NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE

UNIVERSITY
BHOPAL, M.P.

A Case Analysis On Criminal Law-I

On The Case
“ Gireesan Nair S/O Gopalan Pillai vs
The State Of Kerala MANU/KE/0013/2010”

Submitted to, Submitted by,

Prof.Divya Salim Ajita Nadkarni
2012 BA LLB 101
1
 Acknowledgement

With my highest gratitude and respect I would like to acknowledge the role played by various
people in guiding me and mentoring me for the successful completion of this project work.

Firstly,I would like to thank the role played by my parents,who have always motivated me
and inspired me to have an optimistic outlook and who have always stood beside me in all the
trying times.

Secondly I would like to highlight the role played by Divya Salim M`am,who as my criminal
law teacher has inspired me to study the subject with keen interest and who has inspired me
to dream big always by acting as a pillar of strength.

2
 Table Of Contents

Topic Page Nos Range

1.Material facts 4-5

2. Issue/issues involved 5

3.Sections of the IPC involved 5-7

4.Arguements by both the parties 7-9

5.Judgement 10

6.My Contribution/conclusion/logic inferred 11

7.Bibliograghy 11

3
 Material Facts

1.The Government of Kerala decided to delink the pre degree course from the colleges and
start Plus two course at school level.

2.There were protests from various spheres of the society and one student organisation named
A.B.V.P launched protest march against the government policy.

3.The Police retaliated by being harsh on them and thereby injured a sizeable number of the
protestors including many girl students.This entire incident took place on the date 12.7.2000.

4.As a consequence of the above incident the members of the A.B.V.P and many other allied

organisations became infuriated and thus launched a strong protest by means of causing
destruction to public property and trespass into the Government Secretariat.

5.The case of the Prosecution is that on 13.07.2000, the protesters belonging to the A.B.V.P.,
armed with deadly weapons, marched to the Secretariat. When the Police prevented them
from entering the Secretariat, they became violent. They caused damage to several of the
K.S.R.T.C. buses and some of them went inside the garage of the K.S.R.T.C. A few
employees of the K.S.R.T.C. reacted to the acts committed by the students and they tried to
repel them.

6.In this process,Rajesh who was a conductor of a bus received blows from the two accuse to
which he succumbed later on.

7.Furthermore the students in an aggravated state caused certain amount of damages to the
public property involving 86 K.R.S.T.C buses.

8.Rajesh,the injured conductor was admitted to the ICU in a critical state.A prosecution
witness had got an information the same day that certain number of the accused had gone to
the workshop or the karyalaya of the RSS carrying some weapons.

9.Furthermore the prosecution witness also found some more weapons in the karyalaya.

10.Later on the same day the same prosecution witness got an information that the rest of the
accused people were standing near a particular pond.He then immediately arrested them.

4
11.As Rajesh ,the conductor succumbed to his injuries,a post mortem report was made.There
were 22 accused people in total.

12. All the accused were arrested, investigation was completed and charge was laid before
Court.

Legal Issues Involved

1.The question that arises for consideration in the appeals filed by the accused is whether the
Court was justified in finding that the Prosecution case is true and whether the acquittal of
some of the accused is justified or not, this is the point to be decided in the appeal filed by the

State.

2.The prosecution largely builds up its case on three aspects which are as follows:

(1) Conspiracy to commit various offences,

(2) Causing death of Rajesh and amp;

(3) Destruction of public property.

Sections Of The IPC Involved

A.Section 302:

Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860

302. Punishment for murder.- Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or
imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.

B.Section 120B:

5
Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code, 1860
120B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy.-
(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death,
imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall ,
where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be
punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.
(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an
offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for
a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.

C.Section 34:
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860
34. Acts done by several persons in futherance of common intention.- When a criminal act is
done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is
liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.

D.Section 307:
Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860
307. Attempt to murder.- Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under
such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years,
and shall also be liable to fine; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender
shall be liable either to imprisonment for life , or to such punishment as is hereinbefore
mentioned.
Attempts by life convicts.- When any person offending under this section is under sentence
of imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.

E.Section 149:
Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860
149. Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of
common object.-- If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in
prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly

6
knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time
of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.

Arguements By Both The Parties Involved

1.On the side of the prosection:
a.The question that arises for consideration in the appeals filed by the accused is whether the
Court below was justified in finding that the Prosecution case is true and whether the
acquittal of some of the accused is justified or not, is the point to be decided in the appeal
filed by the State.
b. The Court below was inclined to accept the case of the Prosecution that there was a
conspiracy, as hatched by A1 and A2 along with A25 to A33 to avenge the police atrocity,
unleashed on the supporters of A.B.V.P. on 12.07.2000. According to the Prosecution case,
those persons had decided to create fear and terror in the area on 13.07.2000.
c.  In fact, the Prosecution relied on the evidence of two witnesses to prove the offence of
conspiracy. They are PWs68 and 85. Among them, PW85 turned hostile and his evidence
serves no purpose as far as the Prosecution case is concerned. Therefore, the offence of
conspiracy remained confined to the testimony of PW68.
d. The allegation of conspiracy has yet another aspect. The Prosecution case is that A1 and
A2, along with A25 to A33, conspired to create terror in the area. However, in the incident
that happened on 13.07.2000, the said accused persons alone were not involved. Various acts
were committed by various persons. The evidence in this case is that after the initial surge,
when Police offered resistance and resolved to take harsh steps so as to disburse the mob, the
protesters ran hither and thither . Later, some of them converged at a particular spot. A few
among them made provoking speeches from there and then, they branched off into groups
and went from place to place, causing destruction to public properties. So, there is nothing to
show that even assuming the first part is in furtherance of a conspiracy, the latter part can
have no such image. Even in the first of the two incidents, a large number of people had
participated and one fails to understand as to how the Prosecution could say that it was the
result of a conspiracy.

7
e.According to the State, the acts, which resulted in the death of Rajesh were in pursuance of
the conspiracy hatched on the previous day.
f.  The State would point out that if the other accused had no role to play, they would have
discouraged A17 and A19 from going on with their acts. The fact that they had not so
discouraged A17 and A19, shows their involvement also in the crime, it is pointed out.
Though, the argument may look very attractive, it is without any substance at all. First of all,
the conspiracy theory has been found against. There is nothing to show that the other accused
persons, along with A17 and A19, had shared any common object or common intention to
cause any harm to Rajesh. It must be remembered that it was the result of spontaneous
reactions on the part of A17 and A19, when resistance was offered by some of the employees
of the KSRTC in the garage. None of the accused could anticipate that such a thing would
happen. Apart from that, in a mob fury, if one of them without any pre-meditation or pre-
determination, causes an injury to any person, it may not be possible to hold the entire mob
liable for the act done by the said person. Of course, the State would say that it is not
necessary that all the persons indulged in the act, should be fully aware of the conspiracy etc.
g.The State in its appeal, has stated that the sentence imposed on the accused persons for the
various offences committed by them, are inadequate. It has to be stated that there is some
substance in the above complaint with reference to the offence punishable under S.3(2)(e) of
the PDPP Act. The menace of causing destruction to the public property has been on the
increase in recent times and the miscreants are able to go scot-free for various reasons. In
fact, it is felt that this attitude should be discouraged and if found guilty, severe punishments
should be imposed on them. But, in this case, considering the fact that the incidents which
gave rise to this case occurred in the year 2000, at this distance of time, it may not be proper
and justifiable to enhance the sentences in this regard.

 2.On the side of the appellant:

a.The learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that the story of conspiracy is a cooked
up one, to suit the purpose of the Prosecution. It is pointed out that PW68 was unworthy of
credit and is a planted, tutored and manipulated witness. According to the learned counsel,
a close reading of his evidence, taken along with Ext.D23, will clearly reveal that he has no
regard for truth. The person describes himself as an R.S.S. follower, while he is, in fact, a
Marxist Party worker.

8
b. Going by the Prosecution case, the conspiracy was hatched between 7.30 to 8 pm. on
12.07.2000. During the day time on the said day, there was a protest procession taken out
by the followers of A.B.V.P. and it seems that the Police had reacted harshly to them. In fact,
it appears that lathi charge was resorted to and tear gas was used. Some of the students
were seen to have received severe injuries. The Prosecution would allege that the
conspiracy was hatched at the Samskruti Bhavan, where A1, A2 and A25 to A33 had
gathered and decided the future course of action to be carried out on 13.07.2000. 

c. Several criticisms are levelled against the acceptance of the evidence of the above
witnesses. It is pointed out that it can be very easily seen that PWs 5, 6 and 8 are procured
witnesses to suit the convenience of the Prosecution. A careful scrutiny of their evidence will
show that the place of occurrence has been shifted to make it possible for PWs 5 and 6 to see
the incident. It is also pointed out that there was considerable disparity and inconsistency in
the identification made by the witnesses in Court and during the investigation stage. It is
contended that the report prepared by PW84, furnishing the names of A17 and A19 was filed
in Court, long after the crime was registered and that shows that they were subsequently
implicated. It is contended that PWs 5 and 6 are chance witnesses and their evidence could
not be accepted. One of the contentions was that the claim of PW5 that he had come to the
Civil Supplies Corporation in the city, near the KSRTC bus stand, cannot be accepted,
because, there is another Civil Supplies shop, very near to his place of business and therefore,
it is virtually inconceivable that he could have come to the place as stated by him.

9
 Judgement

(a) The conviction and sentence imposed on accused no:17 and accused no:19 for the offence
punishable under S.302 r/w S34 IPC are set aside and they are found guilty of the offence
punishable under S.326 r/w S.34 IPC and each of them is sentenced to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.30,000/- each, in default of payment of
which, they shall be sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years. If the fine amounts
are released, a sum of Rs.55,000 shall be given to the legal heirs of Rajesh.

(b) Accused1 to 7 and 25 to 33 are acquitted of the charges under S.120B r/w S.3(2)(e) of the
PDPP Act.

(c) The conviction and sentence of Accused1 to 7, 9 to 12, 14, 16 to 19 for the offences
punishable under Ss.143, 147, 148 IPC, S.3(2)(e) of the PDPP Act r/w S.149 IPC are upheld
and confirmed.

(d) The conviction and sentence of Accused1, 2and 25 to 33 for the offences punishable
under Ss.109 and 111 IPC are set aside and they stand acquitted of the said offences.

(e) The bail bonds of those persons, who are on bail and who have been acquitted of all
charges, shall stand cancelled and they are set at liberty. Set off as per law will be allowed.

(f) Those persons, who are on bail and who are convicted and sentenced for various offences
under this Judgment, shall surrender before the Trial Court for undergoing sentence stands
dismissed.

10
 Conclusion/Logic Inferred

1.The death of the conductor Rajesh was not a wilful or an intended act caused by the
accused nos 17 and 19 respectively.So the Court was very much rightful in acquitting them
from the charges of murder but holding them liable for the offence of voluntarily causing
grievous hurt using deadly weapons.

2.In light of various witnesses there is a rightful acquittal of the accused 1 to 7 and 25 to 33
for criminal conspiracy.

3.In the light of the various pleadings and appeals and the process being followed in the
courts of law,there is rightful upholding of sentence for the rest of the accused out of the 33
and for the other rest there is rightful acquittal who were initially on the bail and had to face
the trial before the trial court.

Bibliography

1.www.indiankanoon.org

2.www.legalcrystal.com

11
12
13
14
15
16
(d) The conviction and sentence of A1, A2 and A25 to A33 for the offences punishable under
Ss.109 and 111 IPC are set aside and they stand acquitted of the said offences. (e) The bail
bonds of those persons, who are on bail and who have been acquitted of all charges, shall
stand cancelled and they are set at liberty. Set off as per law will be allowed. (f) Those
persons, who are on bail and who are convicted and sentenced for various offences under this
Judgment, shall surrender before the Trial Court for undergoing sentence. II. Cr. A.
No.1279/07 stands dismissed.

17
18