JUDGMENT S. Thangaraj, J. R.T.No.4 of 1998 is filed for confirmation of the death sentence passed against A-l to A-3 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli in S.C.No.392 of 1997. The accused Nos.1 to 6 in 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 chargesheet 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 chargesheet 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-l 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-l 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-l 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, mat A-5 when inflicted cut on Ayyavoo, the same was slipped over the leftside arm of the record clerk Vimala Rani and caused 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 terrorists 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-l to A-7 had thrown another country bomb in front of Collectorate, and thereby committed offences punishable under Secs. 147, 148, 324, 326, 302, 506(11), 392 read with Sec.149, I.P.C. and under Secs.3 and 5 of the Indian Explosive Substance Act, and Secs.3 and 5 of the TADA Act. 3. The chargesheet was received by the TADA (designate) Court, Tirunelveli and was taken on file as TADA Case No.1 of 1995. 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 of 1997. Once again, as per the order passed by this Court in Criminal M.P.Nos.2821 and 2822 of 1997 dated 6.8.1997 the case was transferred to the Court of the Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli and the same was taken on file in S.C.No.392 of 1997. 4. Learned Sessions Judge has framed charge under Sec.148 and Sec.3 of the Indian Explosive Substance Act, 1908 against A-1 to A-7 and under Sec.5 of the Indian Explosive Substance Act, 1908 against A-1 to A-4, under Sec.3 of the Indian Explosive Act against A-1 and A-4, under Sec.302, I.P.C. against A-1 to A-3, under Sec.302 read with 149, I.P.C. against A-4 to A-7, under Sec.392, I.P.C. against A-l, A-2, A-4 to A-7, under Sec.392 read with 149, I.P.C. against A-3, under Sec.326. I.P.C. against A-5 and A-6; read over and explained to them in Tamil and the accused pleaded not guilty to the said charges. [Para.5 to 12 omitted - Ed.] 13. After the occurrence, while the accused escaped in a car and also in a motorcycle kept by P.W.10 Shaju Stallin, who borrowed the motorcycle 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 in a motor cycle at about 11.00 a.m. on 29.11.1994. Ex.P-44 rough sketch shows that 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. Ex.P-44 rough sketch shows that 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.I 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 in 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 overtacts against A-l to A-6. In Ex.P-1, P.W.1 has clearly stated the entire occurrence. On 29.11.1994 P.W.2 and the deceased Ayyavoo went to the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Nagercoil for hearing of the case in C.C.No.226 of 1994 on the file the said court in Vadaseri Police Station in Crime No.726 of 1993 a case regarding the cows slaughter. P.W.I and Michael 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 Michael were standing near the eastern entrance of the court. A-l 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-l 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-l was armed with Aruval so also A-2 and A-3 armed with a knife came along with another unidentified person. A-4 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-l ran inside the court hall through the entrance on the western side. P.Ws.l 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 Selvam repeatedly cut neck and chest of Ayyavoo. Ayyavoo fell down in a pool of blood and A-3 Radhakrishnan stabbed on the left arm-pit of Ayyavoo with a knife. A-l 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 deed and all the accused dragged the body of Ayyavoo outside the court near the Ashoka tree and threw the dead body inside S.L.B. school campus. All 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 in the said motor cycle. 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 Michael, 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.l and 2 is very cogent and convincing regarding the occurrence. If we leave the evidence of P.W.8, as he is interested in Michael, 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.l 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 in 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 P.C.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.l 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.l 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 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.l 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.l 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 Michael 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.I 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 of 1994 under Secs.147, 148, 327, 302, I.P.C. and Sec.5 of Indian Explosive Substance Act. The argument on the side of the appellants that none of the independent witness 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.l 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.l 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 p.m. which is about 1 Km. from the place of occurrence. We have analysed the evidence carefully and after evaluating the evidence and circumstances we have no hesitation to believe the evidence of P.Ws.l 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 p.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 Michael 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 F.I.R. 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.I 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. In such circumstance 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.Ws.l 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. 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-l 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 circumstance 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 piece of skull, pieces of brain matter and also little hair. The place of occurrence also cannot be disputed. The identity of the accused those who were committed the murder also cannot be disputed as it is cogently and convincingly proved through the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2. [Paras.17 to 20 omitted - Ed] 21. R.T.No.4 of 1998 is filed for the confirmation of the death sentence passed against A-l to A-3 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli. C.A.No.1010 of 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-6 guilty under Sec.302 read with 149, I.P.C. 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. 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 Secs.302 read with 149, I.P.C. is proper and the sentences imposed have to be confirmed. 22. A-l and A-4 were found guilty under Sec.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-l 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 employed and the same was seized and P.W.25 defused the same. It is clear that A-l and A-4 had committed offences punishable under Sec.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. 23. A-1 to A-6 were found guilty under Sec.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. 24. A-5 was charged under Sec.326, I.P.C. 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.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 Government 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-29 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 Sec.326, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. 25. Coming to the sentence of death imposed on A-l to A-3 by the trial court, it was argued on the side of the prosecution that A-l 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.l and 2 would go to show that it had became 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.l and 2 belong was that of one Sagayababu and in order to take revenge the accused indulged 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. 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-l to A-3 not for 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-l 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 attack 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 S.L.B. 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. 26. Learned counsel for the appellants has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Panchhi v. State of U.R Panchhi v. State of U.R, (1998)3 Crimes. 181 (S.C.) their Lordships have held: “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. 181 (S.C.) their Lordships have held: “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. 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-l to A-3 by the trial court has to be confirmed and also the other convictions and sentence passed against each one of the accused. 27. In the result, R.T.No.4 of 1998 is accepted and the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli and confirmed. CA.No.1010 of 1998 dismissed. Allowed.