Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1945 CRL.A NO. 1208 OF 2004 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC NO.52/1999 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, THODUPUZHA APPELLANTS/ ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 7, 12 & 15:
1 P.K.NARAYANA PILLAI S/O. KRISHNA PILLAI, PARAMBANAL, ERATTAYAR, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2 ROY, S/O. MATHEW VADAKKEKUNNEL CHEMBAKAPPARA. 3 BINOY, S/O. JOSEPH, PEEDIYEKKAL CHEMBAKAPPARA, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK. 4 MADHU, S/O. KUTTAPPAN MARAKKATTU, CHEMBAKAPPARA, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK. 5 KOCHUMON, S/O. THANKAPPAN ANDUTHEKKAL, ERATTAYAR, KALKOONTHAL VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK. 6 JOSE KADAPLACKEL S/O. THOMAS KADAPLACKAL, CHEMBAKAPPARA. 7 SUPRAN S/O. RAGHAVAN PILLAI PARAMBANAR (MALIYEKAL), ERATTAYAR NORTH. 8 KUTTAI BABU S/O. KUTTAI VAYALUMKAL, M.K. PADY, KOCHUKAMAKSHI.
9 APPACHAN S/O. AUGUSTY THUNDATHIL, CHEMBAKAPPARA, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK. 10 *ADDL.APPELLANTS 10, 11 AND 12 IMPLEADED (ADDL. OMANA NARAYANA PILLAI. APPELLANT) W/O LATE P.K. NARAYANA PILLAI, PARAMBANAL, ERATTAYAR, IDUKKI-685514. 11 BABU.P.N (ADDL. AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. P.K.NARAYANA APPELLANT) PILLAI,PARAMBANAL,ERATTAYAR,IDUKKI-685514. 12 SANTHOSH.P.N (ADDL. AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. P.K.NARAYANA PILLAI, APPELLANT) PARAMBANAL,ERTTAYAR,IDUKKI,PIN-685514. (ADDL APPELLANTS 10, 11 AND 12 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER
ORDER DATED 27/03/2023 IN CRL.M.A. 1/23).
BY ADV SURESH BABU THOMAS RESPONDENTS/ COMPLAINANTS: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2 REJI, S/O. THOMAS, ILUPULIKKATTU HOUSE CHEMBAKAPPARA, PALLIKKANAM. BY ADV SRI.M.SREEKUMAR SMT. REKHA - PP SRI.S.U.NAZAR .SPL.G.P THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04.04.2023, ALONG WITH CRL.A.1338/2004, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1945 CRL.A NO. 1338 OF 2004 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC NO.75/1999 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, THODUPUZHA APPELLANTS/ ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 3, 5, 7, 11, 14 & 15:
1 BABU S/O. KUTTAI, VAYALUMKAL HOUSE, THANKAMANI VILLAGE,KOCHUKAMAKSHI. 2 MADU S/O.KUTTAPPAN MARUKATTU HOUSE, CHEMBAKAPPARA. 3 THOMS @ BINOY S/O.JOSEPH PEEDIYACKAL HOUSE, CHEMBAKAPPARA. 4 ROY S/O.MATHEW VADAKKEKUNNEL HOUSE, CHEMBAKAPPARA. 5 JOSE S/O.THOMAS KATTUPPARA HOUSE, CHEMBAKAPPARA. 6 APPACHAN S/O.KOCHEP IMMANUAL AUGUSTY THUNDATHIL HOUSE, CHEMBAKAPPARA. 7 P.K.NARAYANA PILLAI S/O.KRISHNA PILLAI PARAMBANNOR HOIUSE,
ERATTAYAR NORTH. 8 SASIDHARAN S/O.THANKAPPAN AANDUTHEKKERIL HOUSE, ERATTAYAR NORTH. 9 *ADDL.APPELLANTS 10, 11 AND 12 IMPLEADED (ADDL. OMANA NARAYANA PILLAI
APPELLANT) W/O LATE P.K. NARAYANA PILLAI, PARAMBANAL, ERATTAYAR, IDUKKI-685514. 10 BABU P. N (ADDL. S/O P.K. NARAYANA PILLAI, APPELLANT) PARAMBANAL, ERATTAYAR, IDUKKI-685514. 11 SANTHOSH P.N (ADDL. S/O P.K. NARAYANA PILLAI, APPELLANT) PARAMBANAL, ERATTAYAR, IDUKKI-685514. (ADDL APPELLANTS 10, 11 AND 12 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER
ORDER DATED 27/03/2023 IN CRL.M.A. 1/23).
BY ADV SURESH BABU THOMAS RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT: STATE OF KERALA S.I OF POLICE, KATTAPPANA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV SRI.M.SREEKUMAR SMT. REKHA - PP SRI.S.U.NAZAR .SPL.G.P THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04.04.2023, ALONG WITH CRL.A.1208/2004, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
These appeals have been preferred against the common judgment
dated 08.07.2004 in S.C.Nos.52 of 1999 and 75 of 1999 on the files of Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc-II) Thodupuzha (for short 'the court below') by the accused Nos.1 to 7, 12 and 15 convicting and sentencing them under Sections 307, 326, 324, 148, 147 r/w 143 of IPC.
2. The appellants along with 15 others were tried for the
offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 324, 326 and 307 r/w 34 of IPC on the allegation that on 20/01/1998 at 2.30 p.m, the accused formed an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapon, with intention to murder PW2 and caused grievous injuries to him and simple injuries to PWs 1 and 9. The motive alleged was the animosity entertained by the accused against PW2 for having obstructed loading of timber in the lorry by some of the accused persons. With respect to the said incident, Crime No.28/1998 was registered by the Kattappana police on the basis of the information given by PW1. The police after investigation filed final report at the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kattappana, incorporating the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 341 and 326 r/w 149 of IPC and the case
was registered as CC No.239/1998. With respect to the very same incident, the injured (PW2) filed a private complaint at the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kattappana incorporating the offence under Section 307 of IPC as well, apart from the offences mentioned above. The said private complaint was taken on file after conducting enquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. It was committed to the Sessions
Court, Thodupuzha and numbered as S.C.No.52 of 1999. Being a connected case, CC No.239/1999 was also committed to the Sessions Court and came to be numbered as S.C.No.75/1999. Thereafter both cases were made over to the court below. The court below clubbed both cases together and conducted trial as a single case.
3. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 12 and marked Exts.P1
to P16. MO1 and MO2 were identified. On the side of the defence, DW1 was examined and Exts.D1 to D34 were marked. Ext.X1 was marked as court exhibit. The court below after fullfledged trial found the accused Nos.1 to 7, 12 and 15 guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 326 and 307 of IPC and they were convicted for the said offences. The remaining accused were found not guilty and they were acquitted. The accused Nos.1 to 7, 12 and 15 were sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years each and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 2 months for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years each and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 2 months for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 1 month for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months each for the offence punishable under Section 148 of IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 months each for the offence punishable under Section 147 of IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 months each for the offence punishable under Section 143 of IPC. Challenging the conviction and sentence, accused Nos.1 to 7, 12 and 15 have preferred these appeals.
4. The accused No. 1 died during the pendency of the appeal. His legal heirs have been impleaded as additional appellants Nos. 9 to 11 in Crl.A.No.1338/2004 and as additional appellants Nos. 10 to 12 in Crl.A. No.
5. I have heard Sri.Nandagopal Kurup, the learned counsel for
the appellants, Sri.Sreekumar, the learned counsel for the victim, Smt.S.Rekha, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor and Sri.S.U.Nazar, the learned Special Public Prosecutor.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants impeached
the finding of the court below on appreciation of evidence and resultant finding as to the guilt. The learned counsel submitted that PWs.1, 2, 3 and 9, whose evidence were heavily relied on by the court below, are interested witnesses and they could not have been relied on. The counsel further submitted that their evidence are full of contradictions
and omissions. The learned counsel further submitted that the evidence on record would show that PWs.1, 2, 9 and their men were aggressors and the appellants are entitled to the protection of private defence. The learned counsel also submitted that there is no proper dock identification of the accused by the prosecution witnesses. The clubbing of two cases is against the procedure established by law which has caused prejudice to the accused, added the learned counsel. Lastly, the learned counsel submitted that at any rate, the conviction of the accused Nos.1 to 7, 12 and 15 under sections 307 and 326 is
unsustainable.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the victim as well
as the learned Public Prosecutor supported the findings and verdict handed down by the court below and argued that necessary ingredients of Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 326 and 307 of IPC had been established and the prosecution has succeeded in proving the case beyond reasonable doubt.
8. The accused are members of CITU and the injured are the
members of INTUC during the relevant time. It has come out in evidence that there was dispute and conciliation proceedings between both these unions with regard to loading of timber. The alleged incident took place when the workers of CITU came with a lorry to load some wooden logs. The loading was questioned by the members of the INTUC and there occurred exchange of words followed by attack. According to the prosecution version, PWs.1, 2, 3 and 9 went to the place of incident to tell the driver of the lorry not to load the wooden logs till conciliation proceedings which was pending before the Labour Officer was over. At that time, the accused persons who came in two jeeps brutally attacked PWs.1, 2 and 9, particularly PW2. The accused admit their presence at
the place of the incident. But, according to them, the incident was not as projected by the prosecution. It is contended that in fact PWs.1, 2, 3, 9 and their men came to the spot armed with deadly weapons and they brutally attacked the accused. It is further contended that in the said attack, the accused Nos.9 and 10 sustained injuries as evident by Exts.P15 and P16 wound certificates. It is also contended that during the scuffle, PWs1, 2 and 9 sustained injuries.
9. PWs.1, 2, 9, the injured and PW3, the independent eye
witness gave evidence in tune with the prosecution version. Their evidence are not reproduced here in verbatim since it has been detailed in the impugned judgment. A perusal of their evidence would show that PW2 approached the accused who were loading timber in the lorry with a request not to load the timber prior to the settlement of the labour dispute pending before the District Labour Officer. At that time, some of the accused who were in the lorry and the remaining accused who arrived at the place in two jeeps attacked PW2 and his companion including PW1 and PW9. The presence of almost all the accused are mentioned by PWs.1 and 2 in their evidence by referring to their names. All of them clearly deposed about the incident. They deposed the
manner in which the accused attacked PWs.1, 2 and 9 and the nature of the weapon used by each accused and parts of the body of PWs.1, 2 and 9 whereupon the injuries were inflicted by the accused. They clearly spoke about the weapon used for the commission of the offence as well. As stated already, PWs.1, 2 and 9 are injured persons. It is trite that the evidence of the injured witness has to be given weightage [see State of
Uttar Pradesh v. Naresh and Others (2011) 4 SCC 324] The learned counsel for the appellants invited my attention to certain contradictions in the deposition of PWs.1, 2, 3 and 9, which were marked as Exts.D1 to D34. I went through those contradictions. Those contradictions do not appear to be significant or material affecting the very fabric of the prosecution case. Even though PWs.1, 2, 3 and 9 were cross-examined at length, nothing tangible could be extracted from their evidence to create any doubt that they are not truthful witnesses. They gave reliable and credible version of the crime. Therefore, I hold that their evidence could be safely relied on to prove the incident.
10. The evidence of the injured and the ocular witnesses gets corroboration from the medical evidence on record. PW8 is the orthopaedic surgeon, Medical Trust Hospital, Ernakulam, who examined PWs.1, 2 and 9 immediately after the incident and issued
Exts.P6, P7 and P9 wound certificates. His evidence coupled with Ext.P6 would show that PW1 sustained incised wound on the pulp of the left middle finger, another incised wound skin deep on the pulp of the left middle finger, and contusion and abrasion over medial side of left eye. His evidence coupled with Ext.P7 would show that PW2 sustained incised wound over hip 2x8 cm curved anteriorly cutting the gluteal muscle and lateral muscles and the greater trochanter of femur entering into the hip joint, another incised wound 10x1 cm skin deep over right mid thigh and abrasion over right temple 2x1cm. His evidence coupled with Ext.P8 would show that PW9 sustained lacerated injury lateral to right eye 2x1cm, contusion and echymosis over right upper eyelid, abrasion over right arm 2x2cm and patterned contused abrasion over left scapula 10cm long. The oral evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and 9 would show that accused Nos.2 and 7 caused the injuries to PW1, accused Nos.3, 5 and 15 caused injuries to PW2 and accused Nos.2 and 4 caused injuries to PW9. The evidence on record would further show that PW2 was taken to Medical College Hospital, Kottayam for expert management where he was treated by PW10, the Associate Professor,
Orthopedic. The case sheet pertaining to his treatment was marked through PW10 as Ext.X1. His evidence along with Ext.X1 would show that PW2 was subjected to surgery and he was treated as inpatient from wound sustained by PW2 was depraded and the greater trochanter was approximated to the femur by two steel wire knots. Thus, the medical evidence supports the oral evidence adduced by the prosecution.
11. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the
evidence on record especially the evidence of DW1 would indicate that the genesis of the incident is not as projected by the prosecution and that the injured were the aggressors. In these circumstances, their evidence as well as the evidence of PW3 cannot be relied upon, submitted the counsel. The counsel further submitted that Exts.P14 and P15 would show that accused Nos.9 and 10 have sustained the injury during the course of the same transaction which has not been explained by the prosecution. The learned counsel also submitted that evidence on record establishes a free fight and PW2 and his men were aggressors and under the apprehension of further assault, the accused in the process of protecting their life might have made assaults even if the
prosecution version is accepted in toto. The learned counsel canvassed the plea of private defence as well. To substantiate the said plea, the learned counsel relied on the oral testimony of DW1 and Ext.P14, the FIR in the counter case and Exts.P15 and P16 wound certificates. In Ext.P14, the allegation against the witnesses in this case is that the accused were attacked with dangerous weapons like sword, stick, cycle chain, chopper, knife etc. PW1 is one of the accused therein. He does not have a case that he was attacked with any dangerous weapons like the weapons referred above. Exts.P10 and P16 are the wound certificates pertaining to the injuries alleged to have been sustained by accused Nos.9 and 10. It would show that those injuries are very minor when compared to the injuries in Exts.P6 to P8. On evaluation of the evidence of PWs 1, 3, 9 as well as DW1, it is evident that the real aggressors were the accused herein. That apart, there is no satisfactory evidence at least to probabilise the defence version that PWs 1, 2, 3 and 9 were armed with weapons. There is also nothing on record at least to probabilise the case of the defence that the accused did the act in exercise of their private defence. There is nothing on record to show that the accused was in imminent and reasonable danger of losing their
life or limb so as to justify the exercise of the right of private defence. It has also come out in evidence that the counter case was also tried along with the above two cases. It is settled that when the injury sustained by the accused is minor in nature compared to the injury sustained by the witnesses, the prosecution has no duty to explain the injury sustained by the witnesses.
12. The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted
that there is no proper dock identification of the accused by PWs 1, 2, 3 and 9. The learned counsel relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this court in Vayalali Girishan and Others v. State of Kerala (2016 KHC 204) in support of his said submission. That was a case where the Sessions Judge merely recorded rank number of the accused in the charge and no effort was taken by him to certify in the deposition that the person referred by witness as one of the members of the unlawful assembly is the person standing in the dock. Hence, the Division Bench held that there was no proper identification of the accused inasmuch as it cannot be said that witness was referring to the particular accused whose name finds a place in the charge or to some other person. The dictum laid down in the said decision is not
applicable to the facts of the present case for more than one reason. First of all, this is a case where it has clearly come out in evidence or rather it has been admitted by the defence that all the witnesses and the accused were hailing from the same locality and they knew each other. That apart, in the deposition of the material witnesses (PWs 1, 2, 3 and 9), the Judge has recorded that the witnesses identified the accused by their name. It is true that the witnesses did not specifically identify each accused by the overt act done by them. However, on a reading of the entire evidence, I am of the view that there is proper identification.
13. Lastly, the learned counsel submitted that because of the
clubbing of the two cases, prejudice has been caused to the accused. I see no merit in the said argument as well. Here is a case where prosecution version in the police charge case and the version in the private complaint is one and the same. The date of occurrence, place of occurrence and the time of occurrence are also the same. The only difference is that in the private complaint, Section 307 also was incorporated. Going by the materials collected during the investigation and the nature of injury sustained by PW2, definitely the investigating agency ought to have incorporated Section 307 of IPC as well in the
final report. It was in these circumstances, the victim was compelled to file a private complaint. The clubbing and consolidating of two identical cases is permissible under law. The appellant did not raise any objection as to clubbing of both cases before the court below. Instead, they actively participated in the trial by relying on the documents in both cases. Thus, it cannot be said that any prejudice has been caused to the appellants by the clubbing of both cases.
14. The next crucial question is what are the offences
committed by each accused. No doubt, the evidence on record would establish that the appellants formed an unlawful assembly carrying weapon in their hands in order to assault PWs 1, 2 and 9. The object of the common assembly can be readily inferred as one to voluntarily cause hurt to PWs 1, 2 and 9 from the evidence on record. It was the accused Nos. 3 and 5 who caused grievous injury on the right hip joint of PW2. The injuries sustained by PW2 are serious and on the vital part of the body. The weapon used also is a dangerous weapon. The manner in which the accused Nos. 3 and 5 repeatedly attacked PW2 and their subsequent conduct would clearly reveal the intention on their part to kill PW2. The injuries sustained by PW2 have already been mentioned.
Thus, I am of the view that the court below was absolutely justified in holding that the accused Nos. 3 and 5 have committed the offences punishable under Sections 307, 326 and 324 along with Sections 143, 147, 148 r/w 149 of the IPC. PW2 alone has sustained grave injuries. The injury sustained by PWs 1 and 9 are minor in nature which I have already explained. It is true that the accused No.15 caused injury to the left arm of PW2. But the said injury is minor in nature. The accused Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 and 12 did not cause any injury to PW2 at all. The overt act attributed to the accused No.2 is that he fisted with a stone on the face of PW1. The overt act attributed against the accused No.7 is that he gave a cut injury on the finger of PW1. The overt act attributed against
the accused No.4 is that he hit a stone on the eyebrow of PW9. The accused Nos. 1, 6 and 12 did not attack any of the witnesses at all. Taking into account the role played by accused Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 12 and 15 as revealed from the evidence on record and taking into account the injuries sustained by the witnesses on account of their individual acts, it cannot be said that they had requisite intention to kill PW2 or they shared common object with accused Nos. 3 and 5 to kill PW2. However, the evidence on record clearly reveals that they shared common object
with the remaining accused to cause voluntary hurt to PWs 1, 2 and 9. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the court below was not justified in convicting the accused Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 12 and 15 under Sections 307 and 326 of the IPC. Their conviction under those Sections are liable to be set aside.
15. It has come out in evidence that PW2 sustained serious
injuries in the incident. However, the court below did not award any compensation to him. Section 357 of Cr.PC is an important provision empowering the court to award compensation to the victims of the crime while passing the judgment of conviction. In addition to conviction, the court may order the accused to pay a reasonable amount by way of compensation to the victim who suffered by the action of the accused. It is a measure of responding appropriate claim to the crime as well as reconciling the victim with the offender. However, since I am confirming the conviction and sentence against accused Nos.3 and 5, they cannot be asked to pay any compensation in the appeal filed by them.
16. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the overt act attributed against accused Nos.1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 12 and 15 are
minimal in nature and they have been undergoing the trauma of criminal prosecution for the last 19 years. In these circumstances, the counsel submitted that the substantive sentence imposed on them for the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148 and 324 of IPC may be modified to till the rising of the court and compensation may be paid to the victim.
17. In the light of the above findings, the conviction and
sentence passed by the court below against the accused Nos.3 and 5 are hereby confirmed. The conviction and sentence passed by the court below against the accused Nos.1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 12 and 15 under Sections 307 and 326 of the IPC are hereby set aside and they are acquitted for the said offences. Their conviction under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 324 of IPC is confirmed. The sentence imposed on the accused Nos. 2, 4, 6, 7, 12 and 15 under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 324 are hereby set aside and instead they are sentenced as follows:
(a) Accused Nos. 2, 4, 6, 7, 12 and 15 are sentenced to undergo imprisonment till rising of the court for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147 and 148 of the IPC.
(b) Accused Nos. 2, 4, 6, 7, 12 and 15 are sentenced to undergo
imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs.51,000/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months each for the offences punishable under Section 324 of the IPC.
(c) The substantive sentence shall be run concurrently.
(d) Out of the total fine amount of Rs.3,06,000/-, Rs.3,00,000/- shall be paid to PW2 as compensation under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C.
(e) The appeals filed by the accused No.1 (P.K.Narayana Pillai)
so far as substantive sentence of imprisonment against him is concerned shall stand abated. The legal heirs of the accused No.1 who have been impleaded as additional appellants shall deposit the fine amount of Rs.1,000/- imposed against accused No.1 vide the impugned
judgment before the court below within one month.
The Criminal Appeals are disposed of as above. Sd/- DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE AS/APA APPENDIX OF CRL.A 1208/2004 APPELLANTS ANNEXURES: Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE HISTOPATHOLOGY REPORT PERTAINING TO THE 9TH APPELLANT ISSUED FROM LOURDES HOSPITAL, ERNAKULAM Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE CT UROGRAPHY REPORT PERTAINING TO THE 9TH APPELLANT ISSUED FROM LOURDES HOSPITAL, ERNAKULAM Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF UROLOGY, LOURDES HOSPITAL, ERNAKULAM Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY GENERAL SURGEON, DISTRICT HOSPITAL, GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE, IDUKKI APPENDIX OF CRL.A 1338/2004 APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES: Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE HISTOPATHOLOGY REPORT PERTAINING TO THE 9TH APPELLANT ISSUED FROM LOURDES HOSPITAL, ERNAKULAM Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE CT UROGRAPHY REPORT PERTAINING TO THE 9TH APPELLANT ISSUED FROM LOURDES HOSPITAL, ERNAKULAM Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF UROLOGY, LOURDES HOSPITAL, ERNAKULAM Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY GENERAL SURGEON, DISTRICT HOSPITAL, GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE, IDUKKI