STATE OF KERALA v. ANOOP (A1)

BY SRI.P.KUMARANKUTTY, SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR BY SRI.SAPHAL.K., ASSISTANT SPL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR BY ADV.SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.)(K/421/1984) BY ADV.SRI.ARUN BOSE.D BY ADV.SRI.GILBERT GEORGE CORREYA(K/000238/2001) BY ADV.SRI.K.VISWAN(K/416/1993) BY ADV.SRI.ABHIJITH M.A(K/001523/2021) BY ADV.SMT.THANUSHREE DAMODARAN(K/1566/2022) THIS CRL.A BY DE FACTO COMPLAINANT/VICTIM HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 25.01.2024 ALONG WITH CRL.A.NO.174/2014 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 19.02.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION: THE COURT ON 27.02.2024 PASSED THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT ON SENTENCE: Crl.A.Nos.172, 174, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 339 & 403/2014 & CRA(V). No.571/2015 :: 25 :: Sl.No. Description INDEX 1 2 3 4 5 6 Background Prosecution Case Investigation Trial Court Proceedings Appeal Details Discussions & Findings “C.R.” Page No. 27 - 28 28 - 29 29 - 30 30 - 39 39 - 41 41 - 143 (i) Preliminary objection regarding 41 - 43 maintainability of the State Appeals (ii) Discussion on merits (iii) The Conspiracy Analysis of the evidence The meeting on 02.04.2012 Events between 02.04.2012 and 10.04.2012 The meeting on 10.04.2012 Events between 10.04.2012 and 20.04.2012 The meeting on 20.04.2012 Events between 20.04.2012 and 24.04.2012 The meetings on 24.04.2012 Events on 25.04.2012 Events on 26.04.2012 Events on 27.04.2012 Events between 28.04.2012 and 01.05.2012 Events on 02.05.2012 Events on 04.05.2012 43 - 47 47 - 100 55 - 65 65 - 68 68 68 - 73 73 - 75 75 - 77 77 78 - 79 79 - 83 83 - 84 84 84 85 - 87 87 - 91 Crl.A.Nos.172, 174, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 339 & 403/2014 & CRA(V). No.571/2015 :: 26 :: Our Finding on Conspiracy (iv) The Incident The First Information Report Direct Evidence against A1 to A7 Circumstantial Evidence against A1 to A7 Witness testimony that implicates A1 to A7 Forensic/DNA Evidence against A6 Recovery of the Innova vehicle Recovery of the Swords Medical evidence connecting the swords with the injury on the victim Forensic Evidence against A2 and A3 as regards use of Explosives Our findings on the Incident (v) Abetment and Harbouring Crl.A.No.174/2014 filed by A18 Rafeek Crl.A.No.179/2014 filed by A31 Pradeepan Crl.A.Nos.403/2014 filed by the State & Crl.A.(V).No.571/2015 filed by the Victim 7 8 Conclusion Sentencing 91 - 100 100 - 136 102 - 107 107 - 119 119 - 122 122 - 126 126 - 129 130 - 132 132 - 133 133 - 135 135 - 136 136 136 - 143 137 - 139 140 - 142 142 - 143 143 – 145 146 - 161 Crl.A.Nos.172, 174, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 339 & 403/2014 & CRA(V). No.571/2015 :: 27 :: J U D G M E N T D r . A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J. Democracy thrives on the peaceful exchange of ideas, not the violent imposition of beliefs. Political violence is the poison that corrodes the roots of democratic principles. - Amartya Sen On the morning of 05.05.2012, the people of Kerala woke up to the grim news of a gruesome political murder. T.P. Chandrasekharan, the leader of the Revolutionary Marxist Party (hereinafter referred to as 'RMP' for brevity), had been hacked to death the night before by a group of assassins. The wounds inflicted on him were so brutal and numerous that PW136 Dr.Sujith Sreenivas, the Assistant Professor and Assistant Police Surgeon at the Forensic Medicine department of the Kozhikode Medical College, who conducted the post-mortem examination, opined that it was indicative of the aggressive and hostile nature of the assailants. The question that loomed large, however, was, “Who would commit such a barbaric act and why?”

2. The prosecution would have us believe that the public opinion at Crl.A.Nos.172, 174, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 339 & 403/2014 & CRA(V). No.571/2015 :: 28 :: the time was that it was the political rivalry between leaders of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPI (M)) and the victim that led to the commission of the crime. T.P. Chandrasekharan, who was once an active member and local leader of the CPI (M), fell out with the party and formed a new party called the Revolutionary Marxist Party (RMP). The RMP posed a big challenge to the election fortunes of the CPI (M), and this was evident when, in the 2009 Lok Sabha Elections, the CPI (M) lost the Vadakara Constituency, which had been its stronghold till then. Although it was the Congress candidate who was returned from the Constituency that year, T.P. Chandrasekharan's candidacy under the RMP banner was perceived as instrumental in the CPI (M)'s loss. The rivalry between the parties and the inter se attacks between members of the two parties only served to fuel the animosity of the CPI(M) leaders towards the victim. The prosecution case:

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, pursuant to a criminal conspiracy hatched by accused No’s.8 to 14, with the assistance of accused No’s.1,3,5,7,15 to 18, 20 to 25 and 27 to 30, at about 22.10 hours on

04.05.2012, accused No’s.1 to 7 came in an Innova Car bearing a false registration number, driven by the accused no.1, and rammed the car into the motorbike driven by T.P. Chandrasekharan. After causing the latter to be Crl.A.Nos.172, 174, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 339 & 403/2014 & CRA(V). No.571/2015 :: 29 :: thrown onto the road, they hacked him to death on the public road at a place called Vallikkad by striking him with swords. Accused No.3 also used a country bomb to cause an explosion that would prevent witnesses from approaching the scene of the crime. Accused No’s.1 to 7 then fled the scene of the crime and were assisted by the other accused, who either harboured them or destroyed valuable evidence that pointed to them. The investigation:

4. PW4, the Sub-Inspector of Vatakara Police Station, suo motu, registered Ext.P2 FIR on the night of 04.05.2012 itself. The local police headed by the Dy.SP, Vatakara, initially conducted the investigation of the crime that was numbered as Crime No.433/2012 of the Vatakara Police Station. PW154, the Circle Inspector, completed the inquest proceedings on the morning of 05.05.2012. PW136, Dr. Sujith Sreenivas, conducted autopsy shortly thereafter. PW163 Circle Inspector inspected the scene of the incident and prepared Ext.P20 scene mahazar. In the meanwhile, PW165 Dy.SP Vatakara received information that an Innova Car bearing Registration No.KL-58D-8144 was found abandoned at Punathilmukku in Chokli, and he promptly reached there along with PW1 Praseed and CW2 Ramachandran, who claimed to be eyewitnesses to the incident. They identified the vehicle as the one used by the assailants, and after the Crl.A.Nos.172, 174, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 339 & 403/2014 & CRA(V). No.571/2015 :: 30 :: forensic experts examined the vehicle, PW165 seized the vehicle and the articles in it.

4.1. The investigation of the case was then transferred to the Crime Branch, where the case was re-registered as CBCID Crime No.406/CR/HHW- III/KKD/2012, and a Special Investigation Team was constituted. The first arrest was on 15.05.2012 of A31 Pradeepan M. K @ Lambu, and based on the information furnished by the said accused PW164 Dy.SP recovered five swords (MO1 Series) from a well. Later, the accused who had allegedly committed the murder, the conspirators and the persons who aided, abetted, and harboured the main accused were all arrested. The investigation was thereafter completed, and PW166 Dy.SP Crime Branch CID, HHW-III, Kozhikode laid the final report before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vatakara, against 76 accused, under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302 read with 149 IPC and Sections 465, 471, 118, 201, 212, 120B, 109 IPC and also under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The Trial Court Proceedings:

5. The case was taken on file by the JFMC, Vatakara as C.P.111/12. Out of the 76 accused in the case, accused 24 and 52 were absconding. After completing the necessary formalities, the Magistrate committed the Crl.A.Nos.172, 174, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 339 & 403/2014 & CRA(V). No.571/2015 :: 31 :: case against the remaining 74 accused to the Sessions Court, Kozhikode, where the case was numbered as S.C.867/12. The case was then made over to the Special Additional Sessions Court (Marad Cases), Kozhikode for trial.

5.1. After hearing the prosecution and the defence, the trial court vide its order dated 19.12.2012 discharged accused nos.54 and 61 under Section 227 Crl.P.C after finding that there was no sufficient ground for proceeding against them. Charges were thereafter framed against the remaining 72 accused under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302 read with 149 IPC and Sections 465, 471, 118, 201, 212, 120B, 109 IPC and also under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. All the accused pleaded not guilty to the charges.

5.2. As the High Court had in certain Criminal Revision Petitions stayed all further proceedings in the trial against accused nos.53, 58, 60, 62 to 69 and 71 to 74, and further, there was a direction from the High Court to dispose the Sessions case before 31.07.2013, the trial court proceeded with the trial against the remaining 57 accused.

5.3. The prosecution examined 166 witnesses as PW1 to PW166 and marked Exts.P1 to P579, Exts.C1 to C18 and D1 to D31 on its side. MO1 to Crl.A.Nos.172, 174, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 339 & 403/2014 & CRA(V). No.571/2015 :: 32 :: MO105 were identified. Accused no.9 C.H. Ashokan died during the period of the trial. After closure of the prosecution evidence, 56 accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied all the incriminating circumstances that appeared in the evidence and that they were put to them. Some of them also filed statements in writing explaining the incriminating circumstances against them. The trial court then acquitted twenty accused persons viz. A15, A23, A26, A32, A34, A35, A38, A40, A43, A44, A45, A46, A47, A51, A55, A56, A57, A59, A75 and A76 under Section 232 Cr.P.C. The remaining 36 accused who had faced trial were then called upon to adduce evidence in their defence.

5.4. The defence examined ten witnesses as DW1 to DW10 and marked Exts.D32 to D66 and Exts.P580 to P582 on its side. After hearing the prosecution and the defence at length, the trial court found as follows:

1. A10 K.K Krishnan, A12 Geothi Babu and A14 P. Mohanan were found not guilty of the offences punishable under Section 120B IPC and under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and were accordingly acquitted under Section 235 Cr.P.C.

2. A16 Shibu P.C., A17 Sreejith K., A22 Sanoop M.P., A28 P.M. Rameesh and A30 Raveendran M.K. were found not guilty of the offences punishable under Section 302 read with 115 IPC and Crl.A.Nos.172, 174, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 339 & 403/2014 & CRA(V). No.571/2015 :: 33 :: under Section 118 IPC and were accordingly acquitted under Section 235 Cr.P.C.

3. A19 Aswanth C.K. was found not guilty of the offences punishable under Section 465 and 118 IPC and under Section 302 read with 109 IPC and was accordingly acquitted under Section 235 Cr.P.C.

4. A20 K.P. Dilshad, A21 P.K. Muhammed Fasalu and A29 K.P. Dipin were found not guilty of the offences punishable under Section 302 read with 109 IPC and 118 IPC and were accordingly acquitted under Section 235 Cr.P.C.

5. A25 C.K. Rajikanth was found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 109 IPC and was accordingly acquitted under Section 235 Cr.P.C.

6. A27 Rajith C. was found not guilty of the offences punishable under Section 302 read with 109 and 115 IPC and was accordingly acquitted under Section 235 Cr.P.C.

7. A37 Shaju N.M. was found not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 201 and 212 IPC and was accordingly acquitted under Section 235 Cr.P.C.

8. A36 Jijesh Kumar was found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC and was accordingly acquitted under Section 235 Cr.P.C. Crl.A.Nos.172, 174, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 339 & 403/2014 & CRA(V). No.571/2015 :: 34 ::

9. A33 Shanoj @ Kelan, A39 M. Abhinesh, A41 Saneesh M., A42 C. Babu, A48 Sreejith K., A49 Sudheesh M., A50 P. Jigesh, and A70 K. Dhananjayan were found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 212 IPC and were accordingly acquitted under Section 235 Cr.P.C.

10. A1 Anoop was found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147 and 302 read with 149 IPC and he was convicted there under. He was found not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 148, 465 and 471 IPC and he was accordingly acquitted under Section 235 Cr.PC in respect of those offences.

11. A2 Manoj @ Kirmani Manoj was found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 302 read with 149 IPC and under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and was accordingly convicted there under. He was found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 120B IPC and was accordingly acquitted under Section 235 Cr.PC in respect of that offence.

12. A3 Sunil Kumar @ Kodi Suni was found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 302 IPC and under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and was accordingly convicted there under. He was found not guilty of the offences punishable under Section 120B and 201 IPC and was accordingly acquitted under Section 235 Cr.PC in respect of those offences. Crl.A.Nos.172, 174, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 339 & 403/2014 & CRA(V). No.571/2015 :: 35 ::

13. A4 T.K. Rajeesh, A5 Muhammed Shafi, A6 Sijith and A7 Shinoj were found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 302 IPC and were accordingly convicted there under. They were found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 120B IPC and were accordingly acquitted under Section 235 Cr.PC in respect of that offence.

14. A8 K.C. Ramachandran, A11 Manojan and A13 Kunhanandan were found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 120B read with 302 IPC and they were accordingly convicted there under. They were found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 109 IPC and were accordingly acquitted under Section 235 Cr.PC in respect of that offence. A8 K.C. Ramachandran was found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC and he was acquitted under Section 235 in respect of that offence.

15. A18 Rafeek was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 109 IPC and he was convicted there under. He was found not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 465, 471 and 118 IPC and he was accordingly acquitted under Section 235 Cr.PC in respect of those offences.

16. A31 Pradeepan was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC and he was convicted there under. He was found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 212 IPC and he was accordingly acquitted under Section 235 Cr.PC in respect of Crl.A.Nos.172, 174, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 339 & 403/2014 & CRA(V). No.571/2015 :: 36 :: that offence.

5.5. The trial court then heard the accused on sentence under Section 235(2) of the Cr.P.C. The Special Prosecutors and the defence counsel were also heard in detail. The sentence awarded to each of the accused found guilty of the offences charged against them is as follows:

1. A1 Anoop – Sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 149 IPC. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 143 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 147 IPC.

2. A2 Manoj Kumar - Sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 149 IPC. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 143 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 147 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence punishable under Section 148 IPC. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for Crl.A.Nos.172, 174, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 339 & 403/2014 & CRA(V). No.571/2015 :: 37 :: a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908.

3. A3 Sunil Kumar - Sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 149 IPC. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 143 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 147 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence punishable under Section 148 IPC. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908.

4. A4 T.K. Rajeesh, A5 Muhammed Shafi, A6 Sijith and A7 Shinoj - Sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 149 IPC. They were also each sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 143 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence Crl.A.Nos.172, 174, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 339 & 403/2014 & CRA(V). No.571/2015 :: 38 :: punishable under Section 147 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence punishable under Section 148 IPC.

5. A8 K.C. Ramachandran, A11 Manojan and A13 Kunhanandan – Sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.100,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each for the offence punishable under Section 120B read with Section 302 IPC.

6. A18 Rafeek – Sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.100,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 109 IPC.

7. A31 Pradeepan – Sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC. The period of detention undergone by him from 16.05.2012 to

23.08.2012 was permitted to be set off against the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to him.

8. The sentence of life imprisonment awarded to the accused was for the whole of their remaining life subject to the remission granted by the appropriate government under Section 432 Cr.P.C which was in turn subject to the provisions of Section 433A Cr.P.C. From out of the fine amount realised an amount of Rs.300,000/- was Crl.A.Nos.172, 174, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 339 & 403/2014 & CRA(V). No.571/2015 :: 39 :: directed to be paid to PW5 Rema, the wife of the deceased and Rs.200,000/- to CW13 Abhinand the son of the deceased as compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. The charge against A9 C.H. Asokan, who was no more, was declared abated. The appeals before us:

6. Appeals have been preferred by the persons convicted, the State, and the deceased's wife. The details of the said appeals are as follows: Appeal No. Party Name Relief Sought Crl.A.172/2014 A8 K.C. Ramachandran v. State Crl.A.174/2014 Crl.A.176/2014 Crl.A.177/2014 Crl.A.178/2014 Crl.A.179/2014 Crl.A.180/2014 Crl.A.339/2014 A18 P.V. Rafeek @ Vazhapappadachi Rafeek v. State A13 Padinjare Kunhikkattil Kunhanandan v. State A1 Anoop v. State A2 Manoj Kumar v. State A3 Kodi Suni v. State A4 Rajeesh Thundikkandi @ T.K. v. State A5 K.K Mohammed Shafi v. State A6 Sijith @ Annan Sijith v. State A7 Shinoj v. State A31 Pradeepan M.K. @ Lambu v. State A11 Manojan @ Trouser Manojan v. State State v. A1 Anoop & Ors. To set aside conviction and sentence To set aside conviction and sentence To set aside conviction and sentence To set aside conviction and sentence To set aside conviction and sentence To set aside conviction and sentence To set aside conviction and sentence Seeking death sentence to: A1 to A7 u/s 302 r/w • 149 IPC • 302 r/w 120B IPC • IPC A8, A11 & A13 u/s A18 u/s 302 r/w 109 Crl.A.Nos.172, 174, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 339 & 403/2014 & CRA(V). No.571/2015 :: 40 :: Crl.A.403/2014 Crl.A. (V).571/2015 State v. A10 KK Krishnan & 23 Others K.K.Rema v. State Maximum Punishment to: • • A2 and A3 u/s 5 & 3 the Explosive Substances Act A31 u/s 201 IPC Seeking Conviction of the 24 acquitted accused • Seeking conviction of acquitted accused; and • Enhanced punishment for A31 u/s 120B r/w 302 IPC; and Enhanced compensation

6.1. The appellants/convicted accused were represented by Senior Counsel Sri.B.Raman Pillai and Sri.P.Vijayabhanu, duly assisted by Adv.Sri.Gilbert George Correya, Adv.Sri.K.Viswan, Adv.Sri.K.M.Ramadas, Adv.Sri.D.Arun Bose and the respondent State was represented by the Special Public Prosecutor Sri.P.Kumarankutty and Assistant Special Public Prosecutor Sri.Saphal.K., Adv.Sri.S.Rajeev appeared on behalf of Smt.K.K.Rema, the widow of T.P. Chandrasekharan, and supported the arguments of the learned Special Prosecutor. As the learned counsel on either side took us through the entire evidence on record and re-iterated the arguments made before the trial court before emphasising on new perspectives at the time of hearing of these appeals, we feel it would be in the interests of easy comprehension that we deal with their arguments in the course of our discussion of the different issues and the evidence relating thereto. As regards consideration of the precedents cited before us by the Crl.A.Nos.172, 174, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 339 & 403/2014 & CRA(V). No.571/2015 :: 41 :: learned counsel, we might clarify that we have gone through all of them to cull out and state the broad legal position that obtains on the various issues that arise for consideration in these appeals. However, we have chosen to avoid a specific reference in the footnotes to those precedents that merely restate a legal point already dealt with. Discussions and Findings Preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the State Appeals:

7. Before embarking upon a discussion of the merits of these appeals, we may quickly deal with a preliminary objection raised by the appellants/convicted accused as regards the maintainability of the State appeals preferred against the orders of acquittal passed by the trial court. It is contended, based on the order dated 08.02.2021 of a Division Bench of this Court in Saji @ Dada Saji1 that an appeal against an order of acquittal cannot be preferred before the High Court by the Public Prosecutor unless it is first shown that there was a direction from the State Government to file such an appeal. The said decision was one that interpreted the provisions of Section 378 (1) of the Cr.P.C and literally so. However, a closer reading of the Division Bench order reveals that it was one that was passed in circumstances that were entirely different from what obtains in the instant 1 State of Kerala v. Saji @ Dada Saji & Ors – [2021 (2) KLJ 204] Crl.A.Nos.172, 174, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 339 & 403/2014 & CRA(V). No.571/2015 :: 42 :: appeals. Firstly, the objection as regards maintainability was raised at a time when the appeals came up for admission before the court. Secondly, the court found that while the Public Prosecutor who conducted the trial, as well as the Investigating Officer in that case, had given opinions in favour of filing an appeal from the order of acquittal, there was no specific order from the State Government directing the filing of the appeal. Reliance was also placed on the Rules of Business of the Government of Kerala to find that so long as there was no order or instrument executed by or on behalf of the Government in the name of the Governor, and signed by an authorised/empowered Officer, the existence of the necessary direction from the State Government could not be inferred.

8. As against the facts in the said case, we find from the records before us that the State appeals against the acquittal of various accused were admitted and numbered as early as 2014, and the present objection as regards their maintainability is raised only at the time of hearing. Considering a belated objection regarding maintainability becomes problematic when the documents necessary to determine the merits of the objection cannot be obtained by the court owing to the passage of time. Not surprisingly, the Special Prosecutor now appearing before us was not able to produce any Government Order pertaining to the period when the appeals Crl.A.Nos.172, 174, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 339 & 403/2014 & CRA(V). No.571/2015 :: 43 :: were filed as he does not have access to the files that were maintained by the earlier Prosecutor who had filed the appeals. However, we find from the records that there is a specific Government Order authorising the present Special Prosecutor to pursue all appeals arising from the judgment of the trial court before this Court. This latter Government Order was passed in 2021 when the Special Prosecutor, who was originally appointed to prosecute the matter before the trial court, had resigned during the pendency of these appeals. In our view, the latter Government Order can be seen as ratifying any earlier decision taken by the State Government to prefer appeals against the orders of acquittal of the trial court and can operate as the direction of the State Government for the purposes of Section 378 (1) of the Cr.P.C. Discussion on Merits:

9. Moving now to the merits of these appeals, we find from a reading of the charges framed against the various accused that the case of the prosecution, broadly stated, is that there was a conspiracy hatched by certain members of the CPI (M) to murder T.P. Chandrasekharan and that in furtherance of the said conspiracy, certain assassins were hired to carry out the crime and others instructed to destroy the evidence and shield the perpetrators of the crime from the law enforcement agencies. In a matter of Crl.A.Nos.172, 174, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 339 & 403/2014 & CRA(V). No.571/2015 :: 44 :: this magnitude, where on account of the sheer volume of oral and documentary evidence that had to be traversed, the submissions of the learned counsel on either side spanned a period of almost sixty days, we feel it would be apposite to discuss the evidence in chronological sequence. Such a discussion has the benefit of arranging and aligning our thought process to the same sequence, as the prosecution alleges the events to have unfolded, and also helps us understand the manner in which the investigating agency pursued the investigation. The latter aspect gains importance when we find that it is the case of the appellants/convicted accused before us that the investigation of the case was in itself faulty and unfair to the accused and that, therefore, the inadequacies thereof should operate in favour of the accused.

9.1. As the case before us involves both direct and circumstantial evidence, we might notice the principles that have to guide us in the analysis of such evidence. As is well settled, it is a cardinal principle in our criminal justice system that a person arraigned as an accused is presumed to be innocent unless that presumption is rebutted by the prosecution by the production of evidence as may show him to be guilty of the offence with which he is charged. The burden of proving the guilt of the accused is on the prosecution, and unless it relieves itself of that burden, the courts cannot Crl.A.Nos.172, 174, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 339 & 403/2014 & CRA(V). No.571/2015 :: 45 :: record a finding of guilt against an accused. Even in cases where the Statute raises a presumption regarding the guilt of an accused, the burden is on the prosecution to prove the existence of facts which must be present before the presumption can be drawn. It is only thereafter that the accused would be called upon to rebut the presumption. Another principle in our criminal justice system is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view favourable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has special relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence. Accordingly, unless the evidence adduced in the case is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and is inconsistent with that of his innocence, the court should refrain from recording a finding of guilt of the accused. As a corollary, if the court entertains a reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused, the benefit of that doubt must go to the accused. At the same time, the court should not reject evidence which is ex facie trustworthy on grounds which are fanciful or in the nature of conjectures.2 As was observed by the Supreme Court in Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade3, “Certainly it is a primary principle that the accused “must be” and not merely “may be” guilty before a court can convict, and the mental distance between “may be” and “must