Judgment :- S. THANGARAJ, J. R.T. No. 4/98 is fixed for confirmation of the death sentence passed against A. 1 to A. 3 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli in S.C. No. 392/97. The accused Nos. 1 to 6 in the said case have filed Criminal Appeal No. 1010/98 challenging the conviction and sentence passed against them by the said Court. 2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil has filed a charge-sheet alleging that due to previous enmity on 29-11-1994 at about 10.45 a.m. When the deceased Ayyavoo, who was an accused in a case before the Judicial Magistrate (II), Nagercoil, came to the Court, the accused Nos. 2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil has filed a charge-sheet alleging that due to previous enmity on 29-11-1994 at about 10.45 a.m. When the deceased Ayyavoo, who was an accused in a case before the Judicial Magistrate (II), Nagercoil, came to the Court, the accused Nos. 1 to 7 and another accused whose name and identity not known formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, that the accused 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 armed with sickles and 3rd accused with knife, 4th accused with country bombs had gone to the said Court incited the commission of a terrorist act, that A. 1 and A. 4 possessed country bombs unlawfully within the notified area, that the first accused knowingly had thrown a country bomb to endanger the life of Ayyavoo or to cause serious injury to him on the verandah of Judicial Magistrate Court, that inside the Court Hall A. 1 cut Ayyavoo with sickle, that the 2nd accused inflicted cuts on the chest and neck with sickle, that the 3rd accused stabbed Ayyavoo below the left arm-pit, that accused 1 and 2 cut on the face and head of Ayyavoo indiscriminately and thereby A. 1 to A. 3 caused his death, that accused 4 to 7, who were members of unlawful assembly at that time along with accused 1 to 3, that A. 5 when inflicted cut on Ayyavoo, the same was slipped over the left side arm of the Record Clerk Vimala Rani and ceased a grievous injury, that A. 6 cut one Kumar on his head and backside of his head and caused grievous hurt, that accused 1 to 3 dragged the body of Ayyavoo stating that they have committed the murder in the Court itself and no Court, no Police and nobody can take action against them and they are the kings and threatened the persons and the Advocates present in the Court ran away to take shelter with fear and committed terrorist acts, that the 4th accused had thrown a country bomb on the side of the Sessions Court, that at about 11.00 a.m. at Sivathanu Street, Nagercoil the accused 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 had shown sickle to one Shaju Stallin and committed robbery of a bullet motorcycle bearing registration TNK 5262, that the 3rd accused who was a member of the unlawful assembly shared the common intention of the other accused, that A. 1 to A. 7 had thrown another country bomb in front of Collectorate, and thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 324, 326, 302, 506 (II), 392 r/w. Sec. 149, IPC and under Sections 3 and 5 of the Indian Explosive Substance Act, and Sections 3 and 5 of the TADA Act. 3. The charge-sheet was received by the TADA (designate) Court, Tirunelveli and was taken on file as TADA Case No. 1/95. As per the order of the High Court, Madras in Roc. 361, 97-G. 1 dated 12-3-1997, the case was transferred to the file of the Sessions Judge, Nagercoil and the same was taken on file as Sessions Case No. 45/97. Once again, as per the order passed by this Court in Criminal M.P. Nos. 2821 and 2822/97 dated 6-8-1997 the case was transferred to the Court of the Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli and the same was taken on file in SC No. 392/97. 4. Learned Sessions Judge has framed charge under Section 148 and Section 3 of the Indian Explosive Substance Act, 1908 against A. 1 to A. 7 and under Section 5 of the Indian Explosive Substance Act, 1908 against A. 1 to A. 4, under Section 3 of the Indian Explosive Act against A. 1 and A. 4, under Section 302, IPC against A. 1 to A. 3, under Section 302 r/w 149, IPC against A. 4 to A. 7, under Section 392, IPC against A. 1, A. 2, A. 4 to A. 7, under Section 392 r/w 149, IPC against A. 3, under Section 326, IPC against A. 5 and A. 6; read over and explained to them in Tamil and the accused pleaded not guilty to the said charges. 5. The case of the prosecution is as follows : P.W. 1 Murugan, P.W. 2 Nagarajan, Micheal, Ayyavoo, Shahul Hameed and Aiyyappan were working under one Ayyappan at Vadaseri, Nagercoil. A. 2 Selvam teased Ayyavoo as "useless fellow" and deceased Ayyavoo, Mohan, Devendran and Vellai Nagarajan kidnapped A. 2 Selvam and cut-off his nerve in his leg and took him to Theraikalpudur and threw him in a field. Since then enmity prevailed between A. 2 and deceased Ayyavoo and others. A. 1 to A. 3 and one Sagayababu murdered Ayyappan. The deceased Ayyavoo, another Selvam and P.W. 2 went to the house of A. 1 to A. 5 and slaughtered 15 cows belonging to them. Vadaseri Police have filed a case against the deceased Ayyavoo, P.W. 1, P.W. 2, Shahul Hameed and another Ayyappan for having committed the murder of Sagaya Babu. Hence there was enmity between the two groups. The deceased Ayyavoo, another Selvam and P.W. 2 went to the house of A. 1 to A. 5 and slaughtered 15 cows belonging to them. Vadaseri Police have filed a case against the deceased Ayyavoo, P.W. 1, P.W. 2, Shahul Hameed and another Ayyappan for having committed the murder of Sagaya Babu. Hence there was enmity between the two groups. On 29-11-1994 at about 10.00 a.m. P.W. 12 Kannan, whose brother Devarajan, Advocate, and one Prabhu were murdered by Lingam and others, was talking to one Osaravilai Murugan at Kotrayadi, at that time A. 1 to A. 3 and 5 others came in an Ambassador Car TNI 9956 on Thamaraikulam Nagercoil driven by one Paramarthalingam stopped the car and each one of the accused were armed with deadly weapons known as "Aruval" (sickles) cut on both the hands, right leg and buttocks of P.W. 12, that the 2nd accused has removed a gold chain weighing four sovereigns of P.W. 12 and his motorcycle bearing No. TN 74-A. 451 and thereafter the accused entered inside the Car and the 2nd accused on the motorcycle proceeded towards Nagercoil. P.W. 14 Johnson saw A. 1 and A. 2 near Veppamudu Junction going towards the Court buildings at Nagercoil in an Ambassador Car. At about 10.30 a.m. on the same day, P.Ws. 1, 2, deceased Ayyavoo and one Micheal went to the Judicial IInd Class Magistrate Court at Nagercoil and P.Ws. 1 and 2 were standing near the storeroom of the Court situated in the Verandah on the eastern side. Deceased Ayyavoo and Micheal were standing near the eastern side entrance of the Court. P.W. 26 Srikumaran Nair, Head Clerk has deposed that the 1st accused, P.W. 2 and four others were accused in C.C. No. 226/94 and the case was posted on that date and the entry in the case file for 29-11-1994 is Ex. P. 41. At about 10.45 a.m. Sheikh Mohideen came running with a bomb in his hand and hurled the bomb in front of the Court which exploded. The Advocates and other people present in the Court ran out screaming. A. 2 Selvam armed with a sickle and A. 3 Radhakrishnan with a knife and another unidentified person came running through the front entrance of the Court. The Advocates and other people present in the Court ran out screaming. A. 2 Selvam armed with a sickle and A. 3 Radhakrishnan with a knife and another unidentified person came running through the front entrance of the Court. A. 4 Pauldurai came through the narrow lane with a bomb in his hand followed by A. 5 Oliver with sickle and A. 7 Ramesh. On seeing them Ayyavoo went inside the Court through-the entrance on the eastern side and A. 1 entered inside the Court hall through the western entrance and repeatedly cut on the head of Ayyavoo with sickle. Ayyavoo prevented those cuts with both of his hands. A. 2 Selvam inflicted cuts repeatedly on the neck and chest of Ayyavoo. Ayyavoo fell down on a pool of blood, A. 3 stabbed on the left arm-pit of Ayyavoo with a knife. Again A. 1 and A. 2 inflicted cuts on Ayyavoo as soon as he fell down. A. 6 came through the southern entrance and cut on the head of P.W. 4 Kumar saying "you too standing and witnessing". A. 4 Pauldurai hurled bomb in front of the Sessions Court, but the bomb did not explode. P.M. 3 Vimalarani the Record Clerk in that Court sustained an injury above her left wrist. P.W. 6 Kolappan, Constable attached to Vadaseri Police Station, who was on Court duty, saw a cut delivered by A. S. Oliver wrongly fell on the left wrist of P.W. 3. P.W. 5 Krishnammal, Assistant in the said Court while running fell down and all persons trampled upon her. The Magistrate got up from his seat and went inside his chamber. The Public Prosecutor and the Advocates ran helter-skelter. As the accused were armed with deadly weapons and bombs, P.W. 6 was unable to prevent them as he has not brought his gun on that date. Ayyavoo died at that spot. A piece of finger of Ayyavoo, a portion of brain, broken piece of skull of Ayyavoo were lying near the pool of blood. All the accused dragged the body of Ayyavoo outside the Court hall and threw the body inside S.L.B. School Campus. While throwing the body, the brain of Ayyavoo was scattered inside the school compound. After throwing the body, the accused climbed over the compound wall and ran away. All the accused dragged the body of Ayyavoo outside the Court hall and threw the body inside S.L.B. School Campus. While throwing the body, the brain of Ayyavoo was scattered inside the school compound. After throwing the body, the accused climbed over the compound wall and ran away. P.W. 6 Shaju Stallin who brought his friend Jakeer's motor-cycle TNK 5262 while coming at about 11.00 a.m. he was prevented by four persons, who showed sickles and had taken away the vehicle by force. P.W. 7 saw four persons coming on a motor cycle bearing No. TNK 5262 with sickle in their hands through Parvathavarthini Street. Those persons raised loud noise hailing "long live Babu". P.W. 11 Rosebai Jose, who came in the autorickshaw bearing No. TN 74-A-1054 driven by one Isaac, alerted by some persons not to go further and she alighted from the autoricksaw at about 11 a.m. P.W. 7 heard the explosion of bomb, thereafter four persons going in a motor cycle. P.W. 9 also heard the bomb blast. P.W. 1 went to the Kottar Police Station. P.W. 21 Jose, Head Constable No. 1261 while working in the Kottar Police Station on 29-11-1994 at about 11.30 a.m. P.W. 1 Murugan appeared in person accompanied by one Micheal and gave him a statement which he had recorded and obtained his signature. Micheal put his signature as witness. The said complaint is Ex.P. 1. P.W. 21 registered the same in Crime No. 1151/94 under Sections 147, 148, 323, 302, IPC and Section 5 of the Indian Explosive Substance Act. The printed FIR is Ex. P. 38. He sent the printed FIR to the Court through P.W. 23 Philip Raj working as Grade I Constable in Kottar Police Station. P.W. 23 Philip Raj, Constable received Ex.P. 31 Express FIR and handed over the same in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate No. 11 at 1.30 p.m. on that date. P.W. 27 Anthony Gnanasekar, who was Inspector of Police, Vadaseri Police Station and Incharge of Kottar Police Station on 29-11-1994, as per the orders of the Additional Superintendent of Police, Nagercoil, went to Kottar Police Station and received copy of the FIR in Crime No. 1152/94 from P.W. 21, took up investigation and went to the place of occurrence at 12.45 p.m., along with Head Constable 1310 and Grade I Constable No. 233. He sent intimation to P.W. 19 to take photographs of the place of occurrence and P.W. 19 took photographs of the place of occurrence and connected places which are M.O. 23 series and the negatives are M.O. 24 series. P.W. 27 prepared observation mahazar Ex. P. 2, in the place of occurrence, in the presence of P.W. 7 and Raja. He prepared rough sketch of the place of occurrence Ex.P. 42. At about 1.45 p.m. he seized an unexploded bomb near the Court of Additional District Munsif under a cover of mahazar in the presence of P.W. 7 and Raja. Between 2.00 and 4.00 p.m. he conducted inquest on the dead body of deceased Ayyavoo in SLB School Campus in the presence of witnesses and panchayatars and prepared inquest report Ex.P. 43. During inquest he examined P.Ws. 1, 2, Micheal and one Murugan and recorded their statements. He sent requisition Ex.P. 25 for conducting postmortem on the body of deceased Ayyavoo and also to preserve the ring finger which is cut and also the brain and sent it through P.W. 22 Sasikumar, Constable attached to Kottar Police Station. P.W. 18 Dr. Manohar William, Civil Asst. Surgeon, Government Headquarter's Hospital, Nagercoil on receipt of Ex. P. 25 commenced the postmortem at 5.15 p.m. on 29-11-1994 on the body of Ayyavoo. He found the following external injuries : 1. Several incised injuries were found on the face and head. The face was found to be in completely mutilated state. Skull bone was found cut open. One ounce of brain alone was seen inside that. Nose, ear, eye on the face were found crushed after having been cut. 2. An incised wound measuring about 3 x 1 x 2 inches was found at the centre of the neck portion. The Trachea was found cut. 3. An incised wound measuring about 1 x 3/4 x 1 inches was found at the centre portion of the chest. 4. Another incised wound measuring about 1 1/2" x 3 x 4 x 1 inches was found below the aforesaid 3rd injury. 5. A cut injury measuring about 4 x 2 x 1 inch was found across the right side of the chest wall. 6. A stab-injury measuring about 3 x 2 inch was found left side of the abdomen, exposing the intestine. 7. 5. A cut injury measuring about 4 x 2 x 1 inch was found across the right side of the chest wall. 6. A stab-injury measuring about 3 x 2 inch was found left side of the abdomen, exposing the intestine. 7. An incised injury measuring about 3 x 3/4 x 3/4 inch was found above the left knee. 8. An incised wound was found extended from the index finger to the little finger on the right hand, the piece of ring finger which was cut, was not visible. 9. An incised wound measuring about 4 x 3 x 3/4 inches was found internally on the right wrist, exposing the veins. 10. An incised wound measuring about 3 x 2 x 1/2 inches was found on the outer aspect of the left wrist, exposing the veins. 11. An incised injury measuring about 1 x 1/2 x 1/2 inch was found on the lower portion of the left little finger. 12. An incised wound measuring about 2 x 1 x 1 inch found below the left arm-pit. On viceral examination, an incised wound measuring about 2 x 1/2 inches was found on the left lobe of the liver parallel to the aforestated 5th external injury. A stab-injury was found in the small intestine parallel with the aforesaid 6th injury and contusion was found surrounding that injury. In conjunction with the first external injury brain weighing 1 ounce was found in the skull. No rigormortis was present in the upper limbs. Rigor-mortis was found in the lower limbs. P.W. 18 was of opinion that the deceased would appear to have died due to brain haemorrhage and shock, 24 hrs. prior to the autopsy. Ex. P. 26 is the postmortem report issued by him. P.W. 22 Constable removed M.O. 25 blood-stained shirt, M.O. 27 banian, M.O. 28 blood-stained worn-out belt and M.O. 29 underwear from the body and handed it over to the Inspector P.W. 27. P.W. 16 Dr. Shantha working as Assistant Surgeon, Government Headquarter's Hospital, Nagercoil, examined P.W. 4 at 11.30 a.m. on 29-11-1994 and found the following injuries : 1. One bone-deep cut injury measuring 7" x 3" is found at the centre part of the backside of the head in a cross-wise manner. Oozing of blood was seen in that. 2. One bone-deep cut injury measuring 10" x 2" is found in the right side of the head. One bone-deep cut injury measuring 7" x 3" is found at the centre part of the backside of the head in a cross-wise manner. Oozing of blood was seen in that. 2. One bone-deep cut injury measuring 10" x 2" is found in the right side of the head. Injury was found slanting. Oozing of blood was seen. X-ray was taken for the 2nd injury. In that, fracture of the right side bone of the head was seen. P.W. 16 was of opinion that injury No. 1 was simple and injury No. 2 was grievous in nature. The certificate issued by her is Ex. P. 17. The intimation which she sent to the police is Ex.P. 18. P.W. 16 examined Vimalarani at 11.15 a.m. on 29-11-1994 and found the following injuries : 1. One bone-deep slanting cut injury measuring 7 x 4 cm. is found at the back side of the left forehead on taking X-ray of that injury the bottom portion of the bone called the radius was found cut. P.W. 16 was of opinion that the injury was grievous in nature. The certificate issued by her is Ex. P. 19 and the intimation sent to the police is Ex. P. 20. P.W. 16 examined Smt. Krishnammal P.W. 5 on 11.50 a.m. on that day and she had no external injuries. She told that due to the confusion that happened at 10.45 a.m. while running she fell down and some persons had stamped her and she was having pain over her body. The wound certificate is Ex. P. 21 and the intimation sent to police is Ex. P. 22. The note which she wrote after seeing M.Os. 20 and 21 are Ex. P. 23 and Ex. P. 24. O.W. 17 Dr. Meera, who was working in the Government Headquarters Hospital Nagercoil in the X-ray Department, took X-ray on the left fore-arm of P.W. 3 on 29-11-1994. found fracture beneath the radial bone in the left arm. M.O. 20 is the X-ray. The X-ray taken for P.W. 4 Kumar shows fracture on the right parietal bone, M.O. 21 is the X-ray. P.W. 27 continued the investigation and at about 4.15 p.m. he seized blood-stained earth M.O. 9 and sample earth M.O. 10 under a cover of mahazar Ex. P. 6. At 4.45 p.m. he seized M.Os. 11 and 14 under a cover of mahazar Ex. P.W. 27 continued the investigation and at about 4.15 p.m. he seized blood-stained earth M.O. 9 and sample earth M.O. 10 under a cover of mahazar Ex. P. 6. At 4.45 p.m. he seized M.Os. 11 and 14 under a cover of mahazar Ex. P. 7 in the presence of P.W. 7 and Raja near SLB School Campus where dead body was lying. At 5.15 p.m. he seized square shaped wrist-watch M.O. 8 near the southern side entrance of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate Court under a cover of mahazar Ex. P. 5. At 5.45 p.m. he seized M.Os. 2 to 6 under a cover of mahazar Ex. P. 3. He seized M.O. 15 series under a cover of mahazar Ex. P. 8 in the presence of P.W. 7 and Raja. He examined P.W. 7 and Raja and recorded their statements. He examined Thiru Pichai, the Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil, Thiru Vaikundavasakam, Public Prosecutor Grade II attached to that Court and recorded their statements. P.W. 27 examined P.Ws. 3 and 4 at Kottar Hospital and recorded their statements. He sent the material objects seized, to Court. He examined P.W. 8 and recorded his statement. He also seized M.O. 16 series the exploded particles of the bomb under a cover of mahazar Ex. P. 9 in the presence of witnesses P.W. 9 and one Vijayakumar auto driver. He prepared a rough sketch of that place Ex. P. 44. He examined P.W. 5 Issac and other witnesses and recorded their statements. On 2-12-1994 P.W. 27 examined P.Ws. 3, 5 and 26 again and recorded their statements. He examined further witnesses and recorded their statements. P.W. 28 took up investigation from him and continued the investigation. P.W. 28 Additional Superintendent of Police, Nagercoil took up further investigation as per the orders of the District Superintendent of Police under Ex. P. 45 on 2-12-1994. He continued the investigation as per the provisions of TADA Act and inspected the place of occurrence and examined witnesses already examined by P.W. 27. As Principal Sessions Court, Tirunelveli was the concerned Court, he filed a petition Ex. P. 46 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Nagercoil through the Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil to transfer the case to the said Court. Accused Nos. 1 to 3 surrendered in the Magistrate's Court at Cuddalore on 2-12-94. On 13-12-1994 the case was transferred accordingly. As Principal Sessions Court, Tirunelveli was the concerned Court, he filed a petition Ex. P. 46 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Nagercoil through the Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil to transfer the case to the said Court. Accused Nos. 1 to 3 surrendered in the Magistrate's Court at Cuddalore on 2-12-94. On 13-12-1994 the case was transferred accordingly. On the same date he produced A. 1 to A. 3 before that Court as per the orders of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil and the TADA Court at Tirunelveli directed the accused be produced before the TADA Court, Chennai. P.W. 28 took A. 1 to A. 3 to Chennai under police protection and on 14-12-1994 he produced the accused as well as FIR in the TADA Court at Chennai. On a petition moved by him, the TADA Court, Chennai permitted A. 1 to A. 3 to keep in police custody for the purpose of investigation. On 14-12-1994 P.W. 28 enquired P.W. 12 Kannan at the Stanley Hospital, Chennai and recorded his statement. A. 5 and A. 6 produced before TADA Court on 15-12-1994. P.W. 28 brought A. 1 to A. 3 to Kottar Police Station on 15-12-1994 and at 7.00 a.m. on 16-12-1994 when he questioned A. 1, he gave a voluntary confession statement in the presence of P.W. 13 and, Thangavel. The admissible portion of which is Ex.P. 10. When P.W. 28 questioned the 2nd accused Selvam he voluntarily gave a confession statement in the presence of the same witnesses between 9.45 a.m. and 12.30 p.m. The admissible portion of which is Ex. P. 11. When he questioned, the third accused gave a confession statement between 1.45 p.m. and 4.30 p.m. in the presence of the same witnesses and Ex.P. 12 is the admissible portion of the confession. The accused took P.W. 28, P.W. 13 and Thangavel to the place where they had secreted the weapons and at 4.45 p.m. A. 1 handed over an Aruval M.O. 17 and A. 2 handed over another Aruval M.O. 18. The third accused handed over a Suri knife M.O. 19 from near the channel near the coconut grove belonging to Viyakulamuthu Nadar at Keezha Perivilai. P.W. 28 seized M.Os. 17, 18 and 19 under cover of mahazars Exs.P. 13 to 15 respectively in the presence of witnesses. The third accused handed over a Suri knife M.O. 19 from near the channel near the coconut grove belonging to Viyakulamuthu Nadar at Keezha Perivilai. P.W. 28 seized M.Os. 17, 18 and 19 under cover of mahazars Exs.P. 13 to 15 respectively in the presence of witnesses. He sent a requisition to the District Superintendent of Police for recording the statement of A. 1 to A. 3. He examined witnesses P.W. 18 by showing M.Os. 17 to 19 and recorded his statement. On 18-12-1994 he examined witnesses Jaheer, Narayanan, Shanmugam, Murugan, Paramathilingam and Inspector Chandrapaul and recorded their statements. On 26-12-1994 P.W. 25 Inspector of Police on the orders of P.W. 28 went to Kottar Police Station and defused the unexploded country bomb by removing the various materials and chemicals kept therein. P.W. 28 produced A. 1 to A. 3 before the TADA Court, Chennai. He sent the weapons seized to the Court. P.W. 20 Narasimhan, Record Clerk in the TADA Court-2, Chennai, received the requisition Ex. P. 27 from P.W. 28 for sending M.Os. 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 to 14 and 17 to 19 and also other articles for chemical analysis under original of the covering letter Ex. P. 29. Later, the Court has sent M.Os. 7, 15 and 16 for analysis by the explosive expert. The requisition sent by the police is Ex. P. 30 and the covering letter sent by the Court is Ex. P. 31. The report of the Chemical Analyst is Ex. P. 32. The report regarding the examination of brain is Ex. P. 33. The reports of the Serologist are Exs. P. 34 and P. 35. The report regarding viscera is Ex. P. 36. The report of the Explosives Expert is Ex. P. 37. P.W. 28 continued the investigation and further examined witnesses and recorded their statements. On 26-12-1994 he enquired P.W. 25 Inspector and recorded his statement. P.W. 28 sent a requisition to sanction prosecution against the accused under Explosives Substance Act. P.W. 24 the concerned Clerk in the Collector's Office, Kanyakumari, has received the said requisition Ex. P. 39 and the District Collector, Kanyakumari gave the permission Ex. P. 40. P.W. 25 Inspector of Police received the requisition on 26-12-1994. P.W. 29 Baskaran, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, Kanyakumari took up further investigation from P.W. 28 and continued the investigation and he searched for A. 8. P. 39 and the District Collector, Kanyakumari gave the permission Ex. P. 40. P.W. 25 Inspector of Police received the requisition on 26-12-1994. P.W. 29 Baskaran, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, Kanyakumari took up further investigation from P.W. 28 and continued the investigation and he searched for A. 8. He examined P.W. 15 Village Administrative Officer, Kalkulam regarding one David and after due enquiry P.W. 15 gave a report Ex. P. 16 to the effect that there was no such person in the said address. P.W. 29 examined the Photographer Chandrasekaran and recorded his statement. He also examined P.W. 18 Medical Officer and recorded his statement. On completion of investigation and on receipt of the legal opinion from the Public Prosecutor he filed a charge-sheet against the accused under Sections 147, 148, 324, 302, 326, 506(2), 392 r/w Section 3, IPC and under Sections 3 and 5 of the Indian Explosive Substance Act. When the accused were questioned under Section 313, Cr.P.C. they denied the incriminating evidence against them. 6. The first accused in his statement has stated that on that date he is an accused in Crime No. 262/94 and as such he could not have committed the offence that as stated by P.Ws. 1 and 2 who are his enemies as the Vadaseri Police filed a case against him and the second accused in Crime No. 600/93 for attempting to commit the murder of P.W. 12. P.W. 6 has deposed falsely at the instance of the superiors. P.W. 7 belongs to the group of deceased Ayyavoo and he is inimical towards the first accused. P.W. 8 is the brother-in-law of Micheal who is his enemy. He has not given any confessional statement on the basis of which any weapon was recovered as alleged by P.W. 28. 7. The accused did not examine any witness on their side. 8. Two groups regularly involving in criminal offences in order to take revenge on each other in the town of Nagercoil and the nearby places involved in the present occurrence also. These groups have got many cases to their credit and when members of one group were accused, the other group were witnesses for the prosecution. This case is also an example as to how one group tried to take revenge on the other group unmindful of anything and everything. P.Ws. These groups have got many cases to their credit and when members of one group were accused, the other group were witnesses for the prosecution. This case is also an example as to how one group tried to take revenge on the other group unmindful of anything and everything. P.Ws. 1 and 2 Micheal, Ayyappan, Shahul Hameed, deceased Ayyavoo worked under one Ayyappan at Vadaseri Nagercoil. In the year 1991 A. 2 Selvam teased Ayyappan as "Sappattaiyan" (useless fellow) and the deceased Ayyavoo, P.W. 2 Nagarajan, Mohan, Veliaiyan and Devendran kidnapped A. 2 Selvam, removed the nerve in his leg and threw him in a field at Theraikalpudur village. Since then there was enmity between the group of A. 2 and Ayyappan. In the year 1993, Ayyappan was murdered by A. 1 to A. 3 herein one Sagayababu while Ayyappan was standing in front of his house. Aggrieved by the murder of Ayyappan, the deceased Ayyavoo, P.W. 2 and another Selvam entered inside the cowshed of A. 4 and A. 5 and slaughtered 15 cows. A case was registered against Ayyavoo, P.W. 2 and one Selvam in Vadaseri Police Station and the said case was posted before the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Nagercoil. In 1994, Sagayababu was murdered by the deceased Ayyavoo, P.W. 1, P.W. 2, Sahul Hameed and another Ayyappan. It is also worthwhile to mention here that the accused herein had also enmity with one Lawyer by name Devarajan. Devarajan and his brother Prabhu were killed by Lingam and his men. Subsequently, when Lingam was in jail, by entering into the jail premises he was murdered by the other group. The accused herein are also members of Lingam group. The various occurrences which have taken place earlier not only show the enmity between the groups but also that they were ready to do anything unmindful of the consequences. There cannot be any more strong motive as shown by the prosecution in this case, for the accused to kill Ayyavoo the deceased who was an accused in murder cases on the charge of murdering the men belonging to the group of the accused herein. Though motive is a double-edged weapon, we have to see how the weapon was used in the particular circumstances. P.W. 1 has clearly stated in the earliest complaint Ex. Though motive is a double-edged weapon, we have to see how the weapon was used in the particular circumstances. P.W. 1 has clearly stated in the earliest complaint Ex. P. 1 given by him in Vadaseri Police Station about the motive behind the killing of Ayyavoo. P.W. 1 has deposed regarding the motive, in Court and P.Ws. 2 and 12 also further corroborated the various reasons which formed as motive for the occurrence. 9. On 29-11-1994 at about 10.00 a.m. P.W. 12 Kannan the brother of Lawyer Devarajan and Prabhu, who were murdered by Lingam and his party in which the accused herein were also members met P.W. 2 at Kotrayadi on the Thamaraikulam - Nagercoil Road while he was talking to one Murugan. One Ambassador Car TNI 9956 came from Thamaraikulam stopped near P.W. 12. One Paramarthilingam drove the car. A. 1 to A. 3 and five others got down from the Car and all of them had sickles in their hands. A. 1 to A. 3 who were accused in murder case of Prabhu wherein P.W. 12 was a witness, by saying that they will ruin his entire family, cut on both of his hands, right leg and buttocks. A. 2 Selvam robbed the motor cycle of P.W. 2 bearing registration No. TN 74 A 4751 and also a gold chain weighing 4 sovereigns and they went in the car and motorcycle towards Thamaraikulam Road. P.W. 12 lodged a complaint and he was sent to Government Headquarters Hospital, Nagercoil where P.W. 16 gave treatment. After the occurrence, the accused proceeded towards Nagercoil and entered the campus of the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. 22, Nagercoil. 10. Learned Counsel for the appellants herein has strenuously contended that after causing injuries to P.W. 12, the dresses of A. 1 to A. 3 could have been stained with blood so also the sickles and after the said occurrence when they proceeded towards Thamaraikulam which is in the opposite direction, the prosecution has not explained as to how they reached the Court campus of the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Nagercoil. 11. 11. Learned Government Advocate argued that they were two separate occurrences on that date and the accused 1 to 3 involved in both the occurrences and as the occurrences had taken place in two separate places as to how they arrived the Court campus of the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Nagercoil is immaterial when witnesses identified them in the Court campus during the time of occurrence. 12. When we consider the evidence of P.W. 12 it is clear the accused Nos. 1 to 3 and others intended to take revenge on their enemies and with that intention they had acted swiftly. The accused had calculated the commission of offences in such a way that after committing the first offence, they entered inside the Court campus and number of persons have identified A. 1 to A. 6 and also A. 7 and another person whose identity could not be fixed. As the evidence on the side of the prosecution clearly establishes the presence of accused persons at the time of occurrence, we need not harp much as to how the accused persons cleaned their dress and the sickles or how they reached the Court premises. What is required under law is reliable evidence regarding the commission of offence. The various circumstances if properly explained, may bring doubt regarding the presence of accused in the scene at the time of occurrence. However, there are no such strong circumstances to doubt the presence of the accused at the time of occurrence in Court. 12A. Learned Counsel for the appellants has argued that the time of occurrence has not been proved by the prosecution. In Ex. P. 1, which is the earliest document available in this case, P.W. 1 has stated that after the proceedings of the Court, it began, at about 10.45 a.m. when the accused came to the premises of the Judicial IInd Class Magistrate which is situated in the campus wherein various other Courts are also functioning in the nearby buildings. P.W. 1 in his evidence has stated that at about 10.45 a.m. while he and Vellai Nagarajan were standing, A. 1 Sheik Meeran came running and exploded a bomb and the accused entered inside through various ways. P.W. 2 has also clearly stated that at about 10.45 a.m. while he was standing with P.W. 1, A. 1 rushed inside on the southern side and exploded a bomb. P.W. 2 has also clearly stated that at about 10.45 a.m. while he was standing with P.W. 1, A. 1 rushed inside on the southern side and exploded a bomb. P.W. 3 Vimalarani Record Clerk of that Court had stated that the Court work began at 10.30 a.m. on that date and when cases were called at about 10.45 a.m. she heard the noise of bomb explosion outside the Court hall and swiftly thereafter two or three persons having sickles in their hands came running after Ayyavoo, who ran inside the Court hall. P.W. 4 who was an accused in CC No. 97/94 on the file of the said Court came for the hearing, heard a noise at about 10.30 or 11.00 a.m. The time stated by P.W. 4 was proximate and from the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 it is clear that the occurrence had started at about 10.45 a.m. and the evidence of P.W. 4 is also not against the version of P.Ws. 1 to 3 regarding the time of occurrence. P.W. 5 the Assistant working in that Court had deposed that the Court work began at 10.30 a.m. on that day. Within about 10 minutes she heard the sound of bomb blast near the Court. P.W. 6 Constable attached to Vadaseri Police Station, who was allotted Court duty on that date, has stated that the Court work began at 1.30 a.m. and within 15 minutes he heard the sound of bomb blast. P.Ws. 1 to 6 have clearly stated that the occurrence had taken place at about 10.45 a.m. and as such the evidence regarding the time of occurrence is very cogent and there is nothing on record to doubt the time of occurrence. Learned Counsel for the appellants has argued that after committing the offence near Kotrayadi at 10.00 a.m., the accused could not have reached the Court at about 10.45 a.m. as alleged by the witnesses examined on the side of the prosecution. P.W. 12 had stated that at the time of earlier occurrence it was 10.00 a.m. and he verified the same by looking into his watch. There is no evidence on record regarding the distance between the place of first occurrence and the place of the main occurrence i.e. in the Judicial Magistrate No. II Court. P.W. 12 had stated that at the time of earlier occurrence it was 10.00 a.m. and he verified the same by looking into his watch. There is no evidence on record regarding the distance between the place of first occurrence and the place of the main occurrence i.e. in the Judicial Magistrate No. II Court. A car was at the disposal of the accused and it seems the accused had acted swiftly so as to reach the place of occurrence by that time. If the defence has to bring any reasonable doubt regarding their contention that the accused after committing the first offence at 10.00 a.m. could not have reached the Court by 10.45 a.m., they would have shown proper explanation to prove the said contention and no such explanation was forthcoming regarding the distance and the impossibility of travelling that distance and to reach the Court premises by 10.45 a.m. When any plausible or reasonable explanation is lacking, we cannot have any doubt regarding the presence of the accused 1 to 3 in the scene of occurrence at about 10.45 a.m. on that date. It was strenuously contended that P.W. 12 told the Doctor P.W. 16 who treated him that the occurrence had taken place at 10.20 a.m. P.W. 16 has admitted that she has corrected the time 10.00 as 10.20 a.m. and not 10.30 as 10.20 a.m. P.W. 12 categorically stated that the time of his assault was 10.00 as he had verified his watch. Even if the time is corrected, by the Doctor it was not 10.30 corrected as 10.20 a.m. and on the contrary the original timing stated as 10.00 a.m. was corrected as 10.20 a.m. and we are not much concerned in this case regarding any correction made in respect of a document concerning in another case and any such correction would not bring any doubt regarding the time of occurrence in the instant case. 13. After the occurrence, while the accused escaped in a car and also in a motor cycle kept by P.W. 10 Shaju Stallin, who borrowed the motor-cycle of his friend Jakeer, bearing registration No. TNK 5262, by parking the motorcycle and entered inside the work shop and he has stated that at about 11.00 a.m. four men came to the shop with sickles and had taken away the vehicle by force. P.W. 8 who is an auto driver driving an auto bearing registration No. TSK 3024 through Parvathavarthini Street saw four men coming on a motor cycle at about 11.00 a.m. on 29-11-94. Ex. P. 44 rough sketch shows the auto stand and also Parvathavarthini Street. P.W. 9, who is running a Tea stall nearby had stated that at about 11.10 a.m. four persons had gone on a motor cycle. P.W. 11 a District Educational Officer, who was travelling in an auto bearing registration No. TN 74 A 1054 had to alight from the auto as she was not allowed to travel further and the time was about 11.00 a.m. on 29-11-1994. It was argued on the side of the appellants that P.W. 8 is brother-in-law of Micheal, who is a friend of P.W. 1 and attested Ex. P. 1 complaint as a witness and at the instigation of Micheal P.W. 8 had deposed falsely. Even leaving the evidence of P.W. 8 we have the evidence of P.W. 11 a District Educational Officer, P.W. 9 a person running a Tea stall at the auto stand situated near the Collectorate, Nagercoil. Mani, whose Tea stall is shown in Ex. P. 44 rough sketch and also the evidence of P.W. 10 Shaju Stallin who was in possession of TNK 5262 Motorcycle borrowed from his friend and taken away by the accused, by force, who used it to escape from the crowded place of occurrence. Therefore the time of occurrence is clearly fixed through the witnesses that it had occurred between 10.40 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. 14. Coming to the occurrence proper P.Ws. 1, 2 and 6 have clearly deposed the entire occurrence including the overt acts against A. 1 to A. 6. In Ex. P. 1, P.W. 1 has clearly stated the entire occurrence. On 29-11-94 P.W. 2 and the deceased Ayyavoo went to the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. II, Nagercoil for hearing of the case in CC 226/94 on the file the said Court in Vadaseri Police Station in Crime No. 726/93 a case regarding the cows slaughter. P.W. 1 and Micheal who are associates of the deceased and P.W. 2 also went to the Court to see the proceedings. The Topography of the Court, the place of occurrence and the connected places are shown as Ex. P. 42. P.W. 1 and Micheal who are associates of the deceased and P.W. 2 also went to the Court to see the proceedings. The Topography of the Court, the place of occurrence and the connected places are shown as Ex. P. 42. P.W. 1 has stated that while he and P.W. 2 were standing near the store room situated in the Verandah at the eastern side of the Court, the deceased Ayyavoo and Micheal were standing near the eastern entrance of the Court. A. 1 Sheik Meeran came running and hurled a bomb in front of the court and the bomb exploded. The people present in the Court ran out screaming. A. 1 was armed with Aruval so also A. 2 and A. 3 armed with a knife came along with another unidentified person. A. 4 who came running through a narrow lane was having a bomb in his hand. A. 5 and A. 7 came running. On seeing them Ayyavoo went inside the Court hall through the entrance on the eastern side. A. 1 ran inside the Court hall through the entrance on the western side. P.Ws. 1 and 2 also went near the entrance. A. 1 with a sickle in his hand had inflicted cuts on the head of Ayyavoo who prevented the same with both of his hands and A. 2 Salvam repeatedly cut neck and chest of Ayyavoo. Ayyavoo fell down in a pool of blood and A. 3 Radha Krishnan stabbed on the left arm-pit of Ayyavoo with a knife. A. 1 and A. 2 again cut Ayyavoo indiscriminately even after he fell down. A. 5 inflicted a cut with sickle and that fell on the left hand of P.W. 3. A. 6 came through the southern entrance, cut P.W. 4 Kumar with sickle. A. 4 hurled bomb in front of the Sessions Court but the bomb did not explode. Ayyavoo was found dead and all the accused dragged the body of Ayyavoo outside the Court near the Ashoka tree and threw the dead body inside SKB School Campus. A. 1 the accused scaled over the compound wall and ran away from there. By seeing the occurrence, P.W. 5 the Assistant working in that Court ran towards the entrance and she fell down, people who were inside the Court while running stamped on her body. A. 1 the accused scaled over the compound wall and ran away from there. By seeing the occurrence, P.W. 5 the Assistant working in that Court ran towards the entrance and she fell down, people who were inside the Court while running stamped on her body. The accused who ran from there, on the way robbed the motorcycle which was in the possession of P.W. 10 and all the four travelled on the said motorcycle. We have already seen number of witnesses, P.Ws. 8, 9, 10 and 11 witnessed the occurrence. If we leave the evidence of P.W. 8, as he is interested in Micheal, the witness who attested Ex.P. 1 and an associate of P.Ws. 1 and 2, there remains the evidence of independent witnesses like P.Ws. 9, 10 and 11. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 is very cogent and convincing regarding the occurrence. It was strenuously argued on the side of the appellants that P.W. 6 Constable attached to Kottar Police Station if really present at the scene of occurrence would have reported the matter to the police station immediately thereafter or at least he could have narrated the occurrence to P.W. 27, who visited the place of occurrence at 12.45 p.m. The Kottar Police Station general diary for the date 29-11-1994 shows that PC 478 was deputed to Court duty of the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Nagercoil. Even if we leave the evidence of P.W. 6, who according to the appellants was introduced later to support the case of the prosecution, there remains the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 regarding the occurrence. The injuries sustained, during the occurrence by P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5 were spoken to by them. P.W. 16 treated them on the same date for the said injuries. Their evidence can be taken as a circumstance for the occurrence which had taken place inside the Court hall, though they have not stated anything incriminating the accused. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 was challenged by the appellants as interested on the ground that they belong to opposite camp. The presence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 in the place of occurrence as explained by prosecution seemed to be reasonable as P.W. 2 had a case before the said Court and P.W. 1 and Micheal had accompanied them. 1 and 2 was challenged by the appellants as interested on the ground that they belong to opposite camp. The presence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 in the place of occurrence as explained by prosecution seemed to be reasonable as P.W. 2 had a case before the said Court and P.W. 1 and Micheal had accompanied them. It was argued that P.W. 1 was an accused in the murder case of Sagayababu, subsequently he was released on bail. As he has not followed the condition imposed, a warrant has been pending against him issued by the same Court and as such he could not have attended Court. The warrant can be executed provided the police officials present in the Court identified him and simply because the warrant was pending we cannot doubt the presence, especially when cogent evidence is available on record to speak about his presence. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 was challenged as interested and when so many other witnesses were present at the time of occurrence the interested testimony of P.Ws. 1 and 2 who were also accused in the previous cases along with the deceased should not be taken into consideration. We cannot reject the evidence of any person on the ground that he has got a criminal record to his credit and the evidence of such person should be considered with great care and caution. The presence of accused and P.W. 2 who had a case in that Court cannot be doubted as P.W. 25 had spoken to the fact of the case against them posted on that date. P.W. 1 and Micheal had gone along with the other two. The various acts of crime committed by the accused clearly stated by these witnesses would go to show that they were present in the Court at the time of occurrence but for that they would not have given the entire occurrence in such a cogent manner. Immediately after the occurrence P.W. 1 had gone to the police station and had narrated the entire occurrence in his complaint Ex.P. 1, recorded by P.W. 21 who registered the same in Crime No. 1151/94 under Sections 147, 148, 327, 302, IPC and Section 5 of Indian Explosive Substance Act. Immediately after the occurrence P.W. 1 had gone to the police station and had narrated the entire occurrence in his complaint Ex.P. 1, recorded by P.W. 21 who registered the same in Crime No. 1151/94 under Sections 147, 148, 327, 302, IPC and Section 5 of Indian Explosive Substance Act. The argument on the side of the appellants that none of the independent witnesses including the Magistrate and the Additional Public Prosecutor II attached to that Court were not examined on the side of the prosecution would not bring any doubt regarding the case of the prosecution. If they had examined, it would add more strength to the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 and their non-examination would not bring any doubt regarding the evidence of these two witnesses. We have analysed the evidence carefully and after evaluating the evidence and circumstances we have no hesitation to believe the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2. 15. The occurrence had taken place between 10.45 and 11.00 a.m. and P.W. 1 went to the police station at about 11.30 a.m. which is about 1 Km. from the place of occurrence. There is no delay in reporting the matter to the police station. After witnessing such a ghastly occurrence, it was rather difficult for anyone to go to the police station immediately and even then P.W. 1 and Micheal went to the police station and P.W. 1 gave the complaint Ex. P. 1. P.W. 21 registered the same and sent the Express FIR along with the complaint at about 12.30 p.m. to the Court, through P.W. 23 Philip Raj, Grade I Constable attached to Kottar Police Station, and he handed it over in the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. II, Nagercoil by 1.30 p.m. on the same date. There is no delay in reporting, registering and forwarding the complaint to the Court. Neither P.W. 1 and Micheal nor the police officials have any time to implicate the accused in this case falsely. The prompt action taken on the part of P.W. 1 and also the police officials would go to show the truth of the case of the prosecution. It cannot be said that P.W. 1 in order to take vengeance on the accused person had falsely implicated them. The occurrence had taken place in the broad day light when the Court was in session and in the presence of many persons. It cannot be said that P.W. 1 in order to take vengeance on the accused person had falsely implicated them. The occurrence had taken place in the broad day light when the Court was in session and in the presence of many persons. In such circumstances the names of accused cannot be implicated falsely as there was no sufficient time for such implication since the complaint has been lodged without any delay. 16. It was argued on the side of the appellants that Ayyavoo used to wear Dhoti and shirt and on that day he was wearing pant would bring considerable doubt regarding the identification of the deceased as his face was also completely crushed due to indiscriminate cuts and as P.W. 1 and 2 themselves have admitted that the face was mutilated and was beyond identification. Such an argument cannot be appreciated because P.Ws. 1 and 2 accompanied Ayyavoo had identified him. The case in which Ayyavoo and P.W. 2 were accused was posted on that date. After knowing the date of hearing of the said case wherein Ayyavoo was an accused who was also involved in the previous murder cases, the accused had preparation to commit the murder of Ayyavoo on that day in the Court campus itself. A careful reading of the evidence regarding the entire occurrence would go to show that the accused had made every preparation with an intention to commit the murder of Ayyavoo on that day in the Court campus and when Ayyavoo by seeing A. 1 followed by other accused running towards him, ran inside the Court hall in order to save his life the accused persons unmindful of the place and circumstances entered inside the Court hall while the Court was in session, committed the murder of their enemy Ayyavoo. In such circumstances the identification of the deceased cannot be doubted and it is well established that Ayyavoo was murdered on that date. The observation mahazar Ex. P. 2 prepared by P.W. 27 in the presence of P.W. 7 and one Raja would go to show the presence of pool of blood and also a piece of ring finger of the deceased and pieces of skull, pieces of brain matter and also little hair. The place of occurrence also cannot be disputed. The observation mahazar Ex. P. 2 prepared by P.W. 27 in the presence of P.W. 7 and one Raja would go to show the presence of pool of blood and also a piece of ring finger of the deceased and pieces of skull, pieces of brain matter and also little hair. The place of occurrence also cannot be disputed. The identity of those accused who committed the murder also cannot be disputed as it is cogently and convincingly proved through the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2. 17. It was argued on the side of the appellants that the Doctor P.W. 18 has admitted that no stab injury was found on the dead body and therefore the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 that A. 3 stabbed Ayyavoo with a knife below his left arm-pit has not been proved and as such no case has been made out against A. 3. P.W. 18 in the postmortem certificate Ex. P. 26 has stated that injury No. 6 was stab injury measuring Shout 3 x 2 inches was found on the left side of abdomen exposing the intestine and injury No. 12 was an incised wound measuring 2 x 1 x 1 inch below the left arm-pit. Further, the internal examination showed that a stab injury was found in the small intestine parallel with the sixth injury and contusion surrounding that injury. When he himself has stated that injury No. 6 was a stab injury and the internal examination also showed that a stab injury was found in the small intestine parallel with the injury No. 6, it cannot be said that there was no stab injury. The only point which could be raised is that the injury found below the left arm-pit was not a stab injury as alleged by the witnesses but it was an incised wound. The occurrence had taken place while the Court was in session and the accused ransacked the entire people by entering inside the Court hall and cutting the deceased indiscriminately. The harrow of the crime was so breathtaking that P.Ws. 1 and 2 could not be able to see A. 3 stabbing Ayyavoo with a knife. In such circumstances there may be slight variation and the places wherein injury Nos. 6 and 12 were found are nearby in the body of Ayyavoo. The harrow of the crime was so breathtaking that P.Ws. 1 and 2 could not be able to see A. 3 stabbing Ayyavoo with a knife. In such circumstances there may be slight variation and the places wherein injury Nos. 6 and 12 were found are nearby in the body of Ayyavoo. Such variations between the evidence of the witnesses and the medical evidence may not bring any doubt regarding the overt act attributed to A. 3. The argument that the Doctor has admitted that there was no stab injury is not correct. 18. The evidence of P.W. 18 is clear that injuries Nos. 1 to 3 i.e. (1) several incised injuries on the face and head, (2) an incised wound found at the centre of the neck bone where trachea was found cut, and (3) an incised wound found at the centre portion of the chest; would have caused the death. All these injuries were caused by A. 1 and A. 2. The Doctor has also stated that injury No. 6, among the injuries, might have been caused by a weapon-like knife. Apart from that it is also clear that the entire brain matter was smashed and spilled at the place of occurrence and also near the place wherein the corpse was thrown inside SLB School Campus near the channel. Immediately after inflicting those injuries the deceased died there in the Court hall itself. A. 1 and A. 2 had caused the fatal injuries on Ayyavoo. A. 3 shared the common intention of committing the murder of Ayyavoo and he had accompanied the other accused persons. The evidence available on record would go to show that the accused had pre-planned to commit the murder of Ayyavoo while he was visiting the Court to answer the charge of cows slaughter. Those cows belonged to A. 5 and A. 6 and they also accompanied the other accused persons. It seems, on the way they met the brother of Lawyer Devarajan and Prabhu who were murdered by some of the accused and their associates and who was also a witness in that case in order to take revenge on him, cut him with sickles and A. 4 robbed his gold chain and also the motorcycle. It seems, on the way they met the brother of Lawyer Devarajan and Prabhu who were murdered by some of the accused and their associates and who was also a witness in that case in order to take revenge on him, cut him with sickles and A. 4 robbed his gold chain and also the motorcycle. Thereafter the accused most probably after a wash of the blood in the weapon and on their dress, had come to the Court and by that time the Court was in session and by seeing Ayyavoo who was standing at the entrance and witnessing the trial came and chased him and in order to escape from the hands of the accused when Ayyavoo entered inside the Court hall, the accused followed him and committed the murder there itself. Even there is small variation regarding the injury caused by A. 3, the cogent evidence and the reasonable inference which could be drawn is that A. 3 shared the common intention of committing the murder of Ayyavoo and in furtherance of the common intention he has caused the stab injury on the person of Ayyavoo. In such circumstances A. 3 is also equally liable like A. 1 and A. 2 who had caused the fatal injuries on the person of Ayyavoo. 19. It was further argued by the appellants that one of the accused among the eight persons has not been traced, that the 7th accused was identified only in Court and if the same yardstick is applied, the identification of A. 1 to A. 16 is also doubtful and when they were identified only by P.Ws. 1 and 2 who are inimically disposed towards the accused and the evidence of P.W. 29 who is a police officer cannot be believed beyond doubt. It is true that one of the accused could not be traced. P.W. 15 has given Ex. P. 16 report to that effect that no such person is residing in the address furnished. No witness has deposed before this Court that the unidentified accused caused any injury on the deceased. The evidence of P.Ws. It is true that one of the accused could not be traced. P.W. 15 has given Ex. P. 16 report to that effect that no such person is residing in the address furnished. No witness has deposed before this Court that the unidentified accused caused any injury on the deceased. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 is clear to the effect that all the injuries were caused by A. 1 to A. 3 and as such the failure to find out one more person who accompanied A. 1 to A. 7 on the date of occurrence will not affect the case of prosecution in any manner. 20. Learned Counsel for appellants have made comments about the manner in which the confessional statements were recorded by P.W. 29 and also the recovery has been effected. As the first accused has given the confession earlier in point of time, the admissible portion of the confession given by the first accused can be taken into consideration so also the recovery made consequently. P.W. 13 Village Administrative Officer, Therur, Kanyakumari District and an other witness by name Thangavelu were present at the time when A. 1 gave the confessional statement. It was duly recorded and A. 1 took them to the place where he secreted the sickle M.O. 17. When once A. 1 has given the confession regarding the place of hiding the weapon, the other confession given by A. 2 is not admissible as the weapon used by A. 2 marked as M.O. 19 was also found in the place proximate to the place from where M.O. 17 was recovered. Even the knife M.O. 19 used by A. 3 was recovered from a place nearly ten feet away from the place from where M.O. 1 was recovered. In these circumstances the confessions of A. 2 and A. 3 the recoveries made thereafter on the basis of said confessions are not proved in a manner known to law. The recovery of M.O. 17 on the basis of the confession given by A. 1 has been proved. However, since the weapons were recovered, the failure to prove the confession of A. 2 and A. 3 and the subsequent recovery will not go against the case of the prosecution. 21. The recovery of M.O. 17 on the basis of the confession given by A. 1 has been proved. However, since the weapons were recovered, the failure to prove the confession of A. 2 and A. 3 and the subsequent recovery will not go against the case of the prosecution. 21. R.T. No. 4/98 is filed for the confirmation of the death sentence passed against A. 1 to A. 3 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli. C.A. No. 1010/1998 is filed by the accused challenging the various convictions and sentences passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Learned Sessions Judge has acquitted A.7 of all the charges and found A.4 to A.66 guilty under Sections 302 r/w 149, IPC. Coming to the evidence available on record regarding the said offences committed by A.4 to A.6, it has been clearly proved on the side of the prosecution that they were members of unlawful assembly that A.5 and A.6 were armed with sickles. Apart from that A.4 hurled a bomb, but it did not explode. A.5 inflicted cut with sickle and one of such cuts fell on the person of P.W. 3. A.6 inflicted a cut on P.W. 4 Kumar. From the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 it is clear that A.4 to A.6 were armed with bomb and sickles respectively and they had committed those offences in prosecution of the common object of unlawful assembly in committing the murder of Ayyavoo. From the evidence available on record it is abundantly clear that A.4 to A.6 also shared the common object and they had acted in furtherance of the said common object. In these circumstances the conviction against A.4 to A.6 for offences under Sections 302 r/w 149, IPC is proper and the sentences imposed have to be confirmed. 21A. A.1 and A.4 were found guilty under Section 5 of the Indian Explosive Substance Act. P.W. 24 has spoken about the sanction granted by the Collector of Kanyakumari to prosecute the accused under the Indian Explosive Substance Act and the said sanction is marked as Ex.P.40. There is clear evidence on the side of the prosecution that A.1 immediately after entering inside the premises exploded a bomb near the southern entrance and P.W. 27 Investigation Officer has seized the remnants of the exploded bomb. There is clear evidence on the side of the prosecution that A.1 immediately after entering inside the premises exploded a bomb near the southern entrance and P.W. 27 Investigation Officer has seized the remnants of the exploded bomb. The bomb hurled by A.4 was not exploded and the same was seized and P.W. 25 defused the same. It is clear that A.1 and A.4 had committed offences punishable under Section 5 of the Indian Explosive Substance Act and therefore the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court for the said offence has to be confirmed. 22. A.1 to A.6 were found guilty under Section 3 of the Indian Explosive Substance Act, 1902 (2 counts) and each one of them is convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three months under each count, is also proper and the same has to be confirmed. 23. A.5 was charged under Section 326, IPC for having caused grievous injury to P.W. 3. P.Ws. 1 and 2 have spoken to about the injury caused on the person of P.W. 3 by A.5. Though P.W. 3 the Court staff could not identify the accused, P.Ws. 1 and 2 who had already known A.5 had identified him causing the said injury on the person of P.W. 3. P.W. 16 Dr. Saratha attached to Govt. Headquarters Hospital, Nagercoil gave treatment to P.W. 3 at 11.15 a.m. on 29-11-1994 and issued certificate Ex.P.19. P.W. 17 who took X-ray M.O. 20 found fracture on the radial bone in the left hand. Therefore, the injury caused by A.5 on P.W. 3 was proved to be grievous in nature and A.5 was rightly convicted under Section 326, IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for five years. 23A. Coming to the sentence of death imposed on A.1 to A.3 by the trial Court, it was argued on the side of the prosecution that A.1 to A.3 are young men between the age group of 22 and 25 at the time of conviction by the trial Court and the confirmation of death sentence imposed on them would bring an end to them in their youthful years. We have seen various cases between the two groups, each group involved in the cold-blooded murder of the men belonging to other group and by the crimes committed by each one of the groups so many victims had lost their lives. Ex.P.1 and the evidence of P.Ws. We have seen various cases between the two groups, each group involved in the cold-blooded murder of the men belonging to other group and by the crimes committed by each one of the groups so many victims had lost their lives. Ex.P.1 and the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 would go to show that it had become a regular affair between these parties to kill each other and thereby creating disturbance to the law and order and the public peace in Nagercoil and nearby places. The last murder committed by the other group to which P.Ws. 1 and 2 belong was that of one Sagayababu and in order to take revenge the accused involved in the present murder. It is clear from the evidence on record that the accused had pre-planned to commit the murder of Ayyavoo while he was attending Court on 29-11-1994 and thereafter formed themselves into an unlawful assembly. In prosecution of common object of committing the murder of Ayyavoo every member of the assembly had acted in such a way to execute the crime. Learned Counsel for appellants has argued that the trial Court was swayed by the fact that the murder has been committed inside the Court hall and therefore imposed death penalty. If one feels that the Court while in session is also like any other ordinary place that may be his personal feeling but the fact remains, in a sovereign democratic republic like India where Courts stand for the protection of body and various rights of the citizens, the sanctity attached to a Court cannot be forgotten easily. Learned Trial Judge has awarded the capital punishment on A.1 to A.3 not on the only reason that it has been committed in the Court hall while the Court was in session, but also taking into consideration of other factors like their antecedents and the way in which the murder was executed. When the accused were running towards him, the deceased ran inside the Court hall in order to protect himself and A.1 to A.3, A.5 and A.6 entered inside the Court hall and A.1 to A.3 committed the murder while the Court was in session. When the accused were running towards him, the deceased ran inside the Court hall in order to protect himself and A.1 to A.3, A.5 and A.6 entered inside the Court hall and A.1 to A.3 committed the murder while the Court was in session. Considering their antecedents, the way in which the murder was planned and executed inside the Court hall while the Court was in session, the various attacks on the face of the deceased which made even his identification impossible and also dragging on the body by all the accused towards the Court compound and threw it inside the SLB School compound and thereafter escaping themselves by scaling over the compound wall would amply prove that it is not an usual case of murder but a rarest of rare case. Learned counsel for the appellants has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in (Panchhi v. State of U.P.) (1998) 3 Crimes 181 : (1998 Cri LJ 4044) (SC). Their Lordships have held (Para 20) - "Brutality of the manner in which a murder was perpetrated may be ground but not the sole criterion for judging whether the case is one of the "rarest of rare cases" as indicated in Bachan Singh's case (1980 Cri LJ 636 : AIR 1980 SC 898 ). In a way every murder is brutal, and the difference between one from the other may be on account of mitigating or aggravating features surrounding the murder." We have shown reasons which are aggravating features surrounding the murder and there are no mitigating circumstances in favour of the accused. Therefore it is a case wherein the death sentence passed against A.1 to A.3 by the trial Court has to be confirmed and also the other convictions and sentences passed against each one of the accused. In the result, RT No. 4/98 is accepted and the conviction and sentence passed by the learned principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli are confirmed. C.A. No. 1010/98 is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.