(1.) The revision petitioner herein is the original 2nd accused in S.C. No. 211/1995 of the Court of Session, Thrissur. The police filed final report against him, and five others in the court below under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 and 307 IPC read with Section 149 IPC, on the allegation that at about 10.30 a.m. on 5.9.1994, they assaulted the de facto complainant Jayathilakan due to political animosity, and inflicted serious injuries on his body with a sword, in an attempt on his life. The other five accused appeared before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Thrissur, and faced trial. The case against this petitioner was split up and refiled, when he remained consistently absent. The other five accused obtained a judgment of acquittal on merits on 22.10.1998 in S.C. No. 211/1995 on the ground that the evidence adduced by the prosecution as against them is not satisfactory to prove the case against them beyond reasonable doubt. The 2nd accused later faced trial in the split up case, S.C. No. 67/1999.
(2.) The prosecution examined twelve witnesses, including the de facto complainant, and proved Exts.P1 to P9 documents in the trial court. The MO1 to MO5 properties, including the weapon of offence were also identified during trial. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 the accused denied the incriminating circumstances, and projected a defence of total denial. He did not adduce any oral evidence in defence, but Exts.D1 to D5 documents were marked on his side.
(3.) On an appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution in S.C. No. 67/1999, the learned trial Judge found the 2nd accused guilty under Section 324 IPC. On conviction, the accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years, and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 3.2.2001, the accused approached the Court of Session, Thrissur with Crl.A. No. 93/2001. In appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc)-II, Thrissur confirmed the conviction and sentence, and accordingly dismissed the appeal. Though the prosecution brought final report on the allegation of unlawful assembly and rioting, the trial court found the revision petitioner guilty without the aid of Section 149 IPC, and he was convicted and sentenced for the overt act proved as against him. After his failure in appeal, the 2nd accused approached this Court in revision, challenging the legality and propriety of the conviction and sentence.