BIJU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is the accused in Crime No.224/1999 of Kattappana Police Station and the challenge in this appeal is against the conviction and sentence imposed on him for the offence u/s. 392 of IPC.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that, the accused 3 in numbers on 7.6.1999 at about 5.00 p.m., in furtherance of their common intention, got into an autorickshaw of PW1 at Kattappana and traveled to a place Vazhavara and on the way at the road near the house of Korottuchirackkal Jose at 7th mile area at Vazhavara, accused Biju attempted to murder PW1 by putting coir trap on the neck of PW1 which on being obstructed by the victim the accused stabbed PW1 with a knife and caused injury to him and thereafter forcibly took away the autorickshaw bearing Registration No.KL7-T-7166 and the accused thereby guilty of robbery and the attempt to cause grievous hurt in committing robbery as well as causing of hurt with deadly weapon and therefore, the accused are punishable u/ss.307, 392, 397 and 324 r/w Section 34 of IPC.

(3.) THUS, when the accused produced from custody, a formal charge was framed against him which read over and explained to the accused but he pleaded not guilty and denied the entire charge. As the accused has no counsel of his choice, the trial court appointed one Animol, counsel for the defence. THUS, during the trial the prosecution has examined PW1 to 8 and marked as Exts.P1 to P9 and identified MO1, material object. During the 313 questioning the accused took a stand that there was a dispute, regarding the rent, arose between himself and a police constable in whose house he was residing on rent at Cheruthoni, and when he was staying at the house of his mother's younger sister at Murikkassery, there occurred a theft and the Police arrival therefore, for investigation. According to him, there was some ill will between him and the police came there. It is the further case of the complainant that out of that rivalry, about 40 cases were filed against him. However, on conclusion of the trial, the trial court has found that the prosecution has succeeded in proving only an offence u/s.392 of IPC against the appellant and accordingly, the trial court found the accused is not guilty of offences u/s. 397,324,327 and r/w Section 34 of IPC and convicted him only u/s.392 of IPC. On such conviction, the accused/appellant is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and default to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months. Set off was allowed. It is the above conviction and sentence, challenged in this appeal.