt to murder could not be predicted and maintained against any of these accused persons. Being members of unlawful assembly and as such force was used by the accused as a member of that assembly, every member of that assembly is liable to an offence of rioting. The fact that almost all the members of the crowd were armed with deadly weapons was a circumstance to hold that every member of that crowd knew that an offence was likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object in which case the members of the crowd assembled in front of the police station could be designated as members of an unlawful assembly. Those of the accused persons who were found to be in possession of deadly weapons shall be held liable to an offence under S.148 I.P.C. In the absence of any evidence that the common object of the unlawful assembly was to cause the death of Pw.64 or any other person it has to be inferred from the circumstances of the case that the common object of the unlawful assembly was only an attempt to cause some injury either to Pw.64 or any other member of the police personnel who was in charge of the police station in which case the offence to be made out against the aforesaid accused persons shall be an attempt to cause injury to Pw.64 or any other person using an explosive substance coming under S.324 read S.511 and 149 I.P.C. However, the 2nd accused has to be held liable as principal offender under S.324 read with S.511 I.P.C., as he threw the explosive substance directly against Pw.64. 79. 79. In a parallel case, K. C. Mathew v. State of Travancore-Cochin (AIR. 1956 S. C. 241) where the accused persons assembled in large numbers with lethal weapons in their hands, the Supreme Court had come to the conclusion that they were members of an unlawful assembly with the common object to commit murder. Bose J., in delivering the judgment stated: "Even if it be assumed that the common object was only to rescue the two accused who were in the lock-up, it is obvious that the use of violence was implicit in that object. People do not gather together at the dead of night armed with crackers and choppers and sticks to rescue persons who are guarded by armed police without intending to use violence in order to overcome the resistance of the guards; and a person would have to be very naive and simple-minded if as did not realise that the sentries posted to guard prisoners at night are fully armed and are expected to use their arms should the need arise; and he would have to be a moron in intelligence if he did not know that murder of the armed guards would be a likely consequence in such a raid; and what holds good for murder also holds good for looting in general. Now S.149 applies not only to offences actually committed in pursuance of the common object but also to offences that members of the assembly know are likely to be committed. It would be impossible on the facts of this case to hold that the members of the assembly did not know that murder was likely to be committed in pursuance of a common object of that kind by an assembly as large as the one we have here. Accordingly, even if the common object be not placed as high as murder the conviction on the murder-committing charge was fully justified." Again, the Supreme Court in C. M. Subba Naidu v. State of Andhra Pradesh ((1968) SCWR. 736) made a similar observation by way of inference from proved facts in the case where an assembly of persons appeared in the scene armed with deadly weapons. 736) made a similar observation by way of inference from proved facts in the case where an assembly of persons appeared in the scene armed with deadly weapons. It reads as follows: "When a large body of persons go forth armed with lethal weapons such as spears, axes and lathis, with the common object of way-laying and beating their intended victims, it is reasonable to infer that if these weapons are used the offence of murder will be likely to be committed. 80. There is ample justification in the case in hand to come to the conclusion that the accused persons assembled in front of the police station at an untimely hour armed with lethal weapons with the common object to attack the police station as well as to cause injury to the policemen on duty. Every person who assembled in front of the police station in the circumstances of the case was a member of the unlawful assembly with the common object aforesaid. 81. One of the arguments of the learned counsel of the accused persons is that there is no charge against them to establish that the common object of the unlawful assembly was to cause the death of Pw.64, Krishnan Nambiar, the sentry on duty at the police station, which is an offence under S.307 IPC., read with S.149 IPC. There is no dispute that there is a valid charge against the 2nd accused individually for the offence under S.307 IPC., for the alleged attempt to cause the death of Pw.64. The relevant charge as framed at the Sessions Court reads as follows: "That you, A2 K. P. Narayanan on the same date, time and place and during the course of the same transaction viz., to attack Tellicherry police station, threw a bulb filled with explosive substances at witness No.27 in the charge sheet, M.K.Krishnan Nambiar who was on duty at the time as sentry of the police station, with such intention or knowledge and other such circumstances, that by that act you had caused the death of the said Krishnan Nambiar, you, would have been guilty of murder and you accused No.2 thereby committed an offence punishable under S.307 of the Indian Penal Code, and you accused Nos. 1, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15, 42, 43, 50, 52, 53, 57, 58, 59, 60, 62, 63, 65, 69, 75, 76, 77, 78, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 100, 125 (in S. C. 36 of 1970), accused Nos. 9 and 91 (in S. C, 51 of 1970) who were members of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of attacking Tellicherry Police Station by the 2nd accused who was a member of such unlawful assembly and you are thereby under S.149 of the Indian Penal Code, guilty of causing the abovesaid offence, an offence punishable under S.307 of the Indian Penal Code." 82. The argument is that in the absence of clear description of the common object alleged against the accused persons other than the 2nd accused that they too had the intention to commit the murder of Pw.64 Krishnan Nambiar there was no charge laid against them under S.307 read with S.149 IPC. On a reading of the entire charge one cannot deny the fact that there has been a charge against the accused persons under S.307 read with S.149 IPC. These two sections are inserted in the charge as against the accused persons. In, that case it could not be argued that there was no charge against the accused persons. At best, it could be said that the charge was defective or it was not complete without describing the requisite common object ascribed to the accused persons other than the 2nd accused. 83. The question for consideration is whether the omission to mention the common object in the charge had vitiated the trial. It may also be relevant in such eases to see whether or not the accused had been misled by the omission, and the omission had caused a failure of justice. In order to find whether the accused had been prejudiced a good test would be to see whether that accused had no notice during the trial of the case of the prosecution as to the common object so as to enable them to meet it in their defence and in cross-examination. 84. One of the earliest cases of the Supreme Court on the question of omission of common object in the charge was Willie Slaney v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR. 1956 SC. 84. One of the earliest cases of the Supreme Court on the question of omission of common object in the charge was Willie Slaney v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR. 1956 SC. 116) where the majority of the Judges, Chandrasekhara Aiyar, Jagannadha Das and Imam JJ., held: "Ss. 34, 114 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code provide for criminal liability viewed from different angles as regards actual participants, accessories and men actuated by a common object or a common intention; and the charge is a rolled-up one involving the direct liability and the constructive liability without specifying who are directly liable and who are sought to be made constructively liable. In such a situation, the absence of a charge under one or other of the various heads of criminal liability for the offence cannot be said to be fatal by itself, and before a conviction for the substantive offence, without a charge, can be set aside, prejudice will have to be made out. In most of the cases of this kind, evidence is normally given from the outset as to who was primarily responsible for the act which brought about the offence and such evidence is of course relevant." 85. In a similar case reported in Brundaban Swain v. State (AIR. 1957 Orissa 117) the charge was under S.147 IPC. where the common object alleged in the charge was to assault the members of the opposite party and enforce the supposed right against them and claim over the produce of the fields whereas in the judgment of the Sessions Judge it was found that the common object of the assembly was to commit the offence of criminal trespass and theft of paddy and also for assaulting the opposite party if they offered resistance. It was contended before the High Court that the finding by the Sessions Judge was vitiated inasmuch as the common object was not stated to be to commit theft and criminal trespass. The Orissia High Court, relying upon the Supreme Court decision in W. Slaney v. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR. 1956 SC. 116) observed that the 'finding of the Sessions Judge was not vitiated on the ground that in the charge the common object was not stated to be to commit theft and criminal trespass. The Orissia High Court, relying upon the Supreme Court decision in W. Slaney v. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR. 1956 SC. 116) observed that the 'finding of the Sessions Judge was not vitiated on the ground that in the charge the common object was not stated to be to commit theft and criminal trespass. It was further observed: "Where the charge under S.304/149 did not mention that the accused had knowledge that death was likely to be caused in prosecution of the common object of the assembly, the omission was not an illegality but an irregularity and was a curable defect. Where the accused were defended by counsel in the trial it cannot be held that the accused were in any way prejudiced by the omission." 86. More or less in the same way the Supreme Court held that the defect in a charge can be ignored by virtue of S.535 and 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Vide Willie Slaney v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR. 1956 SC. 116). There Bose J., who delivered the concurring judgment on behalf of S. R. Das, Ag. C. J. (as he then was) also, observed: "Like all procedural laws the Code of Criminal Procedure is designed to sub-serve the ends of justice and not to frustrate them by mere technicalities. It regards some of its provisions as vital but others not, and a breach of the latter is a curable irregularity unless the accused is prejudiced thereby. It places errors in the charge, or even a total absence of a charge in the curable class. This is made clear by S.535 and 537 of the Code." It was further observed: "The object of the charge is to give the accused notice of the matter he is charged with and does not touch jurisdiction. If, therefore, the necessary information is conveyed to him in other ways and there is no prejudice, the trial is not invalidated by the mere fact that the charge was not formally reduced to writing. The essential part of this part of the law is not any technical formula of words but the reality, whether the matter was explained to the accused and whether he understood what he was being tried for." 87. The conclusions in these decisions are based upon the principle of S.537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The essential part of this part of the law is not any technical formula of words but the reality, whether the matter was explained to the accused and whether he understood what he was being tried for." 87. The conclusions in these decisions are based upon the principle of S.537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Under that section no sentence passed by a court of competent jurisdiction shall be reversed or altered on appeal or revision on account of any error, omission or irregularity in the charge, unless such error, omission, or irregularity has in fact occasioned a failure of justice. So we have to consider whether the aforesaid defect or omission has in fact occasioned a failure of justice. 88. In the case in hand the accused persons knew from the very beginning the case they had to meet. It was a common case for all the accused persons. They had been represented by Advocates in the lower court. No objection appeared to have been taken at the trial questioning the defective nature of the charge. The prosecution led evidence to prove that the accused persons armed themselves with deadly weapons made an attempt to enter the police station and the 2nd accused threw an explosive substance aimed at Pw.64 intending thereby to cause injury to him. The accused had ample opportunity to meet this case. Thus, as a matter of fact, the eye witnesses had been strenuously and effectively cross-examined at great length. The evidence in the case left no room for doubt that the accused had knowledge that hurt was likely to be caused to the inmates of the police station in prosecution of this common object, namely the attack on the police station coupled with their object to cause the death of Pw.64. However, the common object at the spot was dwindled down to one of attempting to cause simple hurt to Pw.64 while the attack was in progress on the police station. Under the circumstances there can be no failure of justice in this case and consequently no prejudice has been caused to the accused persons. The charges framed against the accused persons are in order and the trial is therefore not vitiated by any illegality. 89. Under the circumstances there can be no failure of justice in this case and consequently no prejudice has been caused to the accused persons. The charges framed against the accused persons are in order and the trial is therefore not vitiated by any illegality. 89. The learned counsel who argued the case on behalf of the accused persons contended that without a test identification parade conducted during the investigation, the mere oral testimony in court by the witnesses who were alleged to have identified the accused persons when they stood in front of the gate of the Tellicherry police station at 3-30 a.m. on 22-11-1968 was not sufficient to establish the identity of those persons. In support of that contention reliance had been placed on some decided cases. To start with, this contention can be answered in a simple manner. That is to say, if the accused person or persons are well known by sight, it would be a waste of time to put him up for an identification parade and so the absence of test identification parade in such cases is not fatal to the prosecution. 90. Considering the aspect of the case argued by the learned counsel, we might also add that no hard and fast rule can be laid down in the identification of accused persons in criminal cases by witnesses in their evidence before courts if they are known to them previously. However, Phipson in his Law of Evidence, 8th Edition, page 392, observed as follows: "In criminal cases it is improper to identify the accused only when in the dock; the police should place him, beforehand, with others, and ask the witness to pick him out." 91. In Davies v. The King (57 CLR. 170 at 181), it was observed that it was "indisputable that a witness, if shown to the person to be identified singly and as the person whom the police have reason to suspect, will be much more likely, however fair and careful he may be, to assent to the view that the man he is shown corresponds to his recollection." 92. In another decision in Craig v. The King (49 CLR. In another decision in Craig v. The King (49 CLR. 429) the learned Judges quoted the observations of Lord Guthire at the Slater Trial in the following words: "It would not be safe to convict the prisoner merely on the evidence of personal impression of his identity with the man seen flying from the house, on the part of strangers to him, without reference to any marked personality or personal peculiarities, and without corroboration derived from other kinds of evidence. My proposition involves a distinction between the identification, by personal impression, of a strange person, and the identification by a personal impression, of a familiar person." 93. Reviewing these decisions Wanchoo C. J. (as he then was) made the following observations in Bhurgiri v. The State (ILR. (1954) 4 Raj. 476): "The safe rule is that the sworn testimony of witnesses in the court as to the identity of strangers, generally speaking, requires corroboration which should be in the form of an earlier identification proceeding; though it is not impossible for a court, if it is satisfied that the evidence of a particular witness is such that it can safely rely on it even without the precaution of an earlier identification proceeding to convict the accused on that evidence. But generally speaking the evidence of a witness in court that he identifies one or more persons out of so many standing in the dock as present at the time of the crime is of next to no value without an earlier identification proceeding in case the persons identified are strangers to the witness." 94. It is generally as a rule of caution and prudence that courts insist on proper identification proceedings to be enforced during the investigation. But such identification test parade is useful only if the witnesses and accused persons are strangers to each other. If the accused persons on the dock are known to the witness even before the crime is committed, the test identification parade during the investigation will be superfluous and unnecessary. The evidence of witnesses in court identifying the accused persons as participants in a crime is substantive evidence. The identification made by a witness during the identification parade conducted at the investigation can be used only to corroborate the evidence of that witness in court. Even such identification is not conclusive unless the witness is trustworthy and reliable. The evidence of witnesses in court identifying the accused persons as participants in a crime is substantive evidence. The identification made by a witness during the identification parade conducted at the investigation can be used only to corroborate the evidence of that witness in court. Even such identification is not conclusive unless the witness is trustworthy and reliable. Whether a witness has identified an accused person as participant to a crime or not depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It is not unusual for witnesses to make mistake of identity when a large number of persons are concerned in committing a crime; in any event it is a question of fact to be decided in each case and is not a question of law. 95. In Jadunath Singh v. The State of U. P. ((1971) 1 SCWR. 151) an earlier decision of that Court in Prakash Chand Sogani v. The State of Rajasthan (Crl. Appeal No.92/1956 decided on 15-1-1957, unreported) was quoted with authority for the position that if the accused person is well known by sight the test identification parade during the investigation would be a waste of time. 96. At page 159 of the ruling cited, the following observations are made: "...the absence of test identification in all cases is not fatal and if the accused person is well-known by sight it would be waste of time to put him up for identification. Of course if the prosecution fails to hold an identification on the plea that the witnesses already knew the accused well and it transpires in the course of the trial that the witnesses did not know the accused previously, the prosecution would run the risk of losing its case. It seems to us that if there is any doubt in the matter the prosecution should hold an identification parade specially if an accused says that the alleged eye-witnesses did not know him previously. It seems to us that if there is any doubt in the matter the prosecution should hold an identification parade specially if an accused says that the alleged eye-witnesses did not know him previously. It may be that there is no express provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure enabling an accused to insist On an identification parade but if the accused does make an application and that application is turned down and it transpires during the course of the trial that the witnesses did not know the accused previously as pointed out above the prosecution will unless there is some other evidence, run the risk of losing the case on this point." 97. It cannot be laid down as a proposition of law or as invariable rule that an identification by a witness at the trial would not be of much evidentiary value without his being corroborated in that respect by his having identified the person at an earlier test identification parade. There could be exceptions to the rule where the court has satisfied that the evidence of a particular witness was such that it could safely rely on it without precaution of an earlier identification proceeding. 98. In the case in hand the accused persons made no application before the, investigating agency or before the committal court alleging that the witnesses did not know them previously and that therefore a test identification parade should be conducted. Pw.234, the investigating Officer, stated that there was no need for holding a test identification parade as he was satisfied from the statements of witnesses that they knew the accused persons even previous to the crime. In such circumstances, a test identification would have been not of such consequence as corroborative evidence since Pws.64 to 66, 70, 71 and 73 to 75 had occasion to see the accused persons long before the incident in which they participated. 99. The decisions in Vaikuntam Chandrappa v. State of Andhra Pradesh (AIR. 1960 S.C. 1340) and In re. Kamaraj Goundar (AIR. 1960 Madras 125) stipulated that the sworn testimony of the 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. 1960 S.C. 1340) and In re. Kamaraj Goundar (AIR. 1960 Madras 125) stipulated that the sworn testimony of the 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. In the latter case where the identification parade was held it had been found insufficient in the absence of convincing evidence in court to enter a conviction. There may, however, be exception to the rule where the court is satisfied that the evidence of a particular witness is such that it can safely rely on it without the precaution of an earlier identification proceeding. The only safe-guard provided in such a case is the consideration of the evidence with great care and caution. 100. As already pointed out, these decisions are conclusive that the court has to take precaution in accepting the evidence of a witness who attempts to identify an accused person who is a stranger to him for the first time in court when he is in the witness box and the accused in the dock. Ordinarily, the evidence of such a witness may not be worthy of credit unless his evidence is otherwise corroborated or by an earlier identification of the accused during investigation at an identification parade. But none of these considerations will detract the value of the evidence of a witness on identification of the accused if both parties were known to each other even before the alleged crime. Under these circumstances, the absence of test identification parade is not fatal to the prosecution in this case. 101. Pw.63 who identified accused Nos. 1, 15, 42, 43 and 58 in court had occasion to identify accused Nos. 1, 15 and 58 by sight when they stood along with others in front of the police station gate at 3-30 a.m. and accused Nos. 42 and 43 while they were chased and arrested at 3-45 a.m. soon after the incident, Pw.63 was in a better position than the other eye-witnesses as he happened to move close to the gate directing the accused persons to disperse. It was then that he identified accused Nos. 1, 15 and 58. The 1st accused was found untying the knot of a rope with which one frame was tied to the other for the closure of the gate. It was then that he identified accused Nos. 1, 15 and 58. The 1st accused was found untying the knot of a rope with which one frame was tied to the other for the closure of the gate. It is also relevant to point out that no reference was made to the identification of accused Nos. 15 and 58 specifically during the cross-examination of Pw.63. The evidence of Pw.63 remained uncontradicted on that score. The evidence of Pw.63 was corroborated by Pws.64 and 65 with regard to the identity of the 1st accused. Pw.64 knew the 1st accused long before the incident. The identity of accused Nos. 42 and 43 could not be disputed as they were arrested at the spot and the fact that they have been in custody from the time of the arrest upto the date of the trial is a conclusive circumstance by itself to establish their identity. The decision in The State v. Thanpat Chamara (AIR. 1960 Patna 582) is an authority for the position that in the case of persons who are arrested during the incident in question and remained in custody till the date of the trial the identification of such persons cannot be doubted. It is observed in that decision as follows: "If the accused is arrested on the spot and if he is in custody from that time up to the date of his trial, there can be no question at all about his identity. If a parade is held, it will be only a test of the memory of the witness or witnesses concerned. It cannot possibly be a factor of any importance on the question of identification because the respondents all the time remained in jail." 102. There was nothing in the evidence of Pw.63 as inherently improbable in the identification of the accused persons. There was also no material contradiction in his evidence. No specific motive had been alleged against him to implicate these particular accused persons. There was nothing on record to show that his demeanour while under examination in court was abnormal or unsatisfactory. Under those circumstances, it would be difficult to brush aside his evidence. 103 Strong objection has been raised in accepting the evidence of pws 76 and 85 who gave evidence against accused Nos. 1, 2 and 11. Pws.76 and 85 implicated accused Nos. Under those circumstances, it would be difficult to brush aside his evidence. 103 Strong objection has been raised in accepting the evidence of pws 76 and 85 who gave evidence against accused Nos. 1, 2 and 11. Pws.76 and 85 implicated accused Nos. 1 and 2 while Pw.76 implicated the 11th accused to the preparation they made from 19th to 21st of November 1968, collecting weapons and gathering other accused persons to make an attack on the Tellicherry police station on the night of 21 /22 November 1968. These two witnesses had been dubbed as accomplices on the basis of which it is argued that their evidence should not be accepted unless it was corroborated in material particulars. 104. S.133 of the Evidence Act and Illustration (b) of S.114 of the same Act have been pressed into service to impair their evidence as unworthy of credit. S.133 reads: "An accomplice shall be a competent witness against an accused person; and a conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice." 105. Illustration (b) of S.114 says that the court may presume that an accomplice is unworthy of credit unless he is corroborated in material particulars The combined effect of the section and the illustration is explained in Mohd. Hussain Umar Kochra v. K. S. Dalipsinghji (AIR. 1970 SC. 45). At page 53, the following observations occur: "The combined effect of S.133 and 144 Illustration (b) is that though a conviction based upon accomplice evidence is legal the court will not accept such evidence unless it is corroborated in material particulars. The corroboration must connect the accused with the crime It may be director circumstantial. It is necessary that the corroboration should confirm all the circumstances of the crime. It is sufficient if the corroboration is in material particulars. The corroboration must be from an independent source. One accomplice cannot corroborate another." 106. There cannot be any dispute as to the ineffectiveness of sole testimony of an accomplice but before considering the nature of the evidence adduced in the case in hand, it is necessary to find whether Pws.76 and 85 were accomplices or not. Neither Pw.76 nor Pw.85 was a participant to the crime. Pw.76 happened to visit the Kepees Tutorial College in the company of one Gopalan and 116th accused who was discharged. Neither Pw.76 nor Pw.85 was a participant to the crime. Pw.76 happened to visit the Kepees Tutorial College in the company of one Gopalan and 116th accused who was discharged. Before they went there Pws.76 and 85 did not know what had transpired during the course of the preparation which accused Nos. 1 and 2 made for the attack on the police station. The word "accomplice" requires a guilty association or partnership in crime. Pw.85 reached the Kepees Tutorial College only on the morning of 20-11-1968, when he found accused Nos. 1 and 2 there receiving weapons of different varieties from a group of persons who came there first before 10-00 a.m. While he was there the 126th accused was alleged to have declared that there would be an attack on the police station. He found accused Nos. 1 and 2 keeping those weapons produced there in safe custody. After 10-00 a.m. Pw.85 left the place. He had occasion to tell what he saw and heard at the Tutorial College to his friend, one Karunakaran, as soon as he got out of the bus in which he travelled towards his house. 107. Pw.76 reached the Tutorial College on 19-11-1968 where he met accused Nos. 1 and 2 first. Later in the day he met the 12th accused who came along with accused Nos.67 and 144. The 67th accused was also discharged. On 20-11-1968 the 11th accused along with others brought some weapons like spears, sticks etc. tied in gunny bags. On that day Pw.76 slept in the same place, but on the next day they moved to Kunduchira which is in the suburbs of Tellicherry and on the night of 21-11-1968 at about 1-00 a.m. they went to the stadium ground, Tellicherry. The 95th accused was alleged to have asked him to accompany him to the stadium ground. All the persons who proceeded to the stadium ground carried weapons in their hands. Pw.76 did not carry any weapon. But when the crowd moved towards the police station, Pw.76 and Gopalan, who accompanied him, ran away from the place. They ran away because they realised that the crowd wanted to attack the police station. While he was in the Tutorial College, the 1st accused read out Ext. P97 leaflet and Ext. P98 book which contained some portions of Mao thoughts. They ran away because they realised that the crowd wanted to attack the police station. While he was in the Tutorial College, the 1st accused read out Ext. P97 leaflet and Ext. P98 book which contained some portions of Mao thoughts. The 1st accused was alleged to have indicated that without violent attack or armed insurrection the hegemony of leaders like Shri E. M. S. Namboodiripad and Smt. Indira Gandhi could not be liquidated. 108. On a reappraisal of the evidence of Pws.76 and 85 it could not be concluded that they were accomplices. The word "accomplice" has not been defined in the Evidence Act; but accomplice means a person who knowingly or voluntarily co-operates with or aids and assists another in the commission of a crime. He must be 'particeps criminis'. Nothing of the kind could be said of Pws.70 and 85. It can also be pointed out that during the presence of Pws.76 and 85 the accused persons did not commit any crime. The offence of conspiracy, much less the attack on the police station, had not been carried out or committed with the knowledge or concurrence of these witnesses. 109. However, it is contended that even if Pws.76 and 85 were not accomplices, the nature of their evidence was like that of an accomplice and as such that evidence cannot be accepted without corroboration. Reliance was also placed on a decision reported in Hayatu v. Emperor (AIR. 1929 Lahore 540) where it is observed: "Witnesses who admittedly had witnessed the crime, who have assisted in concealing the evidence of that crime or at least connived at such being done and who have not attempted to give any information either to the police or to any other person to enable the offender to be brought to justice are in a very little better position than that of accomplices and it would be unsafe to accept their testimony unless corroborated by some independent circumstances." 110. In the above case the persons examined for the prosecution were eye-witnesses to the occurrence. But they failed to bring the occurrence to the notice of the authorities or others. In the case on hand, both the witnesses told others on the same day what they had witnessed and heard at the places they visited. They could not also be said to be eye-witnesses to the occurrence. But they failed to bring the occurrence to the notice of the authorities or others. In the case on hand, both the witnesses told others on the same day what they had witnessed and heard at the places they visited. They could not also be said to be eye-witnesses to the occurrence. Under those circumstances it would be difficult to hold that their evidence was like that of an accomplice. Assuming it to be so, then the evidence of these two witnesses was amply corroborated by the other independent evidence or strong circumstances. 111. There was evidence that the 1st accused used his house in Calicut and the 2nd accused his Tutorial College in Tellicherry for Naxalite activities. The evidence of Pws.76 and 85 was corroborated as a circumstance by the evidence of Pw.23 for the collection of arms and attack on police stations. Pw.23 stated that at the meeting of 17-11-1968 in the Kepee's Tutorial College held under the leadership of accused Nos. 1 and 2 it was resolved that they should procure as much weapons as they could collect and make an attack on Tellicherry and Pulpally police stations. Pw.77 witnessed about 150 persons assembled in the stadium ground on the night of 21-11-1968. They were armed with different types of weapons. He had also identified the 2nd accused among the crowd of persons assembled there. That part of the evidence was consistent with the evidence of Pw.76. Pws.80 and 164 met accused Nos. 1 and 2 within the vicinity of Kunduchira in the evening of 20-11-1968, and they marched towards the stadium ground first and then to the police station. Pws.63, 64 and 75 identified the 1st accused standing in front of the gate of the police station at 3-30 a.m. armed with a chopper. Pw.75 knew him for about five to eight years. The evidence of Pw.76 was that the crowd marched from the stadium ground towards the police station. All the members of the crowd were armed with spears, sticks and other weapons. There was corroboration of the evidence of Pw.76 in material particulars and other circumstances with the evidence of other independent witnesses. Pws.63, 64, 75, 69, 77, 78, 80, 86, 136, 137, 164 and 166 were the witnesses who connected the 1st accused to the crime. The evidence of Pw.76 was consistent with their evidence in material particulars. 112. There was corroboration of the evidence of Pw.76 in material particulars and other circumstances with the evidence of other independent witnesses. Pws.63, 64, 75, 69, 77, 78, 80, 86, 136, 137, 164 and 166 were the witnesses who connected the 1st accused to the crime. The evidence of Pw.76 was consistent with their evidence in material particulars. 112. The evidence of Pws.24 and 25 revealed that the 2nd accused was also making preparations for an attack on the Tellicherry police station. Pws.77, 80, 82, 85 and 164 connected the 2nd accused to the crime. That the 2nd accused in conjunction with the 1st accused had resolved to collect weapons to launch an attack on the police stations was brought out through the evidence of Pw.23. Pws.67, 83, 84, 91, 130, 131, 146 and 147 had also given evidence against the 2nd accused connecting him one way or the other to the crime. There was therefore corroboration of the evidence of Pw.76 with other independent evidence. Pw.78 stated that he saw the 2nd accused along with others going towards the police station at about 3-00 a.m. That evidence corroborates the evidence of Pw.76. The evidence of Pw.85 was also corroborated by other independent evidence and circumstances in the case both as against the 2nd accused and the 11th accused. There was evidence against the 11th accused that he got M.O. 13 and M.O. 14 series weapons made from Pw.54, a blacksmith, and he took delivery of the same at 10-00 a.m. on 20-11-1968. The evidence of Pw.76 revealed that the 11th accused along with others arrived at the Tutorial College at about 3-30 p.m. on 20-11-1968 and delivered some weapons tied in gunny bags to the 1st accused. The evidence of Pw.76 was directly corroborated by the evidence of Pw.54 both as regards the delivery of weapons to the 11th accused and the recovery of the identical weapons within the vicinity of the police station. In view of the corroboration of the evidence of Pws.76 and 85 there was no ground to reject or discard their evidence. 113. No convincing ground had been stated to disbelieve or discredit the evidence of Pws.23, 77, 80, 82, 86 and 84. Pw.23, though belonged to Calicut, was married in Tellicherry. He lived very near the Kepees Tutorial College. In view of the corroboration of the evidence of Pws.76 and 85 there was no ground to reject or discard their evidence. 113. No convincing ground had been stated to disbelieve or discredit the evidence of Pws.23, 77, 80, 82, 86 and 84. Pw.23, though belonged to Calicut, was married in Tellicherry. He lived very near the Kepees Tutorial College. He used to visit the godown beneath the Tutorial College which is in the first floor almost every day to play cards. He knew accused 1 and 2 even previously and he was on best of terms with them. There was no material contradiction in his evidence. Nothing had been suggested to him why he had chosen to give evidence against the accused persons. Pw.77 used to sleep in the stadium ground after his day's work and he happened to meet the 2nd accused along with others in the stadium ground at about 2-30 a.m. on the date of the incident. There was no ground to brush aside his evidence. Pw.80 was the LIC. Agent. He returned in the autorikshaw driven by Pw.164 from Kunduchira side to his house. He met accused Nos. 1 and 2 when they got out of the autorikshaw of Pw.164. No valid ground had been suggested why Pws.80 and 164 should be disbelieved. Pw.82 spoke about the transfer of gunny bag bundles from a car to the Kepees Tutorial College building on the night previous to the Tellicherry incident when the 2nd accused was there. Pw.82 was a labourer attached to the ration shop which is located under the Tutorial College building. He had no axe to grind against the accused persons. Pw.86 corroborated the evidence of other witnesses that there was some assembly of persons in Kunduchira on 21-11-1968. The evidence of these witnesses in the circumstances of the case could safely be relied upon to enter a conviction. 114. There is no evidence that the explosive substance which was in the possession of accused No.2 was a deadly weapon. Similarly there was no evidence also that accused Nos. 10, 15 and 58 were armed with any weapon. Hence accused Nos. 2, 10, 15 and 58 are guilty of offence only under S.147 IPC. and as it has clearly come out that accused Nos. Similarly there was no evidence also that accused Nos. 10, 15 and 58 were armed with any weapon. Hence accused Nos. 2, 10, 15 and 58 are guilty of offence only under S.147 IPC. and as it has clearly come out that accused Nos. 1, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15, 42, 43, 57, 60, 62, 63, 65, 77, 78, 82, 83, 84, 87, 90 and 91 were armed with either daggers, sticks or spears, all are deadly weapons, they are guilty under S.148 IPC. and for the act of the 2nd accused in attempting to cause hurt to Pw.64 he is found guilty under S.324 read with S.511 IPC. and accused Nos. 1, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 42, 43, 57, 58, 60, 62, 63, 65, 77, 78, 82, 83, 84, 87, 90 and 91 are found guilty under S.324 read with S.511 and 149 IPC. 115. We will now consider the activities of another batch of accused persons who were alleged to have attacked the M. S. P. wireless station in Pulpally and committed three dacoities in Chekadi, which is about six miles away from Pulpally. The prosecution implicated accused Nos. 5, 6, 7, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 25, 29, 33, 36, 41, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 134, 135, 138, 139, 141, 145, 146, 147 and 149 in the incident connected with the wireless station. Of these accused persons, accused Nos. 145, 146 and 147 were alleged to have joined the rest of the accused persons at Pulpally while the others came from Chithalayam forest. They, in turn, arrived there in two batches, one from Manantoddy side and the other from Pulpally side. The Manantoddy batch consisted of accused Nos. 5, 7, 14, 16 to 21, 25, 29, 33,36 and 41 and the Pulpally batch consisted of accused Nos, 4 (died), 6, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 134, 135, 138 139, 141 and 149. 116. The activities of the accused persons beginning from the residence of the 1st accused at Calicut with effect from 30-10-1968 and the Kepees Tutorial College of the 2nd accused at Tellicherry with effect from 17-11-1968 and ending with the raid on the wireless station of Pulpally and the dacoities committed at the houses of Pws.106 and 117 and tea-shop-cum-provision store of Pw.116 in Chekadi, had been narrated when the prosecution case was stated in the course of this judgment. So hereinafter we will have to consider the part played by each of these accused persons who had been directly involved as participants of the crimes alleged against them. The activities of the accused persons antecedent to the actual occurrence in Pulpally and Chekadi had a bearing on the question of the common object of the unlawful assembly which consisted of these accused persons armed themselves with guns, spears, swords, daggers, choppers, sticks etc. 117. Accused Nos. 14 and 149 originally belonged to the C.P.M. but according to Pw.2 they walked out of the Committee as protest against its policy. Pw.12 corroborated the evidence of Pw.2 in that regard. Pw.2 also stated that accused Nos. 5, 16, 18, 29, 40 and 41 left the Party with effect from 4-8-1968 on their own accord. The 1st accused had already been expelled from the C.P.M. even in 1967, and he was also opposed to its policy and programme. He was a member of the Indian Co-ordination Committee which was formed in Calcutta and thereafter he formed a Co-ordination Committee in Kerala with which Pw.3 also associated. Their idea was to prepare the country for a revolution to redress the grievances of peasants and workers. The 1st accused started the Rebel Publication at Kallai Road in Calicut for propagating the ideology of the Party. Pw.6, a leader of the C.P.M. also stated that the 1st accused had been expelled from the Party and that he was a revolutionary. That the 1st accused used to contact the 6th accused in Trivandrum when the latter was a member of the Naxalbari Peasants Co-ordination Committee, admitted of no doubt. Pw.7 happened to meet the 1st accused and the 6th accused during that period when they used to exchange views on the matters connected with that Committee. Ext. P6, Ext. P6 (a) and Ext. P6 (b) established the relationship between accused Nos. 1 and 6. In 1968, a Co-ordination Committee was also formed in Ernakulam due to the efforts of accused Nos. 1 and 6. 118. Pw.13 used to meet accused Nos. 5, 15, 125 and 149 at the house and the Ayurvedic Dispensary of the 40th accused in Manantoddy. Two days before the Tellicherry incident, the shop of the 40th accused was closed and it was not opened thereafter. 1 and 6. 118. Pw.13 used to meet accused Nos. 5, 15, 125 and 149 at the house and the Ayurvedic Dispensary of the 40th accused in Manantoddy. Two days before the Tellicherry incident, the shop of the 40th accused was closed and it was not opened thereafter. While the revolutionary movement was in progress a meeting was held at the residence of the 1st accused on 30-10-1968 which was attended by accused Nos. 2, 3, 6, 7 and others. According to Pw.21, the brother of the 1st accused, those persons who attended the meeting strongly disapproved the revisionist policy of C.P.M. and they wanted to start immediate propaganda for the growth of revolutionary party by giving publicity to Mao Tse Tung's thoughts. 119. The members of the new Party began to take some practical steps to put into practice their new ideology by publishing literature and books. Pws.3, 4, 8, 15, 17, 19, 20, 22, 127, 139 and 215 gave evidence in support of that propaganda work. The 1st accused published the Rebel Publication at Kallai Road, in Calicut. Pw.3 gave evidence in support of it. The evidence of Pw.4 along with Exts. P3 and P4 established that the 1st accused was the author of the Rebel Publication and the evidence of Pw.8 showed that the 1st accused had been sending the literature for the new ideology to others. Ext. P24 series were some pamphlets which the 1st accused sent to Pw.8. Pw.15, the owner of the "Navabharat'' press, Calicut, printed Exts. P27 and P28 at his press at the instance of the 1st accused in which the 91st accused co-operated with him. 1000 copies of Ext. P27 had been printed at the press. Accused Nos. 90 and 91 were also busy with similar literature printed at the press of Pw.17 at Olavanna. The 1st accused was also connected in the, printing of similar literature at that Press. The 11th accused was connected with the press belonging to Pw.19 in Pappinisseri for getting revolutionary literature printed there. The relationship between accused Nos. 1 and 11 was established through the printing of 1000 copies of similar literature from that press Vide Ext. P47 (a). The 6th accused and one Sundaram used to get revolutionary literature printed at the press of Pw.20 in Trivandrum. The relationship between accused Nos. 1 and 11 was established through the printing of 1000 copies of similar literature from that press Vide Ext. P47 (a). The 6th accused and one Sundaram used to get revolutionary literature printed at the press of Pw.20 in Trivandrum. "Loyalty to Chairman Mao" and "Great Era Publications'' were some of the books printed at the press due to the efforts of the 6th accused and Sundaram (Vide Exts. P49, P50, and P51). The 2nd accused also got printed books and pamphlets like Exts. P52, P53, P54, P55, P56 and P57 at the press of Pw.22 in Tellicherry. During a meeting of the Central Committee of the C. P.M. at Calicut accused Nos. 1, 3, 7 and 91 were found exhibiting and selling literature and wall-posters depicting Mao as their leader Vide M. Os. 105 and 106. Pw.127, a Special Branch Head Constable, made a record of their activity in October 1967. The 10th accused got printed 1000 copies of Ext. P160 at the press of Pw.139 at Tellicherry in his capacity as the Secretary of the Marxist Cultural Forum, Tellicherry. That the 10th accused had no faith in the democratic form of election of the Municipalities was evident from Ext. P329 placard which he got printed at the press of Pw.215. 120. The evidence of Pws.30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 38, 39 and 40 revealed that since they believed in the new ideology of the revolutionary party they wanted to join it either by tendering resignation of their jobs or taking leave. 121. The 78th accused who was an Assistant in the Government High School, Kalliasseri, applied for leave from 25-11-1968 to 30-11-1968 Vide Ext. P51 leave application. Upto 25th November 1968 the classes were not held due to the students' strike. Pw.30 was the Headmaster of that High School. The 57th accused was an employee of Pw.31. Since 10-11-1968 he did not attend to his work. He absented himself from duty without leave. The 8th accused was a Bill Collector in the Co-operative Rural Bank under Pw.35 who was its Secretary. His application for leave was rejected by Pw.35. So he resigned his job with effect from 15-11-1968. He wanted his arrears of salary to be given to his wife, Pw.27 Vide Ext. P70. That was paid to his wife. The 18th accused was a teacher of National L. P. School. His application for leave was rejected by Pw.35. So he resigned his job with effect from 15-11-1968. He wanted his arrears of salary to be given to his wife, Pw.27 Vide Ext. P70. That was paid to his wife. The 18th accused was a teacher of National L. P. School. He filed Ext. P74 leave application for leave from 6-11-1968 to 4-1-1969. Pw.38, Assistant Educational Officer, did not sanction the leave. The 14th accused was another teacher of the Navodayam L. P. School. He too applied for leave Vide Ext. P76-from 19-11-1968 to 18-12 1968. In spite of the refusal to grant leave both accused Nos. 14 and 18 absented themselves from duty. The 14th accused was under suspension since then. Pw.39 was the Headmaster of that school. Pw.40 was the Headmaster of the school of which the 18th accused was the Assistant. 122. Another set of accused persons disposed of their property, either movable or immovable, in favour of their near relatives to join the movement. The evidence of Pws.24, 25, 26, 27, 36, 67 and 68 was conclusive that those accused persons were busy disposing of their properties as they wanted to enter the movement. Pw.24 is the brother-in-law of the 2nd accused. He was the transferee of some of the furniture of the Kepees Tutorial College, Tellicherry, some time about four or five months prior to the Tellicherry incident. Ext. P94 was the book of registered documents proved through Pw.67 Sub Registrar to evidence the transfer of furniture to Pw.24. In November 1968, and three weeks earlier, Pw.25 purchased some such furniture of that College from the 2nd accused for Rs. 400/-. Pw.26 was related to the 2nd accused. 1st accused sold him a radio set which belonged to the 3rd accused in October 1968 for Rs. 500/-. The 8th accused executed a gift deed on 19-11-1968 in favour of his wife, Pw.27, in respect of his house and adjacent lands Vide Ext. P95 proved through Pw.68. 123. The 6th accused sold away his radio set M.O. 9 to the husband of Pw.36 and he collected the sale proceeds from her a week prior to the Pulpally incident. 124. P95 proved through Pw.68. 123. The 6th accused sold away his radio set M.O. 9 to the husband of Pw.36 and he collected the sale proceeds from her a week prior to the Pulpally incident. 124. The next stage in the development of the revolutionary activity of the accused persons was the procurement and collection of arms and weapons of different types for the purpose of their adventure to be put into practice by means of an armed insurrection. Pws.52 to 59, 119, 124 and 165 gave evidence in support of the prosecution case in that regard. M.O. 11 series spears, for which the 44th accused gave an order with Pw.52, were delivered, to the 58th accused some four or five days prior to the incident. Pw.53 delivered M.O. 12 to the 60th accused. M.O. 13 series and M.O. 14 series spears fitted on canes were made by Pw.54 for the 11th accused some two days before the Tellicherry incident. M.O. 15 series spears and M.O. 16 dagger were made by Pw.55 for the 13th accused. The 14th accused managed to take away M.O. 17 gun of Pw.56 from his residence while Pw.56 was away in the Sabarimala temple for worship on 18-11-1968. On his return on 22-11-1968 he made a complaint to the police. M.O. 18 gun which belonged to Pw.57 was given as loan to the 14th accused on 18-11-1968, for his alleged purpose of shooting wild cats. A similar gun M.O. 19 belonging to Pw.58, was taken on loan from him by the 14tb accused, five or six days prior to the Pulpally incident. But he would not return it in spite of repeated demands. On the day previous to the Pulpally incident, the 130th accused purchased 20 dynamites and 20 percussion caps from Pw.59 who conducted a tea-shop in Pulpally. It was usual in those days to transact sales in dynamites without licence for fishing in inland rivers. 125. Pw.119, aged 18, was an orphan and he grew up as a cook working in various places. While so he was engaged in October 1968 by the 5th accused to cook food to a group of persons who held a camp in one tea-estate in Thettammala in Wyanad. The camp was held in a secret place attended by accused Nos. 5, 9, 18 and 25. While so he was engaged in October 1968 by the 5th accused to cook food to a group of persons who held a camp in one tea-estate in Thettammala in Wyanad. The camp was held in a secret place attended by accused Nos. 5, 9, 18 and 25. On 18-11-1968 the 5th accused again requisitioned his services for cooking at the residence of the 18th accused, the brother-in-law of the 5th accused, where a similar camp was expected to be held. Pw.119 agreed to the request made. So he went to the house of the 18th accused; he was not there then. He was, however, taken to the shop of one Thomas. Accused Nos. 5, 21 and 19 came there. Thereafter they went to Thonichal by bus. The 4th accused met them there. The 5th accused asked them to take tea from the tea-shop in the neighbourhood. By about 3-30 p.m. accused No.29 and two others came there. While they were in Kuttan Moosa's house accused Nos. 7, 16, 17, 18, 20, 25, 33, 36, 149 and others came. The 5th accused directed them to start from that place at 10.30 p.m. They wanted some 28 persons to start from that place and accused Nos. 5 and 41 were busy taking the names and addresses of all the persons present there. In addition to those persons, there were accused Nos. 19, 21, 29, 40, 41 and 145 also with them. The party moved from the place carrying some provisions with them. When they reached some place in the forest, the 14th accused directed the party to sit at a place and accused Nos. 5, 14 and 17 went towards some place. When they came back each of them had a gun in his hands. The party then moved out towards Panamaram when it was about 1-30 a.m. By about dawn they reached Kenichira. While some took rest there, others went to take tea, but accused Nos. 7, 14, 18 and 39 kept watch over the guns which were kept concealed in the forest. Then the 29th accused directed the party to proceed to Kannaram river. So the party proceeded to that place where they reached at about 11-00 a.m. The 5th accused had reached there in advance. Arrangements had been made there to cook food. 7, 14, 18 and 39 kept watch over the guns which were kept concealed in the forest. Then the 29th accused directed the party to proceed to Kannaram river. So the party proceeded to that place where they reached at about 11-00 a.m. The 5th accused had reached there in advance. Arrangements had been made there to cook food. After food, accused Nos: 5 and 33 went out to mark the route through which they had to proceed further. On their return some members of the party went along with the 33rd accused. Then there was a talk that the 7th accused should be brought to that place. One Thulaseedharan, the brother of Pw.61, produced rice and kerosene. Pw.119 accompanied by the rest of the accused crossed over to the Mysore forest. There they met the remaining members of the party who went in advance. Thereafter the 129th accused took them to the house of the 141st accused, when accused No.5, 7, 14, 17, 18, 130, 138 and 139 were already there. On the next day morning they moved out of that place. The 130th accused was in the front row. When they reached a place they found that the same place had been used by the Pulpally group for taking rest. So they too sat there. By about 6.00 a.m. they continued their march through the forest region. When they reached near a particular place they saw some others waiting there and they therefore mixed up with that party. Both parties were introduced to each other. The mode of introduction was first announced by the 7th accused. She said: "My name is Ajita; I belong to Calicut and I am unmarried." All the members of the Party introduced themselves in that form individually. The new party met at that place came from Pulpally. The Pulpally party consisted of accused Nos. 6, 130, 131, 133, 135, 132, 138, 141, 139, 128, 134, 129 and 137 and some others. After food the 6th accused asked them to produce the cash that each of them had in their hands. The total collection was Rs. 224.71. Then accused Nos. 6 and 7 read the literature on Mao thoughts. On 22-11-1968 at about 11.00 a.m. they had their food there. Afterwards direction was given to make suitable spears and sticks at the spot out of the branches of trees. The total collection was Rs. 224.71. Then accused Nos. 6 and 7 read the literature on Mao thoughts. On 22-11-1968 at about 11.00 a.m. they had their food there. Afterwards direction was given to make suitable spears and sticks at the spot out of the branches of trees. All of them made spears and sticks. There was also practice for use of fire-arms at the spot. Then Pw.119 and accused Nos. 18 and 135 went out. On 23-11-1968, the 18th accused got a Party flag made there. Then they went to several places and finally they reached Chithalayam forest where they met their counterpart. Then all of them were armed themselves with spears, sticks and choppers and daggers. When they reached there accused Nos. 5, 14, 16, 17, 128 and 133 were deputed to be in charge of the guns for shooting the adversary. The 33rd accused had wall-posters in his hands and he was asked to make placards. Pw.119 was told by one among the party that they were proceeding towards the Pulpally police station. The party continued the march. 126. Pw. 124 was the servant of the 138th accused who died after the Pulpally incident. Some one month prior to that incident, he met accused No.131 and two others at the residence of the 130th accused. A week prior to the incident the 138th accused took Pw.124 to his house when accused Nos. 6 and 131 and others were there. They read some literature which he could not understand. Pw.124 refused to go there on the next day. So the 138th accused rebuked him and asked him to go there on the next day. Again he met accused Nos. 6 and 131 there. Three days prior to the incident they wanted him to go along with them to the forest. Accused Nos. 13, 131 and 142 and others accompanied by the 128th accused went to the house of one Govt. The 128th accused went there. They all walked through the forest till they reached Kanna-ram river, where the party from Kappiset arrived. They consisted of accused Nos.6, 135 and others. The 138th accused and another person went to fetch the Manantoddy party. On the next day they moved out of the place. When they reached near a river the Manantoddy party which consisted of accused Nos. They consisted of accused Nos.6, 135 and others. The 138th accused and another person went to fetch the Manantoddy party. On the next day they moved out of the place. When they reached near a river the Manantoddy party which consisted of accused Nos. 7, 14, 16, 17, 18 and others numbering about 28 persons, arrived there. It was about 8-30 a.m. The entire party then consisted of 49 persons. The evidence of Pw.119 was consistent with the evidence of Pw.124 as to what had transpired at that place. After making weapons like sticks, spears etc. and having conducted practice in guns, the party proceeded towards the Pulpally police station. 127. Pw.165 was a small cultivator, having 84 cents of property in his possession. He knew the 36th accused. He invited him to go with him to attend a meeting in Thirunelli, where he met the 1st accused who then announced that they would grab the lands in the possession of landlords and that he should join with them. On 15-11-1968, accused Nos. 36, 141 and 149 asked him to attend another meeting at Manantoddy where they met one Marachathan. He refused to give accommodation to accused Nos. 3 and 7, but he agreed to keep the literature they had in their possession. On the next day they went to the Ayurvedic Dispensary of the 40th accused after meeting accused Nos. 41 and 149. After some time the 41st accused asked Pw.165 to go to Thettammala with two letters, one to be given either to the 3rd accused or the 7th accused, and the other one to four teachers whose names were specified in a separate sheet of paper. Pw.165 went with those letters in the company of the 36th accused. On the next day they went to the house of the 41st accused. They witnessed the transport of some Mao literature in a jeep to Panavalli. On the next day they met accused Nos. 3, 7, 40 and 41 at the residence of the 40th accused. Thereafter a car was brought there in which accused Nos. 3, 50 (son of the 40th accused) and the daughter of the 40th accused got in when the car proceeded along the Tellicherry road towards Valat. The party got out of the car near a wooden bridge and the car was sent back. Thereafter a car was brought there in which accused Nos. 3, 50 (son of the 40th accused) and the daughter of the 40th accused got in when the car proceeded along the Tellicherry road towards Valat. The party got out of the car near a wooden bridge and the car was sent back. Accused No.3 and the daughter of the 40th accused were taken to the house of an uncle of the 50th accused which was beyond the wooden bridge. Pw.165 and the 36th accused and the 50th accused returned to Manantoddy. On their return they met accused Nos. 39 and 149. They had their food at a house in the neighbourhood, where the 7th accused lived. Pw.165 was employed to fetch articles for their use. Later, the 40th accused accompanied them to Thonichal where they arrived at the residence of Pw.120. They met accused Nos. 5, 41, 149, 14, 18, 16 and others in that place. Out of those persons, 28 persons were selected to go into the forest. They were accused Nos. 5, 7, 15, 16, 18 and 19 and others. By about 11.30 p.m. the party reached Karimam through the forest. During the march, accused Nos. 5, 14 and 17 had each a gun in their hands. By about dawn they reached Kenichira. Accused Nos. 7, 14 and 18 parted their company at that place for a short while. They went to fetch the guns they had concealed in the forest. Accused Nos. 7, 14 and 18 came and joined their company. They proceeded to a bigger forest where they met accused Nos. 6, 128, 138 and others. It was the Chithalayam forest. There was mutual introduction between the parties there. The cash was collected from everyone and the amount fetched was more than Rs. 200/-. On 22-11-1968 by about noon, they heard through radio about the Tellicherry police station incident. On hearing the news, the 4th accused said that the Tellicherry party had met with success and that they should not keep quiet. So he wanted all of them to do. something. The 130th accused accompanied by Pw. 124 came back with some dynamites and provisions. On the next day accused Nos. 138 and 141 mode crackers and bombs. The 14th accused dried the cartridges in the open air. Accused Nos. 6 and 7 prepared the wall posters. So he wanted all of them to do. something. The 130th accused accompanied by Pw. 124 came back with some dynamites and provisions. On the next day accused Nos. 138 and 141 mode crackers and bombs. The 14th accused dried the cartridges in the open air. Accused Nos. 6 and 7 prepared the wall posters. In the evening at about 7.00 the party started from that place, when it consisted of 45 persons. Some six more persons joined the party there. The party decided at that place as follows: 'We shall attack the Pulpally station today; all the policemen shall be killed and the village office shall be smashed.' Then the party moved towards the Pulpally police station. 128. Pws.61, 62, 108, 109, 129, 120, 124, 154 and 165 gave evidence that the accused party moved out from the Chithalayam forest towards the Pulpally police station and Pws.92, 94, 95, 96, 97, 100, 102, 103, 119, 124, 126 and 165 gave evidence as to the overt acts attributed to accused persons during the attack on the M.S.P. wireless station, Pulpally, at about 3.30 a.m. on 24-11-1968. 129. It has come out in evidence that accused Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 25, 29, 33, 36, 41, 128, 129, 131, 132, 134, 135, 138. 139, 141 and 149 were the persons who marched from Chithalayam forest to the wireless station and that accused Nos. 145 to 147 joined them at the spot before the attack was launched on the wireless station. The evidence was that accused Nos. 4, 5, 7, 14, 16, 128, 135, 145 and 146 had either spear or stick in their hands, and that was made conclusive by the evidence of Sankunny Menon in Ext. P107 that every one who entered into his room was armed with deadly weapons. The 4th accused was found to have held a chopper and the 14th accused a gun. Those weapons in the hands of the accused persons could be designated as deadly weapons. 130. P107 that every one who entered into his room was armed with deadly weapons. The 4th accused was found to have held a chopper and the 14th accused a gun. Those weapons in the hands of the accused persons could be designated as deadly weapons. 130. It cannot be disputed on account of the preparations the accused persons made in the course of their expedition through forest from 19th November 1968, the weapons they carried in their hands with a determination to attack the Pulpally police station, and the assembly of more than 28 persons at the wireless station at an untimely hour, that they had not only the intention to dismantle the wireless set to make it ineffective but they had also a common object to cause the death of every person who stood against them in their achievement of their objective. Where was the necessity for the accused persons to carry guns, spears, choppers, sticks and bombs with them, if their idea was only to dismantle the wireless set? They knew that the M. S. P. men used to camp there and that they might be fully armed. If so, it was quite natural for the accused persons also appropriately to be armed to attack the policemen if there was resistance from that side. It was, therefore, legitimate to make an inference from the circumstances of the case that the accused persons formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the common object to kill the policemen on duty at the Wireless Station. In the course of the expedition through the forest, they made it explicitly clear that they should also kill policemen. 131. It could not be disputed that the accused persons who entered the wireless station caused injuries to Havildar Kunhikrishnan Nair and Pw.94, the two wireless operators, who slept in the north-eastern wing of the building. Pw.92, another constable who slept in the western room in the southern side of the building, also sustained injuries as a result of the attack launched against him. The fatal injury on Havildar Kunhikrishnan Nair was such that he died at the spot during the incident. The wireless set was dismantled and damaged completely. Pw.92, another constable who slept in the western room in the southern side of the building, also sustained injuries as a result of the attack launched against him. The fatal injury on Havildar Kunhikrishnan Nair was such that he died at the spot during the incident. The wireless set was dismantled and damaged completely. Several documents and records together with uniforms and clothes kept in all the rooms as well as in the room which Pw.230 Sub Inspector used in that building had been ransacked and they were either burnt or carried away by the accused persons. It could legitimately be inferred from these circumstances that the conduct of the accused persons in trespassing into the wireless station building, setting fire to the valuable articles and destroying the wireless set or carrying away various articles and causing injuries to Sankunny Menon, Pw.92 and Pw.94 would constitute offences as described in S.449, 427, 380 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Another question that arises directly from those circumstances for determination is whether the accused persons committed these offences as members of an unlawful assembly, and if so who were the accused persons to be held liable to the offences under those sections. There is also another important question to be decided in the case, viz., who are the accused persons who would be held liable for the offence of murder of Havildar Kunhikrishnan Nair, as members of that unlawful assembly. The learned Sessions Judge by-passed the issue without giving sufficient reason holding that accused Nos. 7, 16 and 139 who were found responsible for causing the death of the Havildar could be convicted only under S.326 IPC. on the ground that they had no intention to commit his murder. The learned Sessions Judge misconceived the nature of the offence committed by accused Nos. 7, 16 and 139. There was no evidence that any one of them caused a specific injury to deceased Kunhikrishnan Nair. Under those circumstances they should not have been convicted for the substantive offence under S.326 I.P.C. as principal offenders; they could have been convicted only under S.326 read with either S.34 or S.149 IPC. The conviction by the lower court under those circumstances cannot be supported. 132. Under those circumstances they should not have been convicted for the substantive offence under S.326 I.P.C. as principal offenders; they could have been convicted only under S.326 read with either S.34 or S.149 IPC. The conviction by the lower court under those circumstances cannot be supported. 132. Pw.161, the doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the Havildar stated that the incised injury 3"x1"x2" on the right side of neck, 3" below the right ear lobe, cutting the right carotid artery and jugular veins and muscles was Sufficient, in the ordinary course of nature, to cause death. This injury was described as injury No.1 in Ext. P217 post-mortem certificate. It was on a most vital part of the body. There were four more injuries on the Havildar. According to Pw.161, injury No.1 could be caused by cutting with a chopper and injuries Nos. 2 and 3 by thrust with spears or by stabbing with daggers, the rest of the injuries being caused by beating with sticks or any hard substance. 133. S.149 IPC. requires primarily that a person should be a member of unlawful assembly, that in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, as offence should be committed by a member of that unlawful assembly, and that the offence should be of such a nature that the member of the assembly knew the offence likely to be committed in prosecution of their common object. The case under S.149 IPC., requires deep scrutiny and detailed and specific proof for holding that the accused persons were members of an unlawful assembly with a common object to kill police men on duty with particular reference to the part played by each of the accused persons who constituted the unlawful assembly. 134. Pw.23, an independent witness having no political bias against the accused persons and whose testimony could not be disputed, stated that accused Nos. 1 and 2 declared at a meeting on 17-11-1968 which was also attended by accused Nos. 5, 8, 10, 11, 91 and others that the cult of the new party was violence, that their object was to attack the police stations at Tellicherry and Pulpally and that their aim was to collect as many weapons as they could. After the meeting, accused Nos. 1 and 5 accompanied by the 4th accused went over to Manantoddy and Pulpally. Pw.46 received them at Panamaram. After the meeting, accused Nos. 1 and 5 accompanied by the 4th accused went over to Manantoddy and Pulpally. Pw.46 received them at Panamaram. They organised meetings in Pulpally area in the first week of November 1968. Pws.45 and 46 gave evidence of their work in Pulpally area. Since then the house of the 40th accused, a native physician conducting an Ayurvedic dispensary at Manantoddy, was a place of activity. Pw.42 saw a group of persons there. Accused Nos. 3, 5, 6 and 7 were in that company. During the course of the march from Manantoddy side including some persons belonging to Pulpally side the party had arrived at Thonichal, where they met at the residence of Pw.120. Pw.120 identified accused Nos. 5, 7, 14, 18, 20, 40, 41 and 149 who came to his residence along With others. The 5th accused then declared at that place: 'We are on a march for revolution. Every one must get ready.' Pw.165 stated that the 130th accused brought there some 20 dynamites and caps for ignition a day previous to the incident. Pw.59 corroborated this evidence. The 4th accused gave an order to the party to make spears. On the next day morning when they reached the Chithalayam forest accused Nos. 138 and 141 started making bombs and crackers. The 14th accused was in charge of keeping cartridges in the sunlight for drying. Accused Nos. 6 and 7 were engaged in preparing wall-posters with inscriptions, 'rise up adivasies; Let Revolution succeed.' Then the party which consisted of about 51 persons at Chithalayam made a declaration as follows: 'We will attack the Pulpally police station today and kill all policemen; we will also destroy, the village officers.' This declaration was made by the 4th accused. Pw.124 had also given the same version. Pws.56, 57 and 58 gave evidence that the 14th accused collected three guns one each from them, some two or three days before the Pulpally incident. It was after the money collection was made at Chithalayam forest that the 6th accused made the 4th accused Commander of the party. Pw.119 gave evidence that after the 4th accused was made the Commander he exhorted the party that no one should get out of the party without his permission. The 19th accused also told Pw.119 that the party was on the move to attack the Pulpally police station. Pw.119 gave evidence that after the 4th accused was made the Commander he exhorted the party that no one should get out of the party without his permission. The 19th accused also told Pw.119 that the party was on the move to attack the Pulpally police station. It was also relevant to point out that the 4th accused watched the orderly manner in which the crowd marched through the forest. That the party moved through the forest area was clear from the remnants of the articles left behind by them at certain places not far from Adakkathodu, where they held the camp after the incident Vide Ext. P340 mahazar, under which M.O. 367 and Ext. P345 mahazar under which M.O. 373 were recovered during investigation. The personal belongings of Pw.230 and Sankunny Menon as well as different articles of booty which the accused party removed during the dacoities in Chekadi were recovered at different places out of the forest where the accused persons camped, under different mahazars. The fact that the Manantoddy group and Pulpally group met at one place on the morning of 23-11-1968 at 8:30 a.m. was a circumstance to hold that the march through the forest was pre-arranged and pre-planned. The severance of M.O. 277 palm of the 139th accused and the fatal injuries of 138th accused due to the explosion of crackers or other explosive substances while on retreat were proof positive that the party was in possession of country-made bombs and crackers. The evidence was that every member of the party was armed with weapons like daggers, spears, guns, sticks, choppers etc. 135. It was clear from the cult of violence preached by the members of the gang and the manner in which the accused persons marched through forest carrying weapons of different descriptions, which were deadly weapons, that their common object was to commit murder. It was already pointed out in the course of this judgment that people do not gather together at a time when everybody was asleep, armed with guns, spears, choppers, crackers etc. to attack a police station or wireless station which would ordinarily be guarded by armed policemen, without intending to use violence in order to overcome the resistance of armed guards. to attack a police station or wireless station which would ordinarily be guarded by armed policemen, without intending to use violence in order to overcome the resistance of armed guards. It would be impossible to hold from the facts and circumstances of this case that the members of the unlawful assembly did not know that murder was likely to be committed in pursuance of the common object of that kind by a large assembly. When the accused persons stood inside and outside the room which was occupied by Havildar Kunhikrishnan Nair before the attack began there was an order addressed to one Panicker "Pierce with spear". The reference was to 147th accused. Pw.92, one of the constables who slept in the north-western room gave that evidence. After breaking open the door he heard them say: "There are two men inside; kill them." While Havildar was being attacked inside his room, he cried out, 'Don't kill me'. 'The common object conceived and put into practice established beyond doubt that the murder was pre-planned, though the party had no idea before the arrived at the scene as to the particular person who was likely to be their victim at the spot. 136. The direct evidence to implicate each of the accused persons as members of an unlawful assembly with a common object to commit murder of policemen was that of Pws.45, 92, 94, 102, 119, 124 and 165 along with some other circumstantial evidence. There was also the evidence of deceased Sankunny Menon as the occupant of the south-western room of the wireless station. He died after he was examined as prosecution witness No.30 in the committal court. His deposition in the committal court was brought on record of the Sessions Court and admitted in evidence there as Ext. P107 under S.33 of the Evidence Act. He was cross-examined at great length in the committal court. The evidence of these witnesses implicated accused Nos. 5, 6, 7, 14, 16, 128, 129, 135, 139, 145, 146 and 147 as members of the unlawful assembly with a common object to kill the police men who lived in the wireless station. Their attack on the wireless station was only a step in aid of an attack on the police station. 5, 6, 7, 14, 16, 128, 129, 135, 139, 145, 146 and 147 as members of the unlawful assembly with a common object to kill the police men who lived in the wireless station. Their attack on the wireless station was only a step in aid of an attack on the police station. It is now relevant to consider whether the common object of the unlawful assembly to attack the Pulpally police station was in any way different from the attack on the Pulpally Wireless station. 137. The argument that the common object specified in the charge that the members of the unlawful assembly broke open the wireless station in Pulpally and committed the murder of Havildar Kunhikrishnan Nair inside his room, was not identical to the common object sought to be proved in the case and that, therefore, the accused persons could not be made liable constructively for the offence of murder, cannot be sustained either on facts or in law. The common object sought to be proved in the case was that the members of the unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons sought to attack the police station in Pulpally in the course of which they wanted to kill the police men on duty. The character, composition and behaviour of the unlawful assembly did not change in any manner even though the attack was launched on the wireless station. The unlawful assembly took shape while they marched through the forest region carrying deadly weapons without any change in the personnel until they launched the attack on the wireless station. Their object which was held in common had been to kill policemen on duty. They knew that the wireless station would have been manned by the police constables. It had come out in evidence that a verandah on the eastern side of the wireless station building had been used by the M.S.P. Contingent which was posted there. The wireless operators in the station were constables of the M. S. P. When the unlawful assembly stood outside the building at 3-30 a.m., they knew that there were at least two men inside. It was then one among them called out to kill those two men. The nature and composition of the unlawful assembly remained in tact whether they proceeded to the police station or not. It was then one among them called out to kill those two men. The nature and composition of the unlawful assembly remained in tact whether they proceeded to the police station or not. As a matter of fact, the unlawful assembly wanted to attack the police station also after they attacked the wireless station. The evidence was that the crowd of persons left the premises of the wireless station and marched out in a victorious manner crying: 'Chalo, Chalo, police station.' But their idea to attack police station was frustrated because the 139th accused met with an accident. The country bombs which he held in his hand exploded and his palm was cut off. The 4th accused amputated the palm which was hung on the skin. Thereafter, the crowd of persons gave up the attack on the police station, but wanted only to commit dacoity. So they proceeded to Chekadi. The attack on the wireless station was a prelude to the attack on the police station. It made no difference whether they attacked the wireless station first or they did not attack the police station, since the common object that pervaded the accused persons was to attack police installation and kill policemen. In this case, they succeeded in accomplishing their common object by causing the death of Havildar Kunhikrishnan Nair. There was, therefore, no question of the accused persons having misled in their defence because of the common object specified in the charge. No useful purpose would have been served if the charge contained the common object as an attack on the police station. So it was not the place of attack that was important in the case, but it was the common object with which the accused persons formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons to attack the police post and kill the persons who manned the post which was an important circumstance in the case to hold that the accused persons accomplished their common object. Viewed in that manner there is absolutely no ground to hold that it was not the common object sought to be established that was charged against the accused persons. 138. It is relevant at this stage to point out that the evidence of Pws.119, 124 and 165 cannot be accepted unless their evidence was corroborated by other independent evidence or strong circumstances. 138. It is relevant at this stage to point out that the evidence of Pws.119, 124 and 165 cannot be accepted unless their evidence was corroborated by other independent evidence or strong circumstances. On a reading of their entire evidence, the conclusion was irresistible that their evidence was akin to the evidence of accomplices, Hence their evidence may not be reliable unless there was corroboration. The nature of corroboration required in such cases was laid down by Lord Reading in The King v. Baskerville (1916-2 K. B. 658). It reads: "The nature of the corroboration will necessarily vary according to the particular circumstances of the offence charged. It would be in high degree dangerous to attempt to formulate the kind of evidence which would be regarded as corroboration, except to say that corroborative evidence is evidence which shows or tends to show that the story of the accomplice that the accused committed the crime is true, not merely that the crime has been committed, but that it was committed by the accused. The corroboration need not be direct evidence that the accused committed the crime; it is sufficient if it is merely circumstantial evidence of his connection with the crime." In the above case, a decision of Petterson J., in Reg v. Birkett (8 C. & P. 732) was cited as authority as to how a conformation of an accomplice's evidence had to be appreciated. In that case a prisoner was indicted for receiving stolen sheep. The evidence consisted of the statement of an accomplice, and to conform it, it was proved that a quantity of mutton corresponding to size of the sheep stolen was found in the prisoner's house. Patterson J. said in that case: "If the confirmation had merely gone to the extent of confirming the accomplice as to matters connected with himself only, it would not have been sufficient...but here we have a great deal more; we have a quantity of mutton found in the house in which the prisoner resides, and that I think is such a confirmation of the accomplice's evidence as I must leave to the jury." 139. The rule in Baskerville's case was quoted with approval in Rameshwar Kalyan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (AIR. 1952 SC. 54). The rule in Baskerville's case was quoted with approval in Rameshwar Kalyan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (AIR. 1952 SC. 54). At page 57, Bose J. for the Bench held: "...it is not necessary that there should be independent confirmation of every material circumstance in the sense that the independent evidence in the case, apart from the testimony of the complainant or the accomplice, should in itself be sufficient to sustain conviction." Then Lord Reading's opinion in Baskerville's case was quoted in approval as follows: "'Indeed, if it were required that that the accomplice should be confirmed in every detail of the crime, his evidence would not be essential to the case, it would be merely confirmatory of other and independent, testimony.' All that is required is that there must be 'some additional evidence rendering it probable that the story of the accomplice (or complainant) is true and that it is reasonably safe to act upon it'." Another rule which the Supreme Court enunciated on the strength of the above English case was that: "the corroboration must come from independent sources and thus ordinarily the testimony of one accomplice would not be sufficient to corroborate that of another. But of course the circumstances may be such as to make it safe to dispense with the necessity of corroboration and in those special circumstances a conviction so based would not be illegal." The last rule formulated in the same Supreme Court decision was, "the corroboration need not be direct evidence that the accused committed the crime. It is sufficient if it is merely circumstantial evidence of his connection with the crime. Were it otherwise, "many crimes which are usually committed between accomplices in secret, such as incest, offences with females, or the present case, could never be brought to justice.' (Baskerville's case)." 140. In the light of these pronouncements, the evidence of Pws.119, 124 and 165 has to be considered and dealt with in respect of the crimes levelled against the accused persons in the case in hand. It could not be disputed that deceased Sankunny Menon, the deponent in Ext. P107, knew accused Nos. 5, 7, 14, 16, 128, 135, 145, 146 and 147 even before the incident. It could not be disputed that deceased Sankunny Menon, the deponent in Ext. P107, knew accused Nos. 5, 7, 14, 16, 128, 135, 145, 146 and 147 even before the incident. According to that evidence these accused persons had weapons in their hands when he saw them entering into his room where he slept and he had also attributed overt acts in respect of each of these accused persons. He had as many as 33 separate and distinct injuries on his person. They were caused due to beating with sticks and piercing with spears. Neither his visual capacity nor want of light in the room had been questioned. On the other hand, evidence was conclusive that the accused party had carried with them lighted country torches in their hands while they entered the room. Pws.119, 124 and 165 implicated the 5th accused to the crime. That evidence was corroborated by the evidence of Sankunny Menon. The 14th accused was implicated to the crime by Pws.92, 119, 124 and 165. That evidence was amply corroborated by the evidence recorded in Ext. P107. The 16th accused's complicity to the crime was spoken to by Pws.119, 124 and 165. That was corroborated by Sankunny Menon in Ext. P107. Similar corroboration was afforded in Ext. P107 in respect of the 128th accused whose complicity to the crime was spoken to by Pws.119 and 165. Pw.119 gave evidence against the 135th accused. The evidence of Sankunny Menon in Ext. P107 corroborated it. In Ext. P107 accused Nos. 145 and 146 were implicated and Pw.92 gave evidence in corroboration of that version. As regards the 147th accused the sole testimony was that of Sankunny Menon in Ext. P107. Pw.92 gave some evidence of corroboration against the 147th accused. He was the only person known by the name 'Panicker' in the crowd. Pw.92 heard a cry from outside the building in the first instance directing Panicker to pierce his spear against the enemy. That was an indication that the 147th accused would be present outside the building with a spear in his hand. Overt act was, however, attributed to him in Ext. P107. 141. Pw.165 had given evidence that the 139th accused entered the room with a spear in his hand and then he was seen getting out of the. room with the spear in the company of other accused persons. There was corroboration of that evidence. Overt act was, however, attributed to him in Ext. P107. 141. Pw.165 had given evidence that the 139th accused entered the room with a spear in his hand and then he was seen getting out of the. room with the spear in the company of other accused persons. There was corroboration of that evidence. Pws.45 and 102 who met the 139th accused soon after the incident saw that his right palm (M.O. 277) had been severed from the ulna of the right hand. After the incident at the wireless station the party moved towards west along the road and hardly had they walked 200 feet when a bomb in the hands of the 139th accused exploded with the result that his palm was severed hanging on the skin. While so the 4th accused completely severed it by cutting the skin with a chopper. M.O. 277 was that palm, which was recovered under Ext. P66 mahazar on the same day. Pw.160 examined the 139th accused and issued Ext P218 wound certificate. On comparison of the palm (M.O. 277) with the injury on the right hand, Pw.160 was satisfied that M.O. 277 would exactly fit in with the right hand of the 139th accused and that it was his palm. Ext. P215 was the comparison certificate. Pws.119 and 124 gave evidence as to the accident in which the 139 accused lost his palm. Soon after that incident Pw.102, a school master, met him when he made an extra-judicial confession to the effect that he lost the palm after the attack on the wireless station and that he was one of those persons who participated in the attack. Pw.45 also saw the 139th accused going in the company of Pw.102 when he too found that he had lost his palm. There was no reason to reject the evidence of Pw.102. The truth of the confession could not be disputed. It appeared to be quite natural in the circumstances of the case. That evidence, together with the evidence of Pws.119, 124 and 165, clearly established that the 139th accused was a participant in the crime at the wireless station. 142 What transpired at the Chithalayam forest at about 1.30 a.m. on 24-11-1968 was spoken to by Pw.119. One important step which the accused had taken there was the appointment of accused Nos. That evidence, together with the evidence of Pws.119, 124 and 165, clearly established that the 139th accused was a participant in the crime at the wireless station. 142 What transpired at the Chithalayam forest at about 1.30 a.m. on 24-11-1968 was spoken to by Pw.119. One important step which the accused had taken there was the appointment of accused Nos. 5, 14, 16, 17 and 128 for the use of fire-arms during the attack on the police station. When Pw.119 reached the courtyard of the wireless station, he found the 5th accused there in the attire of a Sub Inspector. When Pw.124 proceeded towards the wireless station hearing the noise of gun shots and explosions he also found the 5th accused standing wearing the uniform of a Sub Inspector. Pw.124 also witnessed accused Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 14, 16, 17, 19, 29, 129, 131, 138 and 141 proceeding from Pulpally to Chekadi soon after the incident at the wireless station. On hearing the noise of gun shots and explosions from the side of the wireless station, Pw.165 ran towards it and stood in the courtyard when he found accused Nos. 4, 6, 7, 16, 129 and 139, of whom the 4th accused had a chopper, the 16th accused a stick and the other accused persons spear each in their hands coming out of the room in which Havildar Kunhikrishnan Nair slept and from where he heard the cry "Ayyo! Don't kill me; I am innocent". Thereafter the same accused persons got into the room in which Sankunny Menon slept and they were found to have beaten and hit that person. He was found to be lying in that room. While so the 14th accused attempted to shoot him with a gun. Pw.165 gave that part of the evidence against the 14th accused. Pw.92 sustained gun shot wound on the back of his left thigh. A little while before that he had seen the 14th accused standing on the way with a gun in his hand. There was therefore corroboration of the evidence of Pw.165. The fact that the 14th accused was in custody of guns throughout the expedition had been brought out beyond dispute. There could be no dispute as to the truth of the testimony of Pw.92 in spite of the alleged variation or embellishment. There was therefore corroboration of the evidence of Pw.165. The fact that the 14th accused was in custody of guns throughout the expedition had been brought out beyond dispute. There could be no dispute as to the truth of the testimony of Pw.92 in spite of the alleged variation or embellishment. I am reminded of what Krishna Iyer, J. stated in a recent case in dealing with the appreciation of witnesses' evidence in criminal cases. (See Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra -(1973) II S. C. W. R.426). The learned Judge said: "When scanning the evidence of the various witnesses we have to inform ourselves that variances on the fringes, discrepancies in details, contradictions in narrations and embellishments in inessential parts cannot militate against the veracity of the core of the testimony provided there is the impress of truth and conformity to probability in the substantial fabric of testimony delivered." The 4th accused in his turn broke open the south-eastern room which was in the occupation of Pw.230 Sub Inspector. The articles kept in that room were ransacked and they were set on fire. Thereafter the party moved out of the place towards the police station crying out victorious slogans. 143. The 5th accused was one of the leading figures among the accused party. He was found among others standing in the uniform of a Sub Inspector at the court-yard of the wireless station both by Pws. 119 and 124 soon after the incident. Pws. 10, 110, 117 and others also saw the 5th accused in Sub-Inspector's uniform during the dacoity between 6 and 7.30 a.m. on the same day. The evidence was that the uniform was that of Sankunny Menon, the Addl. Sub Inspector who lived in the south-western room. He was one of those who attacked Sankunny Menon while he was lying in the room. He was a close associate of the 1st accused as he was found in his company along with the 4th accused in the Pulpally area for inciting people there for active work on land reform. Pw.46 invited the 1st accused to visit Pulpally and he came along with accused Nos. 4 and 5. They were received at Panamaram. In the first week of November, 1968, meetings were held in Pulpally. They wanted to spread revolutionary ideas among the people. Pw.45 did not approve those activities. Pw.46 invited the 1st accused to visit Pulpally and he came along with accused Nos. 4 and 5. They were received at Panamaram. In the first week of November, 1968, meetings were held in Pulpally. They wanted to spread revolutionary ideas among the people. Pw.45 did not approve those activities. So in that connection Pw.45 sent a petition against them to the Police at Pulpally. The 5th accused threatened Pw.45 with dire consequences because of his unhelpful attitude. There was a police enquiry in that connection, when accused Nos. 1, 4 and 5 left the place. Even in October 1968, Pw.51 was under the impression that the 5th accused was a revolutionary. On 17-11-1968 the 5th accused was a party at a meeting in the Kepees Tutorial College of the 2nd accused when a decision was taken to attack the police stations at Tellicherry and Pulpally by securing weapons. Afterwards he was found" in the company of accused Nos. 3 and 7 at the residence of the 40th accused in Manantoddy. Pw.42 witnessed his presence there. It was due to his efforts that Pw.119 was engaged as a cook to accompany the party from Manantoddy side to. Pulpally. Before they started the March through the forest, the 5th accused gave his radio to Pw.28 for repair. In its place Pw.28 lent him the transistor M. O.7 which belonged to Pw.29. The transistor was seized during the investigation. On 19-11-1968 he was present at the residence of Pw.120. It was then that the 5th accused made a declaration that the party would attack the Pulpally police station. Pw.120 himself accompanied the party from Thonichal to Kenichira. That part of the evidence of Pw.120 was corroborated by the evidence of Pws. 119 and 165. It was at his instance that Pw.120 was sent for purchasing provisions they required during their stay there. When he returned after the purchase, he found a man from Thalapuzha side lying unconscious. When he regained consciousness, the 5th accused asked him to go away with a direction not to reveal what he saw and heard at the place. When the 14th accused brought three guns during their march from Thonichal to Kenichira, the 5th accused was entrusted with one gun and the 17th accused with another. Afterwards the transistor as well as the guns were secreted in the forest. When the 14th accused brought three guns during their march from Thonichal to Kenichira, the 5th accused was entrusted with one gun and the 17th accused with another. Afterwards the transistor as well as the guns were secreted in the forest. Before Pw.120 returned from Kenichira, the 5th accused said, 'You better return; we shall attack Pulpally police station and carry away guns; we are also to harvest paddy crops belonging to landlords and distribute the yield to poor.' But the 5th accused wanted Pw.120 not to tell those secrets to anyone. However, he was paid Rs. 4/- before he left the camp. 144. Pw.119 met the 5th accused at the residence of the 141st accused on 20-11-1968, when a group of persons was deputed for the use of firearms. The 5th accused was one among them. In the light of the evidence against the 5th accused it could be held that he was a member of the unlawful assembly with the common object attributed to that assembly. 145. The 6th accused was the leader of the Pulpally group. He was in touch with the 1st accused long before the incidents in Tellicherry and Pulpally. Though he was a resident of Trivandrum he came to Manantoddy in the first week of November, 1968. Pw.45 gave evidence about his presence there when he lived along with the 1st accused at the residence of the 135th accused. The impression which Pw.45 made about the 6th accused and others was that they were revolutionaries. Exts. P6(a), P6(b), P8(a) and P8(b) revealed that he believed in a violent agitation for redress of the alleged grievances of peasants and workers. He was in the company of accused Nos. 4 and 5 when Pw.45 filed petitions against him and others. Pw.51 also stated that accused Nos. 5 and 6 conducted revolutionary activities. Pw.36 stated that he disposed of his radio before he jointed the movement. Pws.119, 124 and 165 gave evidence of his activities. Their version had been corroborated regarding the activities of the 6th accused. Pw.119 stated that the 6th accused appointed the 4th accused commander of the gang during the march towards the Pulpally police station. The 6th accused directed the party to sit in a circle and contribute the cash everyone had for a common fund. More than Rs. 200/- was collected towards the common fund. Pw.119 stated that the 6th accused appointed the 4th accused commander of the gang during the march towards the Pulpally police station. The 6th accused directed the party to sit in a circle and contribute the cash everyone had for a common fund. More than Rs. 200/- was collected towards the common fund. The leadership of the 6th accused was vindicated there. In the same place accused Nos. 6 and 7 read the Mao literature which aimed at the liquidation of wealthy class in the society. Pw.124 stated that at the direction of the 6th accused, sticks and spears were made by the party at the Chithalayam forest. Practice in the use of fire-arms was also conducted at the place on the basis of the instructions given by the 6th accused. Pw.165 mentioned the 6th accused as one among the crowd which marched from Chithalayam forest to the Pulpally police station at about 1-30 a.m. on 24-11-1968. Pw.165 had also identified the 6th accused as one of the persons who came put of the room where Havildar Kunhikrishnan Nair slept when he also found in his hand a spear. The evidence of Pw.165 was consistent with the antecedents of the 6th accused prior to the incident. The evidence of Pws.119, 124" and 165 as regards the 6th accused was corroborated by the circumstantial evidence which showed in abundance that he was a participant of the crime along with others as a member of an unlawful assembly. 146. The 7th accused was present at the meeting in the house of accused Nos. 1 and 3 who are her parents, on 30-10-1968. It was there that the plan was hatched for the first time to take up arms against the village feudalism and police force. Pw.21 stated that the 7th accused was also a participant of that meeting. After the meeting she left Calicut and she was then seen by Pw.42 at the residence of the 40th accused who conducted various activities behind the screen in support of the revolutionary ideas of the 1st accused. Pw.115 met her in the house of the 18th accused. There was no valid explanation for the 7th accused, a woman aged 22 years, why she moved from place to place in the forest region in the company of strangers in the month of November, 1968. Pw.115 met her in the house of the 18th accused. There was no valid explanation for the 7th accused, a woman aged 22 years, why she moved from place to place in the forest region in the company of strangers in the month of November, 1968. Pw.44 happened to attend a meeting at the residence of her husband's paternal uncle some two weeks prior to the Pulpally incident, when she met the 7th accused. The identity of the 7th accused had been proved by Pw.44. While so she found the 7th accused reading some literature and then she declared at the meeting that a revolution shall take place in Wyanad. When Pw.44 asked her what part the ladies should play in it, the 7th accused stated that she would say about it later. About that time the 3rd accused was separated from the 7th accused by shifting the former to the house of the 129th accused from the house of the 40th accused with whom they lived till then. Pw.165, however, spotted the 7th accused in a neighbour's house which was the residence of the 149th accused. She left the place in the company of the 149th accused to Thonichal where she set up her residence with Pw.120. Later, her movement was watched. Pw.119 saw her at the residence of the 141st accused in Kenichira. When the party arrived in the Chithalayam forest she introduced herself as Ajita of Calicut, unmarried. Pws.119, 124 and 165 had seen her in the company of other accused during their march from Chithalayam to the Pulpally wireless station. Pw.165 identified her as one of the accused persons who came out of the room of the Havildar after he was killed with a spear in her hands. In Ext. P107 Sankunny Menon stated that she was one of those persons who beat and hit him while he was lying down in his room. It was conclusive that she was also a member of the unlawful assembly. 147. The 14th accused, as a resident of Manantoddy, was a teacher in the school of which Pw.39 was the headmaster. The school was within the jurisdiction of Pw.38, Assistant Educational Officer. With effect from 19-11-1968 the 14th accused applied for leave vide Ext. P76 leave application. It was supported by Ext. P77 medical certificate. He wanted leave upto 18-12-1968. Pw.39 forwarded Exts. P76 and 77 to Pw.38. The school was within the jurisdiction of Pw.38, Assistant Educational Officer. With effect from 19-11-1968 the 14th accused applied for leave vide Ext. P76 leave application. It was supported by Ext. P77 medical certificate. He wanted leave upto 18-12-1968. Pw.39 forwarded Exts. P76 and 77 to Pw.38. But leave was not granted to him. Because of his absence he was suspended. Thereafter he was busy gathering weapons for the contemplated attack on the police station, Pulpally. He collected the guns of Pws.56, 57 and 58, who were some important men in his locality. He secured three guns making false representations to them as well as their agents. Thereafter he went to Thonichal, where he lived in the house of Pw.120 when accused Nos. 14 and 81 were also there. The 14th accused stated that there was rumour of harvest of paddy crops belonging to landlords for distribution of the yield to the poor. While so, he paid some money in the hands of Pw.120 to purchase provisions. The 14th accused had also brought some 5 to 8 persons to the house of Pw.120. The 14th accused stated that a meeting would be held in the house of Pw.120. So he asked him to send away his wife in the night. He made use of the services of Pw.120 for carrying some letters and purchasing rice and provisions. After Pw.120 returned, the crowd of persons assembled there formed into batches before they marched to Kenichira. Pw.120 stated that on their way the 14th accused produced three guns. He kept one of them for himself and the other two were given, one each to the 5th accused and the 17th accused. Pw.119 gave evidence of the activity of the party at the Chithalayam forest including that of the 14th accused. He employed Pw.154 as a guide to point out the correct route from Chithalayam to go out of the forest. The 14th accused was one among the six persons who were employed for the use of gun during the attack. Pw.92 spotted him standing near the wireless station with a gun in his hand. Pw.165 stated that the 14th accused attempted to shoot the person who was lying in the south-western room of the wireless station building. Pw.92 sustained a gun shot wound behind his left thigh. Pw.92 spotted him standing near the wireless station with a gun in his hand. Pw.165 stated that the 14th accused attempted to shoot the person who was lying in the south-western room of the wireless station building. Pw.92 sustained a gun shot wound behind his left thigh. It was possible that the 14th accused would have shot him with the gun which he had in his hand. He was the only accused with whom the possession of a gun was attributed during the attack in the wireless station. The evidence of Pws.120, 119, 124 and 165 read with the evidence of Pw.92 proved beyond any doubt that the 14th accused was also a member of the unlawful assembly. 148. The 16th accused was first sighted at the house of Pw.120 in Thonichal on 19-11-1968 by Pw.119. He was in the crowd that marched from Thonichal to Kenichira and he continued his march to Pulpally wireless station via. Panamaram and Chithalayam forest. Pws.119, 124 and 165 connected him to various activities during the march. He was one of those persons who were selected for the use of guns during the attack on the police station. Sankunny Menon, in his Ext. P107 deposition, implicated him as a trespasser into his room along with others when they beat and hit him. He had a stick in his hand while he entered the room of the Havildar and he came out of it with the stick. Pw.165 saw him coming out of the room with the stick while the 4th accused had a chopper and others spears. There was sufficient corroboration of the alleged accomplice's version with other independent evidence to bring home the guilt of the 16th accused that he was a member of the unlawful assembly. 149. The 128th accused was first seen at the house of the 141st accused near Pulpally side on 20-11-1968 by Pw.119 along with the 131st accused. He was present at the Chithalayam forest along with other accused persons. He was one selected for the use of fire-arms. Pw.119 also stated that after the wireless station incident he went in the company of other accused persons from Pulpally to Chekadi. The movements of the 128th accused at the residence of the 141st accused and their visit to Kannarampuzha revealed that they had the intention to commit a crime. He was one selected for the use of fire-arms. Pw.119 also stated that after the wireless station incident he went in the company of other accused persons from Pulpally to Chekadi. The movements of the 128th accused at the residence of the 141st accused and their visit to Kannarampuzha revealed that they had the intention to commit a crime. These circumstances connected the 128th accused to the crime to which he was a party at the wireless station. He entered the room in which Sankunny Menon slept and caused injuries to him by beating and hitting. There was sufficient corroboration to make him a member of the unlawful assembly. 150. The 129th accused was sighted at the spot by Pw.165 when he came out of the Havildar's room along with others with a spear in his hand. But that evidence required corroboration. Though there was no direct evidence of corroboration, the clinching circumstantial evidence against him was such that it could not be disputed that he was an active participant of the crime as a member of the unlawful assembly. Pw.46 invited the 1st accused to visit Pulpally to discuss the land problem in that area. In response to that invitation the 1st accused came there when he lived in one Parameswaran's house in Manantoddy where Pw.46 met the 129th accused also in the company of accused Nos. 1, 4, 5 and others. There was a discussion as to how the land problem could be settled. It was resolved at that place that the only remedy to settle the problem of peasants and workers was to organise the people for a violent insurrection on the lines of Mao Tse Tung's thoughts. Pw.124 identified the 129th accused as one who accompanied the crowd that marched from Manantoddy to Pulpally via. Thonichal, Kenichira, Panamaram and Chithalayam. Pw.165 also identified him as the follower of the gang during the march upto the wireless station. Pw.165 had seen him coming out of the room of the Havildar with a spear in his hand along with his colleagues. The 129th accused again figured as a political worker along with accused Nos. 1 and 6 when Pw.45, a trader in the Pulpally area dubbed him as a revolutionary. During the march he was found in the company of accused Nos. 1, 5 and 138 (deceased) on 20-11-1968 near Kannaram river which is adjacent to Chithalayam. The 129th accused again figured as a political worker along with accused Nos. 1 and 6 when Pw.45, a trader in the Pulpally area dubbed him as a revolutionary. During the march he was found in the company of accused Nos. 1, 5 and 138 (deceased) on 20-11-1968 near Kannaram river which is adjacent to Chithalayam. By about 10.30 p.m. that day, the 129th accused also reached the residence of the 141st accused. On the direction of the 7th accused the Manantoddy group was brought to be mixed up with the Pulpally group by about 8-30 a.m. on 23-11-1968 by the 129th accused in Chithalayam forest. The 129th accused was busy at the Chithalayam forest during the joint meeting of the two groups there. It was the 129th accused who arranged the supply of coffee to the members of the gang. His active participation in the activities of the crowd that marched to the wireless station and his appearance finally at the Havildar's room with a spear in his hand would be a sufficient indication that he was a member of the unlawful assembly. 151. The 135th accused was an active political worker with the 1st accused. When the 1st accused visited Pulpally in October 1968 in the company of the 6th accused for political propaganda, according to Pw.45, they lived in the residence of the 135th accused. Pw.45 did not agree to the revolutionary activities of those accused persons. So he sent a petition to Pw.230 Sub Inspector, Pulpally, against them as a result of which three police constables visited the house of the 135th accused for investigation. It was a month prior to the Pulpally incident. He was in heart and soul with the 1st accused's activity. Pws.119 and 124 had seen the 135th accused's participation in the march to Pulpally wireless station. He collected food for the persons who joined the expedition. He was one of those accused persons who went with others to Chekadi after the wireless station incident. Pw.119 had seen him in that crowd. Pw.124 stated that he came along with the Kappiset group which joined the main group at Thonichal. His presence in the room of Sankunny Menon with a spear in his hand as revealed in Ext. He was one of those accused persons who went with others to Chekadi after the wireless station incident. Pw.119 had seen him in that crowd. Pw.124 stated that he came along with the Kappiset group which joined the main group at Thonichal. His presence in the room of Sankunny Menon with a spear in his hand as revealed in Ext. P107 deposition supported by the circumstantial evidence of Pw.119, was proof positive that he joined the unlawful assembly with full knowledge that the members of that assembly were likely to commit the offence in prosecution of their common object. 152. Accused Nos. 145 to 147 joined the unlawful assembly at the wireless station. The evidence to implicate accused Nos. 145 and 146 was that of Sankunny Menon as well as that of Pw.92. As against the 147th accused, the evidence was that of Sankunny Menon in Ext. P107 deposition supported by other circumstantial evidence against him. Sankunny Menon identified accused Nos. 5, 7, 16, 128, 135, 145, 146 and 147 who entered his room, with sticks and spears. They were known to him even previous to the incident. So no question of a test identification parade arose in the case. No such demand had been made by the accused persons during the investigation or later. Ext. P269 wound certificate revealed that Sankunny Menon sustained large number of lacerated wounds, contusions, multiple abrasions and multiple linear abrasions all over his body. According to his evidence he was beaten with sticks and hit with spears. The evidence was that the accused persons including accused Nos. 145 to 147 had spears and sticks in their hands when they entered the room and that every one of them made use of the weapons against him. Pw.184, the doctor who examined him, was of the opinion that the injuries in Ext. P269 could be caused as a result of cutting with weapons not very sharp and beating with sticks or contact with any hard substance. There was no case that the injuries found on Sankunny Menon and the manner of their infliction as deposed by him did not tally. It was conclusive that the medical evidence was consistent with the prosecution case as to how Sankunny Menon sustained the injuries. The evidence of Sankunny Menon implicating accused Nos. There was no case that the injuries found on Sankunny Menon and the manner of their infliction as deposed by him did not tally. It was conclusive that the medical evidence was consistent with the prosecution case as to how Sankunny Menon sustained the injuries. The evidence of Sankunny Menon implicating accused Nos. 145 and 146 was fortified by the evidence of Pw.92 who was also a victim of attack by accused Nos. 145 and 146. When Pw.92 heard the noise of gun shot or explosion of a bomb he got out of his room when he was surrounded by some five to ten persons of whom he was able to identify accused Nos. 145 and 146. The 145th accused beat him first. Then he pushed him towards the 146th accused who, in his turn, kicked him on his navel. However, the kick did not fall on his person. But he was again beaten at the spot by the 145th accused. Yet he was able to extricate himself from him and ran away. The evidence of PW. 92 coupled with that of Sankunny Menon was sufficient to attribute overt acts to accused Nos. 145 and 146 as members of an unlawful assembly. They were active participants in the attack on the wireless station. Pw.92 gave intimation of the incident to the police after he was admitted in the hospital. There was no previous occasion for Pw.92 to give a record in writing as regards the incident. It is an admitted fact that accused Nos. 145 and 146 were mentioned by him in the statement which he made at the hospital. Any way the evidence was conclusive that accused Nos. 145 and 146 were active participants in the attack on the wireless station as members of an unlawful assembly. 153. The evidence of Sankunny Menon implicating the 147th accused as one who entered his room and joined the others in attacking him, was corroborated by the circumstantial evidence. It was already, pointed out on the basis of the evidence of Pw.92 that the name of the 147th accused was called out by some one among the crowd that he should pierce his spear against the persons inside the room. It was already, pointed out on the basis of the evidence of Pw.92 that the name of the 147th accused was called out by some one among the crowd that he should pierce his spear against the persons inside the room. That was a clear indication that the 147th accused would be standing outside the wireless station building with a spear in his hand soon after the bomb was thrown at the northern widow of the building. In the light of the evidence of pw 92 there was no ground to brush aside the evidence of Sankunny Menon in Ext. P107 where he implicated him as an assailant with the other accused persons. It is relevant at this stage to point out some admissions which Pw.51 made in cross-examination to the effect that on the date of the incident accused Nos. 145 and 147 lived in his house and that therefore they could not have taken part in the attack on the wireless station. Pw.51 turned hostile to the prosecution, as he did not conform to his statement to the police during the investigation. However, during his cross-examination it had come out that the houses of Pws.145 and 147 were only within a mile from his house. It would not be likely therefore for these two persons to live with him on that particular day. The reason suggested for their staying with him did not also inspire any confidence. After all, he was not a witness of truth having chosen to give one version to the police and quite a different version in court. The presence of accused Nos. 145 and 147 in the unlawful assembly was conclusive as they joined the assembly intentionally after knowing of facts which rendered the assembly an unlawful one and continued to remain in it. The 147th accused was also member of the unlawful assembly which collected at the wireless station with the common object to commit the murder of the policemen who were the inmates of the building at 3-30 a.m. on 24-11-1968. 154. What was highlighted in the evidence of Pws.120 and 124 against the 18th accused that he was found in the house of the 40th accused in Manantoddy and that of Pw.120 himself in Thonichal, together with the case that he was found in the company of accused Nos. 154. What was highlighted in the evidence of Pws.120 and 124 against the 18th accused that he was found in the house of the 40th accused in Manantoddy and that of Pw.120 himself in Thonichal, together with the case that he was found in the company of accused Nos. 3 and 7 would not be sufficient to hold that he joined the unlawful assembly with the knowledge that an offence was likely to be committed. The evidence of Pw.119 that he purchased cloth for making a red flag or that he held a gun during the march or that he kept watch over a gun could not be conclusive unless his evidence as an accomplice was corroborated by any other satisfactory evidence. No case had been made out that he was a member of the unlawful assembly. 155. As regards the 20th accused, the case was that Pw.119 met him and the 19th accused together in the house of Pw.120. Pw.120 knew the 20th accused before. As against the 21st accused the evidence of Pw.119 was that he sighted him near the wireless station. There was no corroboration of any kind to rope in accused Nos. 20 and 21 as members of an unlawful assembly. No other overt act had been attributed to them. 156. As against accused Nos. 25, 29, 33 and 41 also no attempt had been made for adducing any evidence in corroboration of the evidence of Pw.119 and Pw.124 as against them. pw.124 did not even identify the 33rd accused. Nothing had been brought in to implicate accused Nos. 25, 29, 33 and 41 as members of an unlawful assembly. 157. There was no evidence against the 36th accused that he was at the spot during the incident in Pulpally wireless station. However, Pw.119 stated that soon after the incident, the 36th accused came running gasping for breath. That was not a circumstance to make him a member of the unlawful assembly. There was also no corroboration of the evidence of Pw.119 against him. The fact that he was one of those who shifted the 3rd accused from the residence of the 40th accused at Manantoddy to Valat was not by itself sufficient to implicate him. 158. As against accused Nos. 131, 132, 134 and 149 also the evidence was not sufficient to implicate them to any offence. The fact that he was one of those who shifted the 3rd accused from the residence of the 40th accused at Manantoddy to Valat was not by itself sufficient to implicate him. 158. As against accused Nos. 131, 132, 134 and 149 also the evidence was not sufficient to implicate them to any offence. The accomplice evidence alone was not sufficient to bring home the guilt against them beyond a reasonable doubt. 159. There was a comprehensive charge against accused Nos. 5, 6, 7, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 25, 29, 33, 36, 41, 128,129, 131, 132, 134, 135, 139, 141, 145, 146, 147 and 149 under S.302 IPC. read with S.149 IPC. for the murder of Havildar Kunhikrishnan Nair in his room in the M. S. P. wireless station building at 3-30 a.m. on 24-11-1968 by accused No.4 (died after the incident), 6, 7, 16, 129 and 139 causing his death by cutting with chopper, piercing with spears and beating with sticks. Other charges have also been laid against them under S.307, 449, 427, 435 and 380 IPC. read with S.149 IPC. 160. The evidence of Pw.165 that accused Nos. 4, 6, 7, 16, 129 and 139 of whom the 4th accused was armed with a chopper, the 6th accused with a stick and accused Nos. 7, 16, 129 and 139 each with a spear in their hands, had come out of the room of Havildar Kunhikrishnan Nair soon after his cry "Don't kill me; I am innocent", was heard within the room. The doctor who issued the post-mortem certificate gave evidence that the fatal injury on the Havildar could be caused by cutting with a chopper. The evidence that the 4th accused emerged out of the room with a chopper in his hand was an indication that he would have caused the fatal blow. Accused Nos. 6, 7, 16, 129 and 139 who came out of the room with sticks and spears in their hands could have caused the rest of the injuries found on the person of the Havildar. The evidence of eye-witnesses exactly fit in with the medical evidence as to how the injuries could be inflicted. Once it was found that these accused persons caused the murder of the Havildar all the other members of the unlawful assembly will also be constructively liable to the same offence. The evidence of eye-witnesses exactly fit in with the medical evidence as to how the injuries could be inflicted. Once it was found that these accused persons caused the murder of the Havildar all the other members of the unlawful assembly will also be constructively liable to the same offence. The liability of other members for the offence committed during the continuance of the occurrence rests upon the fact whether the other members knew beforehand about the offence actually to be committed or likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object. Such knowledge may reasonably be gathered from the nature of the assembly, the weapons they carried or their behaviour at or before the scene of action. Number of materials in detail had been considered already to show that the members of the unlawful assembly in this case had a plan to kill policemen. They made elaborate arrangements and preparations collecting and acquiring weapons of different denominations. They marched in a body all the way from Manantoddy, via. Thonichal, Kenichira, Panamaram and Chithalayam forest, to Pulpally, carrying guns, spears, daggers, choppers, sticks, country bombs, crackers and other explosive substances. If at an untimely hour in the night, a number of people entered a building armed with deadly weapons, it cannot be with any legitimate object. The weapons themselves were of dangerous nature and if there was evidence to show that the accused persons had to use one or the other of the weapons in inflicting injuries on the Havildar, it is easy to infer that they proceeded to the scene of the offence with the common object that was to be achieved by the use of such dangerous weapons. The Havildar would have been mercilessly beaten and pierced with spears besides giving the fatal blow with a chopper on a vital part of the body. The death was instantaneous. The existence of the common object must be determined with reference to the conduct and behaviour at or before the scene of occurrence. The accused party pooled their resources including cash on the way to meet the cost of the expedition. They were imbued with a spirit of violence which was mainly directed against the police force, landlords and other wealthy persons. The accused party pooled their resources including cash on the way to meet the cost of the expedition. They were imbued with a spirit of violence which was mainly directed against the police force, landlords and other wealthy persons. They thought Mao Tse Tung of China preached violence for redressing all grievances of peasants and workers and that the teaching and propaganda in his thoughts could prepare the people for an armed insurrection. It was no wonder then that the crowd cried out from outside the wireless station: 'There are two men inside; kill them.' The accused persons who got inside the room responded to that call in all earnestness and brought about the instantaneous death of Havildar Kunhikrishnan Nair. In the circumstances of this case it could be held that all the members of the unlawful assembly had the knowledge that the murder was likely to have been committed by any one among them in pursuance of their common object. 161. There was no foundation for the argument that as against accused Nos. 5, 6, 7, 16, 128, 129, 135, 145, 146 and 147 no charge has been framed under S.302 read with S.149 and that the charge laid against them was only under S.302 read with S.34 IPC. This argument was not factually correct. The charge was comprehensive enough to include all the accused persons even the 6th accused, as members of an unlawful assembly which was said to have committed the murder of Havildar Kunhikrishnan Nair. After the charge was framed the 6th accused jumped bail and absconded. But when he was re-arrested he was tried again in Sessions Case No.8 of 1971 where the charge laid against him for the murder of Havildar Kunhikrishnan Nair was under S.302 read with S.34 IPC.; there was however no charge framed afresh under S.302 read with S.149, though he was charged both under S.143 and S.148 IPC. Similarly all the accused persons in Sessions Case Nos. 36 and 51 of 1970 were also charged under S.143 and 148 IPC. The question for consideration under these circumstances is whether the conviction of accused Nos. 5, 6, 7, 16, 128, 129, 135, 145, 146 and 147 under S.302 read with S.149 IPC. would be illegal in the absence of a charge under S.302 read with S.149 IPC. 162. 36 and 51 of 1970 were also charged under S.143 and 148 IPC. The question for consideration under these circumstances is whether the conviction of accused Nos. 5, 6, 7, 16, 128, 129, 135, 145, 146 and 147 under S.302 read with S.149 IPC. would be illegal in the absence of a charge under S.302 read with S.149 IPC. 162. The ingredients of S.34 and that of S.149 differ in some material particulars, though they also overlap under certain circumstances. Both relate to constructive or vicarious liability. S.34, however, does not create an offence and that section lays down a rule of law. But S.149 partakes of a definite head of criminality. The concept of S.34 is common intention; the common object is the basis of S.149. Where there is overlapping of the facts bringing a case both under S.34 and under S.149, if an accused is charged for an offence involving a common object to commit murder, he cannot possibly be prejudiced by the omission of S.34 in the charge. A charge vice versa is also not likely to prejudice the accused if the facts and circumstances of the case overlap each other. In considering the legality of the conviction in such circumstances the test is whether the facts which it was necessary to prove and on which evidence was given of the charge upon which the accused was actually tried are the same as the facts upon which he was convicted. 163. The Supreme Court in Karnail Singh v. The State of Punjab (1954 SCR. 904) stated: "...if the facts to be proved and the evidence to be adduced with reference to the charge under S.149 would be the same if the charge were under S.34, then the failure to charge the accused under S.34 could not result in any prejudice and in such cases the substitution of S.34 for S.149 must be held to be a formal matter. There is no such broad proposition of law that there can be no recourse to S.34 when the charge is only under S.149." 164. In Tilkeshwar Singh v. The State of Bihar (AIR. 1956 S.C. 238) the accused was tried under S.302 read with S.34 but the conviction was entered under S.326 read with S.149 IPC. There is no such broad proposition of law that there can be no recourse to S.34 when the charge is only under S.149." 164. In Tilkeshwar Singh v. The State of Bihar (AIR. 1956 S.C. 238) the accused was tried under S.302 read with S.34 but the conviction was entered under S.326 read with S.149 IPC. The contention was that there was no power in the court to substitute S.149 for S.34 but this contention was negatived and the Supreme Court followed the principle enunciated in its two earlier rulings, one reported in AIR. 1954 S.C. 204=1954 S.C.R. 904) referred to above and the other in AIR. 1956 S.C. 116. In view of these rulings the Supreme Court stated the contention was not tenable. 165. The Andhra Pradesh High Court following the decision in AIR. 1956 S.C. 238 in In re.Poreddi Venkata Reddy (AIR. 1961 A. P. 23) held that there is no legal bar to the recording of a conviction under S.302 read with S.149 when the accused were charged under S.302 read with S.34. In that case there was a rioting with deadly weapons, resulting in brutal murder, against several accused persons where the common object of the unlawful assembly was to commit murder and all the accused were however charged only under S.302 read with S.34 in respect of the murders on the footing that the murders had been committed in furtherance of the common intention of all the accused and the evidence did not establish which of the accused had actually participated in the attack on the deceased person. Basi Reddi J., for the Bench, stated: "...the accused whose participation in the rioting had been proved beyond doubt should be convicted under S.302 read with S.149 for the murders. The omission to frame a charge under S.149 was of no consequence and no prejudice had been caused to the accused. There was no legal bar to the recording of a conviction under S.302 read with S.149 when the accused were charged under S.302 read with S.34." 166. In the instant case there were charges framed under S.143 and 148 IPC. against all the accused persons and they were also tried under those sections. The prosecution witnesses giving evidence against the members of the unlawful assembly had been cross-examined at great length in the presence of all the accused persons. In the instant case there were charges framed under S.143 and 148 IPC. against all the accused persons and they were also tried under those sections. The prosecution witnesses giving evidence against the members of the unlawful assembly had been cross-examined at great length in the presence of all the accused persons. They had notice of the fact that they were members of an unlawful assembly with their constructive liability for the murder of Havildar Kunhikrishnan Nair. They had ample opportunity to know the prosecution case and meet it in cross-examination. Under those circumstances, no prejudice would be caused to them if the conviction was entered under S.302 read with S.149 IPC. even if it was assumed that no charge had been framed under that section. The contention that without a charge under S.302 read with S.149 IPC. the accused persons could not be convicted, in the circumstances of the case, has only to be repelled. 167. On a reappraisal of the entire evidence and other circumstances in the case, the irresistible conclusion follows that accused Nos. 5, 6, 7, 14, 16, 128, 129, 135, 139, 145, 146 and 147 committed the murder as members of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of their common object. The circumstances at any rate do indicate that the members of the unlawful assembly knew it to be likely that murder would be committed in prosecution of their common object. Accordingly accused Nos. 5, 6, 7, 14, 16, 128, 129, 135, 139, 145, 146 and 147 are guilty under S.302 read with S.149 IPC. 168. The evidence of accomplice witnesses corroborated by other convincing evidence established that these accused persons entered the room to commit murder of the Havildar and the common object of the assembly being an attack on the police men for killing them, all the accused persons, viz., accused Nos. 5, 6, 7, 14, 16, 128, 129, 135, 139, 145, 146 and 147 are liable to house trespass in order to commit an offence punishable with death. These accused persons are therefore guilty under S.449 read with S.149 IPC. 169. There was a charge under S.307 read with S.149 IPC. for attempting to cause the death of Sankunny Menon, the special Sub Inspector, Pulpally, who slept in the south-western room of the wireless station. Accused Nos. These accused persons are therefore guilty under S.449 read with S.149 IPC. 169. There was a charge under S.307 read with S.149 IPC. for attempting to cause the death of Sankunny Menon, the special Sub Inspector, Pulpally, who slept in the south-western room of the wireless station. Accused Nos. 5, 7, 14, 16, 128, 135, 145, 146 and 147 were alleged to have beaten him with sticks and pierced him with spears. The injuries on him were described in Ext. P269 wound certificate. Though there were 33 simple injuries on the whole, they were described as 8 injuries in the wound certificate. They could be caused by beating with sticks and piercing with spears. They were all described as simple injuries. There was no evidence that these injuries were likely to cause his death. He appeared to have met with a natural death after he was examined in the committal court. There was no evidence that the injuries sustained by him contributed directly or indirectly to his death. The evidence was also not conclusive that these accused persons had any intention to cause his death. If they wanted to do away with him, he could have been shot with a gun which the 14th accused was alleged to have carried with him during the incident or any other weapon could have been used to cause his death. It was therefore not their intention to cause his death. The offence made out against the accused persons was only one under S.324 IPC. Accused Nos. 5, 6, 7, 14, 16, 128, 129, 135, 139, 145, 146 and 147 are guilty of the offence under S.324 read with S.149 IPC. 170. There was evidence that the accused persons carried away several articles out of the room of Sankunny Menon and that of Pw.230, Sub Inspector. The evidence of Pw.230 and the evidence of Sankunny Menon, coupled with the evidence of Pws.119, 124 and 165, revealed that the articles removed by the accused persons included cash to the tune of Rs. 200/-, wrist watch, fountain pen, radio set, clothes, uniform etc. worth in all about Rs. 1,500/-. The articles belonging to Sankunny Menon and Pw.230 were identified to be M.Os. 197 to 212, 218 to 234, 236 to 256 and 259 to 275. Several other articles were either missing or gutted by fire. 200/-, wrist watch, fountain pen, radio set, clothes, uniform etc. worth in all about Rs. 1,500/-. The articles belonging to Sankunny Menon and Pw.230 were identified to be M.Os. 197 to 212, 218 to 234, 236 to 256 and 259 to 275. Several other articles were either missing or gutted by fire. The evidence was that the accused persons, after the incident in the wireless station, proceeded to Chekadi, where they committed dacoity in the houses of Pws.106 and 117 as well as in the shop of Pw.116 between 6-00 a.m. and 7-30 a.m. on 24-11-1968, and then they parried away the booty. While they were proceeding along the forest, the 138th accused met with an accident due to the explosion of country bombs which he carried and he sustained very severe injuries. While so he was shot and killed by the 128th accused at the instigation of the 4th accused. Due to this unforeseen incident, the party became very discouraged and unhappy. They walked through the forest in disarray for some time and finally they left for different directions abandoning some of the articles they carried in Adakkathodu and its vicinity. During the investigation the articles belonging to Pw.230 and Sankunny Menon were recovered at Adakkathodu, under Exts. P338, P339 and P346 mahazars. The accused persons removed these articles from the wireless station building, while they were in the custody of Pw.230 and Sankunny Menon. M.O. 370, canvass shoe belonging to Pw.230, was recovered by Pw.233 on the strength of a confession made by the 14th accused as per Ext. P342 mahazar. M.Os. 361, 362 and 366 which belonged to Pw.230 were recovered under Ext. P338 by Pw.233. Series of articles belonging to Pw.230 and Sankunny Menon were recovered under Ext.P347 mahazar. It included the police whistle, other personal belongings and police uniforms. The offence made out against the accused persons was the commission of theft of these articles out of the wireless station building which Pw.230 and Sankunny Menon used as human dwelling. Accused Nos. 5, 6, 7, 14, 16,128, 129, 135, 139, 145, 146 and 147 are accordingly guilty under S.380 IPC. read with S.149 IPC. 171. The offence made out against the accused persons was the commission of theft of these articles out of the wireless station building which Pw.230 and Sankunny Menon used as human dwelling. Accused Nos. 5, 6, 7, 14, 16,128, 129, 135, 139, 145, 146 and 147 are accordingly guilty under S.380 IPC. read with S.149 IPC. 171. There was evidence that during the incident large quantity of official records, papers and some personal records of Pw.230 and Sankunny Menon had been ransacked out of their respective rooms and were set fire to at the southern courtyard of the building. Ext. P175 scene mahazar prepared by Pw.231 at 5.30 p.m. on 24-11-1968 showed that there had been remnants of the records and papers burnt in the southern courtyard. The charge is under S.435 IPC. which requires that the mischief by fire shall be for causing a damage of one hundred rupees or upward in respect of a property. But in this case there was no evidence that the damage had been sustained to the tune of even Rs. 100/-. So the offence under S.435 IPC. was not made out. Accused Nos. 5, 6, 7, 14, 16, 128, 129, 135, 139, 145, 146 and 147 are guilty only for simple mischief under S.426 read with S.149 IPC. 172. The charge under S.427 IPC. was for causing damage to the wireless set installed at the north-eastern room of the building. M.Os. 23 to 25 are the parts of the damaged wireless set. The evidence of Pw.94 was that the set was completely damaged and that it could not be put for any use. Evidently accused Nos. 6, 7, 16, 129 and 139 were found coming out of the room with weapons in their hands. The destruction to the wireless set was incidental to the attack on the wireless station. The idea to destroy the wireless set emanated from the common object of the unlawful assembly. So all the accused persons shall be held liable to the offence. The evidence of Pw.94 was that a damage of Rs. 7000/- had been caused to the State. That evidence stood corroborated by the evidence of Pw.187, Assistant Signal Officer, Malappuram. He estimated the damage to the tune of Rs. 7,000/- (vide his report Ext. P352). So accused Nos. So all the accused persons shall be held liable to the offence. The evidence of Pw.94 was that a damage of Rs. 7000/- had been caused to the State. That evidence stood corroborated by the evidence of Pw.187, Assistant Signal Officer, Malappuram. He estimated the damage to the tune of Rs. 7,000/- (vide his report Ext. P352). So accused Nos. 5, 6, 7, 14, 16, 128, 129, 135, 139, 145, 146 and 147 are guilty of the offence under S.427 IPC. read with S.149 IPC. 173. The last charge remained to be considered, apart from the charge of conspiracy under S.120B IPC., is the one covered by S.395 IPC. The charge under S.395 IPC., read with S.149 IPC., was directed against accused Nos. 5, 6, 7, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 25, 29, 33, 41, 128, 129, 131, 132, 134, 135, 141 and 149 on three counts, one for the dacoity committed at the residence of Pw.106 at 6-00 a.m.," another at the tea-cum-stationery shop of Pw.116 at 7-00 a.m. and the last at the residence of Pw.117 at 7-30 a.m. on 24-11-1968. 174. In the previous paragraphs of this judgment a description of the dacoities committed at the premises of Pws.106, 116 and 117 has been furnished. Pws.98, 99, 106, 107, 110, 119, 124 and 203 were the witnesses who gave evidence in support of the dacoity at the residence of Pw.106. Pws.110, 116,118, 132, 119 124 and 134 were the witnesses to prove the dacoity at the shop of Pw.116. Pws.117, 133, 155, 156, 216, 119 and 124 supported the dacoity in the house of Pw.11.7. 175. The evidence was that the aforesaid accused persons continued their march towards Chekadi after the wireless station incident carrying several weapons like guns, spears, sticks, choppers, explosives etc. Pw.231 Inspector prepared Exts. P364, P315 and P314 scene mahazars in respect of these three incidents separately. These observation mahazars showed that weapons like spears and sticks had been left behind in the houses of Pws. 106 and 117 by the accused persons when they went away from those places. Burnt documents, photo frames etc. had also been recovered as the remnants of the fire they lit to destroy them. M. Os. 71, 93 to 97 and 331 were recovered from the house of Pw.117 and M. Os. 63, 68 and 92 from the house of Pw.106. Burnt documents, photo frames etc. had also been recovered as the remnants of the fire they lit to destroy them. M. Os. 71, 93 to 97 and 331 were recovered from the house of Pw.117 and M. Os. 63, 68 and 92 from the house of Pw.106. Pw.106 furnished the first information Ext. P105. Similar first information as per Ext. P109 had been given by Pw.116. Ext. P116 was the first information furnished by Pw.118, the son of Pw.117. Pws.106, 116 and 118 gave evidence consistent with those statements they gave to the police. Large number of articles under Exts. P338, P339 and P346 mahazars as belonging to Pws.106, 116 and 117 had been recovered from the forest region in Adakkathodu by Pw.233. They were identified by Pws.106, 116 and 117 as their properties which were looted by the accused persons from their premises on 24-11-1968. They included several types of gold ornaments which belonged either to Pw.106 or Pw.117. When some of the accused persons were arrested, gold chain, rings etc. had been recovered from their possession. The ownership of those articles were traced to Pws.106 and 117. Pws.231, 232 and 233 proved the respective recovery mahazars and observation mahazars. From the evidence of the eye-witnesses, the recoveries made under various mahazars and the observation mahazars of the respective premises it was proved and established beyond dispute that the dacoities had been committed at the residences of Pws.106 and 117 and the shop of Pw.116 on the early hours of 24-11-1968. 176. Pws. 119 and 124 were the two witnesses who accompanied the accused persons from Pulpally to Chekadi. Pw.119 mentioned accused Nos. 5, 7, 14, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 25, 29, 33, 128, 129, 131, 132, 134 and 135 as persons included in the party during the march to Chekadi. Pw.124 mentioned accused Nos. 5, 7, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 29, 129, 131 and 141 and a few others. They had also implicated some of those persons in the commission of the dacoities. It had already been pointed out that without some corroboration of their evidence either with some other material particulars or clinching circumstances that a particular accused person was a participant of the dacoity or dacoities, conviction cannot be entered against that person. They had also implicated some of those persons in the commission of the dacoities. It had already been pointed out that without some corroboration of their evidence either with some other material particulars or clinching circumstances that a particular accused person was a participant of the dacoity or dacoities, conviction cannot be entered against that person. The case against each of the accused persons may be considered next to ascertain whether he was a participant of the crime. 177. The 5th accused was a close associate of the 1st accused and after attending the meeting on 30-10-1968 at the residence of the 1st accused in Calicut and the next meeting on 17-11-1968 at the Kepees Tutorial College, Tellicherry, the movements of the 5th accused were in Manantoddy and Pulpally. Pws.2, 21, 23, 42, 46, 51 and 115 traced his movements, and he was found marching towards Pulpally police station along with others. The history of his antecedents need not be repeated over again but it was sufficient to say that he joined the movement with the object of propagating violence among the people. After the wireless station incident, he emerged in public wearing a Sub Inspector's uniform. Pws.119 and 124 noticed him throughout the raids on the premises of Pws.106, 117 and Pw.116 when the 5th accused was in the uniform. It was mentioned in Ext. P105, the first information of Pw.106, that one of the accused persons was in police uniform. The evidence of Pw.106 was corroborated by the evidence of Pws.98 and 99 in that regard. They were independent witnesses. Pws.107 and 110 also saw a person among the dacoits in Sub Inspector's uniform at the residence of Pw.106. Pws.116 and 117 met a person in Sub Inspector's uniform among the accused persons during the dacoity. Pws.119 and 124 were clear in their evidence that the 5th accused was in a Sub Inspector's uniform during the operation of dacoities. There was none else in that uniform among them. The 5th accused's participation in the dacoity was accordingly proved beyond doubt. On 11-12-1968 he was arrested when Pw.111, who was one of his friends, produced him before Pw.170 Sub Inspector. During the arrest, M. O.69 wrist watch was recovered from him. Pw.110, son of Pw.106 identified M.O.69 as one of the articles they lost during the dacoity on 24-11-1968. In Ext. P105. On 11-12-1968 he was arrested when Pw.111, who was one of his friends, produced him before Pw.170 Sub Inspector. During the arrest, M. O.69 wrist watch was recovered from him. Pw.110, son of Pw.106 identified M.O.69 as one of the articles they lost during the dacoity on 24-11-1968. In Ext. P105. first information statement Pw.106 had complained that a wrist watch was taken away by the dacoits from his house. The 5th accused did not make a claim that M.O. 69 belonged to him. M.O. 308 (Rs. 586.56) in cash was also seized from him. The 5th accused could not explain as to how he came into possession of such a large amount of cash. However, he had not made any claim over the amount in question. The 5th accused lived in one Sreevihar Lodge after the incident in a false name. Pw.223 proved his residence there vide Ext. P350 room register maintained in the Lodge. M.O. 70 torch was seized out of that room by P.w. 170 under Ext. P236 mahazar. Pw.116 proved his ownership of M.O. 70 which he lost during the dacoity at his shop. In Ext. P109 first information the loss of M.O. 70 was mentioned when Pw.116 furnished that information. The recovery of these articles soon after the dacoity from the 5th accused without any reasonable explanation from him regarding its possession leads to the inference that he was one of the dacoits. 178. The 6th accused was also a close associate of the 1st accused. Pw.7 connected his activities with that of the 1st accused even long before the incident. Exts. P6(a), P6(b), P8(a) and P8(b) would connect the 6th accused with the 1st accused as an ardent supporter of violent activities. The 6th accused attended the meeting of the Co-ordination Committee in Ernakulam along with the 1st accused. Pws.119, 124 and 165 identified him among the Pulpally group which arrived in Chithalayam forest simultaneously with the arrival of the Manantoddy group. While so at the instance of the 6th accused, cash was pooled for a fund to be raised to meet the cost of the expedition. Accused Nos. 4 and 6 agreed as to the leadership to be bestowed upon the 4th accused during the march. Thereafter accused Nos. 6 and 7 read out Mao thoughts for the information of the party. Accused Nos. 4 and 6 agreed as to the leadership to be bestowed upon the 4th accused during the march. Thereafter accused Nos. 6 and 7 read out Mao thoughts for the information of the party. It was at that place training was given in firearms to the members of the party. Some days before the incident, the 6th accused was seen in the house of the 138th accused along with others by Pw.124. On the same day, the party went into the forest for conducting study classes while the 6th accused went in the company of the 4th accused to some other place. On the next day at about 10-30 a.m. the 6th accused accompanied by the 133rd accused (absconding) and the 135th accused came alongwith the Kappiset people. When they met at Chithalayam forest, the 4th accused asked the rest of the party to make spears and sticks. That party who made spears and sticks consisted of the 6th accused. The 6th accused accompanied by the 4th accused went out to purchase rice. In the same place accused Nos. 6 and 7 were engaged in making wall posters. The visit of the 6th accused and the 1st accused to the house of the 135th accused and their subsequent activities were not liked by Pw.45. So he complained to the police as a result of which there was an enquiry when accused Nos. 1 and 6 bolted away from the place. When the full assembly was held at Chithalayam forest on the eve of their departure to Pulpally, a declaration was made as follows : 'We shall attack Pulpally police station today; we shall kill police men; and we shall demolish village offices.' This announcement was made by the 4th accused on behalf of the crowd of persons assembled there. 179. The 6th accused was found to be a member of the unlawful assembly which attacked the wireless station. His participation in the dacoity at the residence of Pw.106 was proved by Pw.119 supported by other clinching evidence in the case. Pw.119 stated that the 6th accused, the 133rd accused (absconding) and the 135th accused were engaged in the removal of paddy from the farmhouse of Pw.106 while others were engaged in the main house committing dacoity after Pw.106 was restrained on pointing out a gun at his throat. Pw.119 stated that the 6th accused, the 133rd accused (absconding) and the 135th accused were engaged in the removal of paddy from the farmhouse of Pw.106 while others were engaged in the main house committing dacoity after Pw.106 was restrained on pointing out a gun at his throat. While so he found the 135th accused holding a spear in his hand while accused Nos. 6 and 133 held a gunny bag each. Pws.106, 107 and 110 gave, evidence consistent with the evidence of Pw.119 regarding the identity as well as the specific overt act attributed to these three accused persons in the course of the dacoity in the residence of Pw.106. Pw.106 mentioned that along with the persons who held the spear two other persons also went to the farmhouse. Pw.107 stated that two persons accompanied by the person who held the spear went out with paddy from the farmhouse. There was evidence that the paddy they carried had been distributed among the poor adivasies of the place. Pw.110 completed the identification beyond any possibility of doubt when he stated that he saw two persons carrying two bags of paddy out of the farmhouse and going along with the person who held the spear towards north. The circumstantial evidence of Pws.106, 107 and 110 was conclusive that accused Nos. 6, 133 and 135 were the three persons who collected paddy out of the farmhouse and carried it away for distribution. It is relevant to point out in this regard that the prosecution had no case that persons other than accused Nos. 6, 133 and 135 entered the farmhouse and removed paddy in gunny bags. Thus the 6th accused was an active participant in the dacoity. 180. The case against the 135th accused can be considered next as his participation in the dacoity was connected with that of the 6th accused. The evidence of Pws.119, 106, 107 and 110 that the 135th accused followed carrying a spear in his hand during the transit of paddy in two gunny bags from the farmhouse towards north for distribution among the adivasies had to be accepted as proved beyond doubt. M.O.74 was a copper vessel with the name "K. Das" who is Pw.117, inscribed on it. On the basis of the information furnished by the 14th accused MO. 74 was recovered under Ext. P396 mahazar. M.O.74 was a copper vessel with the name "K. Das" who is Pw.117, inscribed on it. On the basis of the information furnished by the 14th accused MO. 74 was recovered under Ext. P396 mahazar. Pw.117 identified M.O.74 as the vessel which he had lost during the dacoity. It was seized under the mahazar from out of the forest within the vicinity of Adakkathodu on 4 12 1968. Pw.119 had sighted the 135th accused as the person who came out of the house of Pw.117 with a vessel like M. O.74. Pw.124 gave evidence that the 135th accused collected some eatables from the ladies of the household out of the kitchen and he carried them in a bucket. He was seen coming out of the kitchen carrying the bucket which contained eatables. Pw.106 had stated that one among them entered the kitchen and collected all the eatables in a bucket. Then he found him coming out of the kitchen with that bucket and going to the courtyard in front of the house. This part of the overt act during the dacoity was attributed only to the 135th accused and there could be no doubt as to the identity of the 135th accused. Both Pws.119 and 124 proved his complicity to the dacoity. He was also one of the participants of the attack on the wireless station. He was one among the Pulpally group which reached Chithalayam forest along with others. Accused Nos. 1 and 6 lived with the 135th accused when they visited Pulpally for the first time for political work. Their stay with him was not very important, but because of their revolutionary activities, Pw.45 had to report to the police on the basis of which the house of the 135th accused was visited by the police. Thereupon accused Nos. 1 and 6 left the place. Pws.119 and 124 met him in the Chithalayam forest when he arrived there in the company of Pulpally group of the 6th accused who made the 4th accused the leader. All the members of the party made weapons like spears and sticks there when the 6th accused made an order to make them. In the light of the antecedents of the 135th accused it could legitimately be inferred from direct and circumstantial evidence pinned against him that he was one among the participants of the dacoities. 181. All the members of the party made weapons like spears and sticks there when the 6th accused made an order to make them. In the light of the antecedents of the 135th accused it could legitimately be inferred from direct and circumstantial evidence pinned against him that he was one among the participants of the dacoities. 181. The complicity of the 7th accused to the dacoities admits of no dispute. She was the only lady member of the dacoity group. She participated in all the three dacoities. There was no difficulty as to her identity as she was the only woman member of the party. It had been mentioned even in Ext. P105 first information statement that a woman wearing pants and shirt was one among the dacoits. Pw.106 identified her as the only woman who wielded a spear during the incident. Pws.106 and 110 also identified her with reference to the tight pants and shirt worn by her during the incident. They gave evidence in corroboration of the evidence of Pws.119 and 124. Pws.106, 107 and 110 stated that the spear which she held in her hand had traces of blood when they saw it during the dacoity. She pointed out the spear to Pw.117 and said, 'Look at the spear. It was used for killing one; so you will also be killed.' So saying she pierced the end of the spear on the body of Pw.117, but no injury was caused. Pw.117 had also seen blood stains on the spear, while it was held by the 7th accused during the dacoity. When Pw.106 was completely restrained, Pw.110 intervened and asked Pw.117 that it was better for him to hand over the key of the safe to the accused party. Accordingly accused Nos. 5, 7 and 16 took him to the upstairs. He handed over the key of the safe to them. Pw.118 handed over his father's licensed gun M. O.73 to the party on compulsion. M. O.73 was recovered from the forest under Ext. P346 mahazar at the instance of the 14th accused. 182. On 3-12-1968, M. O.37 gold chain was recovered from the person of the 7th accused by Pw.232 at Adakkathodu, which is within the forest region. It was seized under Ext. P335 mahazar. The gold chain was one of the items of jewels which Pw.106 mentioned in Ext. P346 mahazar at the instance of the 14th accused. 182. On 3-12-1968, M. O.37 gold chain was recovered from the person of the 7th accused by Pw.232 at Adakkathodu, which is within the forest region. It was seized under Ext. P335 mahazar. The gold chain was one of the items of jewels which Pw.106 mentioned in Ext. P105 first information, and he identified M. O.37 as the one which was lost during the dacoity. It belonged to his daughter. The 7th accused did not set up any claim to M. O.37 and therefore the recovery of M. O.37 was proof positive that it was her share of the booty. Pws.116 and 117 had also identified her. The prior history of her movements along with other accused persons during the march towards Pulpally indicated that she believed in the cult of violence and plunder of the rich. She told Pw.44 at Manantoddy some few days before the incident at a meeting that armed revolution would take place in Wynnad in a near future. When Pw.44 asked her what part the ladies should play in such a revolution she replied that she might tell her later. Soon after the 1st accused sold away his properties, both movable and immovable, the 3rd accused left Calicut on the pretext that she would be going to Bombay. On the other hand she went along with the 7th accused to Wyanad. She was seen in the house of the 40th accused. The house of the 40th accused was a place of activity during that period. Later, the "3rd accused was removed to Valat, which is the place of an uncle of the 40th accused. The 7th accused lived in another house in the neighbourhood. Then she joined the party which marched through the forest from Manantoddy to Pulpally; via. Panamaram, Thonichal, Kenichira and Chithalayam forest. During the march she participated actively in all the activities of the party. She was found in the company of the 6th accused either reading Mao thoughts or making placards carried in the jatha. The march through the forest carrying deadly weapons and explosives was for a definite purpose. The accused persons had no explanation to offer why they marched to Pulpally reaching there at 3-30 a.m. on 24-11-1968. She was found in the company of the 6th accused either reading Mao thoughts or making placards carried in the jatha. The march through the forest carrying deadly weapons and explosives was for a definite purpose. The accused persons had no explanation to offer why they marched to Pulpally reaching there at 3-30 a.m. on 24-11-1968. The evidence of Pws.119, 124, 165 as well as that of Pws.42, 44, 48 and 175 established beyond doubt that she believed in a cult of violence and that therefore she joined hands with other misguided young men to attack police men and commit dacoity. Her active participation in the crime is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. 183. Leaving aside unimportant details in the evidence led against the 14th accused, he could straight away be implicated to the offence of dacoity because of the recoveries of M. Os. 17, 18, 19, and 73 guns as per his S.27 statement which he furnished to Pw.233. M. O.359 (cash Rs. 446/-) was taken out from his person during arrest under Ext. P336 mahazar on 3-12-1968. On the basis of his information recoveries were also made of M. Os. 62, 74, 103, 104, 361 to 366, 367, 369, 370, 373, 376, 393 and 396 under separate mahazars. The guns in question were four in number. Of these guns, M.Os. 17, 18 and 19 were borrowed by the 14th accused from Pws.56, 57 & 58 respectively. M.O. 73 gun belonged to Pw.117. It was handed over to him during the dacoity. Ext. P110 was the licence which stood in the name of Pw.117. Pws.119 and 124 stated that when the party left the house of Pw.117 they had four guns with them. During the march through the forest on their way to Pulpally, M.Os. 17, 18 and 19 guns were with the party. Of and on the guns were seen in the hands of Accused Nos. 5 and 18 and others. Pw.154 who was employed during the march, kept one of the guns at the instruction of the 14th accused and he took it back from him when the party started marching. Pws.56, 57, 58 and 117 identified their respective guns. The recovery of these articles established the complicity of the 14th accused to the offence. Therefore there was corroboration in the evidence of Pws.119 and 124 against the 14th accused in material particulars. 184. Pws.56, 57, 58 and 117 identified their respective guns. The recovery of these articles established the complicity of the 14th accused to the offence. Therefore there was corroboration in the evidence of Pws.119 and 124 against the 14th accused in material particulars. 184. Pws.106 and 107 identified the 16th accused as an active participant of the dacoity. This was in corroboration of the evidence of Pws.119 and 124. Pw.106 mentioned his name even in Ext. P105 first information statement. It was not disputed that Pw.106 knew him even before the incident. pw, 110, the son of Pw.106, also identified him. The 16th accused participated in the dacoity in the shop of Pw.116. Both pws.116 and 110 gave evidence of his participation in the dacoities at the latter's shop. There was corroboration of that evidence by Pws.119 and 124. M.O. 50 sovereign, M.O. 51 gold ring, and M. O.314 cash to the tune of Rs. 76.40 were recovered from him under Ext. P253 by Pw.179 when he was arrested On 3-12-1968. M.Os. 50 and 51 belonged to Pw.106. The 16th accused did not claim any ownership over the articles recovered from him. He had no explanation to offer regarding the recovery. The 16th accused went to the house of Pw.120 in Thonichal during the march of the party on 19-11-1968. Pw.120 went with the party upto Thonichal. The 16th accused was one among them. He was one of those selected for the use of the guns. That he was a party to the march was also clear from the evidence of Pws.119, 120, 124 and 165. The recovery of these articles and other evidence in the case conclusively proved that the 16th accused was a party to the dacoity. 185. The evidence of Pws.119 and 124 was to the effect that accused Nos. 17 and 19 were with the party during the march to Pulpally wireless station. On November 19, 1968, Pw.119 saw the 19th accused along with accused Nos. 5 and 21. As directed by accused Nos. 5 and 19, Pw.119 went to Thonichal that day. It was the 19th accused who took Pw.119 and others to the house of Pw.120. One of the persons who came to the house of Pw.120 by dusk that day was the 17th accused. 5 and 21. As directed by accused Nos. 5 and 19, Pw.119 went to Thonichal that day. It was the 19th accused who took Pw.119 and others to the house of Pw.120. One of the persons who came to the house of Pw.120 by dusk that day was the 17th accused. Pw.119 said that when the party came to Kannarampuzha there was talk between accused No.5 and 17 about taking the 17th accused to some house and keeping her there. The 17th accused was found by Pw.119 in the house of 141st accused also. When the party was taking rest near Kammana School Pw.119 saw accused Nos. 5, 14 and 17 going down the hill and after some time all of them returning with a gun in the hands of each. Pw.165 also spoke to accused Nos, 5, 14 and 17 each having a gun with him at Kammana. Pw.119 spoke to the 17th accused having been selected along with accused Nos. 5, 14, 16, 128 and 133 in the firing squad that was constituted. The evidence of Pw.120 shows that the 14th accused brought three guns and that retaining one with him he gave the remaining two to accused Nos. 5 and 17. The group, that came from Manantoddy consisted of about 28 persons and Pw.124 said that the 17th accused was one among them. On the way from Thonichal to Kenichira, on enquiry made by Pw.119 of the destination of the march of the party, the 19th accused told Pw.119 that it was Pulpally. A few hours before the occurrence, when Pw.119 and others were getting out of the watch-tower on the top of a tree he found the 19th accused and the 20th accused standing on the road-side and it was together that they all then went from there. It was then 1-00 or 1-30 a.m. According to Pws.119 and 124 both accused Nos. 17 and 19 were among the persons who proceeded from Pulpally to Chekadi after the Pulpally incident, and at Chekadi after a few hours of the Pulpally incident at the shop of Pw.116, Pw.116 identified the 19th accused as one among those who took part in the dacoity there and at the residence of Pw.117. Pw.203 identified the 17th accused as one among those who took part in the dacoity in the house of Pw.117. Pw.203 identified the 17th accused as one among those who took part in the dacoity in the house of Pw.117. Pw.203, an independent witness met the 17th accused at the residence of Pw.117 during the incident. Pws.119 and 124 described him as an active participant in it. There was therefore sufficient corroboration of their evidence to implicate him to the crime. The 17th accused was seen there with a spear in his hand. The fact that Pw.203 figured as an attestor to the mahazar prepared at the shop of Pw.116 or the house of Pw.117 would not in any manner militate against the acceptance of his evidence. Pw.203 was a man of that place and nothing had been suggested in cross-examination why he should single out the 17th accused alone as a participant in the crime. As a matter of fact, the 19th accused was also found in the company of others who marched from Pulpally to Chekadi after a few hours of the incident at the wireless station. M. O.59 gold ring, was recovered under S.27 statement of the 19th accused, under Ext. P349 mahazar by Pw.235. It belonged to Pw.106. He made mention of its theft in Ext. P105 first information statement. Pw.106 identified M. O.5.9 as belonging to his daughter Padmavathi. The 19th accused did not put forward any claim over M.O. 59. There was sufficient corroboration of the evidence of Pws.119 and 124 to hold that accused Nos. 17 and 19 were participants to the dacoity. 186 The 18th accused was arrested on 3-12-1968 by Pw.232. During the arrest M. O.7 radio, M. O.102 terylene shirt, and cash to the tune of Rs. 1624/- were recovered from him under Ext. P 334 mahazar. It is relevant in this connection to point out that M. O.7 radio belonged to Pw.29. He gave it for repairs to Pw.28. The 5th accused had also handed over his radio for repairs to Pw.28. But since the 5th accused found that he would not be able to get his radio back soon, after repairs, he took a loan of M. O.7 from Pw.28. It was that radio which was recovered under Ext. P334 on the basis of the information which the 18th accused furnished. The recovery of these articles showed that the dacoity had been committed conjointly by more than one accused person. It was that radio which was recovered under Ext. P334 on the basis of the information which the 18th accused furnished. The recovery of these articles showed that the dacoity had been committed conjointly by more than one accused person. M. O.102 terylene shirt, belonged to Pw.118; the son of Pw.117. Pw.118 identified M. O.102. The 18th accused had no claim over it. Pw.119 stated that he saw the 18th accused coming out of the room of the house of Pw.117 with a shirt in his hand. The 18th accused could not explain as to how a large amount of cash came into his hands. Pws.106 and 117 lost large amount of cash from their houses during the dacoity. The denial of the recovery will not in any manner help to discard the clinching evidence and circumstances made out against the 18th accused. The recovery and other circumstances would corroborate the evidence of Pws.119 and 124 to implicate the 18th accused as one of the dacoits. 187. The essential elements of the offence of dacoity as defined in S.391 IPC. and made punishable under S.395 IPC. are: (1) five or more persons must act conjointly; (2) such act must be robbery or attempt to commit robbery; (3) the five persons must consist of those who themselves commit or attempt to commit robbery or of persons who commit or attempt to commit the robbery and those who are present and aid them in such commission or attempt. In other words, the section contemplates actual participation by every one of the five or more persons in the commission of the robbery either as aiders or as major actors. 188. During the march from Pulpally to Chekadi, accused Nos. 5, 6, 7, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 135 and others were in one company. Pws.119 and 124 had jointly identified those persons marching towards Chekadi carrying weapons of different types. The declared object of those persons was to surround the house of Pw.106 in the first instance. The 5th accused had given such an instruction before they reached the spot. After the house was surrounded, accused Nos. 5, 6, 7, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 128 and 135 entered the verandah of the house. The 128th accused fixed the point of a gun at the threat of Pw.106 and made him to sit on a chair. While so accused Nos. After the house was surrounded, accused Nos. 5, 6, 7, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 128 and 135 entered the verandah of the house. The 128th accused fixed the point of a gun at the threat of Pw.106 and made him to sit on a chair. While so accused Nos. 5, 6, 7, 16, 17, 18, 19, 135 and others entered the house. Some others were also found entering the verandah. Pw.119 heard the noise of breaking boxes from the upstairs. Accused Nos. 6, 135 and 133 (absconding) got out of the house and proceeded to the farm house where paddy was stored. They collected paddy and distributed them to the adivasies. Accused Nos. 14, 17 and 29 took Pw.110 inside the house and when they came out the 29th accused had a wrist watch and the 17th accused two shirts with them. The next attack was at the shop of Pw.116. Out of the gang of persons who went to the shop, accused Nos. 6, 19, 29, and another person got in to the shop and committed robbery. Accused Nos. 5 and 6 made free distribution of paddy to adivasies at that spot. Then the party proceeded to the house of Pw.117. The 5th accused caught him on his baniyan at the chest and made him also to sit on a chair. Accused Nos. 14 and 128 pointed a gun each against him. The 129th accused aimed a spear at him. Accused Nos. 5, 6, 19, 21, 135 and another took Pw.110 with them. While so the 7th accused pointed a spear against Pw.117 along with others. There again paddy stored in the farmhouse of Pw.117 had been distributed among the adivasies. When the 21st accused came out he had a radio, M.O.9, in his hand, and the 18th accused a camera. The 6th accused pulled out the photo of Shri E.M.S. Nambudiripad from the wall of the house and threw it away into the courtyard. Pw.110 also stated that he had seen the 6th accused throwing away the photo into the courtyard. The photo was one of the items included in the bonfire. M.O. 97 series were the frame and broken pieces of glass relating to that photo. Pws.110 and 117 identified them, when they were recovered under Ext. P315 mahazar. Pw.110 also stated that he had seen the 6th accused throwing away the photo into the courtyard. The photo was one of the items included in the bonfire. M.O. 97 series were the frame and broken pieces of glass relating to that photo. Pws.110 and 117 identified them, when they were recovered under Ext. P315 mahazar. The evidence of Pws.119 and 124 corroborated the evidence of the independent witnesses as to the details of the depredation which these accused persons and others committed at the premises of Pws.106, 116 and 117. 189. On a consideration of the entire evidence and circumstances established in the case it was proved beyond doubt that accused Nos. 5, 6, 7, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 135 were the active participants to the three dacoities. They had taken part individually and conjointly with others in the dacoities. They are therefore guilty of the offence under S.395 IPC. 190. The last but the most important question for consideration is whether the accused persons or any two or more among them committed the offence of conspiracy as defined in S.120A and made punishable under S.120B of the Indian Penal Code. The essence of the offence of criminal conspiracy as defined in the section is that there must be an agreement between two or more persons to do one or the other of the acts described in the section. The conspiracy consists not merely in the intention of two or more, but in the agreement of two or more to do such acts. So long as such a design rests only on intention, it is not punishable. 191. In Mulcahy v. The Queen ((1868) L.R. 3 H.L.C. 306), Justice Willes stated: "A conspiracy consists not merely in the intention of two or more, but in the agreement of two or more to do an unlawful act, or to do a lawful act by unlawful means. So long as such a design rests in intention only, it is not indictable. When two agree to carry it into effect, the very plot is an act in itself, and the act of each of the parties, promise against promise, actus contra actum, capable of being enforced, if lawful, punishable if for a criminal object or for use of criminal means." 192. When two agree to carry it into effect, the very plot is an act in itself, and the act of each of the parties, promise against promise, actus contra actum, capable of being enforced, if lawful, punishable if for a criminal object or for use of criminal means." 192. In India, before Act VIII of 1913 was passed, a mere agreement which had for its object an aim other than the commission of an offence specified in S.120A was not punishable under the Code. By the amendment the Indian legislature brought the law in India in line with English law. However, there is a safeguard in Indian law in that in the case of a conspiracy other than a conspiracy to commit an offence, some overt act is necessary to bring the conspiracy within the purview of criminal law. The amendment now makes the criminal conspiracy itself a substantive offence punishable under S.120B. The conspiracy to commit an offence is by itself distinct from the offence to commit which the conspiracy is entered into. 193. It is settled proposition that the agreement between conspirators cannot generally be directly proved, but only inferred from the established facts of the case. In Joseph Varghese v. State (1954 KLT. 683) it was pointed out: "A conspiracy need not be established by evidence of an actual agreement between the conspirators and overt acts raise a presumption of an agreement, and knowledge of the purpose of the conspiracy. The connection has to be established with the conspiracy and not with the separate acts of different conspirators which are the overt acts of the different individuals in proof of the conspiracy. Overt acts may properly be looked at as evidence of the existence of a concerted intention and in many cases,....:....it is only by means of overt acts that the existence of the conspiracy can be made out. To prove conspiracy it is not necessary that there should be direct communication between each conspirator and every other, but the criminal design alleged must be common to all. A conspiracy is generally a matter of inference deduced from certain criminal acts of the parties accused, done in pursuance of an apparent criminal purpose, in common between them. To prove conspiracy it is not necessary that there should be direct communication between each conspirator and every other, but the criminal design alleged must be common to all. A conspiracy is generally a matter of inference deduced from certain criminal acts of the parties accused, done in pursuance of an apparent criminal purpose, in common between them. In a case of conspiracy, when there is no direct evidence, inference from proved circumstances must to a large extent, form the basis of the court's conclusion, but in dealing with such cases based on circumstantial evidence, an inference of guilt may be drawn only when the circumstances are such as to be incapable of any other reasonable interpretation." 194. It is relevant in the nature of the evidence in the case and the large number of persons who were found to be partisan to a criminal conspiracy doing several activities spread throughout Cannanore District and some parts of Kozhikode District and even in other parts of Kerala as well as outside, to quote an appropriate passage from Chitaley's Indian Penal Code published by All-India Reporter, Vol. I, (1969 Edition) at page 901 which reads as follows: "It is, however, not necessary that each member of the conspiracy must know all the details of the conspiracy. It is not necessary that each conspirator must be present at very stage of the conspiracy. If a conspirator had not resiled from the agreement it can be presumed that he continued to be a party to the conspiracy. So also, it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove that each conspirator knew and had personal communication with all the rest, because some of them might be intermediaries. It is also not necessary that all the persons should agree to do a single illegal act. The conspiracy may comprise the commission of a number of acts and the accused persons can be held guilty of the offence of conspiracy to do illegal acts though for individual offences all of them may not be liable." 195. In Emperor v. Aftab Mohd. Khan (AIR. 1940 All. 291) it was stated: "The offence of conspiracy under S.120 B is one which requires detailed and specific proof against each of the accused that he individually participated in a particular design to do a particular criminal thing." 196. In Keshabdeo Bagat v. Emperor (AIR. 1945 Cal. In Emperor v. Aftab Mohd. Khan (AIR. 1940 All. 291) it was stated: "The offence of conspiracy under S.120 B is one which requires detailed and specific proof against each of the accused that he individually participated in a particular design to do a particular criminal thing." 196. In Keshabdeo Bagat v. Emperor (AIR. 1945 Cal. 93), the following observation was made: "In majority of cases of conspiracy one can hardly expect direct evidence to establish the charge. In such cases the guilt has to be inferred from facts and circumstances proved before the Court. It is well settled, however, that the relevant facts and circumstances must be of such a compelling nature as must necessarily lead the Judge or the jury, as the case may be, to a finding that the accused person must be guilty. In other words, the inference of guilt must be irresistible and wholly incompatible with innocence." 197. On the question of proof of conspiracy in another Calcutta decision in Sailendra Nath Mitra v. The State (AIR. 1954 Cal. 373) the following observation was made: "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 may be proved by direct evidence or inferred from other proved facts. But the inference of fact may be drawn only when the 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." 198. In Noor Mohammad Mohd. Yusuf Momin v. The State (1970 (1) S. C. Cases 696), the nature of the offence to be proved to enter a conviction is stated in the following words: "Criminal conspiracy postulates an agreement between two or more persons to do or cause to be done an illegal act or an act which is not illegal by illegal means. It differs from other offences in that mere agreement is made an offence even if no step is taken to carry out that agreement." 199. In Sardul Singh Caveeshar v. State of Maharashtra (AIR. It differs from other offences in that mere agreement is made an offence even if no step is taken to carry out that agreement." 199. In Sardul Singh Caveeshar v. State of Maharashtra (AIR. 1965 S.C. 682 at 686) the proof requisite in a case of conspiracy with reference to S.10 of the Evidence Act has been discussed at great length. It is useful to quote the following passage from that decision. It reads: "There is no difference between the mode of proof of the offence of conspiracy and that of any other offence: It can be established by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. But S.10 of the Evidence Act introduces the doctrine of agency and if the conditions laid down therein are satisfied, the acts done by one are admissible against the co-conspirators. The said section 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, as the opening words indicate, 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 his acts can be used against his co-compirators. 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. 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. The expression 'in reference to their common intention' is very comprehensive and it appears to have been designedly used to give it a wider scope than the words 'in furtherance of in the English law; with the result, anything said, done or written by a co-conspirator, after the conspiracy was formed, will be evidence against the other before he entered the field of conspiracy or after he left it. Another important limitation implicit in the language is indicated by the expressed scope of its relevancy. Anything so said, done or written is a relevant fact only 'as against each of the person 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'. It can only be used for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy or that the other person was a party to it. It cannot be used in favour of the other party or for the purpose of showing that such a person was not a party to the conspiracy". 200. In the light of these decisions it is necessary to examine in the case in hand whether there existed a conspiracy among the accused persons to use violence and attack the police stations at Tellicherry and Pulpally. Attack a police station did not mean commission of criminal trespass into the police station building only. Certainly it did not mean that the attacking party would demolish the police station building. On the other hand, the idea behind the attack would be either to carry away the weapons and other articles kept in the police station or to attack the policemen on duty at the police station. Certainly it did not mean that the attacking party would demolish the police station building. On the other hand, the idea behind the attack would be either to carry away the weapons and other articles kept in the police station or to attack the policemen on duty at the police station. When a party of men assembles in front of a police station fully armed with guns, spears, daggers, choppers and some explosive substances in the midnight, the only legitimate inference to be drawn against such men would be that if there was resistance from policemen on duty then the invading persons would make use of their weapons to kill them to put down the resistance. 201. There was evidence that accused Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6, were more or less the leaders of the Naxalite movement when they started the new party after they were expelled or they themselves resigned from the C.P.M. early in 1968. The prosecution rested its case of conspiracy on the strength of two meetings and the decisions taken there, one held at the residence of the 1st accused in Calicut on 30-10-1968 and the other at the Kepees Tutorial College of the 2nd accused in Tellicherry on 17-11-1968. There was evidence of two such meetings held. Pw.21, the brother of the 1st accused, gave evidence of the meeting held on 30-10-1968 and Pw.23 gave evidence of the meeting held on 17-11-1968. Pw.21 stated that accused Nos. 2, 5 and 6 were regular visitors of the 1st accused at his Calicut house, where the meeting was held. He also admitted that a meeting was held there on 30-10-1968. That meeting was begun at 9-30 p.m. and ended 4-40 a.m. However, this witness turned hostile to the prosecution as he gave evidence contrary to what he had stated to the police during the investigation. He was the brother of the 1st accused. His evidence established that the 1st accused had been expelled from the C.P.M. as he was opposed to its revisionist policy. The line of the 1st accused's thought was published in Ext. P23 which was directed against the C.P.M. Accused Nos. 3 and 7 were at the house of the 1st accused during the meeting on 30-10-1968. It was in continuation of that meeting that the latter meeting was held at the Kepees Tutorial College on 17-11-1968. Pw.23 stated that accused Nos. P23 which was directed against the C.P.M. Accused Nos. 3 and 7 were at the house of the 1st accused during the meeting on 30-10-1968. It was in continuation of that meeting that the latter meeting was held at the Kepees Tutorial College on 17-11-1968. Pw.23 stated that accused Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11 and 91 who attended the meeting were known to him. According to Pw.23 some 200 persons attended that meeting. The decision in that meeting, so far as Pw.23 could overhear, runs as follows: 'An armed revolution shall be organised. For that purpose weapons are required and therefore the police stations in Tellicherry and Pulpally shall be attacked.' Accused Nos. 1 and 2 who spoke at the meeting stated that the meeting at Tellicherry was a continuation of the meeting at Calicut. That was an indication that the 2nd accused would have also attended the Calicut meeting. After some time, Pw.23 heard the audience at the meeting approving the decisions taken at the meeting. They also resolved to enlist volunteers to put into practice their design to attack the police stations. The evidence of Pw.23 could not be challenged either as to the truth of his evidence or as to his status as an independent witness who had absolutely no axe to grind against any political party. No suggestion had been put to him why he gave evidence against the accused persons. So his evidence has to be accepted for the proof of an important decision which the accused persons arrived at in their evil design to attack police stations at Tellicherry and Pulpally. 202. In the background of the agreement or decision which those persons took, we have to examine their activities as well as others whom they enlisted in their gang and those whose aims and objects were like them. 203. The 1st accused contacted the 6th accused who was then in Trivandrum, much earlier to the incident. Pw.7, who was a friend of the 6th accused connected him to the 1st accused. Exts. P6 (a), P6 (b), P8 (a) and P8 (b) revealed not only the relationship between accused Nos. 1 and 6 but also that the 6th accused's view was for an armed insurrection. The contents of Ext. P7 revealed the line on which the 1st accused wanted to get political freedom. Exts. P6 (a), P6 (b), P8 (a) and P8 (b) revealed not only the relationship between accused Nos. 1 and 6 but also that the 6th accused's view was for an armed insurrection. The contents of Ext. P7 revealed the line on which the 1st accused wanted to get political freedom. He thought that only through the barrel of the gun such freedom could be achieved. Ext. P24 (a) which the 1st accused sent to Pw.8 again represented his line of action. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 wanted to take advantage of the unrest which erupted in Cannanore District among the unemployed Beedi workers and the tenants of Pulpally area who were to be evicted from their holdings in land. Collection of arms and recruitment of volunteers were in progress during the period. On 19-11-1968 Pw.76 visited the 2nd accused's Tutorial College, Tellicherry, where he witnessed the 11th accused and others producing weapons like spears and sticks in gunny bag bundles. They were consigned to a room in the college at the instance of accused Nos. 1 and 2. Exts. P97 and P98 were important documents to show that the new Party was bent upon using violence to achieve their objective. Ext. P27 was printed at the press of Pw.15 by the 1st accused. Some 1000 copies of Ext. P27 were printed and handed over to the 91st accused who was an employee in the Bookstall under the 1st accused. It was published in the name of Rebel Publication, Kallai Road, Calicut, which belonged to the 1st accused. Ext. P27 revealed that the new allegiance of the Party was to Mao Tse Tung of China and that open revolt was the only remedy for all the ills against the leadership of C. P.M. Similar publication was made after printing at the press of Pw.17. Soon after the Tellicherry meeting the 5th accused had been to Wyanad. Accused Nos. 1 and 4 joined him. They discussed the Pulpally problem of peasants and workers with Pw.95, a trader in south Wyanad. Even earlier, the 5th accused had met Pw.45 some time in October, 1968. Later accused Nos. 1, 4, 6, 129, 134 and 135 came to his place in the company of the 5th accused. Pw.45 was under the impression that they were revolutionaries. During the tenants' unrest in Pulpally Pw.45 sought the help of the 1st accused. Even earlier, the 5th accused had met Pw.45 some time in October, 1968. Later accused Nos. 1, 4, 6, 129, 134 and 135 came to his place in the company of the 5th accused. Pw.45 was under the impression that they were revolutionaries. During the tenants' unrest in Pulpally Pw.45 sought the help of the 1st accused. Pw.45 discussed with accused Nos. 1, 4, 5, 129 and others the Pulpally problem at his place. Then they told him that the only remedy to salvage the peasants and workers from the rural feudalism was to organise armed insurrection to suppress it. The discussion which began at about 6.00 p.m. went up to midnight. There was also talk about conducting study classes. 204. In the meanwhile the 1st accused sold away his properties, and his wife, the 3rd accused, resigned her job in the Gujarathi High School. After getting every pie of her salary and provident fund, the 3rd accused, accompanied by her daughter, the 7th accused, proceeded to Wyanad. The 3rd accused left Calicut on the pretext that she would be going to Bombay. That was absolutely untrue. It was not likely that she would have gone to Bombay leaving her 22 years old daughter (the 7th accused) in the company of strangers in the Wyanad forest. The 7th accused told Pw.44 at a meeting in Wyanad that in the near future there would be a revolution in Wyanad. What was the revolution she referred to? 205. The 2nd accused also sold away or transferred all his furniture in the College in favour of others. The evidence of Pws.24, 25 and 67 was conclusive in this regard. He sold his immovable property to Pw.124 vide Ext. P94 and the evidence of the Sub Registrar Pw.67. Pws.76, 77, 80, 82, 85 and 164 gave evidence implicating the 1st accused to various activities which led to the conclusion that their object was to attack the Tellicherry police station. Pws.24, 25, 67, 80, 83, 84, 85, 91, 130 and 131 implicated the 2nd accused to various activities before and after the Tellicherry incident. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were found in front of the Tellicherry police station along with other accused persons. Pws.24, 25, 67, 80, 83, 84, 85, 91, 130 and 131 implicated the 2nd accused to various activities before and after the Tellicherry incident. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were found in front of the Tellicherry police station along with other accused persons. The 1st accused attempted to open the gate while the 2nd accused threw an explosive substance against Pw.64, who however missed it by his timely withdrawal to a safer place when the explosive substance struck on the notice board and exploded. That, however, created a big sound and its explosion left a mark on the notice board. Pws.63, 64 and 75 identified the 1st accused while Pws.64, 65 and 71 identified the 2nd accused standing in front of the gate at 3-30 a.m. on 22-11-1968. 206. The accused party wanted to attack the police station, Tellicherry, on the night of 20-11-1968, but due to the strong police precaution in Tellicherry the party moved into the dam site in Kunduchira. Pws.80 and 164 met accused Nos. 1, 2 and 8 and others near Kunduchira. On the next day, the accused persons met at the stadium ground, Tellicherry. Pw.85 knew from the Tutorial College that the attack on the police station shall be made on the next day. On the night of 21-11-1968 a party of about 150 persons met in the stadium ground when the 2nd accused was one among them. It was then about 3-00 a.m. Thereafter the accused party moved from the stadium ground to the police station. Pw.78 saw those persons about 300 in number marching along the road to the side of the police station carrying weapons of different description when it was about 3-30 a.m. 207. The 8th accused was one of those who participated in the meeting at the Kepees Tutorial College on 17-11-1968 when the most vital decision was taken by the conspirators to attack the police stations. Before he joined the movement he executed a sale deed, the original of Ext. P96, in favour of his wife, Pw.27, on 15-11-1968. He tendered resignation of his job in a co-operative bank with effect from 15-11-1968. The arrears of salary due to him was paid to Pw.27 in his absence as authorised by him (Vide Exts. P69, P70 and P71 and the evidence of Pw.35). He was seen with accused Nos. 1 and 2 at Moolakkadavu near Kunduchira by Pw.80 and Pw.164. He tendered resignation of his job in a co-operative bank with effect from 15-11-1968. The arrears of salary due to him was paid to Pw.27 in his absence as authorised by him (Vide Exts. P69, P70 and P71 and the evidence of Pw.35). He was seen with accused Nos. 1 and 2 at Moolakkadavu near Kunduchira by Pw.80 and Pw.164. He was a believer in violence vide items 7 and 8 in Ext. P145. They were seized on 10-1-1969 by Pw.167 when his house was searched. Pw.70 identified him along with others in front of the police station at 3.30 a.m. The fact that he was one among the crowd because he was a believer in the violent activities of the Naxalite group would go to show that he too supported accused Nos. 1 and 2 to attack the police station. He was one of the conspirators along with accused Nos. 1 and 2. 208. The 9th accused was a former member of the police force and he resigned that job long before the Tellicherry incident. He joined the Naxalite movement very early. He conducted study class in Thettamala Estate. Pw.119 cooked food for the party which attended the class. After the Tellicherry incident he absconded so much so he was arrested only on 17-3-1970. Pw.80 met him along with the 8th accused in the vicinity of Kunduchira on the day previous to the incident. At about 3-30 a.m. on 22-11-1968 Pw.79 saw him running away along with others from the side of the police station. While Pw.87, constable, was on duty at the police station the 9th accused went there in search of a bogus police man. Pw.228 also saw the 9th accused running away along with others from the police station side soon after the incident. Pws.64, 65 and 71 identified him standing in front of the gate of the police station at 3-30 a.m. There was no doubt that he was a conspirator with others. 209. Pws.23 and 80 met the 10th accused at the meeting on 17-11-1968 at the Tutorial College. He was a party to the agreement arrived at there to attack the police station. He was seen near Kunduchira by Pw.80. He left the service of Pw.34, a provision store keeper, Tellicherry, in the first week of November without giving any notice or any explanation. He was a party to the agreement arrived at there to attack the police station. He was seen near Kunduchira by Pw.80. He left the service of Pw.34, a provision store keeper, Tellicherry, in the first week of November without giving any notice or any explanation. He was closely attached to the Rebel Publication of the 1st accused. He was the Secretary of the Marxist Cultural Forum, Tellicherry. He never believed in democratic form of election in municipal councils. He was keen to carry on violent activities. Ext. P130 confession made by the 57th accused implicated the 10th accused as a member of the unlawful assembly. Pw.65 identified him at the gate in front of the police station. The evidence was conclusive against him that he was a party to violent activity with accused Nos. 1 and 2 and that as part of that activity he voluntarily joined with others to attack the police station. 210. The 11th accused attended the meeting at the 2nd accused's college in Tellicherry on 17-11-1968. He was instrumental in the collection of weapons for attacking the police station. On 19-11-1968 he went to the smithy of Pw.54 and placed an order for iron-made spears to be fitted on 7 canes which he supplied. Pw.54 delivered those weapons to the 11th accused on 20-11-1968. They were M.O. 13 and M.O. 14 series which were seized soon after the incident from outside the police station premises under Ext. P139 mahazar. The accused persons, while they ran away from the place, threw part of the weapons and other articles in front of the police station. Pw.76 identified him as one of the persons who produced weapons in the Kepees Tutorial College when they were consigned to safe place at the instance of accused Nos. 1 and 2. Pw.65 identified him at the gate of the police station at 3-30 a.m. He was closely connected with the 1st accused in the publication on Revolution Vide Ext. P47 and the evidence of Pw.19. He was also one of the conspirators. 211. The 13th accused also procured weapons for the attack on the police station. He approached Pw.55, another blacksmith, to make four spears and one dagger. M.O. 15 series (four in number) and M.O. 16 (dagger) were made by him for the 13th accused. P47 and the evidence of Pw.19. He was also one of the conspirators. 211. The 13th accused also procured weapons for the attack on the police station. He approached Pw.55, another blacksmith, to make four spears and one dagger. M.O. 15 series (four in number) and M.O. 16 (dagger) were made by him for the 13th accused. He took delivery of those weapons two or three days prior to the Tellicherry incident at 3-30 a.m. on 22-11-1968. They too were seized under Ext. P139 mahazar outside the premises of the police station. Pw.71 identified him standing along with others in front of the police station. Pw.81 saw accused Nos. 7 and 13 running away along the O. V. Road, in Tellicherry, soon after the incident. In Ext. P130 confession the 57th accused implicated him as a member of the unlawful assembly. The 13th accused participated in the conspiracy along with others. 212. The recovery of Exts. P137 and P138 letters from the 15th accused, without any explanation, revealed that he was associated with revolutionary activity. But the recovery alone was not sufficient to hold that he would have conspired with the other accused, though he was found in the company of others at the gate of the police station at 3.30 a.m. by Pw.63. He may be a member of the unlawful assembly, but it would be difficult to hold that he joined the assembly in pursuance to a criminal conspiracy. 213. Accused Nos. 42 and 43 were arrested at the spot while they were running away. They had weapons in their hands, but they threw them away before arrest. There was no evidence against them that they joined the unlawful assembly in pursuance of a previous concert. 214. The confession of the 57th accused in Ext. P130 before the Magistrate will furnish materials only to prove that he was a member of an unlawful assembly and nothing more. The conspiracy part of the prosecution case was not set out in it. So he cannot be implicated to an offence under S.120B IPC. 215. 214. The confession of the 57th accused in Ext. P130 before the Magistrate will furnish materials only to prove that he was a member of an unlawful assembly and nothing more. The conspiracy part of the prosecution case was not set out in it. So he cannot be implicated to an offence under S.120B IPC. 215. The 58th accused who became unemployed due to the closure of the Ganesh Beedi Factory joined the movement some four or five days prior to the incident in Tellicherry, when he took delivery of M. O.11 series spears (four in number) from Pw.52 blacksmith with whom the 44th accused who was absconding placed an order for their manufacture. They were seized under Ext. P139 mahazar soon after the incident at the road adjacent to the police station. The 57th accused also implicated him as a member of the unlawful assembly. Pw.63 identified him in front of the police station. These activities of the 58th accused ending with his appearance before the police station revealed that he joined the other accused persons in pursuance of a conspiracy. He was equally guilty as others in joining as a member of the conspiracy. 216. Accused Nos. 60 and 62 were traced to the procurement of M.O.12 chisel. The evidence against accused Nos. 1 and 62 that they cut the telephone wire at the Telephone Exchange with M. O.12 chisel was not sufficient to make them liable to an offence under the Telegraph Act. There was also no evidence that accused Nos. 1 and 62 cut the wire with M. O.12. The fact that accused Nos. 60 and 62 were identified at the gate of the police station at 3-30 a.m. would not be sufficient to hold that they were parties to a conspiracy. 217. Accused Nos. 63 and 65 could not also be implicated as conspirators with others though they were identified to be members of the unlawful assembly. There was no conclusive evidence to make them liable under S.120B IPC. 218. The only evidence against the 77th accused to show that he would have also conspired with other accused persons to attack the police station was his taking leave from the school where he was a teacher, with effect from 20-11-1968 vide Exts. P65 and P66. That was not sufficient proof to make him a conspirator. 219. 218. The only evidence against the 77th accused to show that he would have also conspired with other accused persons to attack the police station was his taking leave from the school where he was a teacher, with effect from 20-11-1968 vide Exts. P65 and P66. That was not sufficient proof to make him a conspirator. 219. As against the 78th accused that he was a conspirator with others also had not been proved beyond doubt. -The evidence as against accused Nos. 82 to 84 and 87 was also not conclusive to make them conspirators. 220. Accused Nos. 90 and 91 were, however, associated with the Rebel Publication, Kallai Road, Calicut, of which the 1st accused was the owner. This institution published many literature which advocated the cult of violence among the peasants and workers for the redress of their grievances. Exts. P3 and P4 letters established the connection of the 90th accused with the 1st accused. Accused Nos. 90 and 91 used to get the literature on revolution printed at the press of Pw.17 on behalf of the 1st accused. Ext. P42 was signed by both accused Nos. 91 and 92. Ext. P40 to Ext. P43 prove their connection and activity. The connection of the 91st accused to the 1st accused was brought out through Exts. P27, P28 and P42. Pw.23 stated that the 91st accused was a consenting party at the meeting on 17-11-1968 at the Kepees Tutorial College when the decision was taken to attack the police-stations of Tellicherry and Pulpally. Ext. P358 series were seized at the residence of the 91st accused on house search. Mao Tse Tung's thoughts were incorporated in Ext. P358 series. Giving a twist to his thoughts, these persons who started Naxalbari group preached violence for the solution of all problems which the country faced. Pw.75 identified them with weapons in their hands standing in front of the police station at 3-30 a.m. So both accused Nos. 90 and 91 were members of the conspiracy. 221. P358 series. Giving a twist to his thoughts, these persons who started Naxalbari group preached violence for the solution of all problems which the country faced. Pw.75 identified them with weapons in their hands standing in front of the police station at 3-30 a.m. So both accused Nos. 90 and 91 were members of the conspiracy. 221. We have to consider next the case against the accused persons who attacked the M. S. P. wireless station, Pulpally, as well as those who committed dacoities in Chekadi, to see whether they participated in the attack of the wireless station and the commission of dacoities in pursuance of the conspiracy which they hatched up at Calicut and Tellicherry on the 30th October and the 17th November 1968, respectively. It was established that accused Nos. 1 and 2 were the two important persons who started the Naxalbari movement in Kerala. Accused Nos. 5 and 6 got the initiative and encouragement from the 1st accused. We had already seen that accused Nos. 5 and 6 were in touch with the 1st accused long before the incident. The 5th accused attended the meeting on 17-11-1968 and the 6th accused was a regular visitor at the house of the 1st accused. The 6th accused came into contact with the 7th accused at the residence of the 1st accused. The future activities of these persons would go to show that accused Nos. 6 and 7 moved hand-in-glove with each other during the progress of the march from Thonichal to Pulpally. They were seen together either reading Mao literature or making wall posters when the jatha halted at any place in the forest. The presence of large number of persons carrying weapons in their hands and marching along the forest unnoticed by the general public would lead to an inference that they had secretly planned an attack on the police station. 222. Pws.45 and 46 connected the 1st accused with accused Nos. 5 and 6. The presence of the 5th accused at the Tellicherry meeting on 17-11-1968 was a connecting link in his future activities when he marched with others through the forest to Pulpally. Before the march he was in the company of accused Nos. 3 and 7 at the residence of the 40th accused in Manantoddy. 5 and 6. The presence of the 5th accused at the Tellicherry meeting on 17-11-1968 was a connecting link in his future activities when he marched with others through the forest to Pulpally. Before the march he was in the company of accused Nos. 3 and 7 at the residence of the 40th accused in Manantoddy. The 5th accused prevailed upon Pw.119 to go with him to the forest to serve as a cook, firstly when the study classes were held in the forest, and next during the march to Pulpally. His name was associated with M.O. 7 radio which he received from Pw.28 in the place of his own radio which he gave to him for repairs. M.O. 7 belonged to Pw.29. It was through that radio that the party heard the news of attack on the Tellicherry police station while they were in the forest in the forenoon of 22-11-1968. On hearing the news the 4th accused was reported to have said at Kenichira as follows: 'Those who went to Tellicherry has succeeded; we cannot keep quiet; we shall do something.' At the Chithalayam forest before the party continued their march to Pulpally the 4th accused said, 'We shall attack the Pulpally police station today; we shall kill the police men; and we shall destroy village offices'. These utterances were in pursuance of a decision already taken at Calicut on 17-11-1968. The 4th accused borrowed M.Os. 17, 18 and 19 guns from Pws.56, 57 and 58, respectively, telling them that he wanted them to shoot birds or animals, but on the other hand, he carried those guns to the forest. They were being handled during the march by accused Nos. 5, 6, 17 and 18. Pw.165 saw the 14th accused pointing out one of the guns against the person who was lying in the south-western room during the incident at Pulpally wireless station. While Pw.92 was running away from the place after he sustained some injury he saw the 14th accused standing on the way holding a gun. Someone shot at Pw.92 from behind. That shot struck him behind his left thigh causing a bleeding injury. Pw.92 was under the impression that the 14th accused shot him with the gun he saw in his hand. Ext. P282 established that one of those guns had been used for shooting during the relevant period. Someone shot at Pw.92 from behind. That shot struck him behind his left thigh causing a bleeding injury. Pw.92 was under the impression that the 14th accused shot him with the gun he saw in his hand. Ext. P282 established that one of those guns had been used for shooting during the relevant period. It was at the instance of the 6th accused that the cash resources of the party was pooled at Chithalayam forest where more than Rs. 200/- was collected towards the common fund. The 6th accused made the 4th accused the Commander of the party. When the clothes and some records out of the rooms of Sankunny Menon and Pw.230 were ransacked and brought to the courtyard, Pw.165 saw the 7th accused setting fire to it. When accused Nos. 4, 6, 7, 16, 129 and 139 were seen coming out of the room of deceased Havildar Kunhikrishnan Nair, Pw.165 saw a chopper in the hands of the 4th accused, a stick in the hands of the 16th accused and spears in the hands of other accused persons. Pws.119 and 124 saw accused Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 29 and 131 marching from Pulpally to Chekadi, where some of the accused persons committed dacoities. The presence of the 7th accused with a blood-stained spear in her hands at the residences of Pws.106 and 117 was established beyond any dispute. She had the courage to tell Pw.117 that another person had already been killed with the spear in her hand and that she would kill him also. 223. Regarding the early stages of the march from Thonichal to Kenichira, there was the evidence of Pw.120 who gave a detailed version of the activities of at least of accused Nos. 5, 7, 14 and 18. He was a labourer who lived upon the wages he got for his daily work. He may be interested in the C.P.M. but that was not sufficient circumstance to disbelieve him. There was nothing to show that he was an accomplice. He worked under the accused persons for earning his wage. Rs.4/- was paid to him when he was about to leave the party. That the party vindicated its attitude of violence first came to his knowledge only when he was about to leave the party. There was nothing to show that he was an accomplice. He worked under the accused persons for earning his wage. Rs.4/- was paid to him when he was about to leave the party. That the party vindicated its attitude of violence first came to his knowledge only when he was about to leave the party. It cannot be said from the circumstances of the case that Pw.120 has committed an offence or that he conspired along with other accused persons. Accused Nos. 5, 7, 14 and 18 and others held a meeting at his house. He was made use of either to collect materials or to be sent out as a messenger. The 5th accused sent two letters to his companions while they were at Thonichal. One among the members of the group from Thalapuzha became unconscious and he was found to be not fit enough to accompany the group to Pulpally. So he was sent back after he regained consciousness with a direction that he shall not divulge what he had seen at the place. This conduct on the part of the 5th accused showed his bent of mind and the purpose behind their march towards Pulpally. The conduct of the 5th accused was amply proved that he was working for the successful march of the accused party to Pulpally. After the party reached a mile from Thonichal the 14th accused produced three guns of which two were entrusted each to accused Nos. 5 and 17 and the third was retained by himself. The evidence of Pws.119 and 165 had materially corroborated the evidence of Pw.120 as to the manner in which the 14th accused produced the three guns and entrusted the same either with accused Nos. 5 and 17 or with Pw.154. These three guns were with accused Nos. 5, 14 and 17 when they arrived at Kenichira. Accused Nos. 7, 14 and 18 kept watch over these guns at Kenichira. Pw.154 was taken with the party to point out the route through which the march in the forest was to be conducted. There was no material contradiction in the evidence of Pws.119, 154 and 165 with regard to the handling of the guns by accused Nos. 5, 7, 14, 17 and 18 during the march from Thonichal to Kenichira. Recovery of these guns had been made from the forest which is within a short distance from Adakkathodu. There was no material contradiction in the evidence of Pws.119, 154 and 165 with regard to the handling of the guns by accused Nos. 5, 7, 14, 17 and 18 during the march from Thonichal to Kenichira. Recovery of these guns had been made from the forest which is within a short distance from Adakkathodu. The places where the guns had been deposited were pointed out by the 14th accused. There was absolutely no difficulty in the identification of accused Nos. 5, 7, 14 and 18 by Pw.120 and that identification had been corroborated by the evidence of Pws.119 and 124. Pw.124 identified accused Nos. 5, 6, 7, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 29, 128, 129, 131, 135 and 139. There can be no dispute that accused Nos. 5, 6, 7, 14, 16, 17, 18 and 19 participated in the conspiracy. The 16th accused was one of those persons who got into the room of Sankunny Menon with a stick in his hand. Pw.165 saw him coming out of the room of Havildar Kunnikrishnan Nair with a stick. In view of the corroboration of the evidence of Pw.120 by the evidence of Pws.124 and 165 as well as that of Sankunny Menon in Ext. P107, the complicity of the 16th accused with accused Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 14 as members of the conspiracy who decided upon the attack on the police station could be established beyond doubt. 224. As against the 18th accused there was a recovery as per Ext. P334 mahazar. The recovery was of M. O.102 terylene shirt, M. O.7 radio and a sum of Rs. 1624. The antecedent activities of the 18th accused could be traced to the recovery. The 18th accused could not explain how these articles came into his possession. As against the 19th accused also there was a recovery evidenced by Ext. P349 mahazar. Under that mahazar M. O.59 ring which belonged to Pw.106 was recovered. The recovery was made on the basis of the confession which the 19th accused gave to Pw.235. The 19th accused had no explanation as to how he came into possession of M. O.59. The evidence against the 19th accused and the recovery combined with his previous activity conclusively established that he was a conspirator along with others. 225. The last batch of accused against whom the charge of conspiracy was laid are accused Nos. The 19th accused had no explanation as to how he came into possession of M. O.59. The evidence against the 19th accused and the recovery combined with his previous activity conclusively established that he was a conspirator along with others. 225. The last batch of accused against whom the charge of conspiracy was laid are accused Nos. 128, 129 and 135. They were not present at the meetings held on 30-10-1968 and 17-11-1968. Their activities during the march from Thonichal to Pulpally were described by Pws.119, 124 and 165. The evidence of these witnesses even if they are relied upon will not establish that they have been in conspiracy with the other accused though accused Nos. 128, 129 and 135 were proved to be the members of the unlawful assembly. The evidence of these witnesses against accused Nos. 128, 129 and 135 had not been corroborated by other independent circumstances with a view to make them parties to the conspiracy. However the position of accused No.139 was different. 226 The fact that accused No.139 was in possession of explosive substance was proof positive that he was moving about from place to place with a view to attack the police station in the company of other accused persons. It was due to the explosion of some explosive substance that he lost his palm M. O.277. That occurred within about 200 feet of the Pulpally wireless station after the incident. He was seen by Pw.102, an independent witness, soon after the incident to whom he made a confession to the effect that he was a party to attack on the wireless station. Pws.124 and 165 identified him as one of those persons who went with the party from Thonichal to Pulpally. He was seen making bombs during the march when the party came at Chithalayam forest. The presence of the 139th accused in the company of Pw.102 was seen by Pw.45. There was no apparent contradiction in the evidence of Pw.45 and the evidence of Pw.102. The evidence of Pw.160 read with Exts. P215, P216 and P218 established that M. O.277 was the palm of accused No.139 and he lost the palm on 24-11-1968. The fact that he employed himself in making bombs during the march was also a circumstance to show that he joined the conspiracy to attack the police station. The evidence of Pw.160 read with Exts. P215, P216 and P218 established that M. O.277 was the palm of accused No.139 and he lost the palm on 24-11-1968. The fact that he employed himself in making bombs during the march was also a circumstance to show that he joined the conspiracy to attack the police station. Accused No.139 was therefore guilty of the offence under S.120B IPC. 227. As against accused Nos. 320 and 21, 33, 36, 40, 41, 50, 132, 134, 141, and 149 there was no conclusive evidence to establish that they were members of the conspiracy. Accused Nos. 145, 146 and 147 joined the unlawful assembly only for attacking the wireless station. On a consideration of the relevant evidence regarding the complicity of the accused persons, accused Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 58, 90, 91 and 139 are found guilty under S.120B IPC. 228. Before parting with the case, it is proper that we place on record our deep appreciation of the arduous and sincere efforts which the investigating Officers brought to bear upon this case for a fair and impartial investigation in the discharge of their duty. 229. The Senior Public Prosecutor Shri M. B. Kurup, assisted by the Special Additional Public Prosecutor Shri Jose K. Kochupappu, as well as counsel headed by Shri R. Kunhirama Menon and Shri V. N. Achutha Kurup, argued the appeals at great length placing before us all the relevant facts which are voluminous and quite a large number of authorities touching the question of law involved in the case. 230. We are justified if we say that they argued the case to the best of their ability keeping in mind the interest of the respective parties concerned with full consciousness of their duty to the Court for the vindication of rule of law. 231. In conclusion, on a review of the entire evidence, the State Appeals (Crl. Appeal No.30 of 1972, Crl. Appeal No.35 of 1972 and Crl. Appeal No.166 of 1972) and Crl. Appeal No.4 of 1972 (by the 17th accused) and Crl. Appeal No.10 of 1972 (by accused Nos. 14, 16, 18, 19 and 139) are disposed of as follows: Accused Nos. 2, 10, 15 and 58 are convicted and sentenced each to two years' rigorous imprisonment under S.147 IPC.; accused Nos. Appeal No.166 of 1972) and Crl. Appeal No.4 of 1972 (by the 17th accused) and Crl. Appeal No.10 of 1972 (by accused Nos. 14, 16, 18, 19 and 139) are disposed of as follows: Accused Nos. 2, 10, 15 and 58 are convicted and sentenced each to two years' rigorous imprisonment under S.147 IPC.; accused Nos. 1, 8, 9, 11, 13, 42, 43, 57, 60, 62, 63, 65, 77, 78, 82, 83, 84, 87, 90 and 91 are convicted and sentenced each to three years' rigorous imprisonment under S.148 IPC.; the 2nd accused is convicted and sentenced to eighteen months' rigorous imprisonment under S.324 IPC. read with S.511 IPC.; and accused Nos. 1, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 42, 43, 57, 58, 60, 62, 63, 65, 77, 78, 82, 83, 84, 87, 90 and 91 are convicted and sentenced each to eighteen month's rigorous imprisonment under S.324 read with S.511 and 149 IPC. Accused Nos. 5, 6, 7, 14, 16, 128, 129, 135, 139, 145, 146 and 147 are convicted under S.302, 449, 324, 380, 427 and 426 IPC. read with S.149 IPC. and sentenced each to life imprisonment under S.302 IPC., five years' rigorous imprisonment each under S.449 IPC., three years' rigorous imprisonment on each count under S.324 and 380 IPC., two years' rigorous imprisonment under S.427 IPC., and three months' rigorous imprisonment under S.426 IPC; Accused Nos. 5, 6, 7, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 135 are convicted and sentenced each to five years' rigorous imprisonment under S.395 IPC. Accused Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 58, 90, 91 and 139 are convicted under S.120B IPC., but no separate sentence is awarded. To the above extent the convictions entered and the sentences passed in regard to accused Nos. 5, 7, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 139 are modified and their acquittal in other respects and the acquittal of the remaining accused referred to above are set aside. The acquittal of accused Nos. 3, 20, 21, 25, 29, 33, 36, 40, 41, 50, 59, 69, 75, 76, 85, 86, 88, 89, 125, 131, 132, 134, 141 and 149 is not interfered with. The sentences will run concurrently by each of the accused persons. P. Narayana Pillai, J. 1. The acquittal of accused Nos. 3, 20, 21, 25, 29, 33, 36, 40, 41, 50, 59, 69, 75, 76, 85, 86, 88, 89, 125, 131, 132, 134, 141 and 149 is not interfered with. The sentences will run concurrently by each of the accused persons. P. Narayana Pillai, J. 1. The motive for the various crimes committed in these cases was to capture power with force and then bring about with utmost speed what the accused considered social, economic and political reforms. The Communist Party of India split into two the C.P.I. and the C.P.M. A radical wing in the C.P.M. which believed in Maoism took inspiration from the Naxalbari movement in Bengal. It was impatient with the programme of the C.P.M. Members of it when expelled from the C.P.M. formed the new party, M.L.M. For achieving their goal they decided to wage a relentless war against persons they termed American Capitalists, Neo Revisionists and Indian Reactionaries. They propagated their ideas and gained some strength. Cannanore, where on account of the lock-out of the Ganesh Beedi works thousands of workers had been thrown out of employment and there was consequent labour unrest and Pulpally, where as a result of hasty steps taken by landlords to evict tenants there was agrarian unrest provided fertile ground for them. In October 1968 M.L.M. chalked out a programme and made, preparations to implement it. As arms were required for the purpose, they thought of taking them from individuals and Police Stations. A conspiracy for the purpose was hatched on October 30, 1968 at the residence of the first accused at the first floor in a building at Calicut. On November 15 and 17, 1968 meetings were held in the Kepees Tutorial College of the second accused at Tellicherry to work out details of the plan hatched. It was a three-pronged attack that was contemplated, the first at the Tellicherry Police Station, the second at the Pulpally Wireless and Police Stations and the third at the residential and farm houses of certain landlords in Chekadi near the boundary with Mysore. 2. According to the prosecution among the group of persons numbering about 300 that came at 3.30 a.m. on November 22, 1968, in front of the Tellicherry Police Station were accused Nos. 2. According to the prosecution among the group of persons numbering about 300 that came at 3.30 a.m. on November 22, 1968, in front of the Tellicherry Police Station were accused Nos. 1, 2, 8 to 11, 13, 15, 42, 43, 57, 58, 60, 62, 63, 65, 69,.75, 76, 77, 78, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 and 91. The direct evidence about it is that of Pws.63 to 66, 70, 71 and 73 to 75. Of them Pws.63, 64 and 75 identified accused No.1, Pws.64, 65, 73 and 75 accused No.2, Pw.70 accused Nos. 8, 69, 75 and 76, Pws.64, 65 and 71 accused No.9, Pw.65 accused Nos. 10, 11, 57, 77 and 78, Pw.71 accused Nos. 13 and 43, Pw.63 accused Nos. 15 and 58, Pws.63 and 66 accused Nos. 42 and 43, Pws.64 and 71 accused No.60, Pws.66 and 71 accused Nos. 62 and 63, Pw.66 accused No.65, Pw.73 accused Nos. 82, 83 and 84, Pw.74 accused Nos. 85, 86, 87, 88 and 89 and Pw.75 accused Nos. 90 and 91 at the trial. Pws.63, 64 and 75 saw accused No.l untying the knot of the rope with which the small gate in front of the police station was fastened. Pws.64 and 75 spoke to having seen accused No.2 taking something from the bag in his hand and throwing it. Of Pws.63 to 66, 70, 71 and 73 to 75 Pw.63 was the Additional Sub Inspector, Pw.65 the Head Constable, and Pw.75 the driver of the Police van and Pws.64, 66 and 70 were ordinary constables and Pws.71, 73 and 74 armed reserve constables in the Tellicherry Police Station. Pw.66 was on guard duty from 8 to 10 and Pw.70 from 12 to 2 on the night of occurrence at the police station. After duty they were sleeping on the verandah in front of the police station. Pw.64 was on guard duty from 2 O'Clock in the night. Pws.63, 71, 73 and 74 were sleeping in the upstairs of the building and Pw.75 was sleeping in the police van on the side of the road near the compound wall, 4 1/2 feet in height. Pw.64 was on guard duty from 2 O'Clock in the night. Pws.63, 71, 73 and 74 were sleeping in the upstairs of the building and Pw.75 was sleeping in the police van on the side of the road near the compound wall, 4 1/2 feet in height. At the time of the occurrence when the group of persons armed with weapons came in front of the police station and attempted to open the gate which had been fastened with a rope Pw.64 ordered them to turn out and raised an alarm. Then one of the persons in the group threw an explosive substance at him. As he moved behind a pillar at that time it did not cause him any harm but only struck against the notice board hung on the wall in front of the police station. Hearing the alarm raised by Pw.64, Pw.63 and the other persons in the police station came out and rushed to the side of the gate. It was then that they happened to identify some among the accused who were in the group outside. On hearing the sound of the running of persons and the trampling of cows which were previously resting there and which had started running Pw.75 woke up and raised his head. Then he also saw near the gate of the police station some of the accused whom he identified. Accused No.1 was armed with a chopper. All the others except accused Nos. 2, 10, 15 and 58 were armed with either spears or sticks. Pw.75 also, saw accused No.2 who had a plastic bag in his hand taking something from it and throwing it at the police station. When Pw.63 ordered the crowd to disperse they ran helter-skelter, some of them throwing away the weapons in their hands. Pw.63 and some of the constables with him ran after them. When they reached in front of the Vimal Store, only a short distance away, accused Nos. 42 and 43 dashed against each other and fell down. Pw.63 caught hold of accused No.42 and entrusted him to a constable, Ratna Panicker. Thereafter he ran after accused No.43 who had in the meanwhile got up and run some distance. Pw.63 succeeded in catching hold of him also. Then both accused Nos. 42 and 43 were taken to the police station. Pw.63 caught hold of accused No.42 and entrusted him to a constable, Ratna Panicker. Thereafter he ran after accused No.43 who had in the meanwhile got up and run some distance. Pw.63 succeeded in catching hold of him also. Then both accused Nos. 42 and 43 were taken to the police station. Thereafter Pw.62 came out and went round the town in the police van driven by Pw.75 to see whether more persons who were in the group could be got at. But he did not succeed. He came back to the police station at 5-30 a.m. and straight away recorded the first information statement. Therein the fact that accused Nos. 42 and 43 were arrested and kept in the police station was mentioned. 3. There is road on all sides of the police station. The courtyard in front of the police station is only 10 to 12 feet wide. In front of the police station is a traffic island. There was mercury light in it. There were also tube lights on the road. Kamaliya Hotel is only about 30 feet away from the police station. At the time of the occurrence there was a tube light in front of that hotel also. Pws.63, 65, 66, 70, 71 and 73 rushed to the gate at the time of the occurrence. Pw.71 was standing only four or five feet away from the gate. The van in which Pw.75 was at the time was only 1-5 feet away. It is clear that there was sufficient light and that the witnesses were sufficiently near to identify the persons on the road in front of the police station. 4. Accused Nos. 9 and 60 were known to Pw.64, accused Nos. 2, 9, 10, 11, 57, 77 and 78 to Pw.65, accused Nos. 9, 13, 43, 62 and 63 to Pw.71 and accused Nos. 1, 2, 90 and 91 to Pw.75 and accused No.8 was known to Pw.70 even before. Pw.71 and accused Nos. 9, 13, 43, 62 and 63 belong to the same village and Pw.74 and accused No.87 belong to adjacent villages. 5. These witnesses could be the only probable witnesses and so the most natural witnesses who could have witnessed the occurrence because the attack was on the police station, these witnesses were the persons there at that time and the attack was at an untimely hour in the night. 6. 5. These witnesses could be the only probable witnesses and so the most natural witnesses who could have witnessed the occurrence because the attack was on the police station, these witnesses were the persons there at that time and the attack was at an untimely hour in the night. 6. Circumstances relied upon by the prosecution to corroborate the evidence of the participation of the accused in the crime can now be considered. In 1967 accused No.1 was expelled from the C. P.M. Ext. P23 is a printed book written by him and published by the Marxist publications, Calicut, a publishing house conducted by him in the name of accused No.90. In it the charge levelled by the C. P.M. against accused No.1 and his answer to that are given. There was another publishing house called Marxist Publications Limited already in existence in Trichur. Finding that from Calicut publications were made by a publishing house with similar name the Managing Director of the Marxist Publications Limited, Trichur, Pw.4, sent the letter, Ext. P3, to the Marxist Publications at Calicut complaining about the same. Then the Marxist Publications in Calicut sent the letter, Ext. P4, tendering apology. Thereafter the name 'Marxist Publications, was changed and accused No.1 began using the name 'Rebel Publications' for his publications from Calicut. 7. Pw.7, a Lecturer in the Devaswom College at Sasthamkotta, was a member of the Naxalbari Karshaka Sahaya Samara Samithi. He and accused No.6 were staying together in a lodge at Trivandrum for some time. Accused No.1 used to go there often. Leaflets of the Naxalbari Karshaka Sahaya Samithi used to come from Calicut and Pw.7 used to go t6 Calicut to see accused No.1. 8. Ext. P5 is the list prepared on search of the house of accused No.1 on December 8, 1968. Exts. P6 to P23 and M. O.1 series were recovered at that time. Ext. P6 is a file. In it are leaflets exhorting people to rise up, defend the cause of Naxalbari movement and draw lesions from Telengana. A letter in that file is revealing. Exts. P6 to P23 and M. O.1 series were recovered at that time. Ext. P6 is a file. In it are leaflets exhorting people to rise up, defend the cause of Naxalbari movement and draw lesions from Telengana. A letter in that file is revealing. After stating that an excellent revolutionary situation was now prevailing in the country with all classical symptoms as enunciated toy comrade Lenin, that the neo revisionist leadership of the C. P.M. had betrayed the people, the party and the cause of the Indian revolution, that the Naxalbari movement came as a turning point in the history of the country, that the revolutionary comrades of the Darjeeling District of West Bengal rose in open revolt against the party's revisionist leadership and policies as well as against the organizational slavery imposed by the leadership and that the comrades of different states who had been thinking and fighting on these lines decided after meeting in Calcutta to form an All India Co-ordination Committee it was mentioned in that letter that the co-ordination committee which duly met declared that its main task was to develop and co-ordinate the militant and revolutionary struggles at all levels specially peasant struggles of the Naxalbari type under the leadership of the working class, to develop militant revolutionary struggles of the working class and other toiling people towards agrarian revolution, to wage an uncompromising ideological struggle against revisionism and neo revisionism, to popularise the thoughts of comrade Mao Tse Tung which is Marxism Leninism of the present era, to unite on this basis all revolutionary elements within and outside the party and to undertake preparations of a revolutionary programme and tactical line based on concrete analysis of the Indian situation in the light of comrade Mao Tse Tung's thoughts and the letter concluded by saying: "Now is the time to act and act we must here and now." 9. There is another letter dated March 9, 1968 in Ext. P6. It was sent from the Marxist Cultural forum Head quarters, Tellicherry, signed by the Secretary and addressed to comrades. It is stated in it that they believed in M.L.M. and that they proposed to convene soon a secret meeting of the revolutionaries. 10. One letter dated February 27, 1967, in the file, Ext. P7, was sent from the Embassy of the People's Republic of China in India to the Marxist Publications in Calicut. It is stated in it that they believed in M.L.M. and that they proposed to convene soon a secret meeting of the revolutionaries. 10. One letter dated February 27, 1967, in the file, Ext. P7, was sent from the Embassy of the People's Republic of China in India to the Marxist Publications in Calicut. In it after acknowledging a letter from accused No.90 and saying that the embassy was sending a copy of the book "quotations from Mao Tse Tung", a request was made that it may be translated in Malayalam. Some of the quotations in it are these: "x x x x If there is to be revolution, there must be a revolutionary party. Without a revolutionary party, without a party built on the Marxist-Leninist revolutionary theory and in the Marxist-Leninist revolutionary style, it is impossible to lead the working class and the broad masses of the people in defeating imperialism and its running dogs. x x x x A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another. x x x x We should support whatever the enemy opposes and oppose whatever the enemy supports. x x x x The enemy will not perish of himself. x x x x Policy and tactics are the life of the Party; leading comrades at all levels must give them full attention and must never on any account be negligent. x x x x Every Communist must grasp the truth, "Political power grows out of the barrel of the gun." x x x x After the enemies with guns have been wiped out, there will still be enemies without guns; they are bound to struggle-desperately against us, and we must never regard these enemies lightly. If we do not now raise and understand the problem in this way, we shall commit the gravest mistakes. x x x x Fight, fail, fight again, fail again, fight again.........till their victory; that is the logic of the people, and they too will never go against this logic. This is another Marxist law. x x x x All reactionaries are paper tigers. In appearance, the reactionaries are terrifying, but in reality they are not so powerful. x x x x Fight, fail, fight again, fail again, fight again.........till their victory; that is the logic of the people, and they too will never go against this logic. This is another Marxist law. x x x x All reactionaries are paper tigers. In appearance, the reactionaries are terrifying, but in reality they are not so powerful. From a long term point of view, it is not the reactionaries but the people who are really powerful. x x x x The revolutionary war is a war of the masses; it can be waged only by mobilizing the masses and relying on them. x x x x There is a serious tendency towards capitalism among the well-to-do peasants. This tendency will become rampant if we in the slightest way neglect political work among the peasants during the co-operative movement and for a very long period after. x x x x The serious problem is the education of the peasantry. The peasant economy is scattered, and the socialization of agriculture, judging by the Soviet Union's experience, will require a long time and painstaking work. Without socialization of agriculture, there can be no complete, consolidated socialism. x x x x Political work is the life-blood of all economic work. This is particularly true at a time when the social and economic system is undergoing fundamental change. x x x x What is work? Work is struggle. There are difficulties and problems in those places for us to overcome and solve. We go there to work and struggle to overcome these difficulties. A good comrade is one who is more eager to go where the difficulties are greater. x x x x Comrade Liu Shao Chi once said of certain people that they have unusually long arms and are very clever in looking after their own interests, but pay little heed to the interests of others and of the Party as a whole. "What's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine too." x x x x Copy of the letter sent by accused No.90 to the Embassy is also in Ext. P7. That shows that accused No.90 had in his letter requested for a message on his starting a bookstall at Calicut. 11. Pw.8 is a Railway porter at Trichur. He is a member of the C. P.M. One Haridas who belonged to Trichur went to Calcutta in 1968. P7. That shows that accused No.90 had in his letter requested for a message on his starting a bookstall at Calicut. 11. Pw.8 is a Railway porter at Trichur. He is a member of the C. P.M. One Haridas who belonged to Trichur went to Calcutta in 1968. Before he left for Calcutta he took the address of Pw.8. After that Pw.8 received the books, Ext. P24 series, by post. When Haridas met Pw.8 later he told him that he wrote to accused No.1 and it was he who sent those books to Pw.8. Those books are in praise of the Chinese Revolution and contain the teachings of Mao Tse Tung. 12. Pw.15 is the proprietor of the Navabharatham Press. Ext. P28 is a book got printed at that press by accused No.1, under the address "Rebel Publications, Calicut." In it exhortations are made to the Indonasians to overthrow the Fascist regime there. 1,000 copies of it were printed. 13. Pw.17 is the proprietor of the Dhanalakshmi Press at Olavanna. Ext. P41 is the manuscript copy of a book, proof of which printed in that press being Ext. P40, Ext. P42 is a carbon copy of the manuscript of a leaflet signed by Accused Nos. 90 and 91. They show that on behalf of Marxist publications accused No.90 and Rebel Publications Accused No.91 were signing the relevant papers. In those publications the Indian Constitution was considered retrograde and the Government which worked under it reactionary and after saying that both of them were in trouble, it was stated that the C.P.M. leaders were trying to protect them. Exhortation was made in them to the industrial and agricultural workers, students and intellectuals to remove the veil of parliamentary democracy of the Government. Imperialists and their camp followers were warned that the future was not theirs. 14. Pw.21 is the younger brother of accused No.1. They were living in the same building at Calicut, Pw.21 with his family in the ground floor and accused No.1 with his family in the first floor. Both were previously members of the C.P.M. Pw.21 resigned in 1967 in protest against the revisionist policy of that party. Both he and accused No.1 were previous to severing their connections with C.P.M. in the 27th division of C.P.M. which consisted of persons with independent thinking. Accused No.2 was a regular visitor at the residence of accused No.1. Both were previously members of the C.P.M. Pw.21 resigned in 1967 in protest against the revisionist policy of that party. Both he and accused No.1 were previous to severing their connections with C.P.M. in the 27th division of C.P.M. which consisted of persons with independent thinking. Accused No.2 was a regular visitor at the residence of accused No.1. According to Pw.21 both of them were firm believers in Maoism. On the night of October 30, 1968 a meeting was held from 9-30 till 4-30 in the bed room of accused No.1 in the first floor of the building. From the ground floor where he lay Pw.21 could clearly hear speeches exhorting those who took part in the meeting to instil in the people thoughts of Mao. It was said that strong propaganda was necessary to inculcate Maoism in the people and that the aim was revolution. It was also said at that meeting that the activities of the party had to be shifted to north Malabar where on account of the labour unrest and agrarian discontentment there was congenial atmosphere for spreading the ideologies of the party. After the first week of November 1968 accused Nos. 1, 3 and 7 were not in their houses. 15. Pw.23 is a person who for more than 10 years past was living in his wife's house in Tellicherry, only about 70 metres away from the building where accused No.2 was conducting Kepees Tutorials. Pw.23 used to go to Kepees Tutorials frequently. It was in the first floor of a building. In the ground floor Pw.23 used to play cards with others. From his contacts with accused No.2 Pw.23 knew that he was an extremist in the C.P.M. He used to give Mao literature to Pw.23 for reading. Pw.23 had seen accused Nos. 1, 8 11 frequently visiting Kepees Tutorials. On November 17, 1968 Pw.23 saw accused Nos. 1, 2, 5, 8, 10, 11 and 91 there. At 6 p.m. that day a meeting was held there and from the staircase Pw.23 heard the proceedings of it. He heard speeches about the necessity for organising and bringing about an armed revolution. The arms for the purpose were decided at that meeting to be taken from the Tellicherry and Pulpally Police Stations after attacking those police stations. It was accused Nos. He heard speeches about the necessity for organising and bringing about an armed revolution. The arms for the purpose were decided at that meeting to be taken from the Tellicherry and Pulpally Police Stations after attacking those police stations. It was accused Nos. 1 and 2 who spoke about the attack on those police stations and taking arms from there. Pw.23 heard them also saying at that time that this plan was in continuation of the decision they had taken at Calicut. Persons who took part in the meeting said at that time that they were all agreeable for that and that volunteers were necessary for the same. On the day prior to the attack on the Tellicherry Police Station Pw.23 saw accused Nos. 1, 2, 8, 11 and 91 going to the Kepees Tutorials. Thereafter he saw over 200persons in several groups going there. On enquiry he was told that they came in connection with the strike in Ganesh Beedi Works. In fact Pw.23 told a friend of his, Usman, about his hearing the speeches at the Kepees Tutorials regarding the attack on the police station but Usman dismissed it as impracticable. 16. Pw.46 is a permanent resident of Pulpally. He feared that he might be evicted by the Pulpally Devaswom authorities from a property in his possession. About two months prior to the occurrence in the Pulpally wireless Station he wrote to accused No.1 to enquire whether he could help him in the matter. Accused No.1 sent a reply, in which he stated that he would come with two of his comrades to Panamaram on September 24, 1968. Accordingly accused No.1 came along with accused Nos. 4 and 5. Thereafter in one Parameswaran's house there was a discussion between.6 p.m. and 12 p.m. about the Pulpally kudikidappu problem, Maoism and the way it opened for the emancipation of the peasantry. 17. Pw.76 was unemployed. He requested accused No.116 to whom he was introduced by another that he may be provided with a job. They together went to Tellicherry on November 19, 1968 at 3.30 p.m. When they went to the Kepees Tutorial College along with one Gopalan they found 10 to 12 persons including accused Nos. 1 and 2 assembled there. That night Pw.76 and accused No.116 stayed in the Kepees Tutorials. They together went to Tellicherry on November 19, 1968 at 3.30 p.m. When they went to the Kepees Tutorial College along with one Gopalan they found 10 to 12 persons including accused Nos. 1 and 2 assembled there. That night Pw.76 and accused No.116 stayed in the Kepees Tutorials. The next day some persons including accused No.11 were seen coming there with spears and sticks wrapped in gunny bags. It was accused No.1 who took delivery of those weapons. As accused No.116 was not seen after some time Pw.76 made up his mind to return home. When he came down the stairs a person there threatened him with dire consequences if he went away. Then he climbed the stairs and went back to Kepees Tutorials. After that the persons there got divided into several groups. Pw.75 was in the group of accused No.95. Accused No.1 asked them all to be careful as the police were in search for them. On November 20, 1968 also Pw. 76 slept in the Kepees Tutorials. The next morning accused No.1 called them all to the main hall and told them that their group leaders would tell them their destination. Exts. P97 and P98, a leaflet and a book, were given to them for reading. Accused No.1 explained to them Exts. P97 and P98. What was unequivocally declared in Ext. P97 was that the war had been started and Mao Tse Tung was with them, and that it was fully knowing that there were powerful armies behind the imperialists and reactionaries that they had raised the banner of revolt. Accused No.95 told Pw.76 and the others in his group that they had to go to Jagannadha Temple and from there to Kunduchira. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 went to a house there and had some secret conversation. By 1 O'Clock on the night of November 21 when Pw.76 and the persons with him reached the Stadium Ground at Tellicherry they saw some persons there. Thereafter when they were proceeding from the Stadium Ground Pw.76 saw some persons in the front running back. Then he ran away from the place and went to his house. 18. Pw.95 is a tea-shop keeper at Pulpally. He said that about two months before the occurrence accused No.1 along with some others had been to his shop and that they then discussed about the agrarian problems at Pulpally. 19. Then he ran away from the place and went to his house. 18. Pw.95 is a tea-shop keeper at Pulpally. He said that about two months before the occurrence accused No.1 along with some others had been to his shop and that they then discussed about the agrarian problems at Pulpally. 19. Pw.127 is a Head Constable of the Special Branch who used to attend meetings of the C.P.M. He said that the C.P.M. Central Committee conducted meetings in Calicut in October, 1967. Accused Nos. 1, 3, 7 and 91 were then seen by him selling Mao's photos and books at the place. 20. Pw.26 is a relation of accused No.1. He is a teacher in a Government Basic School. Accused No.1 sold him his radio in October, 1968 for Rs. 500/-. 21. Pw.45 is a resident in Pulpally. He conducts a tea shop and a provision store there. He spoke to accused Nos. 1 and 6 staying in the house of accused No.135 at Pulpally some days before the occurrence. 22. Pw.93 is a stationary merchant in Kallai Road in Calicut to whom accused No.1 sold in 1968 the furniture in his house. The price was given only in instalments. The final payment was received by accused No.3 on behalf of accused No.1. 23. Pw.69 is a trader in fish at Tellicherry; On the night of the Tellicherry incident till midnight he has waiting for a lorry to transport fish. As the lorry did not come he slept. At 2 a.m. he woke up and went in search of the lorry in a workshop near the police lines. As the lorry was not then there he went from there to the lorry stand. Then he saw accused Nos. 1 and 62 at a distance of 15 or 18 feet walking in haste through the lane on the side of the B. M. P. School. 24. Pw.80 is an agent of the Life Insurance Corporation. After seeing at 5-30 p.m. on November 21, 1968 a friend, K. P. Rama Das, when he was waiting to see whether he could get a vehicle to go to his house he saw an autorikshaw driven by Pw.164 with accused Nos. 1 and 2 in it coming and stopping there. Accused No.2 was a classmate of Pw.164 and a teacher of Pw.80. 1 and 2 in it coming and stopping there. Accused No.2 was a classmate of Pw.164 and a teacher of Pw.80. On enquiry accused No.2 told Pw.80 that he was going to attend a meeting at Kunduchira about half a mile away from there. Thereafter accused No.2 introduced accused No.1 to Pw.80. At that time another autorikshaw with accused Nos. 8, 9 and 10 in it came and stopped there. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 then went near accused Nos. 8, 9 and 10 and Pw.80 got into the autorikshaw of Pw.164 and went to his house. The evidence of Pw.164 was that on November 21, 1968 it was from Mallar's Caffe, near the police station, that he took accused No.2 along with another to the place from where he took Pw.80. 25. Pw.85 is a resident of Karivalloor. He is a sympathiser of the C.P.M. On November 19, 1968 he and accused No.126 had been to see circus at Cannanore. After seeing circus as the last bus for Karivalloor had left they went to the Kepees Tutorials at Tellicherry for taking rest. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 and four or five other persons were then there. The next morning when they woke up they saw several persons coming there with axes, spears and knives wrapped in papers. Accused No.1 was seen opening them and taking them to the rooms. One month before that accused No.1 had come to Karivalloor and then Pw.85 had come to know about him. Accused No.126 told Pw.85 that that night the Tellicherry Police Station was going to be attacked. At 10 a.m. Pw.85 left for home. 26. Pw.136 is the Manager of the Ambassador Hotel in Trichur and Pw.137 a watchman in that hotel. Ext. P158 is a register maintained in the hotel. Ext. P158(a) is an entry in it. Accused No.1 stayed in the hotel from December 6 to 8, 1968 in the assumed name of Sankaran Kutty. 27. Pw.83 is a person employed in the Clarion Macann Advertising Agency in Madras. His wife is employed in the Madras Telephone Exchange. They stay in Royapettah. Pw.83 was a student for B. A. in the Tellicherry Brennen College. Accused No.2 was then his classmate. On December 6, 1968 accused No.2 went to the office of Pw.83 in Madras and told him that he was expecting money from home but had not got it. His wife is employed in the Madras Telephone Exchange. They stay in Royapettah. Pw.83 was a student for B. A. in the Tellicherry Brennen College. Accused No.2 was then his classmate. On December 6, 1968 accused No.2 went to the office of Pw.83 in Madras and told him that he was expecting money from home but had not got it. Thereafter saying that he had to go to Calcutta he asked for financial assistance from Pw.83. Accused No.2 confessed to him during their conversation that he had taken part in the attack on the Tellicherry Police Station and that he was keeping away from the Police. 28. Pw.22 is the Manager of the Minerva Printers at Tellicherry. Ext. P56 is a political leaflet entitled "Spring thunder breaks over India." Ext. P53 is the manuscript copy of the book, Ext. P55, entitled 'Bankruptcy of Modern Soviet Revisionism.' It was accused No.2 who took for printing to the press these books which were recovered from the Minerva Printers under the mahazar, Ext. P52. 29. Pw.24 is the brother-in-law of accused No.2. Pw.67 is the Sub Registrar at Tellicherry. Ext. P94 is a book maintained in his office. It is seen from it and the evidence of Pws.24 and 67 that on November 4, 1968 accused No.2 sold all the movables in the Kepees Tutorials and its good will to Pw.24. 30. Pw.25 is the principal of another Tutorial College, M. V. Tutorial College, Tellicherry. On two occasions he purchased some of the furniture like bench, desk and black-board from Kepees Tutorials for Rs. 400/-, the second being in November 1968. 31. Pw.77 is a mazdoor in Tellicherry. For about 10 years past he had been sleeping during nights on the verandah of the Pavilion inside the Stadium Ground. On the night of the Tellicherry incident he was sleeping there with a friend, Chandran by name. At or about 2.30 a.m. that night when he happened to wake up from sleep he saw about 150 persons including accused No.2 near the Pavilion. Thinking that they were holding a meeting he continued to lie on the verandah and slept. Next morning he saw pants, sticks, flags and other things lying on the Stadium Ground. 32. Pw.82 is an employee in the ration shop of one Chandra Prakash Nadar in the ground floor of the building where Kepees Tutorials was being conducted. Thinking that they were holding a meeting he continued to lie on the verandah and slept. Next morning he saw pants, sticks, flags and other things lying on the Stadium Ground. 32. Pw.82 is an employee in the ration shop of one Chandra Prakash Nadar in the ground floor of the building where Kepees Tutorials was being conducted. Two days prior to the incident Pw.82 saw people in large numbers coming to the Kepees Tutorials and going away from there and on enquiry he was told that it was workers in Ganesh Beedi Works who were going to Kepees Tutorials. On the night prior to the occurrence he saw a car coming and stopping there. There were two or three bundles in it. Pointed ends of the things inside those bundles were seen outside. After some time he saw two or three more bundles being put in the car and the car leaving the place. 33. Pw.84 belongs to Thiruppur. He and accused No.2 were working together, he as a Section Officer in the P.W.D. and accused No.2 as the Head Master of the Government High School, at Kalpeni in the Lacadive Islands, in 1965. In the last week of November 1968 accused No.2 went to the house of Pw.84 in Thiruppur and stayed with him for two days. Pw.84 told accused No.2 at that time that he had come after quarrelling with his wife and that the police may be searching for him. 34. Pw.91 is the Manager and Pw.130 the room boy in the Grand Lodge at Madras where accused No.2 stayed from December 11 to 16 in 1968 under the assumed name of Venugopalan. - 35. Pw.147 is the owner of the building where the Kepees Tutorials is conducted. It was on a monthly rent of Rs. 230/- that the first floor was taken on rent from him by accused No.2. Rent was in arrears from August 1967 and Pw.147 obtained a decree against accused No.2 for eviction. 36. Pw.78 is a Muslim fisherman at Tellicherry. On the night of occurrence as it was the beginning of the religious fast he took meals from the Kamaliya Hotel near the police station at 3 a.m. After taking meals when he was paying, for it he saw about 300 persons including accused No.2, going in a group, some of them armed with spears and sticks, towards the police station. Accused No.2 was a person well known to Pw.78 because it was on the verandah of the ground floor of the building where the Kepees Tutorials was conducted that he used to repair his fishing nets. After the group went in the direction of the police station he heard a gun shot. Thereafter he saw persons in the group running away. 37. Accused No.8 was also one who was expelled from the C. P.M. He also took part in the discussion at the Kepees Tutorials on November 17, 1968. Pw.27 is his wife. Her evidence as well as that of Pw.68, a Sub Registrar, shows that accused No.8 executed two days prior to the Tellicherry incident a gift deed in respect of his properties in favour of Pw.27. Ext. P96 is a copy of it. Four days before the execution of that document accused No.8 who was an employee in a bank, of which Pw.35 is the Manager, resigned his job. The money due to him from the bank after resignation was received by Pw.27. Pw.80 saw him along with accused Nos. 9 and 10, coming in a rikshaw at Moozhikkara. His house was searched on January 10, 1969. Ext. P145 is the search list. Item 7 in it is a notice saying that the essence of Mao teachings was mass struggle and item 8 a printed statement saying that political power should be captured through the barrel of the gun and that every communist should know it. 38. Accused No.9 was formerly a police constable. For some time he was working in Ganesh Beedi Works under Pw.10. As a result of lock-out there he was thrown out of job. Pw.80 found him in the company of accused Nos. 8 and 9 at Moozhikkara on November 21, 1968. Pw.10 found him in, Mysore after the occurrence. Pw.79 is an employee in the orange shop of one Abu Haji. He saw accused No.9 among the persons running away from the side of the police station on the night of occurrence. Pw.87 is a writer in the Tellicherry Police Station. His evidence shows that accused No.9 had visited the Police Station four or five days prior to the occurrence enquiring about one Ravunni. Pw.228 is a lorry agent. At the time of the occurrence he was in the Kamaliya Hotel. Pw.87 is a writer in the Tellicherry Police Station. His evidence shows that accused No.9 had visited the Police Station four or five days prior to the occurrence enquiring about one Ravunni. Pw.228 is a lorry agent. At the time of the occurrence he was in the Kamaliya Hotel. After the occurrence he saw several persons including accused No.9 running away from the side of the police station. Pw.119 is a person who was cooking food for the group the object of which was attack on the Pulpally Police Station. He spoke to accused No.9 having helped him in cooking food and his having conducted study classes at Thettamala estate before the Tellicherry incident. 39. Accused No.10 was present at the discussions in the Kepees Tutorials on November 17, 1968. He was working as an accountant under Pw.34 till the first week of November. Thereafter he left his service. Ext. P159 is a 'Rebel publication' entitled "Indian People learn lessons from Telengana agitation". The evidence of Pw.139 shows that it was accused No.10 who got 10.00 copies of it printed from his press. Ext. P160 is the bill issued to him from the press. Pw.215 is the Managing Partner of another press. His evidence shows that in 1968 when there was Municipal Elections at Tellicherry accused No.10 got printed a notice exhorting abjuration of elections. Ext. P328 series are the accounts of Pw.215 evidencing the printing of the notice. 40. Ext. P130 is a confession made by accused No.57 to the Sub Magistrate, Pw.125, on November 29, 1968 implicating himself and accused Nos. 1, 2, 10, 13, 58 and 60. Therein he said that he and accused No.10 attended meetings in the Kepees Tutorials on two occasions, one about 1 1/2 months before the date of the confession and the other about 1 1/2 weeks before the Tellicherry incident. Both the meetings were addressed by accused Nos. 1 and 2. It was they who instigated accused No.57 and others to take part in the occurrence. Sticks and spears were collected by members of the party of accused No.57 and taken to Kepees Tutorials as directed by the leaders. On November 20, 1968 accused Nos. 1 and 2 called, them and told them that their enemies had come to know of them and therefore they should shift from there to Kunduchira. Sticks and spears were collected by members of the party of accused No.57 and taken to Kepees Tutorials as directed by the leaders. On November 20, 1968 accused Nos. 1 and 2 called, them and told them that their enemies had come to know of them and therefore they should shift from there to Kunduchira. It was in four groups that they all went in the direction of the Police Station on the night of occurrence. Accused No.13 was the leader of the group to which accused No.57 belonged. By about 2.30 in the night they reached the Stadium Ground. There they were all given leaflets and weapons. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 asked them to get ready. Thereafter they marched towards the police station. When persons in front were seen running back accused No.57 who wag at the back ran away from the place to his house. 41. Pw.19 is the Manager of the Sujatha Press. Accused No.11 had gone to his press for printing 1000 copies of a pamphlet. Ext. P47 is the bill book maintained by Pw.19. Page 35 of it shows that it was accused No.11 who gave the order for printing for the "Rebel Publications' at Calicut. pw.23 saw accused No.11 in Kepees Tutorials on November 19, 1968 along with some other accused. Pw.54 is a blacksmith. On November 19, 1968 at or about 8 A.M. accused No.11 went to him with seven canes and placed an order with him for fitting them with iron caps. They were delivered back to accused No.11 with iron caps on the next day at 10 A.M. They are M.Os. 13 and 14 series. Pw.76 met accused No.11 at Kepees Tutorials on November 20, 1968 in the noon. Accused No.11 and others who were then there had brought sticks and spears wrapped in gunny bags. 42. Pw.55 is a blacksmith living about two or three furlongs away from the house of accused No.13. Accused No.13 placed an order with him for four spears and a knife. Pw.55 made them for accused No.13 and delivered them, M.Os. 15 series and M. O.16, to accused No.13 two or three days before the Tellicherry incident. Pw.81 who is a hawker saw after the occurrence some persons running away from the side of the Police Station and among them he identified accused No.13. 43. Pw.128 is an attestor in the search list, Ext. 15 series and M. O.16, to accused No.13 two or three days before the Tellicherry incident. Pw.81 who is a hawker saw after the occurrence some persons running away from the side of the Police Station and among them he identified accused No.13. 43. Pw.128 is an attestor in the search list, Ext. P 136, prepared when certain articles were recovered from accused No.15 at the time of his arrest, on November 23, 1968 from Mahi. Items 9 to 13 in it are certain books and leaflets containing Maoist literature. Items 14 and 15 in the list are two letters separately marked as Exts. P137 and P138. Ext. P138 was a letter written by accused No.15 to one Vasu but not posted. In it he said that he was not writing where he was going, that probably by the time the letter reached him the matter may be clear, that their object was revolution and that in the flames of it all imperialists would be blown up. He requested that his family may not be informed of it. Ext. P137 was a letter addressed to accused No.6. Therein everything was directed to be kept confidential. 44. Exts. P212 and 213 are the wound certificates issued to accused Nos. 43 and 42 respectively. Accused No.43 had abrasions on right knee, left palm and right clavicle and accused No.42 Haematoma 1"x1" over the forehead, lacerated wound l"x 1/2" muscle deep across the left upper eye brow, multiple abrasions on right and left knees and tenderness on right upper arm, right palm and left thigh. Those injuries are consistent with their having been sustained when accused Nos. 42 and 43 fell down on the road after knocking against each other. According to accused Nos. 42 and 43 they sustained those injuries on account of torture by police after arrest. Ext. P300 is the remand report received by the Magistrate on November 22, 1968 itself. The endorsement made by him there shows that accused Nos. 42 and 43 had no complaint whatsoever about the treatment meted out to them by the police after arrest. 45. Pw.31 is a shop keeper. Accused No.57 was employed in his shop from 1958 onwards. He stopped attending the shop from November 19, 1968. 46. Pw.10 was a contractor in Ganesh Beedi Works. Accused No.58 who was working under him was subsequently thrown out of job. 45. Pw.31 is a shop keeper. Accused No.57 was employed in his shop from 1958 onwards. He stopped attending the shop from November 19, 1968. 46. Pw.10 was a contractor in Ganesh Beedi Works. Accused No.58 who was working under him was subsequently thrown out of job. Pw.52 is a blacksmith. About three weeks prior to the Tellicherry incident accused No.44 had come to his shop and ordered for four iron spears. It was accused No.58 who came to him later, four or five days prior to the Tellicherry incident and took delivery of them, M.O. 11 series. They were recovered from the road near the Police Station when the scene mahazar, Ext. P139, was prepared. 47. Pw.53 is a carpenter. Accused Nos. 60 and 62 are his neighbours. They went to him and got the chisel, M.O. 12, from him four days prior to the occurrence. That chisel was recovered from the road near the police station when Ext. P139 was prepared. 48. Pws.9 and 11 were contractors in the Genesh Beedi Works. Their evidence shows that accused Nos. 63 and 65 were workers there and that on the date of occurrence they were unemployed. 49. Accused No.77 was a teacher in the Madayi Government High School. Pw.33 was he Headmaster of that school. In November 1968 accused No.77 applied for 31 days leave on half pay. The application, Ext. P65, was dated November 19, 1968. By the order, Ext. P66, it was granted the next day. 50. Pw.30 is the Headmaster of the Kalliasseri Government High School where accused No.78 war working as an Assistant. Ext. P51 is an application filed by accused No.78 for leave on the dates between November 25 and 30, 1968. The school was not working from November 20 to 25, 1968 because of the students' strike. 51. Accused No.90 was one of the extremists expelled from the C. P.M. Pw.17, the owner of the Dhanalakshmi Press in Olavanna, who knows accused Nos. 1, 90" and 91, proved the signatures of accused Nos. 90 and 91 in the manuscripts, Exts. P41 and P42 and they signed them on behalf of the 'Marxist publications' and 'Rebel publications'. 52. Pw.15 is the owner of the Navabharatham press. The book, Ext. P27, was recovered from his Press. 1, 90" and 91, proved the signatures of accused Nos. 90 and 91 in the manuscripts, Exts. P41 and P42 and they signed them on behalf of the 'Marxist publications' and 'Rebel publications'. 52. Pw.15 is the owner of the Navabharatham press. The book, Ext. P27, was recovered from his Press. Therein it is stated that students had already entered the Naxalbari movement and that all wanted speedy implementation of the programme of the M. L. M. 1000 copies of Ext. P27 were printed in the press. It was accused No.1 who entrusted Pw.15 with the printing of Ext. P27. The copies were taken from Pw.15 by accused No.91. Pw.23 found accused No.91 in Kepees Tutorials on November 19, 1968 along with others. Ext. P59 is the search list prepared when the house of accused No.91 was searched on December 15, 1968. Several books were recovered from there and some of them were quotations from the teachings of Mao published by the Marxist Publications, Calicut. 53. The trial Judge has relied upon the omission of Pw.63 to mention in the first information statement the names of the accused whom the witnesses identified except the names of accused Nos. 42 and 43 to show that they had not really been identified at the time the first information statement was recorded. No doubt Pw.64 in one portion of his deposition spoke to his having told Pw.63 on his return to the police station about the names of two persons whom he identified. But in another portion he admitted that he did not remember having told Pw.63 about their names. The consistent evidence of all the other witnesses was that there was no discussion between them and Pw.63 before the first information statement was recorded. In the first information statement it is stated that although Pw.63 and some of his men could identify some of the culprits none knew their names. The names of accused Nos. 42 and 43 were given in the first information statement itself. So the mention there that none knew the names of the accused must have been with reference to the names of the other accused. The names of accused Nos. 42 and 43 were given in the first information statement itself. So the mention there that none knew the names of the accused must have been with reference to the names of the other accused. When Pw.63 was asked about it he said that two armed reserve constables, not examined in the case, were with him when he travelled in the van in different parts of the town in search of the culprits and that it was with reference to them that he happened to say that none knew the names of the accused. There was no time also for him to discuss with the officers in the police station before he started recording the first information statement. He came back in the van at 5-30 a.m. and the moment he came back he started recording the statement. His explanation is perfectly acceptable. 54. It is true that the facts that accused No.1 tried to untie the knot, that accused No.43 fell down and that accused Nos. 42 and 43 sustained injuries when they fell down were also not mentioned in the first information statement. But no importance can be attached to these omissions because the purpose of a first information statement is only to set the law motion and it is unnecessary to give in it an elaborate account of everything that had happened. The details can be gathered and filled up only at the investigation stage. 55. On the first information report the Magistrate has initialled at 10 p.m. on November 22. 1968. From that it was argued that there was delay in sending it to him. If it was purposeful delay on the part of Pw.63 to shape a case, there was no difficulty for him to give the names of many of the accused in it because by 10 p.m. the Circle Inspector who started investigation had already questioned all the witnesses and they had given him the names of the accused they identified. Pw.63 did not do anything of that kind. In fact he mentioned in the first information statement only facts about which he had direct knowledge. He said that as soon as the report was prepared he directed it being sent to the Magistrate. No doubt the report has to be sent to the Magistrate without delay. Pw.63 did not do anything of that kind. In fact he mentioned in the first information statement only facts about which he had direct knowledge. He said that as soon as the report was prepared he directed it being sent to the Magistrate. No doubt the report has to be sent to the Magistrate without delay. But that is in order that he may have early information of the offence and be in a position to act, if necessary, under S.159 of the Criminal Procedure Code by directing an investigation or by proceeding to hold a preliminary enquiry himself or by directing a Magistrate subordinate to him to hold such enquiry or otherwise to dispose of the case. Receipt of the report by the Magistrate is not a condition precedent to the investigation of the case by the Police. In Pala Singh v. State of Punjab (AlR. 1972 SC. 2679) the Supreme Court observed: "Shri Kohli strongly criticised the fact that the occurrence report contemplated by S.157, Cr. P.C. was sent to the magistrate concerned very late. Indeed, this challenge, like the argument of interpolation and belated despatch of the inquest report, was developed for the purpose of showing that the investigation was not just, fair and forthright and, therefore, the prosecution case must be looked at with great suspicion. This argument is also unacceptable. No doubt, the report reached the magistrate at about 6 p.m. S.157, Cr. P.C. requires such report to be sent forthwith by the police officer concerned to a magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence. This is really designed to keep the magistrate informed of the investigation of such cognizable offence so as to be able to control the investigation and if necessary to give appropriate direction under S5. 159. But when we find in this case that the F.I.R. was actually recorded without delay and the investigation started on the basis of that F.I.R. and there is no other infirmity brought to our notice, then, however improper or objectionable the delayed receipt of the report by the magistrate concerned it cannot by itself justify the conclusion that the investigation was tainted and the prosecution insupportable." The delay of a few hours in the Magistrate initialling the report is in the circumstances of the case of no consequence. 56. In chief-examination Pw.63 said that he caught hold of accused No.42 when he fell down. 56. In chief-examination Pw.63 said that he caught hold of accused No.42 when he fell down. In cross-examination he said that accused Nos. 42 and 43 knocked against each other when they ran, that both of them then fell down, that by the time he caught hold of accused No.42 accused No.43 had risen up and run and that after catching hold of accused No.42 and handing him over to a constable he ran after accused No.43 and caught hold of him. This is relied upon by the trial Judge as a contradiction in the evidence of Pw.63. In chief-examination Pw.63 in fact spoke as to how accused No.42 happened to fall down. The details of it happened to be given by him only when asked about it in cross-examination. There is really no contradiction. 57. Pw.64 said that the person who threw the explosive substances at him was a short man and identified the second accused as that person. But the second accused before court was not a short person. This was given by the trial Judge as a circumstance to disbelieve Pw.64. The expressions 'short' and 'tall' are comparative. It was immediately after saying that the first accused who tried to untie the knot at the gate was a tall man that Pw.64 said in his deposition that the second accused who threw the explosive substance at him was a short-man. What, therefore, Pw.64 meant when he said that the second accused was a short man was only that compared to the first accused the second accused was short. Therefore from the mere description by Pw.64 of the second accused as a short man it cannot be taken that his identification of the second accused is not reliable. 58. Pw.65 said that he had told none about the name of the accused whom he identified before the Circle Inspector questioned him and that although he knew the names of the accused he identified, he did not know their house names or the names of their parents. 58. Pw.65 said that he had told none about the name of the accused whom he identified before the Circle Inspector questioned him and that although he knew the names of the accused he identified, he did not know their house names or the names of their parents. As the Circle Inspector came to the place at 6 a.m. and started investigation there was nothing improbable in he being the first person to whom Pw.65 spoke about the names of the accused he identified although the questioning of him by the Circle Inspector took place only at 5 p.m. There is also nothing strange in a witness knowing the names of some persons but not their house names or the names of their parents. 59. Pw.65 said that he entered the names of the accused whom he identified in his note book within five minutes of the occurrence. The trial Judge has remarked that that note book is not forthcoming. When there was direct evidence about his identification and if that was reliable it was unnecessary to produce the note book. If the court had any doubt about it the court could have called for it. Without doing anything of that kind the drawing of an adverse inference against the prosecution for the mere non-production of the note book does not appear to be justified. 60. Pw.66 mentioned the names of the accused whom he identified. He said that although he had not talked with them he knew their names from others and that he could not say who those others were. From that the trial Judge says that his identification is not reliable. It is not an unusual thing for a man to know the names of some persons even if he has not talked with them and even if he cannot say after a long lapse of time who were the persons who mentioned their names to him. No doubt in the committal court Pw.66 wrongly identified accused No.60 to be accused No.58, but that has no importance because neither accused No.58 nor accused No.60 was one of the persons he identified in his evidence at the trial. 61. As regards some of the accused whom they identified at the trial the witnesses other than Pw.63 said that they knew their names even before. But their names were not mentioned in the first information statement. 61. As regards some of the accused whom they identified at the trial the witnesses other than Pw.63 said that they knew their names even before. But their names were not mentioned in the first information statement. This was relied upon by the trial Judge to discredit those witnesses. The Judge was in error in doing so. The first information statement is not a piece of substantive evidence. It is inadmissible for the purpose of proving the truth or falsity of the facts mentioned and omitted to be mentioned in it. The only use to which it can be put is corroboration under S.157 or contradiction under S.145 of the Evidence Act. For those purposes it can be used only for or against the witness who gave that statement because it is a prior statement only so far as he is concerned. It cannot be used against other witnesses. That it could be used only to corroborate or contradict the evidence of its maker and no further was stated thus by the Supreme Court in Sheikh Hasib (alias) Tubarak v. State of Bihar (1971) II SCWR. 446: "The first information report, we may point out, does not constitute substantive evidence though its importance as conveying the earliest information regarding the occurrence cannot be doubted. It can, however, only be used as a previous statement for the purpose of either corroborating its maker under S.157 of the Indian Evidence Act or for contradicting him under S.145 of that Act. It cannot be used for the purpose of corroborating or contradicting other witnesses." 62. It is said that the remand reports were not accompanied by extracts of case diary. If that was the case the Magistrate could have insisted on their production. He did not do it. What is usually done is that instead of taking extracts the police officer takes the case diary itself to Magistrate for his perusal. In such a case taking of an extract and production of that also before the Magistrate is a mere formality. In the remand report, Ext. P300, Magistrate has made an endorsement that a prima facie case had been made out. He could not have made it if the case diary had not been produced before him. Further even if case diary extracts do not accompany remand reports it is only an irregularity and it does not in any way vitiate the trial. P300, Magistrate has made an endorsement that a prima facie case had been made out. He could not have made it if the case diary had not been produced before him. Further even if case diary extracts do not accompany remand reports it is only an irregularity and it does not in any way vitiate the trial. 63. It is then said that the evidence of the witnesses was that when the first accused was trying to untie the knot made with the rope at the gate he had in his hand a chopper and that that was not likely because instead of trying to untie the knot at the time he would then have cut the rope with the chopper. There was nothing improbable in his having tried to untie the knot at that time instead of cutting the rope with the chopper. He may have had his own reasons for not cutting the rope at the time. 64. It was argued that in riot cases where large number of offenders were involved none could be convicted unless he was identified at least by two witnesses. The decision in Masalti v. State of U. P. (AIR. 1965 S.C. 802) was pressed into service in this connection. No such invariable rule has been laid down there. In that case there Were 12 eye witnesses. The trial judge believed all of them and convicted 35 accused persons finding that they were all members of an unlawful assembly. In appeal the Allahabad High Court disbelieved two of the witnesses but believed the remaining 10 and after acquitting seven accused persons confirmed the conviction of the remaining 28. The High Court in acquitting seven accused persons adopted the mechanical test of finding an accused guilty only if four or more witnesses gave a consistent account against him. When the correctness of this test was challenged, the Supreme Court said: "Mr. Sawhney also urged that the test applied by the High Court in convicting the appellants is mechanical. He argues that under the Indian Evidence Act, trustworthy evidence given by a single witness would be enough to convict an accused person whereas evidence given by half a dozen witnesses which is not trustworthy would not be enough to sustain the conviction. Sawhney also urged that the test applied by the High Court in convicting the appellants is mechanical. He argues that under the Indian Evidence Act, trustworthy evidence given by a single witness would be enough to convict an accused person whereas evidence given by half a dozen witnesses which is not trustworthy would not be enough to sustain the conviction. That, no doubt is true; but where a criminal court has to deal with evidence pertaining to the commission of an offence involving a large number of offenders and a large number of victims, it is usual to adopt the test that the conviction could be sustained only if it is supported by two or three or more witnesses who give a consistent account of the incident. In a sense, the test may be described as mechanical; but it is difficult to see how it can be treated as irrational or unreasonable. Therefore, we do not think that any grievance can be made by the appellants against the adoption of this test. If at all the prosecution may be entitled to say that the seven accused persons were acquitted because their cases did not satisfy the mechanical test of four witnesses, and if the said test had not been applied, they might as well have been convicted. It is, no doubt, the quality of the evidence that matters and not the number of witnesses who give such evidence. But, sometimes it is useful to adopt a test like the one which the High Court has adopted in dealing with the present case." The persons who got the benefit of the application of the test were the seven accused persons who were acquitted by the High Court and there was no appeal by the State from their acquittal. The Supreme Court after saying that if at all any one was aggrieved by the application of the test it was the prosecution observed that although the test was mechanical it could not be said to be irrational or unreasonable. The rule of general application that it was the quality of evidence that mattered and not the number of witnesses was reiterated there. It was thereafter that it was said that sometimes it may be useful to adopt a test like the mechanical 6ne adopted by the High Court. I stress the word "sometimes" used there. The rule of general application that it was the quality of evidence that mattered and not the number of witnesses was reiterated there. It was thereafter that it was said that sometimes it may be useful to adopt a test like the mechanical 6ne adopted by the High Court. I stress the word "sometimes" used there. The test referred to there is useful only some times and in some cases. The facts of the case before the Supreme Court were peculiar. There were criminal proceedings between the party of the accused and the party of the deceased for several years almost without interruption. Most of the witnesses were partisan and the account that they gave in court of the incident was substantially in the same terms. Besides victims were many. Five members of the same family were murdered. Except with regard to one accused none of the witnesses gave particular parts in respect of the overt acts attributed to the assailants. It was in such circumstances that the Supreme Court approved the mechanical test adopted by the High Court but guardedly saying at the same time that sometimes it may be useful, implying thereby that it is not an invariable rule of general application. 65. Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest said in Reg. v. Hester (1972) 3 WLR. 910 : "The accumulated experience of courts of law, reflecting accepted general knowledge of the ways of the world, has shown that there are many circumstances and situations in which it is unwise to found settled conclusions on the testimony of one person alone. The reasons for this are diverse. There are some suggestions which can readily be made but which are only with more difficulty rebutted. There may in some cases be motives of self-interest, or of self-exculpation, or of vindictiveness. In some situations the straight line of truth is diverted by the influences of emotion or of hysteria or of alarm or of remorse. Sometimes it may be that owing to immaturity or perhaps to lively imaginative gifts there is no true appreciation of the gulf that separates truth from falsehood. It must, therefore be sound policy to have rules of law or of practice which are designed to avert the peril that findings of guilt may be insecurely based. Sometimes it may be that owing to immaturity or perhaps to lively imaginative gifts there is no true appreciation of the gulf that separates truth from falsehood. It must, therefore be sound policy to have rules of law or of practice which are designed to avert the peril that findings of guilt may be insecurely based. So it has come about that certain statutory enactments impose the necessity in some instances of having more than one witness before there can be a conviction. So also has it come about that in other instances the courts have given guidance in terms which have become rules. Included in such cases are those in which charges of sexual offences are made. It has long been recognised that juries should in such cases be told that there are dangers in convicting on the uncorroborated testimony of a complainant though they may convict if they are satisfied that the testimony is true. As this is no more idle process it follows that there are no set words which must be adopted to express the warning. Rather must the good sense of the matter be expounded with clarity and in the setting of a particular case. Also included in the types of cases above referred to are those in which children are witnesses. The common sense and the common experience of men and women on a jury will guide them when they have to decide what measure of credence and dependence they should accord to evidence which they have heard. All the rules which have been evolved are in accord with the central principle of our criminal law that a person should only be convicted of a crime if those in whose hands decision rests are sure that guilt has been established. In England it has not been laid down that such certainty ought never to be reached in dependence upon the testimony of but one witness. It has, however, been recognised that the risk or danger of a wrong decision being reached is greater in certain circumstances than in others. In England it has not been laid down that such certainty ought never to be reached in dependence upon the testimony of but one witness. It has, however, been recognised that the risk or danger of a wrong decision being reached is greater in certain circumstances than in others. It is where those circumstances exist that rules based upon experience, wisdom and common sense have been introduced." Even there Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest said that there was no rule of English law that a definite conclusion could not be reached based on the testimony of a solitary witness and that it all depended on circumstances and situations. That was a case of indecent assault and the witnesses who were victims of it were child witnesses. There is no statutory provision or rule of practice in England or here imposing necessity of having more than one witness before there can be a conviction in riot cases. 66. In re Arulanandu AIR. 1952 Mad. 267 was a case where a learned single Judge of the Madras High Court enunciated certain principles for application to cases of rioting, one of which being that an accused identified only by one witness and not proved to have done any overt act should be acquitted giving him the benefit of doubt. His Lordship said: "Before proceeding further, in general interests, and after hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor, I enunciate five fundamental principles which a court will have to observe in such cases of mammoth rioting which are becoming more and more common in our country nowadays........................ The third is that it will be very unsafe in the case of such large mobs of rioters to rely on the evidence of a single witness speaking to the presence of an accused in that mob for convicting him; especially, when no overt act of violence or shouting of slogan, or organising the mob, or giving orders to it, or marching in procession with it, or other similar thing is proved against him. In a big riot, like this by hundreds of persons, it is very easy even to mistake one person for another, and implicate honestly really innocent persons, and even to mistake persons seen elsewhere as having been seen there. In a big riot, like this by hundreds of persons, it is very easy even to mistake one person for another, and implicate honestly really innocent persons, and even to mistake persons seen elsewhere as having been seen there. An ordinary rule of caution and prudence will require that an accused identified only by one witness, and not proved to have done any overt act, etc., as described above, should be acquitted, by giving him the benefit of the doubt." That was also a case of rioting. In the rioting there, about 1000 persons took part. Out of them only 122 were put up for trial. The trial Judge convicted 73 of them and acquitted the rest. Out of those 73 the High Court in appeal confirmed the conviction of only 43 and acquitted the rest applying the principle that none of the accused could be convicted unless at least two witnesses spoke, about his participation. According to the learned Judge who disposed of the appeal the principle he enunciated was of general application and applied to all riot cases. 67. In cases where there is no dearth of witnesses or in cases where all the witnesses are partly reliable and partly unreliable or are persons of admittedly bad character or are accomplices or persons in the nature of accomplices or are children or victims of sexual assault insistence on plurality of witnesses implicating an accused for convicting him may or may not result in injustice, depending on the circumstances of each case. But it would certainly result in injustice where only one eye witness is available and he is a wholly reliable person. It is not seldom that crimes are committed in the presence of only one witness. There are sparsely populated large hilly tracts in this vast country., Houses there are not clustered as in urban areas. Sometimes there is long distance between one house and another. In some of those houses it is not unusual to find only one occupant. If an attack is made on an occupant of that house or his property during nights the only witness may be the occupant of the house and he may be a wholly reliable person. Sometimes there is long distance between one house and another. In some of those houses it is not unusual to find only one occupant. If an attack is made on an occupant of that house or his property during nights the only witness may be the occupant of the house and he may be a wholly reliable person. If the principle laid down in the Madras decision is to be followed the assailants whom the occupant of that house identified have to be acquitted if he is not able to mention specifically the overt acts on the part of each accused whom he identified. With great respect it is difficult to accept the proposition laid down In re Arulanandu (AIR. 1952 Mad. 267) as a rule of general application. It is not a rule of the thumb fit for indiscriminate mechanical use in all riot cases. Otherwise all cases where the evidence of a single witness alone is available in proof of the crime would go unpunished and rioters can with impunity attack persons living alone in sparsely populated areas. As held by the Supreme Court in Masalti v. State of U. P. (AIR. 1965 SC. 202) insistence on plurality of witnesses with regard to identification of the assailants in riot cases may be useful only sometimes but the general rule is that evidence is to be weighed and not counted. The Supreme Court has in Vadivelu Thevar v. The State of Madras (AIR. 1957 SC. 614= 1957 SCR. 981) held that as a general rule a court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness though uncorroborated and that one creditable witness outweighs the testimony of a number of other witnesses of indifferent character. Even for grave crimes conviction can be entered on the evidence of even a solitary witness if his evidence is reliable. An accused in a riot case cannot claim acquittal merely because the mechanical test of there being not more than one witness to testify to his identification is not satisfied. 68. It was contended that Ext. P130 was exculpatory in character and so it could not be used against co-accused under S.30 of the Evidence Act. The word confession is not defined in the Evidence Act. The Privy Council said in Pakala Narayana Swami v. Emperor (AIR. 1939 PC. 68. It was contended that Ext. P130 was exculpatory in character and so it could not be used against co-accused under S.30 of the Evidence Act. The word confession is not defined in the Evidence Act. The Privy Council said in Pakala Narayana Swami v. Emperor (AIR. 1939 PC. 47) that: ".........it would not be consistent with the natural use of language to construe confession as a statement by an accused suggesting inference that he committed the crime." and that: "a confession must either admit in terms the offence or at any rate substantially all the facts which constitute the offence." The sure test to find out whether a statement of an accused amounts to a confession is to see whether based on that statement alone without any extraneous evidence it would be possible to enter a conviction. Exhibit P. 130 satisfies that test. The facts in it already referred to clearly show that accused No.57 knew that it was for committing offences that he and the other persons with him marched to the Police Station during night. So on his own admission he was a member of an unlawful assembly. 69. Under S.30 of the Evidence Act it is in the discretion of the court to take into consideration the confession of one accused for being used against another. It can be used for purpose of corroboration. In order that it may be used against co-accused the confession should implicate the confessing person substantially to the same extent as it implicates the person against whom it is to be used because that alone is supposed to afford a guarantee for the truth of the statement. In Ext. P130 accused No.57 has implicated accused Nos. 1, 2, 10, 13, 58 and 60. It is not a self exculpatory statement. On the other hand it is an inculpatory statement not falling, short of being an admission of guilt. It can therefore be used against the co-accused whom accused No.57 has implicated in it. 70. According to counsel for the accused Pws.76 and 85 are accomplices, their evidence cannot be accepted without corroboration and the evidence of one accomplice cannot be used for corroboration of a fellow accomplice. Although the word 'accomplice' is not denned in the Evidence Act it is not difficult to find out who an accomplice is. 70. According to counsel for the accused Pws.76 and 85 are accomplices, their evidence cannot be accepted without corroboration and the evidence of one accomplice cannot be used for corroboration of a fellow accomplice. Although the word 'accomplice' is not denned in the Evidence Act it is not difficult to find out who an accomplice is. S.337 of the Criminal Procedure Code which deals with tender of pardon to accomplice mentions the person to whom pardon can be given as one supposed to have been directly or indirectly concerned in or privy to the offence. This is an indication that the word 'accomplice' is used as signifying a guilty associate or participant in the crime. He must have had a conscious hand in the criminal act. 71. Usually the evidence of an accomplice is accepted only with very great care. The reasons for that are not for to seek. An accomplice is a participator in crime and so an immoral person. He is a person who has betrayed his associates. Therefore at the first blush his is suspect evidence. Illustration (b) to S.114 of the Evidence Act reads thus: "The Court may presume (b) that an accomplice is unworthy of credit, unless he is corroborated in material particulars;" But S.133 of the Evidence Act reads: "An accomplice shall be a competent witness against an accused person; and conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice." It may seem that the two provisions are conflicting but really that is not so. There is nothing in illustration (b) to S.114 to show that an accomplice is unworthy of credit. What it says is only that unless he is corroborated in material particulars the court may presume that he is unworthy of credit. It is only one of the several instances of "may presume" and under S.4 of the Evidence Act the court in its discretion may or may not call for proof of those facts. In other words it is not a presumption incapable of rebuttal. What effect is to be given to the presumption must be determined by the circumstances of each case. There may be cases where it may be from lofty ideals that an accomplice offers to depose against his associates. In other words it is not a presumption incapable of rebuttal. What effect is to be given to the presumption must be determined by the circumstances of each case. There may be cases where it may be from lofty ideals that an accomplice offers to depose against his associates. Human mind is often times full of doubts as to what is good and what is bad and full of conflicts as to whether an act should or should not be done. Within oneself eternal conflict goes on between good and bad elements and not infrequently noble thoughts gain the upper hand. What a patriotic citizen considers to be good for the country today he may consider to be injurious tomorrow. There are political crimes, that is, crimes committed for achieving the ends or for the advancement of political parties. After committing such crimes if at a certain stage an accomplice thinks that the extra-constitutional and illegal acts indulged in by him would only encourage internal subversion or external aggression and that in the larger interest of the nation, for the security of the nation, he should reveal the secrets of the acts done by him in collaboration with others and offers to do so his conduct has to be hailed because he is a person who far from base motives has offered to depose imbued with noble ideas. His duty to the nation transcends his personal relationship. His personal interest is subordinated to or sacrificed for national interest. Such may sometimes be the conduct of an - accomplice in offering to reveal the secrets of the offence in social offences like food adulteration also. In such cases instead of despising his conduct it has to be praised and if he is a wholly reliable witness one would be justified in not drawing the presumption under S.114 of the Evidence Act and in not looking for corroboration to act on his evidence. But ordinarily that is not the case. 72. There is a widely prevalent notion that as accomplice evidence is suspect evidence there is some inherent defect in that evidence. That is not correct. Accomplice evidence does not suffer from any internal defect or invalidity. It is as good and as valid as any other piece of evidence. The law only says that one should be guarded before accepting it. That is not correct. Accomplice evidence does not suffer from any internal defect or invalidity. It is as good and as valid as any other piece of evidence. The law only says that one should be guarded before accepting it. After taking all safeguards like taking corroboratory evidence it is open to courts to act upon it. Corroboration is not for curing any defect in the testimony of the accomplice or to give validity to it. It is only to enable the court to have moral conviction about it being a true version in order to embolden the court to act upon it and not to validate it and once the court feels it can safely act on it, it is as valid, as good and as strong as any other evidence. 73. The provision in S.133 of the Evidence Act is an absolute rule of law and the rule in illustration (b) in S.114 only a rule of guidance. To put it another way the illustration is only a rule of practice and not a rule of law. But the practice laid down in the illustration is usually followed with the same rigour as if it were a rule of law. S.133 only says that it is not illegal to base a conviction solely on the evidence of an accomplice. It says nothing about the propriety of the conviction. The section does not go to the length of saying that a conviction based upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice is proper. In that view there is really no conflict between the provisions of S.133 and illustration (b) to S.114 of the Evidence Act. Anyway a note of caution is given in S.114 illustration (b) of the Evidence Act that the court should not ordinarily act on the evidence of an accomplice without corroboration on material particulars and that applies with equal force to witnesses in the nature of accomplices also. 74. The trial Judge has in support of the position that one accomplice cannot corroborate a fellow accomplice relied upon the decision in Rameshwar Kalyani Singh v. The State of Rajasthan (AIR. (39) 1952 SC. 54). That decision does not lay down the extreme proposition that the evidence of one accomplice is not available at all for corroboration of a fellow accomplice in any circumstance. (39) 1952 SC. 54). That decision does not lay down the extreme proposition that the evidence of one accomplice is not available at all for corroboration of a fellow accomplice in any circumstance. This was what the Supreme Court said in that case: ".........the corroboration must come from independent sources and thus ordinarily the testimony of one accomplice would not be sufficient to corroborate that of another. But of course the circumstances may be such as to make it safe to dispense with the necessity of corroboration and in those special circumstances a conviction so based would not be illegal." I stress the word "ordinarily" there. What was said there was that where corroboration was necessary the testimony of one accomplice would not be sufficient to corroborate the testimony of a fellow accomplice, but only ordinarily. The Supreme Court did not rule out there the use of evidence of one accomplice for corroboration of the evidence of a fellow accomplice in appropriate cases. 75. After giving illustrations (a) to (i) of cases where the court may presume facts it is stated thus in S.114 of the Evidence Act: "But the Court shall also have regard to such facts as the following in considering whether such maxims do or do not apply to the particular case before it. .... .... ... .... As to illustration (b) A crime is committed by several persons. A, B and C, three of the criminals, are captured on the spot and kept apart from each other. Each gives an account of the crime implicating D, and the account corroborates each other in such a manner as to render previous concert highly improbable. .... .... ... .... After quoting it the Supreme Court said in a later decision in Mohd. Hussain Umar Kochra v. K. S. Dalipsinghji, AIR. 1970 S. C. 45: "If several accomplices simultaneously and without previous concert give a consistent account of the crime implicating the accused the Court may accept the several statements as corroborating each other... ... ... ... ... ...But it must be established that the several statements of accomplices were given independently and without any previous concert ........" In view of this pronouncement by the Supreme Court the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Rengaswami Gounder v. State 1958 KLT. ... ... ... ... ...But it must be established that the several statements of accomplices were given independently and without any previous concert ........" In view of this pronouncement by the Supreme Court the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Rengaswami Gounder v. State 1958 KLT. 181 tending to show that in no circumstances can one accomplice corroborate a fellow accomplice can no longer be considered as laying down correct law. 76. A witness can be said to be incompetent to give evidence only when the Judge is bound as a matter of law to reject his testimony. Unless he is prevented from understanding the questions put to him or from giving rational answers by reason of tender years, extreme old age, disease whether of body or mind or any other cause of the same kind every witness, including an accomplice, is competent to testify under S.118 of the Evidence Act and S.133 of the Act specifically provides that an accomplice shall be a competent witness against an accused. Competency in the rule and incompetency the exception. Therefore irrespective of the question whether his evidence requires corroboration or not an accomplice is a competent witness. Granted the capacity to testify accomplices become admissible as witnesses, their evidence being relevant to the matters in dispute, and it is left to the Judge to estimate the truth of their depositions. 77. In Regina v. Campbell (1956) 2 Q. B. 432 it was a case of indecent assault. The appellant was a school master and the case against him was that he on various occasions sat beside the boys while they were doing their lesions and felt their private parts. Some of the assaulted boys gave evidence that they saw the appellant committing a similar act on other boys. They were young boys whose evidence required corroboration. As the evidence of each of them required corroboration the question was whether the evidence of one could be used to corroborate the other. Lord Goddard C. J. said: "......we may perhaps endeavour to give some guidance to courts who have from time to time to deal with cases of sexual assaults on children where the evidence of each child deals only with the assault on him or herself. Lord Goddard C. J. said: "......we may perhaps endeavour to give some guidance to courts who have from time to time to deal with cases of sexual assaults on children where the evidence of each child deals only with the assault on him or herself. In such cases it is right to tell a jury that because A says that the accused assaulted him, it is no corroboration of his evidence that B says that he also was the victim of a similar assault though both say it on oath. At the same time we think a jury may be told that a succession of these cases may help them to determine the truth of the matter provided they are satisfied that there is no collaboration between the children to put up a false story." This is an authority justifying mutual corroboration of witnesses, each of whom independently requires corroboration. 78. The usual argument advanced in support of the rule that one accomplice cannot corroborate a fellow accomplice is this. Accomplice evidence comes from a tainted source. If it is really of no value it makes no difference if there are more than one accomplice of the same type speaking to the same matter because the evidence of all of them is tainted. Therefore to argue that one accomplice can corroborate a fellow accomplice is fallacious. Lord Hewart C.J. went to the extent of describing it as an argument in a circle. Regarding mutual corroboration of the evidence of witnesses each of whom required corroboration Lord Hewart C. J. said in Rex v. Manser (1934) 25 Crl. App. R.18. "The argument for the prosecution is therefore an argument in a circle. Let it be granted that the evidence of Barbara (the elder child witness for the prosecution who may have been sworn or unsworn) has to be corroborated: it is corroborated by the evidence of Doris (the younger child witness who was unsworn). She, however, also needs to be corroborated. The answer is that she is corroborated by the evidence of Barbara, and that is called 'mutual corroboration'. She, however, also needs to be corroborated. The answer is that she is corroborated by the evidence of Barbara, and that is called 'mutual corroboration'. In truth and in fact the evidence of the girl Doris ought to have been obliterated altogether from the case, inasmuch as it was not corroborated." In the subsequent decision in Reg v. Hester (1972) 3 W. L. R.910, the House of Lords disapproved the "circular argument" doctrine enunciated by Lord Hewart C. J. in Rex v. Manser (1934) 25 Crl. App. R.18. Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest said in Reg v. Hester (1972) 3 W. L. R.910: "There was in Campbell's case no analysis or testing of the reasoning in Manser's case, 25 Cr.App. R.18. It is to that that I now turn. I have quoted above the relevant words in the judgment of the court. On the basis that in that case the girl Barbara gave evidence on oath then the wording of the judgment if it were applied to the present case would be as follows: "Now by statute the evidence of the little girl who had not been sworn was not to be accepted as evidence at all, unless it was corroborated. The argument for the prosecution is therefore an argument in a circle. Let it be granted that the evidence of Valerie has to be corroborated: it is corroborated by the evidence of June. She, however, also needs to be corroborated. The answer is that she is corroborated by the evidence of Valeric, and that is called 'mutual corroboration'. In truth and in fact the evidence of the girl June ought to have been obliterated altogether from the case, inasmuch as it was not corroborated. It clearly was not corroborated by the evidence of the girl Valeric." But why, I ask, is this an argument in a circle? If child A gives evidence and says "I saw X assault A" I would have thought that each corroborates the other. Each gives evidence implicating X. The evidence of each one is parallel with the evidence of the other. If child A gives evidence and says "I saw X assault A" I would have thought that each corroborates the other. Each gives evidence implicating X. The evidence of each one is parallel with the evidence of the other. The evidence of A of having been assaulted by X is confirmed by the evidence of B of having seen X assault A. The evidence of B of having seen X assault A is confirmed by the evidence of A of having been assaulted by X. One of the elements supplied by corroborative evidence is that there are two witnesses rather than one. The weight of the evidence is for the jury in cases where there is a trial by jury. It is for the jury to decide whether witnesses are creditworthy. If a witness is not, then the testimony of the witness must be rejected. The essence of corroborative evidence is that one creditworthy witness confirms what another creditworthy witness has said. Any risk of the conviction of an innocent person is lessened if conviction is based upon the testimony of more than one acceptable witness. Corroborative evidence in the sense of some other material evidence in support implicating the accused furnishes a safeguard which makes a conclusion more sure than it would be without such evidence. But to rule it out on the basis that there is some mutuality between that which confirms and that which is confirmed would be to rule it out because of its essential nature and indeed because of its virtue. The purpose of corroboration is not to give validity or credence to evidence which is deficient or suspect or incredible but only to confirm and support that which as evidence is sufficient and satisfactory and credible and corroborative evidence will only fill its role if it itself is completely credible evidence.": According to Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest one of the elements of corroboration itself is that there are two witnesses rather than one to speak about a matter and by allowing more than one to depose about it that element in corroboration is supplied. 79. In a still later case, Reg. v. Kilbourne (1973) 2 W.L.R. 254 , Lord Chancellor Hailsham of St. Marylebone after quoting the passage from the speech of Lord Hewart C. J. in Rex v. Manser (1934) 25 Crl. App. 79. In a still later case, Reg. v. Kilbourne (1973) 2 W.L.R. 254 , Lord Chancellor Hailsham of St. Marylebone after quoting the passage from the speech of Lord Hewart C. J. in Rex v. Manser (1934) 25 Crl. App. R.-18 wherein Lord Hewart C. J. described 'mutual corroboration' as an argument in a circle, said: "In Reg v. Hester (1972) 3 WLR. 910 , this House stigmatised this argument as fallacious. With respect I wholly agree and I hope no more will be heard of it" The Lord Chancellor also said there: "I do not........believe that there is a general rule that no persons who come within the definition of accomplice may be mutually corroborative." 80. The fact that these were not cases of accomplices but of children can make no difference because it is the self-same rule with regard to accomplices that applies to child witnesses and victims of sexual offences also. Lord Diplock said in Reg v. Hester (1972) 3 W.L.R. 910 : "Accomplices form the commonest category of witness whose evidence in criminal cases became subject to the common law requirement of a warn ing to the jury as to the danger of convicting upon it unless it was confirmed by evidence from some other source, and most of the reported cases are about the evidence of accomplices. But a similar rule of practice at common law grew up as to the evidence of two other categories of witnesses whose reliability either generally or as to particular matters was liable to be suspect for. other reasons. These were: children who, though old enough to understand the nature of an oath and so competent to give sworn evidence, are yet so young that their comprehension of events and of questions put to them or their own powers of expression may be imperfect; and persons, regardless of their age, who claim to have been victims of a sexual offence. The danger sought to be obviated by the common law rule in each of these three categories of witnesses is that the story told by the witness to the jury may be inaccurate for reasons not applicable to other competent witnesses, whether the risk be of deliberate inaccuracy, as in the case of accomplices, or unintentional inaccuracy, as in the case of children and some complainants in cases of sexual offences. What is looked for under the common law rule is confirmation from some other sources that the suspect witness is telling the truth in some part of his story which goes to show that the accused committed the offence with which he is charged." 81. If the evidence of an accomplice is unreliable no amount of corroborative evidence can save it because "corroboration is only required or afforded if the witness requiring corroboration or giving it is otherwise credible. If his evidence is not credible, a witness's testimony should be rejected and the accused acquitted, even if there could be found evidence capable of being corroboration in other testimony. Corroboration can only be afforded to or by a witness who is otherwise to be believed. If a witness's testimony falls of its own inanition the question of his needing, or being capable of giving corroboration does notarise." Similarly if his testimony is wholly reliable then corroborative evidence to confirm it is superfluous. But if it appears to be only not wholly reliable and there is no evidence of collusion between the accomplices the evidence of one may be useful for corroborating the others. The reasons for it are obvious. "One man might be telling an untruth", but "three or four are hardly likely to tell the same untruth unless they were conspiring together." "It is so easy to collect from a mass of ingredients, not one of which is by itself sufficient, a totality which will appear to contain what is missing. The probative force of all the acts together is much greater than one alone." If there is nothing in their evidence to suggest such a conspiracy or collaboration among them the evidence of accomplices can be used for mutual corroboration, at least for determining the truth of the evidence in general of the accomplice sought to be corroborated. 82. After narrating the origin of the practice of insisting on corroboration of the testimony of an accomplice Lord Diplock observed in Reg v. Hester (1972) 3 W.L.R. 910 that although there was a logical basis for it the historical justification for it had vanished and that mutual corroboration of accomplices was not prohibited. 82. After narrating the origin of the practice of insisting on corroboration of the testimony of an accomplice Lord Diplock observed in Reg v. Hester (1972) 3 W.L.R. 910 that although there was a logical basis for it the historical justification for it had vanished and that mutual corroboration of accomplices was not prohibited. Lord Diplock said: "The practices of giving the warning as to the desirability of confirmation from another source when more than one accomplice gave evidence implicating the accused seems to have originated in the opinion expressed by Littledale, J. inh is summing up in Reg. v. Noakes (1832) 5. C. & P. 326. It appears to have been based upon reason though Littledale. J. himself gave none rather than upon precedent which at that date had been confined to the evidence of a single accomplice. There is a continuing logical basis for the practice, for the reason which makes one accomplice a suspect witness, viz., the natural temptation to exculpate himself or to minimise the part which he played in a common crime, applies also to any other accomplice in the same crime, and there is every reason for them to concert together to tell the same false story. But there was in 1832 a possible further justification which no longer subsists. The accused himself was not a competent witness and so was debarred from giving evidence to contradict that of any accomplices as to matters which might well be known only to him and them. Furthermore, had they too been charged in the same indictment, as being accomplices, they might have been, they too would have been incompetent to give evidence. Common fairness, with which the Judges sought to mitigate the rigour of the law which debarred the accused from giving evidence in his own defence, may well have influenced Littledale J. and those who subsequently adopted the same practice to limit the advantage which the prosecution could obtain by choosing not to arraign accomplices in the same indictment as the accused. This practice, as well as that relating to a single accomplice, was accepted as "virtually equivalent to a rule of law," in Rex v. Baskerville (1916) 2 K. B. 658, 663. I would not wish to question it today, for although the possible historical justification for it has vanished the logical reason for it still remains. This practice, as well as that relating to a single accomplice, was accepted as "virtually equivalent to a rule of law," in Rex v. Baskerville (1916) 2 K. B. 658, 663. I would not wish to question it today, for although the possible historical justification for it has vanished the logical reason for it still remains. But the same reason does not apply where the reason for regarding each of the witnesses as suspect is different or, although the same, is not one which, makes it likely that they will concert together to tell the same false story. There is no case in the books to support the practice of treating the evidence of one suspect witness as incapable in law of corroborating the evidence of another, except where both suspect witnesses are accomplices in the strict sense of being participes criminis with the accused in the crime with which he is charged. Reg v. Campbell (1956) 2 Q.B. 432 is direct authority to the contrary. I conclude, therefore, that there is not now, and a fortiori was not in 1885, any common law rule of general application that evidence of a witness which is itself suspect for a reason which calls for a warning of the danger of convicting on it unless it is corroborated is incapable in law of amounting to corroboration of the evidence of another witness whose evidence is also suspect for the same or any other reason which calls for a similar warning." 83. There was some discussion at the bar about the extent or degree of evidence necessary to corroborate the evidence of an accomplice and the implication of the word "corroboration". According to Mr. K. Kunhirama Menon, counsel for some of the accused, corroboratory evidence had to satisfy the test of being beyond reasonable doubt. He is not right in that submission. I think there is a slight confusion there between the end and the means. It is only the guilt of the accused that has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Evidence is only a means to that end. It is unnecessary to prove each item of evidence beyond reasonable doubt. Testimony of an accomplice is only an item of evidence relied upon to prove the guilt of the accused. It is only the guilt of the accused that has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Evidence is only a means to that end. It is unnecessary to prove each item of evidence beyond reasonable doubt. Testimony of an accomplice is only an item of evidence relied upon to prove the guilt of the accused. Acceptance of the submission of counsel would be to go one more step further back and hold that the evidence adduced to corroborate the testimony of accomplice itself should be proved beyond reasonable doubt. That is not the degree of corroboration that is contemplated. The word 'corroboration' is only a dictionary word. It is not a technical word of art. In interpreting that word occurring in S.38 (1) of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, it is observed in Reg v. Hester ( (1972) 3 W.L.R. 910 ) that it is nothing other than evidence which 'confirms' or 'supports' or 'strengthens' other evidence. Lord Pearson said there: ".........the word "corroboration" in itself has no special legal meaning: it is connected with the Latin word "rubur" and the English word "robust" and it means "strengthen': perhaps the best synonym is "support". and Lord Diplock "An examination of the basic 19th century cases makes it plain that in the judgments "corroboration" was not used in any other sense than "confirmation". This is the expression actually used in six out of the seven cases approved in Rex v. Baskerville. Even in Rex v. Caskerville itself the terms "corroboration" and "confirmation" are used interchangeably. I conclude, therefore, that the word "corroborated" as used in the proviso to S.38(1) of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933 is not a term of legal art, and that the proviso bears no different meaning from that which it would have been if the word, commoner in ordinary usage, "confirmed" had been substituted for it." "It is, in short, only evidence which renders other evidence more probable. If so there is no essential difference between on the one hand 'corroboration' and on the other 'supporting evidence', or 'evidence which helps to determine the truth of the matter.' Each is evidence which makes the other evidence more probable." If the law should go further than this and require absolute certainty, it would exclude circumstantial evidence altogether but that is not the law. 84. 84. When it is stated that there should be confirmation of the evidence of accomplices by collateral evidence it is not meant that everything that the accomplice says should be spoken to by some other witness because if that were so there would be no need of an accomplice in any case. It is precisely because the case of the prosecution cannot be proved wholly and fully by independent evidence that the law permits the evidence of accomplice. In such a case to insist on corroboration on every material fact spoken to by the accomplice would practically be to rule out accomplice evidence altogether and that is not what is contemplated. Therefore the corroboration that is required in law is not corroboration of every particular in respect of which the accomplice gives his evidence. It need only be such as to lead the Judge to believe that the evidence of the accomplice is truthful and can be acted upon. With regard to corroboration of the evidence of accomplice the Supreme Court said in Seshanna Bhumanna Yadav v. State of Maharashtra (1970)11 SCWR. 76: "The nature of corroboration is that it is confirmatory evidence and it may consist of the evidence of second witness or of circumstances like the conduct of the person against whom it is required." and in K. K. Jadav v. State of Gujarat AIR. 1966 S.C. 821: "What the law requires in the case of an accomplice's evidence is that there should be such corroboration of the material parts of the story connecting the accused with the crime as will satisfy reasonable minds that the approver can be regarded as a truthful witness. The corroboration need not be direct evidence of the commission of the offence by the accused. If it is merely circumstantial evidence of his connection with the crime it will be sufficient and the nature of the corroboration will depend on and vary with the circumstances of each case." 85. On this part of the discussion about the evidence of accomplices, I should make these observations. There may be cases where circumstances may exist justifying courts not insisting on corroboration of accomplice evidence. In the case of accomplices who are shown to be wholly reliable witnesses no corroboration is necessary for acting on their evidence. It is not correct to say that in no case can one accomplice corroborate a fellow accomplice. There may be cases where circumstances may exist justifying courts not insisting on corroboration of accomplice evidence. In the case of accomplices who are shown to be wholly reliable witnesses no corroboration is necessary for acting on their evidence. It is not correct to say that in no case can one accomplice corroborate a fellow accomplice. In the absence of collusion between accomplices there is nothing wrong in using the evidence of one accomplice for corroborating the evidence of a fellow accomplice because plurality of witnesses is an element of corroboration and that can be supplied by a fellow accomplice. By "corroborative evidence" what is contemplated is only supporting evidence making the other evidence more probable. Furthermore, the corroboration that is required is only of a general kind rendering it probable that the story of the accomplice is true and that it can safely be acted upon. It need not be confirmation of every material circumstance. It need not be direct evidence also. It may even be circumstantial but as usual "working cumulatively, in geometrical progression and eliminating other possibilities." 86. Both Pws.76 and 85 spoke to the preparations in the Kepees Tutorials on November 19 and 20, 1968. Pw.76 was in the party that started from Stadium Ground. But Pw.85 was not in that party. Even Pw.76 ran away from the place as soon as he saw persons in front running back. It was because a person threatened him with dire consequences when he tried to get away from Kepees Tutorials that Pw.76 continued to be in the party. His evidence read as a whole shows that he had no conscious hand in the criminal act. No doubt Pws.76 and 85 took no step to inform the police of what they heard. But that would only be an unsocial act insufficient to make them accomplices. Assuming that they are accomplices or witnesses in the nature of accomplices even then the circumstances brought out in the case amply corroborate their evidence. 87. The omission to conduct an identification parade was adversely commented upon by the trial Judge. There is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code for conducting an identification parade. But there is nothing prohibiting it either. The substantive evidence at the trial is that of the witnesses in court. 87. The omission to conduct an identification parade was adversely commented upon by the trial Judge. There is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code for conducting an identification parade. But there is nothing prohibiting it either. The substantive evidence at the trial is that of the witnesses in court. The report of the test identification parade, the proper stage for conducting which is at the investigation stage, is useful only to corroborate that evidence. On the basis of the result of the identification test alone no court can convict an accused. Therefore without evidence at the trial identification at the investigation stage is useless. If the evidence at the trial of the identification made at the time of occurrence is reliable and convincing corroborative evidence of test identification at the investigation is redundant. Cases where there is evidence that the accused, were known to the witnesses even before the occurrence are instances where test identification is useless and unnecessary. Therefore it is not correct to say that in riot cases where several persons are involved omission to conduct an identification parade is fatal to the prosecution case. The Supreme Court said in Sheikh Hasib (alias) Tabarak v. State of Bihar (1971) II SCWR. 446: "As observed by this Court in Vaikantam Chandrappa v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR. 1960 S. C. 1340 the substantive evidence is the statement of a witness in court and the purpose of test identification is to test that evidence, the safe rule being that sworn testimony of the witness in court as to the identity of the accused who is a stranger to him, as a general rule, requires corroboration in the form of an earlier identification proceeding. If there is no substantive evidence about the appellant having been one of the dacoits when Pw.1 saw them on January 28, 1968 then the T. I. parade as against him cannot be of any assistance to the prosecution." in Budhsen v. State of U. P. AIR. 1970 SC. 1321: "Now, facts which establish the identity of an accused person are relevant under S.9 of the Indian Evidence Act. As a general rule, the substantive evidence of a witness is a statement made in Court. The evidence of mere identification of the accused person at the trial for the first time is from its very nature inherently of a weak character. As a general rule, the substantive evidence of a witness is a statement made in Court. The evidence of mere identification of the accused person at the trial for the first time is from its very nature inherently of a weak character. The evidence in order to carry conviction should ordinarily clarify as to how and under what circumstances he came to pick out the particular accused person and the details of the part which the accused played in the crime in question with reasonable particularity. The purpose of a prior test identification, therefore, seems to be to test and strengthen the trustworthiness of that evidence. It is accordingly considered a safe rule of prudence to generally look for corroboration of the sworn testimony of witnesses in Court as to the identity of the accused who are strangers to them, in the form of earlier identification proceeding. There may, however, be exceptions to this general rule, when, for example, the Court is impressed by a particular witness, on whose testimony it can safely rely, without such or other corroboration. The identification parades belong to the investigation stage. They are generally held during the course of investigation with the primary object of enabling the witnesses to identify persons concerned in the offence, who were not previously known to them. This serves to satisfy the investigating officers of the bona fides of the prosecution witnesses and also to furnish evidence to corroborate their testimony in Court. Identification proceedings in their legal effect amount simply to this, that certain persons are brought to jail or some other place and make statements either express or implied that certain individuals whom they point out are persons whom they recognise as having been concerned in the crime. They do not constitute substantive evidence. These parades are essentially governed by S.162, Criminal Procedure Code." and in Jadunath Singh & Anr. v. The State of U.P. ((1971) I SCWR. 151: "It seems to us that it has been clearly laid down by this Court in Parkash Chand Sogani v. The State of Rajasthan, Crl. A. No.92/1956 decided on 15-1-1957 that the absence of test identification in all cases is not fatal and if the accused person is well-known by sight it would be waste of time to put him up for identification. A. No.92/1956 decided on 15-1-1957 that the absence of test identification in all cases is not fatal and if the accused person is well-known by sight it would be waste of time to put him up for identification. Of course if the prosecution fails to hold an identification on the plea that the witnesses already knew the accused well and it transpires in the course of the trial that the witnesses did not know the accused previously, the prosecution would run the risk of losing its case. It seems to us that if there is any doubt in the matter the prosecution should hold an identification parade specially if an accused says that the alleged eye-witnesses did not know him previously. It may be that there is no express provision in the Code of Criminal procedure enabling an accused to insist on an identification parade but if the accused does make an application and that application is turned down and it transpires during the course of the trial that the witnesses did not know the accused previously as pointed out above the prosecution will unless there is some other evidence, run the risk of losing the case on this point." In the present case there was no application by the accused to conduct an identification parade. Many of the accused whom the witnesses identified in front of the police station were known to them even previously. Further all those witnesses were police officers and they would have seen those accused and become familiar with them after their arrest. In such a case if a test identification was conducted and the report was against the accused no value would have been given to it and it would have been useless as a piece of corroborative evidence. The explanation of the Circle Inspector, Pw.234, who conducted the investigation for not conducting a test identification parade in the case was that the witnesses knew most of the accused, and that he was sure that they would be able to correctly identify the accused. That is perfectly acceptable. Therefore the omission to conduct a test identification parade is of no moment in this case. 88. Murder of Pw.64 is not mentioned in the charge as a common object of the unlawful assembly. In the absence of that, it was contended, the other accused could not be made liable under S.149 of the IPC. That is perfectly acceptable. Therefore the omission to conduct a test identification parade is of no moment in this case. 88. Murder of Pw.64 is not mentioned in the charge as a common object of the unlawful assembly. In the absence of that, it was contended, the other accused could not be made liable under S.149 of the IPC. for the offence under S.307 of the IPC. for which the second accused was charged. There is no substance in this contention. The common object is specifically mentioned in the charge as attack on the police station. It is further stated in the charge that the conspiracy was to secure arms and ammunitions from the police stations after attacking the same. It is after all that that it is stated that for attempting to murder Pw.64 the second accused is liable under S.307 and the other accused are liable under S.307 read with S.149 of the IPC. Sentries at police stations are armed. Attacking a police station implies removal if necessary by force of all attempts at resistance by persons in it. Murder, if necessary, of persons inside the station is implied in the expression "attack on a police station". The accused were apprised of all the relevant facts in the charge. There is no defect in the charge. 89. Most of the persons who came in front of the police station were armed with deadly weapons. Ext. P139 is the scene mahazar prepared regarding the police station and its premises. M. Os. 11 to 16 and 125 to 194 were recovered when the scene mahazar was prepared. Among them are many choppers, daggers, spears and sticks. They were found strewn on the road in front of the police station. The attack was made at an untimely hour. It was a planned one. Persons who took part in the attack came in a body. Arms were collected from different persons before the march to the police station. Attempt was made to disable the sentry by throwing an explosive substance at him and to trespass into the police station after opening the gate. There is no doubt that those who came in front of the police station were members of an unlawful assembly. 90. In the committal court Pw.70 committed mistakes in identifying accused Nos. 69, 75 and 76 and Pw.71 in identifying accused No.60. There is no doubt that those who came in front of the police station were members of an unlawful assembly. 90. In the committal court Pw.70 committed mistakes in identifying accused Nos. 69, 75 and 76 and Pw.71 in identifying accused No.60. But accused No.60 was identified by Pw.64 and there is nothing to show any mistake in it. Although Pw.74 said in chief examination that he knew accused 85 to 89 he admitted in re-examination that of them he really knew only accused No.87. Therefore there is reasonable doubt regarding the identification of accused Nos. 69, 75, 76, 85, 86, 88 and 89 and they have to be given the benefit of it. But as regards accused Nos. 1, 2, 8 to 11, 13, 15, 42, 43, 57, 58, 60, 62, 63, 65, 77, 78, 82 to 84, 87, 90 and 91 there is convincing direct evidence about their having been members of the unlawful assembly that attacked the Tellicherry Police Station at or about 3-30 a.m. on November 22, 1968 and the circumstances brought out in the case corroborate that evidence. Accordingly they are guilty of the offences mentioned by my learned brother in his judgment as having been committed at the Tellicherry Police Station. 91. I turn now to the attack on the Pulpally Wireless Station which was only one furlong away from the Pulpally Police Station and the dacoities, committed at Chekadi. The attack on the Wireless Station at or about 3-30 a.m. on November 24, 1968 was a precautionary measure taken as a preliminary to the attack on the police station. It was in order to cut off all communications of the Police Station with the outside world. 92. Ext. P322 is the plan of the building where the wireless station functioned. There is a big hall in it marked E and a verandah to the north of it marked F in the plan. There are two rooms, marked A & B, to the west of F and two rooms marked C & D to the west of E. B is to the west of A and, C to the west of D. The wireless set was inside room A. On the night of occurrence Kunjukrishnan Nair and Pw.94 were sleeping in that room. There are two rooms, marked A & B, to the west of F and two rooms marked C & D to the west of E. B is to the west of A and, C to the west of D. The wireless set was inside room A. On the night of occurrence Kunjukrishnan Nair and Pw.94 were sleeping in that room. Pw.92 was sleeping in room B and Sankunny Menon in room C. Room D was in the occupation of the Sub Inspector, Pw.230, but he was not there at the time of the attack. There is only one door for each of the four rooms, A, B, C and D, the door for A being on the eastern side on the wall separating that room from the verandah, the door in room B being on the western wall of that room and the doors in C and D rooms being on the southern walls of those rooms. There are two windows for room A and they are on the northern wall of that room. The wall separating room A from B is only about 8 feet in height. 93. According to the prosecution accused Nos. 4 to 7, 14, 16 to 21, 25 29, 33, 36, 41, 128, 129, 131, 132, 134, 135, 139, 141, 145 to 147 and 149 were the rioters who attacked the Pulpally Wireless Station. The attack started by accused No.139 throwing a bomb at the northern window of room A. The bomb exploded. That alerted the persons who were sleeping. Before they could do anything accused Nos. 4, 6, 7, 16, 129 and 139 entered room A after breaking open the door on the eastern side. They dismantled the wireless set in that room and attacked Kunjukrishnan Nair with the weapons in their hands. He was killed. Accused No.4 was armed with a chopper and accused No.16 a stick and accused Nos. 6, 7, 129 and 138 were armed with spears. Pw.94 managed to scale over the wall on the western side of room A and get into room No.B. In the meanwhile Pw.92 had managed to escape from.room B to a place outside. Accused Nos. 145 and 146 who found him escaping kicked him. He was shot on his thigh by accused No.14 with a gun. It was to the shop of Pw.95 that Pw.92 went from the wireless station. Accused Nos. 145 and 146 who found him escaping kicked him. He was shot on his thigh by accused No.14 with a gun. It was to the shop of Pw.95 that Pw.92 went from the wireless station. From there he went to the doctor, Pw.97. Pw.94 after escaping to room B went from there to a bush and hid himself there. After those accused who had got into room A got out of it the rioters came to the southern side of the building and after breaking open the door of room C entered that room and removed from it records to the southern courtyard and burnt them. Sankunny Menon was attacked by them in room C: After he was disabled they broke open the door of room D and entered it. From there also they removed certain records to the southern courtyard and burnt them. Uniforms used by and valuable articles belonging to Pw.230 and Sankunny Menon were removed by them from rooms C and D. After all those they left the wireless station by 4 a.m. It was to the Pulpally police station that they marched from there. Before they, could teach the police station accused 139, who was carrying a small bag containing a country bomb, met with an accident. The bomb burst and his right palm was as a result of it injured. Accused No.4 cut off the hand, M.O. 277, from the arm of accused No.139. After that the rioters abandoned the idea of attacking the police station and left the place. This is the prosecution case regarding the incident at the wireless station. Pw.94 gave the first information statement, Ext. P102(a), at the Pulpally police Station at 7 a.m. on November 24, 1968. 94. The direct evidence regarding some of the accused being rioters who took part in the attack on the Wireless Station along with others is that of Sankunny Menon and Pws.93, 94 and 165. Sankunny Menon died after his examination in the committal court. His deposition in the committal court is Ext. P107. He said that at or about 3-30 a.m. he was roused from sleep by a gun shot and the cries of a person imploring that he may not be killed. He also heard the sound of explosion. Thereafter the door of his room was opened by some persons. His deposition in the committal court is Ext. P107. He said that at or about 3-30 a.m. he was roused from sleep by a gun shot and the cries of a person imploring that he may not be killed. He also heard the sound of explosion. Thereafter the door of his room was opened by some persons. It was on a cot that Sankunny Menon was lying in room C. When the door of the room was opened and he saw five or eight persons including.a woman entering the room, he did himself under the cot. The persons who entered the room took records and other articles in the room and threw them out. Some of the articles, inside the room were burnt inside the room itself. The articles thrown out were also burnt. After all that those who trespassed into the room got out. When Sankunny Menon tried to get up from the place he hid himself some rioters again entered the room. They speared him. One of them cut him with a chopper also. After all that they went away from the place shouting, the shouts indicating that their destination was the police station. When they were going like that Sankunny Menon heard a gun shot. Among the rioters who entered the room Sankunny Menon identified accused Nos. 5, 7, 16, 128, 135, 145, 146 and 147 and they were persons known to him even previously. He had seen them at Karuman Bazaar. He said that the value of his articles lost in the riot was more than Rs. 1,500/-. 95. When Pw.92 got out of the building five or ten persons caught hold of him and kicked him on the back. Of them he knew accused No.145. After catching hold of him and beating him accused No.145 pushed him to the side of accused No.146. Accused No.146 then kicked him at the navel. But as he moved back it did not cause any harm to him. Thereafter he ran from there to the road. About 50 persons were then to his left. He saw accused No.14, who was known to him even previously, standing with a gun in hand. When he had run only about 15 feet a shot was fired at him from behind. It struck him on the back of left thigh. 96. Thereafter he ran from there to the road. About 50 persons were then to his left. He saw accused No.14, who was known to him even previously, standing with a gun in hand. When he had run only about 15 feet a shot was fired at him from behind. It struck him on the back of left thigh. 96. Pw.94 said that one of the persons who entered "room A had a chopper with him and the others spears with them. Pw.94 spoke to having identified accused No.7 among the persons who entered room A. 97. Pw.165 was one who had come with the rioters to Pulpally but was remaining outside when the incidents in the Wireless Station took place. After the incident in room A where Kunjukrishnan Nair lay, he saw accused Nos. 4, 6, 7, 16, 129 and 139 coming out of that room. 98. From Pulpally it was to Chekadi, about six 'miles away, that the rioters went. The dacoities committed there were between 6 and 7-30, a.m. According to the prosecution accused Nos. 5 to 7, 14, 16 to 21, 25, 29, 33, 128, 129, 131, 132, 134, 135 and 141 were among those who committed dacoity there in the houses of Pws.106 and 117 and the shop of Pw. 116. The distance between the houses of Pws.106 and 117 is about two and a half furlongs. The shop of Pw.116 is at a place about the middle of those two houses. Both the houses are storied. 99. The compound where the house of Pw.106 is situated is about seven acres in extent. He has cultivations on about 26 acres of land. At the time When the dacoits came he was in the upstairs. Thinking that they were persons who had come to see her husband the wife of Pw.106 went upstairs and informed her husband about their arrival. Then Pw.106 put on a shirt and came down from there to the front side. It was thereafter that dacoity took place in that house. Of the dacoits Pw.106 identified accused Nos. 7, 16, and 138. Pw.107, a manager of Pw.106, who was then standing near the verandah also identified them. 100. From the house of Pw.106 it was to the shop of Pw.116 that the dacoits went. It was thereafter that dacoity took place in that house. Of the dacoits Pw.106 identified accused Nos. 7, 16, and 138. Pw.107, a manager of Pw.106, who was then standing near the verandah also identified them. 100. From the house of Pw.106 it was to the shop of Pw.116 that the dacoits went. Pw.116 opened his shop at 6 a.m. By 6.30 or 7 a.m. about 40 persons armed with weapons like guns, choppers and spears came to the shop and committed dacoity there. Pw.116 identified accused Nos. 7, 16, 19 and 138 among them. 101. The dacoits went next to the house of Pw.117. When they went there Pw.117 was standing at the gate. He was about to go to his fields. A man in Police uniform caught hold of the shirt of Pw.117 and took him to the front side of his house and made him sit on a chair on the verandah. It was thereafter that dacoity was committed there. Of the dacoits Pw.116 identified accused Nos. 7 and 16. 102. Pws.203 and 216 were two persons in the locality who came to Pw.117's house during the dacoity. Of them Pw.203 identified accused No.17 among the dacoits. He had a spear with him then. He was known to Pw.203 even before. 103. It was from Chithalayam forest about 13 miles away, that the party came to Pulpally. The party consisted of two groups, the Pulpally and Manantoddy groups. It was on November 21, 1968 that the two groups met at Chithalayam forest. 104. Three important witnesses, whose evidence also the prosecution relies upon to connect the accused with the crimes committed at Pulpally and Chekadi, are Pws.119, 124 and 165. Pw.119 is about 18 years old. He is a cook. For about three years past he was in one Mohammed's tea shop. There he came into contact with accused No.5. In 1967 when schools were closed accused No.5 engaged him as a cook for a camp of the C.P.M. workers in the Thettamala estate. In that camp accused Nos. 5, 9, 14, 18 and 125 took part. Some of them including accused No.9 used to help Pw.119 in cooking food at that time. Accused No.9 used to take study classes in the camp which was being conducted in secret. The camp was enclosed on all sides by curtains. After the close of. In that camp accused Nos. 5, 9, 14, 18 and 125 took part. Some of them including accused No.9 used to help Pw.119 in cooking food at that time. Accused No.9 used to take study classes in the camp which was being conducted in secret. The camp was enclosed on all sides by curtains. After the close of. that camp Pw.119 got his wages. Thereafter he worked as a cook in one Chekutty's house. On November 18, 1968 when Pw.119 happened to meet accused No.5 again he asked him whether he could not cook food as in the previous year for another camp. On Pw.119 agreeing to it accused No .5 asked him to go to the house of accused No.18. On the same day as directed by accused No.5 Pw.119 went to the house of accused No.18. He slept there that day. The next day accused No.27 came there. As directed by him Pw.119 went to the shop of one Thomas. Accused Nos. 5, 19 and 21 then came there. Accused Nos. 19 and 21 and two others along with Pw.119 went from there first to Thonichal and then to a place along the road to Kallodi. There they saw accused No.14 coming out of the house of Pw.120. Accused No.19 took the persons with him including Pw.119 to that house. After some time accused No.5 also came and they all took food from there. Pw.119 said that by dusk several persons began to assemble there and among them were accused Nos. 7, 16, 17, 18, 25, 33, 36, 149 and 165. 105. Pw.165 is a resident of Pulimunda. Near his house there is a place called Warsaw. He knew accused No.36 for 5 or 6 years before the Pulpally incident. Two months before the Pulpally incident when accused No.4 came to Warsaw with accused No.36 he told Pw.165 that he had left the CPM. and requested that he may support him and attend the meetings proposed to be convened by him. Thereafter accused No.4 left the place. Four weeks after that, accused No.36 and another person came to the place and invited Pw.165 for a meeting at Thirunelli. Pw.165 went for that meeting. When Pw.165 went to the house of one Kalan at Thirunelli accused Nos. 1 and 4, three or four persons from Thettamala and five or six adivasies were there already. Four weeks after that, accused No.36 and another person came to the place and invited Pw.165 for a meeting at Thirunelli. Pw.165 went for that meeting. When Pw.165 went to the house of one Kalan at Thirunelli accused Nos. 1 and 4, three or four persons from Thettamala and five or six adivasies were there already. Accused No.1 told Pw.165 that they were going to grab lands of landlords and asked Pw.165 and others to join them. That day Pw.165 stayed in Kalan's house. Next morning he and accused No.36 went to his house. The other persons who were then there said that they were going to Manantody. On November 15, 1968 accused Nos. 36, 41 and 149 came to the house of one Thomas where Pw.165 was working and accused No.149 invited Pw. 165 for a meeting at Manantody. Pw.165 went with them. On the way to Manantody a person by name Marachathan joined them. They went with him to his house at Panavalli and stayed there. The next morning, that is, on November, 16, 1968 the party Went to the house of one Kuttan Moos. There accused Nos. 41 and 149 talked something in secret with Kuttan Moos. Thereafter they went to the dispensary of an ayurvedic physician, accused No.40. That day Pw.165 acted as a messenger of accused No.41 for carrying some letters. One of the letters taken was to accused No.48 at Thettamala. He took Pw.165 to the house of accused.No.125. Pw.165 remained in that house that night. Next day on November 17, 1968 one Veerankutty came in search of him. He went with him to a closed building. There accused No.148 and another person were seen bundling up Mao literature. At 8 p.m. a jeep came there with accused No.36 and Marachathan. The books, a steel box and a white bag were then taken in that jeep by accused Nos. 36 and 148, Pw.165 and Marachathan to Marachathan's house and placed there. Thereafter they went to the house of accused No.36. On November 19, 1968 accused Nos. 36 and 148 and Pw.165 went to the house of accused No.40. At that time besides accused No.40 accused Nos. 3, 7 and 41 were also there. Accused No.3 was taken from there to the house of Pw.123 in Valat. Pw.165 and others then went to Manantody. Accused No.7 was in the house where they took lunch there. 36 and 148 and Pw.165 went to the house of accused No.40. At that time besides accused No.40 accused Nos. 3, 7 and 41 were also there. Accused No.3 was taken from there to the house of Pw.123 in Valat. Pw.165 and others then went to Manantody. Accused No.7 was in the house where they took lunch there. At the request of accused No.149 Pw.165 purchased from a shop a bed sheet for Rs. 11-60 and gave it to accused No.149. After some time accused Nos. 36 and 39 and Pw.1,65 went and purchased provisions from a shop. They took tea also at the time from a tea shop. When they went to the pharmacy of accused No.40 he said that accused No.39 and another had already left the place taking the things with them. Accused No.40 then closed his pharmacy and took them to his house. From there accused No.40, Pw.165 and others went to Thonichal where there was a committee meeting in the house of Pw.120. Pw.165 said that among the persons assembled there were) accused Nos. 5, 14, 16, 18, 41 and 149. 106. The versions that both Pws.119 and 165 gave regarding the journey of the party from the house of Pw.120 up to Chithalayam forest were similar. When the party started from the house of Pw.120 accused Nos. 5, 7, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 25, 29, 33, 36, 40, 41 and 149 and Pws.120 and 165 were in it. When it reached a place near the Kanmana school, as directed by accused No.14, they all took rest. Pw.119 said that at that time accused Nos. 5, 14 and 17 went from that place. A short time thereafter they returned with a gun in the hands of each. To be guides for the party from there the services of Pw.154 and two other adivasies were utilised. It was to Panamaram that the party went from Kanmana. The party passed through Panamaram and reached Kenichira. There accused Nos, 7, 14, 18 and 39 remained in the forest keeping watch over the guns. At Kenichira the services of Pw. 154 and the two adivasies with him were dispensed with. Pw.120 also left the party. He went back to his house. But Pws.119 and 165 continued to be with them. On November 20, the party reached Kannarampuzha. There they took rest. At Kenichira the services of Pw. 154 and the two adivasies with him were dispensed with. Pw.120 also left the party. He went back to his house. But Pws.119 and 165 continued to be with them. On November 20, the party reached Kannarampuzha. There they took rest. The vessels and provisions for preparation of food for the party were supplied by accused No.5. Thereafter accused Nos. 5 and 33 went out to find out the route. After about one hour they returned. From Kannarampuzha the party went to the house of accused No.141. After staying there that day, the next day, that is, on November 21, 1968 the party traversed a hill, crossed a river and came to Chithalayam forest where they found marks of fire having been lit. Pw.119 said that a short distance away from that they saw the members of the Pulpally group. The two groups met. In the Pulpally group was Pw.124. 107. Pw.124 gave an account of the journey of the members of the Pulpally group until they reached Chithalayam forest. He resides in a property belonging to one Appachan, son of accused No.138. About one month before the Pulpally incident when he went to the house of accused No.138 accused Nos. 4, 130, 131 and 142 were there. Accused No.4 was then found reading something. About one week before the Pulpally incident accused No.138 came to the house of Pw.124, called him and took him to his house. Besides those whom he met before in that house Pw.124 saw accused No.6 also then there. He was then reading Mao literature. Accused No.138 asked Pw.124 to go to his house and attend regularly the study classes which were being taken there. Pw.124 did not at first go. But the next day, that is, three days before the Pulpally incident, accused No.138 found fault with him for not attending the classes and took him to his house. At that time besides accused Nos. 4, 6, 130, 131 and 142 two others were also seen there. Accused No.138 told the persons there that as there were several persons to attend classes they could all for convenience go to the forest and conduct study classes there. Accused Nos, 4 and 6 and two others then went to some other place and accused Nos. 130, 131, 138 and 142 went to the house of accused No.141. Accused No.138 told the persons there that as there were several persons to attend classes they could all for convenience go to the forest and conduct study classes there. Accused Nos, 4 and 6 and two others then went to some other place and accused Nos. 130, 131, 138 and 142 went to the house of accused No.141. Accused No.128 and one Devassikutty Vijayan then came to the house of accused No.141. From there they all walked and after crossing Kannaram river reached Chithalayam forest. Accused Nos. 4 and 6 wanted to procure some volunteers. Members of the party warmed themselves by the side of fire for a short time. Some persons who had promised to come there from Kapeeset came by 10 or 10-30 p.m. Accused Nos. 4, 6, 133 and 135 were among them. The next morning the party reached a place where there was water. Pw.124 said that after some time by 8 or 8-30 a.m. the Manantody group consisting of 28 persons including accused Nos. 7, 14, 16, 17 and 18 came there. 108. As regards the activities of the members of the two groups at Chithalayam forest and their march from there the versions of Pws.119, 124 and 165 were similar. The members of the two groups introduced themselves at Chithalayam. The Pulpally group included accused Nos. 4, 6, 128 to 135, 137 to 139 and 141. A gunny bag was spread on the ground. Money in the hands of all the members was then collected. Accused No.6 counted and found it to be Rs. 224.71. In the presence of all, accused No.6 made accused No.4 the Commander of the party. After that accused No.4 warned that if anyone Vent out without the permission of leaders he would be severely dealt with. Thereafter accused Nos. 6 and 7 read Mao literature and explained that capitalism had to be destroyed in a revolution and peasants and workers had to be emancipated. Rifle training was given at Chithalayam. 109. On the next day, that is, on November 22, 1968, Pw.119 cooked food. As directed by accused No.4 the members of the party prepared sticks and spears. There was rifle training that day also. At 2-30 p.m. Pw.119 and accused Nos. 18 and135 went to the Pulpally side. It was to the house of one Thulaseedharan, brother of Pw.61, that they went at that time. As directed by accused No.4 the members of the party prepared sticks and spears. There was rifle training that day also. At 2-30 p.m. Pw.119 and accused Nos. 18 and135 went to the Pulpally side. It was to the house of one Thulaseedharan, brother of Pw.61, that they went at that time. Neither Pw.61 nor Thulaseedharan was then there. But they came there after dusk. Accused No.18 and Thulaseedharan had then some talk in secret. 110. On November 23, 1968 Thulaseedharan, accused No.18 and Pw.119 went to Karumam Bazaar. There as directed by accused No.18 Pw.119 went and hid himself in a closed bunk. Accused No.18 told Pw.119 at that time that if anybody asked him as to why he had come there he may say that he had come to do work for one Inkili Chacko. After leaving him there accused No.18 and Thulaseedharan went in the direction of Chekadi. Thulaseedharan returned after some time. On enquiry he told Pw.119 that accused No.18 would be available in a tea shop about two furlongs away. Then Pw.119 went to that tea shop and met there accused No.18. That was the tea shop of Pw.62. At the request of accused No.18 Pw.62 gave him a kylee. When accused No.18 directed Pw.119 to go back to the closed bunk he again went there and sat on a bench outside. Thereafter accused No.16 and another came to the place where Pw.119 sat and after seeing him they went to the shop of Pw.60. When Pw.119 went to that shop he found accused No.18 examining a red cloth. At that time accused No.18 directed Pw.119 by signs to go back again to the closed bunk. Then he again went back to the bunk". A short time thereafter accused No.18 came to the bunk and he arid Pw.119 together proceeded through a pathway leading to Chettappala. On the way accused No.18 stopped for some time and waited for one Parameswaran. Parameswaran as expected came and handed over a packet containing six Ever ready batteries to accused No.18. Thereafter Parameswaran, accused No.18 and Pw.119 proceeded to Chettappala. After some time Parameswaran left them and accused No.18 and Pw.119 proceeded further and reached a shop where Thulaseedharan was found waiting with a tin of Kerosene oil. From that shop they all first went to Thulaseedharan's house and then to the house of accused No.141. Thereafter Parameswaran, accused No.18 and Pw.119 proceeded to Chettappala. After some time Parameswaran left them and accused No.18 and Pw.119 proceeded further and reached a shop where Thulaseedharan was found waiting with a tin of Kerosene oil. From that shop they all first went to Thulaseedharan's house and then to the house of accused No.141. On the way from the house of accused No.141 accused Nos. 18, 143 and 144 and Pw.119 climbed a tree and rested in a watch tower on the top of it. When accused No.18 was taking rest he wanted Pw.119 to call him if a signal was seen, the signal being flash consecutively five times of a torch light. After some time such a signal was seen and Pw.119 called accused No.18. Then all of them got down from the tree. On the side of the road they then found some persons including accused Nos. 130 and 138. Thereafter when they all walked through a narrow lane accused Nos. 19 and 20 joined them. After walking about two furlongs they came back to the place in Chithalayam forest where the other members of the party were resting. At or about 1-30 a.m. on November 24, 1968, the members of the party armed with guns, choppers, spears, sticks and other weapons proceeded to the Pulpally Wireless Station. Rice was carried by them in bundle's made of clothes. A firing squad was constituted and the persons selected in it were accused Nos. 5, 14, 16, 17, 128 and 133. The duty assigned to accused No.33 was pasting of wall posters. After they crossed a small stream on the way on enquiry accused No.19 told Pw.119 that their destination was Pulpally Police Station. Accused No.4 asked them all to walk briskly. Pw.119 deposed that walking along the roads to Chettappalam, Thonicherivu and Karumam Bazaar the party reached a place close to the Pulpally Temple. Wireless Station is only 50 yards from the Temple. 111. Pw.124 said that at Chithalayam forest accused Nos. 139 and 141 prepared chemicals for making country bombs. At the direction of accused No.4 spears and sticks were made. Accused Nos. 33 and 130 and Pw.134 went to Narakkadavu and purchased from a shop there provisions and 20 dynamites for Rs. 107/-. Both on November 22 and 23, 1968 regular study classes were taken and rifle training was given. Accused Nos. At the direction of accused No.4 spears and sticks were made. Accused Nos. 33 and 130 and Pw.134 went to Narakkadavu and purchased from a shop there provisions and 20 dynamites for Rs. 107/-. Both on November 22 and 23, 1968 regular study classes were taken and rifle training was given. Accused Nos. 130 and 138 started making country bombs. On the night of November 23, 1968 the party walked to Kannarampuzha. There they divided into three groups and each was given a specific work. Accused No.4 said at that time that they were going to attack the Pulpally Police Station. Accused Nos. 18, 143 and 144 and Pw.119 came there at that time. A shooting squad was constituted. At 1 or 1.30 a.m. on November 24, 1968 the party marched from there through dense forest to Pulpally and reached the turning to the Pulpally Wireless Station. 112. pw.165 deposed that on November 22 after hearing the radio news of the attack on the Tellicherry Police Station accused No.4 said that the Tellicherry group had succeeded and that they had to act swiftly. As directed by accused No.4 sticks and spears were ma4e. On the morning of November 23 accused Nos. 138 and 141 began to make country bombs and crackers. That evening each member of the party was directed to carry his rations. Accused No.14 dried the cartridges. Accused Nos. 6 and 7 wrote wall posters hailing revolution and exhorting adivasies to rise up in revolt. By 7 p.m.on November 23, 1968, all of them started from there. After walking some distance they came to a forest. Five or six persons joined them on their march. The party consisted of 51 persons. Accused No.4. told them that the Pulpally Police Station had to be attacked, policemen had to be killed and village office had to be smashed. Pw.165 had in his hand a stick at the time. 113. When the party reached a place near the Pulpally temple the sound of an approaching lorry was heard. All of them then ran helter skelter and hid themselves in the forest near the temple, for about 30 or 45 minutes. Thereafter accused No.4 directed all to come out. But some of them including Pws.119 and 124 continued to be at the places of hiding for some time more and did not come out. All of them then ran helter skelter and hid themselves in the forest near the temple, for about 30 or 45 minutes. Thereafter accused No.4 directed all to come out. But some of them including Pws.119 and 124 continued to be at the places of hiding for some time more and did not come out. When gun shots were heard Pw.165 went from the place of hiding to the Wireless Station. Then he heard cries of a person imploring that he may not be killed. From inside the room from where he heard those cries he saw accused Nos. 4, 6, 7, 16," 129 and 139 coming out, accused No.4 with a chopper, accused No.16 with a stick and the others with spears. He also saw accused No.14 who had a gun with him attempting to shoot a man who was lying inside a room on the northern side. In another room he saw a person lying inside being beaten with stick and thrust with spears. Some of the articles inside the rooms were thrown out to the courtyard by those who had entered it. Some of the papers inside were taken out and accused No.7 set fire to them. After hearing gun shots, explosion of crackers and cries of a person that he may not be killed and seeing some persons running to the side of Pulpally Temple Pws.119 and 124 also came out of the forest. When they came near the Wireless Station Pw.119 saw on the courtyard a box being broke open. Near accused No.21 was seen kaki dresses heaped us. Accused No.5 wore the uniform of a Sub Inspector. Pw.119 also saw fire in the Wireless Station. Pw.124 found the door of a room kept open. There was a steel box lying open near the door. Near that was a bundle of clothes. Saying that it contained kaki uniform accused No.138 took it and handed it over to Pw.124. 114. From the Wireless Station the party proceeded towards the Police Station. When it had covered about half a furlong and reached a turning, sound of crackers were heard from behind. When the persons, in front turned back it was found that accused No.139 had met with an accident. As a result of the explosion of the cracker in his hand his right palm was injured. When it had covered about half a furlong and reached a turning, sound of crackers were heard from behind. When the persons, in front turned back it was found that accused No.139 had met with an accident. As a result of the explosion of the cracker in his hand his right palm was injured. Accused No.4 then took a chopper and with it cut and removed the injured portion. Accused No.18 fell down and fainted. He was given water and he regained consciousness. Thereafter accused No.4 said that they need not proceed to the Police Station but should go to Chakadi. Accused No.36, Pw.165, one Devassikutty Vijayan and another were then directed to take accused No.139 to the Hospital. Accused No.6 entrusted them with necessary amount to meet the expenses connected with the treatment in the hospital. Pw.165 said that out of that amount Devassikutty Vijayan gave him Rs. 4/- and allowed him to go back home and that thereafter he returned to his house. 115. After leaving accused No.139, Pw.165 and some others at Pulpally, the remaining persons in the party including Pws.119 and 124 proceeded to Chekadi. Before committing dacoity at each building accused No.4 asked the persons with him to keep watch over it on all sides. Accused No.5 was then in the uniform of Sub Inspector. In the house of Pw.106 accused No.25 and Pws.119 and 124 stood on the courtyard, Pw.119 at a place near the farm house and accused No.25 and Pw.124 near the Kitchen, keeping watch. Both Pws.119 and 124 spoke in detail about the events which took place in the houses of Pws.106 and 117 and the shop of Pw.116 at Chekadi and the persons who took part in them. The facts spoken to by Pws.119, 124 and 165 show that the finding of the trial Judge that they are accomplices is correct. 116. It can now be considered whether there is corroboration for the evidence of Pws.119, 124 and 165. One decision taken at the meeting of October 30, 1968 in the house of accused No.1 at Calicut was that the activity of the party should be shifted to North Malabar. There is evidence that even prior to October 30, 1968 accused No.1 had gone to the Pulpally area where he had contact with the agricultural labourers there and talk with them about the proposed action on his part. 117. There is evidence that even prior to October 30, 1968 accused No.1 had gone to the Pulpally area where he had contact with the agricultural labourers there and talk with them about the proposed action on his part. 117. Pw.46 is a permanent resident of Pulpally. He was in possession of properties belonging to Pulpally Devaswom. When steps were taken by the Devaswom to evict him from those lands he wrote to the first accused about two months prior to the Pulpally incident and enquired whether he could help him in the matter. Accused No.1 sent a reply promising to come and see him. On September 24, 1968 accused No.1 came to Panamaram with accused Nos. 4 and 5. It was in the house of one Cheppil Parameswaran that they stayed at that time. When Pw.46 went to the house of Parameswaran besides accused Nos. 1, 4 and 5 accused Nos. 129 and 138 and some others were also there. The discussions there turned from the kudikidappu problem to Maoism, its application for emancipation of peasants and the organisation of an armed revolt on Mao's lines to bring about a revolution. The next day Pw.46 took accused Nos. 1 and 4 to the house of accused No.5 at Kenichira. 118. Pw.95 is a tea shop keeper. He is also a petition writer. His evidence shows that about two months before the Pulpally incident accused Nos. 1, 4 and 5 and another had been to his tea shop. There was a discussion there then among them about the agrarian problems at Pulpally. 119. Although accused No.1 was not in his house from November 1, 1968 accused Nos. 3 and 7 were there till October 6, 1968. That was because accused No.3 wanted to get the money due to her from the Gujarathi school where she was Headmistress. On August 31, 1968 accused No.3 was relieved from the post of Headmistress at her request. Payment of the entire amount due to her was spoken to by the Secretary of the Gujarathi Vidyalayam Association, Calicut, Pw.32. The last date on which the whole of the balance amount of Rs. 965.75 due was paid by him to her was November 6, 1968. The next day accused Nos. 3 and 7 locked their house in Calicut and went away telling Pw.21 that they were going to Bombay. 120. The last date on which the whole of the balance amount of Rs. 965.75 due was paid by him to her was November 6, 1968. The next day accused Nos. 3 and 7 locked their house in Calicut and went away telling Pw.21 that they were going to Bombay. 120. The evidence of Pw.175 shows that it was not to Bombay that accused Nos. 3 and 7 went after leaving their residence in Calicut. Pw.175 was the Sub Inspector of Police, Vellamunda. On November 7, 1968 he had court work at Calicut. When he returned after that in a bus accused Nos. 3 and 7 were in it sitting by his side. They got in at Calicut and got down at Manantody. After they got down at Manantody Pw.175 heard them enquiring with some people at the bus stand about accused No.40. 121. Ten or fifteen days before the Tellicherry incident Pw.42, a trader in Manantody, saw accused Nos. 3 and 7 proceeding towards the house of accused No.40, a physician. Pw.42 was ill and it was accused No.40 who was treating him. The dispensary of accused No.40 is only 1/4 furlong away from the shop of Pw.42. Two or three days before the Tellicherry incident when Pw.42 went to the dispensary of accused No.40 he found it closed. At 6.30 or 7 p.m. that day when he went to the house of accused No.40 accused Nos. 3, 5, 7, 40 and 41 were there. Accused No.40 told Pw.42 when he saw him that he would go to the dispensary soon and asked him to come there. After waiting for some time at the dispensary as accused No.40 did not turn up Pw.42 went to his house. Next day Pw.42 went to the dispensary twice but it was found closed. When he went to the house of accused No.40 that was also found closed. The dispensary was never opened thereafter. 122. Pw.45 belongs to Avarakunnu in Pulpally. He was conducting a tea shop and a provision store there. He knows accused No.5. In October 1968 accused Nos. 4 and 5 came to his house and took food from there. Thereafter they went to one Urumbil Narayana's house. The next day they and some others came to his shop and took tea and went away. About a week thereafter accused Nos. He knows accused No.5. In October 1968 accused Nos. 4 and 5 came to his house and took food from there. Thereafter they went to one Urumbil Narayana's house. The next day they and some others came to his shop and took tea and went away. About a week thereafter accused Nos. 4 and 5 again came to the place and started doing political work there. Accused Nos. 129, 134 and 135 joined them in that work. Accused Nos. 1 and 6 also came to the place then. They were staying in the house of accused No.135. Two persons, Sukumaran and Kumaran, told Pw.45 that the Sub Inspector of Police there, Pw.230, should be killed and that Police Station should be destroyed. On hearing it Pw.45 went and informed Pw.230 about it. The next day accused Nos. 4 and 6 came to the shop of Pw.42 and threatened to kill him if he worked against the party. Then Pw.45 filed a petition before Pw.230 about what they had said. From next day three police constables came on three days to the house of accused No.135. Pw.45 accompanied them. None was found on all those occasions in the house of accused No.135. On the third day, namely, on November 11, 1968, local people organised and held a protest meeting against the party of accused Nos. 4, 6 and others. 123. Pw.61 belongs to Kottayam. Two weeks before the Pulpally incident he came from Kottayam and started residing with his father in Devarganda in Pulpally. Four days before the Pulpally incident when he was going to Kannarampuzha to take bath he saw five or six persons sitting under a tree. They called him, enquired about his house and asked him whether there was any shop there. Next day he saw at the place two others. On enquiry they told him that their names were Kunjiraman Master and Gopi. Accused No.18 and Pw.119 bear those names. At the request of Kunjiraman Master Pw.61 purchased a tin of kerosene oil and gave it to him. Thereafter they took the tin of kerosene oil to the house of one Appukuttan and placed it there. When they asked him whether rice could be got at the place he told them that his brother Thulaseedharan would give it. By that time Thulaseedharan came to the place. Thereafter they took the tin of kerosene oil to the house of one Appukuttan and placed it there. When they asked him whether rice could be got at the place he told them that his brother Thulaseedharan would give it. By that time Thulaseedharan came to the place. Pw.119 spoke to having seen Pw.61 and Thulaseedharan at a place near Kannarampuzha. 124. Pw.62 conducts a tea shop in Pulpally. His sister was residing in Manantody. She died. It was accused No.18 who informed him about it. On November 23, 1968 at or about 10-30 a. m; when accused No.18 came to his shop to take tea Pw.119 was with him. It was from the house of Pw.62 that accused No.18 and Pw.119 took meals that day. Accused No.18 gave Rs. 15/- to Pw.62 and requested him to get a flag stitched. Pw.62 purchased the necessary cloth from a shop and gave it to a tailor for stitching. The balance after purchasing cloth was given back by Pw.62 to accused No.18. After getting the flag stitched accused No 18 left the place with Pw.119 at or about 4. p.m. The flag stitched is M. O.2. 125. Pw.108 is a tea shop keeper in Puthadi in Manalvayal about 2 1/2 miles away from Pulpally. Two or three days before the Pulpally incident four persons including accused No.5 came and took tea from his shop in the morning and went along the road leading to Cheekambam. 126. Pw.59 conducts a tea shop and a provision store at Pulpally. Accused No.130 is a person who frequently goes to his shop for taking tea. On the day prior to the Pulpally incident when he came to the tea shop two persons were with him. Accused No.130 purchased from Pw.59, 20 dynamites, 20 percussion caps and provisions for Rs. 104. 127. Pw.44 belongs to Kottayam. She had appeared for the S.S.L.C. but failed. Her husband is employed in the Lotus Training Corporation in Manantody. They are staying at Manantody in the house of one Thankappan. About two weeks before the Tellicherry incident she happened to go to the house of Thankappan's paternal uncle to attend a women's meeting there. Accused Nos. 3 and 7 were then there. Accused No.7 read a book about revolution and said that a revolution was going to take place in Wynad. About two weeks before the Tellicherry incident she happened to go to the house of Thankappan's paternal uncle to attend a women's meeting there. Accused Nos. 3 and 7 were then there. Accused No.7 read a book about revolution and said that a revolution was going to take place in Wynad. On enquiry by Pw.44 as to what part women had to play in it accused No.7 told her that she would say that later. 128. Pw.115 is a tea shop keeper at Manantody. The house of accused No.18 is near his shop. He goes to that house frequently for playing cards. He saw accused Nos. 3, 5, 7, 18, 41 and 125 in the house of accused No.18 when he went there a few days before the Tellicherry incident. Two days prior to the Tellicherry incident when accused No.18 came to the shop of Pw.115 he told Pw.115 that they were going to start a revolution and that the mode of operation was that people from other places would come to attack the police station there and that he and others in that locality would go to other places. 129. Pw.227 is a driver of the taxi in which accused No.3 and the daughter of accused No.40 were taken to the house of Pw.123 in Valat. He deposed that about one week before the Pulpally incident he took two women in his taxi up to a bridge on the Valat road and that he got Rs. 20/- as taxi fare for that. 130. The evidence of Pw.23 shows that accused No, 5 was one among those who attended a meeting in Kepees Tutorial on November 17, 1968. 131. At no on on November 18, 1968 when accused No.5 returned from Tellicherry accused No.4 was with him. Pw.28 is a radio repairer. On November 18 a transistor belonging to accused No.5 was handed over to pw, 28 at 2 p.m. for repair. By 7 p.m. that day when accused No.5 came and enquired as to whether the repair was riot over Pw.28 said that it could not be given back that day. On his insisting on getting a transistor that day itself Pw.28 handed over to accused No.5 for temporary use the transistor, M. O.7, which was then with him. That transistor was one which had been entrusted to Pw.28 by Pw.29 for repair. On his insisting on getting a transistor that day itself Pw.28 handed over to accused No.5 for temporary use the transistor, M. O.7, which was then with him. That transistor was one which had been entrusted to Pw.28 by Pw.29 for repair. Pw.29 deposed that M. O.7 belonged to him and that he had given it to Pw.28 for repair. 132. Pw.120 and his wife are labourers at Thonichal, to the south of Manantody. On November 19, 1968 in the noon when they went to the shop of one Velayudhan Nair accused No.14 was there. He told them that a rumour was afloat that he and accused Nos. 18 and 41 were going to harvest the crops of the landlords in the locality. Nobody then paid any serious attention to what accused No.14 said. After that accused No.14 and Pw.120 went to the house, of Pw.120. Accused No.14 requested Pw.120 not to go for work in the afternoon as his services were required by him. Then Pw.120 remained in the house and sent his wife for work. At 1.30p.m. he gave him Rs. 10/- and asked him to purchase provisions as five or eight persons were expected there in the evening. Accordingly Pw.120 went and purchased provisions for about Rs. 5/-. On Pw.120 returning to his house accused No.14 utilised his services for sending letters to the wife of accused No.14 at Kanmana and another person. It was with accused No.22, whom Pw.120 met at Kanmana, that Pw.120 went to the house of accused No.14. After reading the letter the wife of accused No.14 handed over to pw, 120 some rice and a torch. Pw.120 took them from there and gave them to accused No.14. As directed by accused No.14 Pw.120 made arrangements with his wife to keep away from the house that night as a committee meeting had to be held there then. At or about 9 p.m. that day accused Nos. 5, 7, 14, 18, 20, 40, 41, 149 and some others came there. Accused No.5 said that they were all going to revolt and asked everybody to get ready. Accused No.4 called accused No.5,and asked him to send Pw.120 for purchase of Kerosene oil, pans and beedies. On accused No.5 giving Rs. 5/-for the purpose Pw.120 went and purchased those articles. When he returned he saw a person lying on the floor unconscious. Accused No.5 said that they were all going to revolt and asked everybody to get ready. Accused No.4 called accused No.5,and asked him to send Pw.120 for purchase of Kerosene oil, pans and beedies. On accused No.5 giving Rs. 5/-for the purpose Pw.120 went and purchased those articles. When he returned he saw a person lying on the floor unconscious. After some time when that person regained consciousness accused No.5 sent him back to his house and asked him not to tell any person of the matters there. After that they all left in groups. Accused No.14 asked Pw.120 to accompany the party for some distance. Accordingly Pw.120 went with the party for some distance. Thereafter when they were sitting on a hill accused No.14 went to his estate. He returned from there with three guns. One gun he retained with him and the others he gave to accused Nos. 5 and 17. Thereafter accused No.14 called three adivasies to serve as bearers of the guns and some other articles with the party and they also joined the party. A country torch was then prepared. When the party reached Panamaram they sat on the bank of a river and took rest for some time. Thereafter they proceeded and by day-break reached Kenichira. At Kenichira placing the guns and the transistor in the forest the party went in batches to a tea shop and took tea. It was together that Pw.120 and accused No.5 went and took tea. Accused No.5 paid for both. Thereafter accused No.5 told Pw.120 that they would attack police station and take guns from there and that after harvesting crops belonging to landlords they would distribute the same among the poor. After asking Pw.120 to keep it confidential accused No.5 sent Pw.120 away giving him Rs. 4/-. 133. The trial Judge has treated Pw.120 as an accomplice. He did not take part in the occurrence? He left the party after it reached Kenichira. The mere fact that some members were resting in his house and he accompanied them from Thonichal to Kenichira is by itself insufficient to show that he is an accomplice. He had no conscious hand in any of the criminal acts. He is not an accomplice. 134. Pw.154 is one of the three adivasies employed by accused No.14 to serve as bearers. He belongs to Kanmana. He had no conscious hand in any of the criminal acts. He is not an accomplice. 134. Pw.154 is one of the three adivasies employed by accused No.14 to serve as bearers. He belongs to Kanmana. Accused No.14 who is a teacher in a school, was known to him even previously. Four days before the Pulpalli incident accused No.14 took a gun to him at dusk and kept it in his house. That night and the next day the gun was kept there. But on the night after that accused No.14 came to his house, called him, took the gun from there and asked him to call two other adivasies. Two other adivasies were then called and they all went towards Panamaram with accused No.14 and his party. Pw.154 went only up-till Kenichira. Thereafter Pw.154 and the other adivasies were given Rs. 2/- each and they returned home. 135. Pws.108 and 109 are two tea shop keepers at Manalvayal near Pulpally. Two or three days prior to the Pulpally incident some persons had come to their tea shops and taken.tea. One of those who came to the shop of Pw.108 was identified by him to be accused No.5. 136. From the forests within 4 to 19 miles of Adakkathodu several articles, M. Os. 36, 38 to 41, 52 to 58, all jewels belonging to Pw.106, M.Os. 77 to 91 and 101, jewels and cover of an insured cover belonging to Pw.117 were recovered as abandoned articles. 137. These additional items of evidence regarding the events which took place, during the march of the party and the evidence of Sankunni Menon and Pws.92 and 94 regarding the incidents at the Pulpally Wireless Station and the evidence of Pws.106, 107, 110, 116, 117 and 203 regarding the dacoities committed at Chekadi corroborate in a general way the story as given by Pws.119, 124 and 165. 138. Sankunny Menon identified accused Nos. 5, 7, 16, 128, 135, 145, 146 and 147 among the persons who came to his room. Of them accused No.7 was identified by Pw.94 also as one who came to the room where he and Kunjukrishnan Nair lay. Pw.92 identified accused Nos. 14, 145 and 146 among the persons who came and attacked the Wireless Station. Pw.165 identified accused Nos. 4, 6, 7, 16, 129 and 139 among those who came out of the room where Kunjukrishnan Nair lay. Pw.92 identified accused Nos. 14, 145 and 146 among the persons who came and attacked the Wireless Station. Pw.165 identified accused Nos. 4, 6, 7, 16, 129 and 139 among those who came out of the room where Kunjukrishnan Nair lay. While Pw.165 spoke to accused Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 14, 16, 128 and 138 being in the party that proceeded from Chithalayam forest to Pulpally Pws.119 and 124 spoke to accused Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 139 being in the party that proceeded from Pulpally to Chekadi. Pw.119 also spoke to accused Nos. 128 and 135 and Pw.124 to accused No.129 being in the party that went to Chekadi from Pulpally. Among the persons who committed dacoities at Chekadi Pws.106, 116 and 117 identified accused Nos. 7 and 16 and Pws.106 and 116 accused No.138 also. Further Pw.116 identified accused No.19 and Pw.203 accused No.17. Of them Pws.106, 116 and 117 knew accused No.16 and Pw.203 knew accused No.17 even previously. Besides, there is the evidence of Pws.119 and 124 supported by strong corroborative circumstantial evidence to connect accused Nos. 5, 6, 18 and 135 also with the dacoities. Of the accused persons mentioned above accused Nos.4 and 138 died subsequently. The corroborative circumstantial evidence against the remaining accused, namely, accused No.5, 6, 7, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 128, 129, 135, 139, 145, 146 and 147 can now be separately considered. 139. Accused No.5 is the brother of accused No.41 and brother-in-law of accused No.18. The evidence of Pw.46 shows that accused No.5 had accompanied accused No.1 who visited Pulpally area some time before the Pulpally and Tellicherry Police Station incidents. Pw.45 also spoke to accused No.5 being engaged in political work in Pulpally in October 1968. Pw.51 deposed that in October 1968 accused Nos. 5 and 6 had come for political work in Pulpally and that they were extremists. Pw.42 said that accused No.5 was in a small group of persons assembled in the house of accused No.40 a few days prior to the Tellicherry incident. The evidence of Pw.23 shows that in the meeting in Kepees Tutorials at Tellicherry accused No.5 had taken part. It was accused No.5 who contacted Pw.119 on November 19, 1968 and engaged him as a cook for the party. That day accused No.5 gave a transistor for repair to Pw.28. The evidence of Pw.23 shows that in the meeting in Kepees Tutorials at Tellicherry accused No.5 had taken part. It was accused No.5 who contacted Pw.119 on November 19, 1968 and engaged him as a cook for the party. That day accused No.5 gave a transistor for repair to Pw.28. As he could not get the transistor repaired that day he got from Pw.28 another transistor belonging to Pw.29. Pws.119 and 120 said that accused No.5 was present in the house of Pw.120 on November 19, 1968. The evidence of Pw.120 shows that while the party was in his house it was accused No.5 who declared that they were going to start a revolution and that every one had to be on the alert. Accused No.41 called accused No.5 and asked him to send Pw.120 to purchase kerosene oil and pans. Pw.120 accordingly went for purchasing those articles. When he returned he saw in his house a man lying unconscious and after he regained consciousness accused No.5 asking him to keep everything confidential and sending him away. On the way from Thonichal to Kenichira accused No.14 brought three guns and gave one to accused No.5. Pw.120 deposed that the guns and transistor in the hands of accused No.5 were placed in the forest for some time. At Kenichira it was accused No.5 who paid for tea for Pw.120 before he was sent away on payment of Rs. 4/-. At that time also accused No.5 said that the party was going to attack the Pulpally Police Station to secure guns and that harvesting of crops on the fields of landlords and distribution of the same among the poor were also in contemplation. He directed Pw.120 to keep those matters confidential. Pw.119 found accused No.5 at the house of accused No.141 on November 20, 1968. He was in the firing squad constituted at Chithalayam forest. Pws.119 and 124 said that after the occurrence at Pulpally he wore the uniform of a Sub Inspector and that it was in that uniform that he proceeded to Chekadi. The evidence of Pws.106, 107, 110, 116 and 117 shows that one of the dacoits was actually dressed in police uniform and that he took an active part in the dacoity. When accused No.5 was arrested the watch, M. O.69, belonging to Pw.110 and Rs. 586.56, M. O.308, were recovered from him. The evidence of Pws.106, 107, 110, 116 and 117 shows that one of the dacoits was actually dressed in police uniform and that he took an active part in the dacoity. When accused No.5 was arrested the watch, M. O.69, belonging to Pw.110 and Rs. 586.56, M. O.308, were recovered from him. A torch light, M.O.70, which belonged to Pw.116 was recovered on the next day after the arrest of accused No.5 from a room which was occupied by him. 140. In the first week of November 1968 accused No.6 was in Manantody organising meetings. He threatened to kill Pw.45 if he worked against his party. According to Pw.51 accused Nos. 5 and 6 were during those days engaged in revolutionary activities in Pulpally. Pws.119, 124 and 165 spoke to accused No.6 being in the group of persons that proceeded to the Pulpally Wireless Station. The evidence of Pws.7 and 21 shows that accused No.6 was closely connected with accused No.1. Accused No.6 used to meet accused No.l in his house. At the Chithalayam forest when the money that members of the party had brought was collected it was accused No.6 who counted and took the same. Again it was he who made accused No.4 Commander of the party. Whenever he got time he used to read along with accused No.7 Mao literature. It was they who together prepared wall posters hailing revolution and exhorting the 'adivasies' to rise up in revolt. Pw.119 deposed that during the looting in the house of Pw.106 when Pw.106 and accused Nos. 6 and 133 came out of a room there were two empty gunny bags in the hands of accused Nos. 6 and 133. Thereafter they and accused No.135, who had a spear in his hand, took Pw.106 to his farm house. As directed by them Pw.106 opened the farm house. Then accused Nos, 6 and 133 filled the two bags with them with paddy and they and accused No.135 took the bags of paddy to the houses of adivasies in the locality. PW. 124 said that accused Nos. 6 and 133 filled two bags with paddy and went out of the house along with accused No.135 and that after some time when they returned those bags were not with them. PW. 124 said that accused Nos. 6 and 133 filled two bags with paddy and went out of the house along with accused No.135 and that after some time when they returned those bags were not with them. The evidence of Pws.106, 107 and 110 was to the effect that two of the dacoits filled two bags with paddy and with another dacoit armed with spear went out of the house, Pw.106 saying that it was to the house of his labourers that they then went. 141. The evidence of Pw.119 shows that in the house of Pw.117 accused No.6 removed from the wall a framed photo and threw it to the courtyard and that when the frame broke the photo inside was set fire to. Although Pw.110 could not identify the person who did it he deposed that a framed photo was actually removed from the wall by a dacoit, that he then threw it to the courtyard and that among the papers set fire to at the courtyard was a photo. Pieces of the photo frame, M.O. 97, were recovered from the courtyard when the mahazar, Ext. P315, was prepared. These circumstances corroborate the evidence of Pw.119 regarding the removal of the framed photo by accused No.6. 142. In the first week of November accused No.7 left the house of accused No.1. Although she and accused No.3 told Pw.21 that it was to Bombay that they were going they really went to Manantody. It was in the bus in which Pw.175 travelled that they went to Manantody. Pw.42 saw them in the house of accused No.40, a few days before the incidents. Pw.115 saw accused No.7 in the house of accused No.18. Pw.44 attended a women's meeting addressed by accused No.7 at Manantoddy. Pw.165 met her in the company of accused No.149. She was in the houses of Pw.120 at Thonichal and accused No.141 at Kenichira. Pws.106, 107, 116 and 117 identified her as the only woman among the dacoits. She was armed with a spear. It was blood stained. After showing it to Pws.106 she told him that she and her party were returning after killing the Sub Inspector of Police at Pulpally. She demanded Pw.106 surrendering the guns with him. If he did not obey she threatened him with instantaneous death. She was armed with a spear. It was blood stained. After showing it to Pws.106 she told him that she and her party were returning after killing the Sub Inspector of Police at Pulpally. She demanded Pw.106 surrendering the guns with him. If he did not obey she threatened him with instantaneous death. She aimed a thrust with spear at Pw.117 but it missed him and struck only at the chair on which he sat. She threatened to kill him also. When accused No.7 was arrested a chain, M. O.37, which belonged to. Pw.106 was recovered from her. 143. Accused No.14 is a resident of Manantody. He is a teacher in the Navodayam L.F. School in Kanmana. Pw.39 is the Headmaster of the School and Pw.38 is the Assistant Educational Officer at Manantody. Their evidence shows that the last day on which accused No.14 attended the School was November 18, 1968. He applied for leave from November 19 to December 18. It was he who got three guns, M. Os. 17, 18 and 19, for the party from the houses of Pws.56, 57 and 58. The licences for those guns produced by Pws.56 to 58 are Exts. P87, P89 and P91. Pw.56 was away at Sabarimala. It was at that time that accused No.14 managed to take the gun, M. O.17, from his house. A daughter of Pw.56 was a student in the school in which accused No.14 was a teacher. On return from Sabarimala finding that M.O. 17 had been taken by accused No.14 Pw.56 sent his manager to get it back from him but did not succeed. Then Pw.56 filed a petition before the Vellamunda Police Station about the missing of his gun. It was saying that he wanted to shoot civet cats which were a menace to his poultry and cultivations that M. Os. 18 and 19 were taken by accused No.14 from Pws.57 and 58. Pw.57 said that M.O.18 was taken from him by accused No.14 on November 18 and Pw.58 said that M. O.19 was taken from him five or six days before the Pulpally incident. M. Os. 17, 18 and 19 were recovered under the mahazar, Ext. P346, from the forest. On November 19, 1968 Pw.120 saw accused No.14 in the shop of one Velayudhan Nair at Thonichal. M. Os. 17, 18 and 19 were recovered under the mahazar, Ext. P346, from the forest. On November 19, 1968 Pw.120 saw accused No.14 in the shop of one Velayudhan Nair at Thonichal. The evidence of Pw.120 shows that accused No.14 said at that time that a rumour was afloat that he and accused Nos. 18 and 41 were going to harvest crops of landlords at the place and that nobody there then took it seriously. Accused No.14 went to the house of Pw.120. After going there accused No.14 gave him Rs. 10/- and asked him to purchase provisions for preparing meals for five or eight persons who were expected there that night. Thereafter accused No.14 entrusted a letter to Pw.120 for being handed over to the wife of accused No.14. On delivery of the letter the wife of accused No.14 gave rice and a torch and Pw.120 took them to accused No.14. As directed by accused No.14 Pw.120 kept his wife away that night from his house. At 8 or 9 p.m. that night several people came there. Pw.120 said that during the march of the party from Thonichal he accompanied them up to Kenichira as desired by accused No.14 and that on the way accused No.14 left the party for some time and came back with three guns. Accused No.14 utilised the services of Pw.154 during the march for carrying the guns and showing the way. Accused No.14 was in the firing squad. Pw.165 saw him trying to shoot from outside a person inside the Wireless Station. Pursuant to information given by accused No.14 several articles including four guns, M.Os. 17, 18, 19 and 73, a box M.O. 62, a vessel M.O. 74 and stockings, M.O. 393, were recovered. Of them M.O. 73 was identified to be that belonging to Pw.117, M.O. 62 as belonging to Pw.106, M.O. 74 as belonging to Pw.117 and M.O. 393 as belonging to Sankunni Menon. Rs. 446, M.O. 359, was recovered from accused No.14 at the time of his arrest. 144. Accused No.16 was one of those who had assembled in the house of Pw.120 on November 19, 1968. Pw.120 spoke to Accused No.16 having been in the party that marched from Thonichal to Kenichira. He was one of the 28 persons selected to go to the forest. He was also one of those selected for inclusion in the firing squad. Accused No.16 was one of those who had assembled in the house of Pw.120 on November 19, 1968. Pw.120 spoke to Accused No.16 having been in the party that marched from Thonichal to Kenichira. He was one of the 28 persons selected to go to the forest. He was also one of those selected for inclusion in the firing squad. Pws.119, 124 and 165 spoke about his presence at different stages in the march through the forests up to Pulpally Wireless Station. Pw.124 identified him as one of the 28 persons who came from Manantody and joined the others at Chithalayam forests. When accused No.116 was arrested a sovereign, ring and Rs. 76.40 MOs. 50, 51 and 314 respectively were recovered. Of them MOs. 50 and 51 were identified to be those which belonged to pw, 106. 145. Accused No.17 was one of the persons who came to the house of Pw.120 by dusk on November 19, 1968. Pw.119 said that when the party came to Kannarampuzha there was talk between accused Nos. 5 and 17 about taking accused No.7 to some house and keeping her there. Accused No.17 was found by Pw.119 in the house of accused No.141 also. When the party was taking rest near Kanmana School Pw.119 saw accused Nos. 5, 14 and 17 going down the hill and after some time all of them returning with a gun in the hands of each. Pw.165 spoke to accused Nos. 5, 14, 16, 128 and 133 having been selected for inclusion in the firing squad. The group that came from Manantody consisted of about 28 persons and Pw.124 said that accused No.17 was among them. 146. Accused No.18 is the brother-in-law of accused No.5. Pw.115 is a tea shop keeper at Manantody. The house where accused No.18 resides is close to his house. Pw.115 usually goes to that house for playing cards. Pw.115 saw accused Nos. 3, 5, 7, 41 and 125 in the house of accused No.18 about two weeks prior to the Tellicherry incident. About two days prior to the Tellicherry incident when accused No.18 happened to come to the tea shop of Pw.115 he told him that they were going to start a revolution. He also said at that time how it was proposed to be done. About two days prior to the Tellicherry incident when accused No.18 happened to come to the tea shop of Pw.115 he told him that they were going to start a revolution. He also said at that time how it was proposed to be done. Pw.42 met accused No.18 among the persons who met at the house of accused No.40 two or three days before the Tellicherry incident. Accused No.18 is a teacher in the National L. P. School. Pw.40 is the Headmaster of that school and Pw.38 is the Assistant Educational Officer at Manantody. Their evidence shows that accused No.18 took leave from November 6, 1968 to January 4, 1969. Pw.38 did not grant leave. The last day that accused No.18 attended school was November 5, 1968. The evidence of Pw.119 shows that accused No.18 was one of those assembled in the house of Pw.120 on November 19, 1968 and that he was in the forest along with accused Nos. 7, 9 and 14 keeping guard over the guns placed in the forest. When Pw.119 and others reached the house of accused No.141 accused No.18 was there already. On November 23, 1968 as directed by accused No.18 Pw.119 went and hid himself in a closed bunk. In Thulaseedharan's house accused No.18 had a secret talk with Thulaseedharan. On November 23, 1968 Thulaseedharan and accused No.18 went in the direction of Chekadi. Thulaseedharan returned after some time. On enquiry Thulaseedharan told Pw.119 at 10 a.m. that accused No.18 would be available in a tea shop two furlongs away. When Pw.119 went to that tea shop he met accused No.18 there. The proprietor of the tea shop is Pw.62. He supported that part of the evidence of Pw.119. By dusk accused No.18 and another went to the textile shop of Pw.60. Pw.119 saw accused No.18 examining a red cloth in that shop. Pw.62 spoke to accused No.18 having purchased red cloth to stitch a flag. After returning from the house of accused No.141 Pw.119 and accused Nos. 18, 144 and 145 climbed a tree and took shelter in a watch tower on the top of it. Accused No.18 wanted Pw.119 to call him if the signal of flashing of torch light five times consecutively was seen. After some time such a signal was seen. Then Pw.119 called accused No.18. Thereafter all of them got down from the watch-tower. Accused No.18 wanted Pw.119 to call him if the signal of flashing of torch light five times consecutively was seen. After some time such a signal was seen. Then Pw.119 called accused No.18. Thereafter all of them got down from the watch-tower. Pw.119 spoke to accused No.18 having been in the party that proceeded from Chithalayam forest to Pulpally. Both Pws.119 and 124 spoke to accused No.18 having taken an active part in the dacoities committed at Chekadi. On his arrest on December 3, 1968 several articles were recovered from him including a transistor, M. O.7, a terylene shirt, M. O.702, and about Rs. 1,600/-. Pw.28 identified M.O. 7 to be one taken from him by accused No.5. Pw.118, a son of Pw.117, identified M.O. 102 to be his shirt which was taken away from his house by one of the dacoits. In his statement before court accused No.18 had no explanation whatsoever as to how he happened to come by these articles and money. 147. On November 19, 1968 Pw.119 saw accused No.19 along with .accused Nos. 5 and 21. As directed by accused Nos. 5 and 19 Pw.119 went to Thonichal that day. It was accused No.19 who took Pw.119 and others to the house of Pw.120. On the way from Thonichal to Kenichira on enquiry made by Pw.119 of the destination of the patty accused No.19 told Pw.119 that it was Pulpally. A few hours before the occurrence when Pw.119 and others were getting out of the watch-tower on the top of a tree Pw.119 found accused Nos. 19 and 20 standing on the side of the road and it was together that they all then went from there. It was then 1 or 1.30 a.m. When accused No.19 was arrested a ring, M.O. 59, belonging to Pw.106 was recovered from him. 148. Accused No.128 was mentioned by Pw.119 as having been in the Pulpally group when the two groups from Pulpally and Manantody met at Chithalayam forest on November 21, 1968. He was also a person selected there for inclusion in the fifing squad. The evidence of Pw.124 shows that three days prior to the Pulpally incident accused No.128 was among those who were in the house of accused No.141 and that accused No.128 and others proceeded from that house towards Chithalayam after crossing Kannarampuzha. 149. On November 20, 1968 Pw.119 traversed several hills. The evidence of Pw.124 shows that three days prior to the Pulpally incident accused No.128 was among those who were in the house of accused No.141 and that accused No.128 and others proceeded from that house towards Chithalayam after crossing Kannarampuzha. 149. On November 20, 1968 Pw.119 traversed several hills. Accused No.129 was then with him. It was together that they reached the house of accused No.141 that day. They slept there that night. The evidence of Pw.119 further shows that when the two groups from Manantody and Pulpally met at Chithalayam accused No.129 was busy arranging refreshments for the group that came from Manantody. The evidence" of Pw.45 shows that about a month prior to the occurrence when accused Nos. 4 and 5 came to Pulpally and did political work there accused No.129 joined them along with accused Nos. 134 and 135. The evidence of Pw.46 shows that in the discussion about the Pulpally Kudikidappu problem in the house of one Parameswaran in September 1968 accused No.129 took part. 150. It was in the house of accused No.135 that accused Nos. 1 and 6, stayed when they came to Pulpally for political work about one month before the Pulpally incident. The evidence of Pw.45 shows that after the arrival of accused Nos. 4 and 5 there in October, 1968 accused No.135 joined them in the political work there. Pw.119 identified accused No.135 as having been in the Pulpally group when the two groups met at Chithalayam. He also spoke to accused No.135 having taken him and accused No.18 to the house of one Thulaseedharan. Pw.124 identified accused No.135 in the group of persons that came from Kappeeset. In the house of Pw. 106 when dacoity was committed accused No.135 who was armed with a spear and accused Nos. 6 and 133 took Pw.106 to a room in the house. When they returned from there two empty gunny bags were with accused Nos. 6 and 133. Thereafter accused Nos. 6, 133 and 135 took Pw.106 to his farm house. Under threat he opened the farm house as demanded by them. Accused Nos. 6 and 133 then filled the two bags with paddy stored there and they and accused No.135 went out of the house to a place close by where adivasies resided. These facts were spoken to by Pws.119 and 124. Under threat he opened the farm house as demanded by them. Accused Nos. 6 and 133 then filled the two bags with paddy stored there and they and accused No.135 went out of the house to a place close by where adivasies resided. These facts were spoken to by Pws.119 and 124. Although Pws.106, 107 and 110 could not identify the three accused who did all that, they corroborated the evidence of Pws.119 and 124 regarding one of those three accused being armed with spear, all of them taking Pw.106 to a room there, their returning from there with two empty gunny bags, their taking Pw.106 to the farm house and compelling him to open it and on his opening it two of them filling up the two bags with paddy and thereafter they and the person armed with spear going out of the house with the bags of paddy. Pw.124 spoke to accused No.135 having gone to the kitchen and asked the women there whether coffee had been prepared and on their answering in the negative his taking some eatables from there, putting them in a bucket and taking the same to the front of the house. Although Pw.106 could not identify that person he said that one of the dacoits asked his wife who was in the kitchen to give him eatables and that thereafter he took eatables from the kitchen. During the dacoity in the house of Pw.117 Pw.119 saw accused No.135 carrying away the copper vessel, M. O.74, from that house. That vessel was recovered from the forest. Pw.117 identified it to be his. On it there is inscription of his name. 151. On November 20, 1968 when Pw.119 saw accused No.139 in the house of accused No.141, accused Nos. 5, 7, 14, 17, 18, 39, 130 and 138 were also in his company. He spoke to accused No.139 being in the Pulpally group when the two groups met at Chithalayam. Pw.124 spoke to accused No.139 having engaged himself in making country bombs with chemicals on November 21, 1968. After the Pulpally incident when the party proceeded from Pulpally to Chekadi and had gone only half a furlong accused No.139 met with an accident. He happened to slip into a pit. Then a cracker in his possession exploded and his palm was practical severed. It hung on the right hand. After the Pulpally incident when the party proceeded from Pulpally to Chekadi and had gone only half a furlong accused No.139 met with an accident. He happened to slip into a pit. Then a cracker in his possession exploded and his palm was practical severed. It hung on the right hand. Then accused No.4 cut that portion with a chopper. That cut palm is M.O. 277. The Medical evidence is that M.O. 277 is really the right hand of accused No.139 below the lower end of the radius and ulna. Pw.102 is the Headmaster of the L. P. School at Irulam. On November 24, 1968 he came to Irulam junction and was waiting there to get a conveyance for going to Pulpally. Then a lorry came from the Pulpally, side. On seeing Pw.102 it was stopped by the driver. On talk with the driver of the lorry Pw.102 came to know about the Pulpally incident. Thereafter when Pw.102 walked about a mile towards the Pulpally side accused No.139 was seen coming from the opposite side. On seeing Pw.102 accused No; 139 kept away to the side of the road. Then Pw.102 went to him. The right hand of accused No.139 was then seen wrapped in cloth. On enquiry accused No.139 at first said that he fell from a tree and then happened to sustain an injury on the hand. But on lifting the cloth Pw.102 found his palm severed. On Pw.102 telling him that it could not be the result of fall accused No.139 confessed to him that he and others attacked the Pulpally M.S.P. camp the previous night, that after that when he was walking; a country bomb in his hand exploded and that it was then that he happened to lose the palm. Thereafter Pw.102 took accused No.139 with him and together they walked towards Pulpally for about half a furlong. After that they got into a jeep that came that way and got down at Pulpally. At the Pulpally Wireless Station Pw.102 handed over accused No.139 to a Reserve Constable there. 152. Accused Nos. 145, 146 and 147 belong to Pulpally. When Pw.92 got out of room B on the northern side five or ten persons who were outside caught hold of him and kicked him. One of them was accused No.145. He beat PW. 92 and pushed him to the side of accused No.146. 152. Accused Nos. 145, 146 and 147 belong to Pulpally. When Pw.92 got out of room B on the northern side five or ten persons who were outside caught hold of him and kicked him. One of them was accused No.145. He beat PW. 92 and pushed him to the side of accused No.146. Then accused No.146 attempted to kick Pw.92 at his navel but as Pw.92 moved back it did not hit him. In the first information statement, Ext. P102, given by Pw.94 he said that one of the exhortations made by persons who were standing outside the building to kill persons inside was addressed to one Panicker. Accused No.147 is K.R.K. Panicker. 153. The criticisms and arguments of counsel for the accused can now be considered. It was submitted that as regards the Pulpally incident charge against accused Nos. 5, 6, 7, 16, 128, 129, 135, 145, 146 and 147 was under S.302 and 307 read with S.34 of the I. P. C. and that as such they could not be made liable under S.302 and 307 read with S.149 of the IPC. There is a charge against all of them under S.148 of the IPC. Hence the charge is quite sufficient for their conviction under S.302 and 307 or offences less than that read with S, 149 of the IPC. 154. For some time during the occurrence Sankunny Menon was lying under the cot on which he lay. That was relied upon to show that he could not have identified the persons who are said to have entered his room. There is nothing to show that From the place where he was at the time of the occurrence he could not identify the persons who entered the room: 155. It was submitted that Sankunny Menon's deposition in Ext. P107 could not be given much value because accused had only partial opportunity to cross-examine him in the committal court. This is not correct. There was full opportunity to cross-examine Sankunny Menon in the committal court, and in fact accused took advantage of it also. 156. An attempt was made in the cross-examination of Pw.92 to show that during investigation he could identify only accused No.145. His statement about that made during investigation was marked as Ext. D18. There is really no contradiction between that statement and his evidence before court. What he stated in Ext. 156. An attempt was made in the cross-examination of Pw.92 to show that during investigation he could identify only accused No.145. His statement about that made during investigation was marked as Ext. D18. There is really no contradiction between that statement and his evidence before court. What he stated in Ext. D18 was only that of the persons who kicked him he could identify only accused No.145. Accused. Nos. 14 and 146 were not among them. 157. Ext. P333 is a statement given by Pw.92. The trial Judge first refused to admit it in evidence but later went back on that order and treating it as first information statement admitted it in evidence. He was clearly in error in doing that. He could not sit in appeal over his own previous order. Further it is not really the first information statement. The first information statement is Ext. P202 given by Pw.94. Ext. P333 is only a statement made by Pw.92 to the police during investigation. 158. It is true that in Ext. P333 Pw.92 did not mention the names of accused Nos.14, 145, and 146. But that is only an omission and that by itself is not a ground for disbelieving him. He must have been writhing with pain after the gun-shot injury on his thigh when the statement was given. Even at the time of his deposition during trial some of the pellets inside his body had not been removed. The trial Judge relied upon certain suggestions made during the cross-examination of Pw.92 to show that he was not on good terms with accused Nos. 145 to 147. He denied those suggestions. Mere suggestions put in cross-examination cannot take the place of proof. 159. It was argued that accused No.146 was a member of the S.S.P., that he was a friend of the police and that he was not likely to have taken part in the attack on the Wireless Station. At the Tellicherry Stadium Ground flags of the S.S.P. were also found. It was brought out in the cross-examination of Pw.62 by the accused's counsel himself that in a public meeting held on November 22, 1968 accused No.146 spoke in derogatory terms about Pw.92. 160. Pw.94 did not mention in the first information statement, Ext. P102, that a woman was among the persons who came inside the room. It was brought out in the cross-examination of Pw.62 by the accused's counsel himself that in a public meeting held on November 22, 1968 accused No.146 spoke in derogatory terms about Pw.92. 160. Pw.94 did not mention in the first information statement, Ext. P102, that a woman was among the persons who came inside the room. He also did not tell any person prior to his examination in the committal court the name of accused No.7 as having taken part in the occurrence. But all that could not show that he had not actually identified accused No.7 as one of the persons who had come inside room A at the time. He must have been in a very agitated state of mind when he came out of the bush where he hid himself and gave the statement. The evidence of Pws.102 and 106 shows that life at Pulpally was practically paralysed on account of the terrorist activities at the Wireless-Station. When Pw.102 was waiting at Cheekambam to get a conveyance to go to Pulpally a lorry which came there stopped and the driver of it after getting down from the lorry told him of the events at Pulpally. When Pw.106 went to Pulpally to file complaint as there was hubbub everywhere there on account of the incidents he returned and filed the complaint only the next day. All that was quite natural because if the police fail law and order is at stake and there would be utter confusion. One can more or less visualise the confusion prevailing that day in that forlorn place in the hilly tracts of this State and the terror instilled in, the people there. It must have taken a longer time for Pws.92 and 94 than for others to get over the initial shock, they having been inside the Wireless Station during the incident. Further the evidence of Pw.94 shows that he came to know of the name of accused No.7 only about a week after the incident and that from newspapers. Therefore no importance can be given to his omission to mention in Ext. P102 that there was a woman among the rioters and the omission to mention the name of that woman in his deposition before the committal court. 161. Pw. Therefore no importance can be given to his omission to mention in Ext. P102 that there was a woman among the rioters and the omission to mention the name of that woman in his deposition before the committal court. 161. Pw. 45 said that he saw accused No.139 walking through a tapioca garden, that he told Pw.102 about it and that then Pw.102 came and took accused No.139 with him. That statement of Pw.45 need not necessarily contradict the evidence of Pw.102. It may as well be that before Pw.102 met accused No.139 Pw.45 saw accused No.139 walking through a tapioca garden and Pw.45 told Pw.102 also about it. 162. It is true that the name of accused No.7 whom Pw.106 identified was not mentioned in the petition, Ext. P105, filed by him in the Pulpally Police Station. But that was because he did not then know her name. 163. Ext. P-105 was filed only on the next day after occurrence. But there is an explanation for that. On the date of occurrence itself Pw.106 went to Pulpally, about six miles away, and got a petition prepared by a petition writer there. But there was hubbub at the whole place on account of the incident which had taken place in the Wireless Station and so he returned home, with the petition and filed it only the next morning. 164. After the occurrence in his shop Pw.116 went to his house. His father told him that he would file a petition before Police and include in it the incident in the shop also. That was why Pw.116 did not file a petition regarding the incident in his shop that day. Next day when the Circle - Inspector came to the shop he asked Pw.116 to file a separate petition. Then he filed the petition, Ext. P109. It is true that the names of the accused identified by him Were not given there and that he knew accused No.16 even before. But there is no evidence that he knew even before the name of accused No.16 or any of the other accused whom he identified. Anyway the omission to mention in Ext. P109 the names of the accused whom he identified is by itself not a sufficient ground for disbelieving him. 165. In the petition, Ext. But there is no evidence that he knew even before the name of accused No.16 or any of the other accused whom he identified. Anyway the omission to mention in Ext. P109 the names of the accused whom he identified is by itself not a sufficient ground for disbelieving him. 165. In the petition, Ext. P133, filed by Pw.118 regarding the incident in his house the name,of accused No.17 was not mentioned. That was because he had not identified accused No.17 among the dacoits. 166. The criticisms levelled on behalf of the accused against the prosecution evidence are devoid of merit. 167. The next question is whether those accused who were among the persons who attacked the Pulpally Wireless Station were members of an unlawful assembly. The evidence of Pw.120 shows that accused No.5 told him in the presence of all those assembled in the house of accused No.120 on November 19, 1968 that their object was to attack the Pulpally Police Station and capture arms and ammunitions from the armoury there and to harvest the crops of landlords and distribute grain among the poor and bring about revolution. The evidence of Pw.165 shows that when the party came to Pulpally accused No.4 said that Pulpally Police Station should be attacked, Police officers should be killed and the village office should be smashed. The evidence of Pw.124 shows that when the party reached Kannarampuzha accused No.4 said that they were going to attack the Pulpally Police Station. Accused No.19 told Pw.119 during the march that they were going to attack the Pulpally Police Station. The march of the party was through forests also. Accused No.14 collected arms during the march from Pws.56, 57 and 58. A firing squad was constituted and rifle training was given. Accused No.4 was appointed Commander of the party by accused No.6. Sticks and spears were made in the forests as ordered by accused No.6. Country bombs and crackers were also made. Several groups of persons from different places came and joined them. The material objects recovered from Chithalayam forest included guns, cartridges and spears. Watch-tower was used for finding signals of arrivals of friends. Sticks and spears were made in the forests as ordered by accused No.6. Country bombs and crackers were also made. Several groups of persons from different places came and joined them. The material objects recovered from Chithalayam forest included guns, cartridges and spears. Watch-tower was used for finding signals of arrivals of friends. After the Wireless station incident when in an accident injury was caused to the palm of accused No.139 it was boldly cut away and when accused No.138 met with an accident, on the order of accused No.4 he was shot and killed. The party marched and behaved like a disciplined army. They were all members of an unlawful assembly. 168. There were lighted country torches in the hands of some of those who entered the rooms in the Wireless station and some of those who remained outside. Therefore there was enough light for Sankunny Menon and Pws.92, 94 and 165 to identify the rioters. It was during day time that the dacoities at Chekady took place and the witnesses for the dacoity could without any difficulty identify those dacoits whom they identified. 169. The witnesses examined to prove the incidents at Pulpally and Chekadi are the most natural witnesses. Sankunny Menon and Pws.92, 94,106, 107, 116, 117 and 203 are wholly reliable witnesses. Their evidence regarding the occurrence at Pulpally and Chekadi and the participants in them is corroborated by the circumstances brought out in. the examination of the accomplice witnesses Pws.119, 124 and 165 and the other witnesses examined to corroborate their evidence in general. As regards accused Nos. 6, 129 and 139 besides the evidence of Pw.165 that he saw them among the persons getting out of the room where Kunjukrishnan Nair lay there are also strong circumstances corroborating his evidence about their also having participated in the occurrence. As regards the incident at Chekadi besides those accused identified by Pws.106, 107, 116, 117 and 203, Pws.119 and 124 spoke to accused Nos. 5, 6, 14, 18 and 135 also having committed dacoity. That part of the evidence of Pws.119 and 124 is corroborated by the circumstances brought out in the case also. It is proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused Nos. 5, 6, 14, 18 and 135 also having committed dacoity. That part of the evidence of Pws.119 and 124 is corroborated by the circumstances brought out in the case also. It is proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused Nos. 5, 6, 7, 14, 16, 128, 129, 135, 139, 145, 146 and 147 were members of the unlawful assembly that attacked the Pulpally Wireless Station and committed the various offences there referred to in the judgment of my learned brother and that they are liable under S.149 for those offences. It is also proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused Nos. 5, 6, 7, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 135 committed dacoities at Chekadi. 170. There is a charge for conspiracy. At in the case of fraud conspiracy is not ordinarily capable of direct proof. It has to be inferred from circumstances. The evidence of Pw.23 shows that at Kepees Tutorials at Tellicherry a conspiracy was hatched to attack the Tellicherry and Pulpally Police Station and that that was pursuant to certain decisions taken at the meeting at the residence of the first accused in Calicut. Pw.21 spoke about the earlier meeting at the residence of the first accused at Calicut on October 30, 1968. It was in an organised way that the attacks were made. The party divided into several groups. One group attacked the Tellicherry Police Station. Two groups from Manantody and Palpally met at Chithalayam forest. They were waiting for radio news regarding the attack on the Tellicherry Police Station for starting the attack on the Pulpally Police Station. From Pulpally they went to Chekadi. The incidents at Tellicherry, Pulpally and Chekadi can properly be looked into as evidence of a concerted move and from them existence of the conspiracy can be made out. The circumstances are not independent and unrelated. There is some sort of nexus which binds them together and that runs through the entire fabric of the story. With regard to conspiracy there is proof beyond reasonable doubt only against accused Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16 to 19, 58, 90, 91 and 139. 171. There are substantial and compelling grounds to interfere with the decision of the trial Judge. 172. The evidence in the case reveals certain important facts. The birth of the Marxist Leninist Maoist Party, the M. L.M., in this country is a reality. 171. There are substantial and compelling grounds to interfere with the decision of the trial Judge. 172. The evidence in the case reveals certain important facts. The birth of the Marxist Leninist Maoist Party, the M. L.M., in this country is a reality. It is a historical event. Its activities, commonly called the Naxelite or Naxelbari movement, have by now become part of Indian History. Its object is to popularise the thoughts of Mao Tse Tung which, according to it is Marxism Leninism of the present era and apply his methods for, what it considers, the benefit of the country. The thoughts of great thinkers and the teachings of great men are not the monopoly of the country or the political society to which they belong. They have no geographical or political barriers. Therefore from the mere fact that the party draws inspiration from the teachings of Mao Tse Tung it cannot be taken that its members are less patriotic than the other citizens of this country. Although the party is seen to believe in extra constitutional means to achieve its objective there is absolutely nothing to show that its members owe allegiance to a foreign power or are its stooges or spies here. In leaning on Mao Tse Tung for support the party does not expect him to descend here and give it material support, but only pins faith in the principles of Maoism and for what Mao stands for. In these cases members of the party and their supporters are seen to have engaged themselves in terrorist activities like attacks on police stations and looting of food grains and other valuable things. Food grains are seen to have been offered to the rural folk in the true Robin Hood style. It was not out of any personal animosity towards any particular person that the attacks on the Tellicherry Police Station and Pulpally Wireless Station were made and dacoities were committed at Chekadi. Even according to the prosecution the motive was only political and economic. It was to capture power and distribute wealth among the poor. 173. For the various offences committed the offenders can be imprisoned but imprisonment can only be of the body. Ideas cannot be put behind prison bars. They would flourish or perish according to their innate strength or weakness. Their fate would depend on their intrinsic worth. 174. It was to capture power and distribute wealth among the poor. 173. For the various offences committed the offenders can be imprisoned but imprisonment can only be of the body. Ideas cannot be put behind prison bars. They would flourish or perish according to their innate strength or weakness. Their fate would depend on their intrinsic worth. 174. One is reminded of the following remarks of Bertrand Russell on hearing these appeals and perusing the records in them: "Some ideals are subversive and cannot well be realised except by war or revolution. The most important of these is at present economic justice. Political justice had its day in industrialized parts of the world and is still to be sought in the unindustrialized parts, but economic justice is still a painfully sought goal. It requires a worldwide economic revolution if it is to brought about. I do not see how it is to be achieved without bloodshed or how, the world can continue patiently without it. It is true that steps are being taken in some countries, particularly by limiting the power of inheritance, but these are as yet very, partial and very limited. Consider the vast areas of the world where the young have little or no education and where adults have not the capacity to realize elementary conditions of confort. These inequalities rouse envy and are potential causes of great disorder. Whether the world will be able by peaceful means to raise the conditions of the poorer nations is, to my mind, very doubtful, and is likely to prove the most difficult governmental problem of coming centuries." I join my learned brother in the appreciation of the learned arguments advanced by counsel on both sides and the efficient investigation that was conducted by the officers responsible for it and agree with him indisposing of these appeals in the manner indicated in his judgment.