STATE OF KERALA Vs. HARIDAS AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the State challenging the judgment of acquittal in Crl.A. 6/99 on the files of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Thodupuzha. The respondents were convicted under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324 and 326 of IPC by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class Court-II, Thodupuzha by judgment dated 15.12.1998 in C.C.No.494/1996. On appeal, by the accused, they were acquitted by the appellate court.

(2.) When the appeal came up for hearing, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted before this court that here is a case where the injured witness was restrained by a group of people and brutally attacked with iron rods and other weapons and he sustained about 6 injuries including two fracture injuries. The trial court on flimsy grounds i.e. lack of alleged light and minor contradictions in the versions, acquitted the accused. It is the submission that the definite case of the prosecution was that at the initial assault, the injured even tried to escape into a shop. From there also, accused threatened and injured was compelled to come out of the shop and tried to board a bus and there also he was assaulted. Thus there will be no question of lack of light. It is also the submission that even within 45 minutes, the injured was taken to the hospital and the name of the 3 persons were stated to the doctor. When he divulged the name of 3 persons at the earliest point of time, there can be nothing to disbelieve the involvement of the said 3 persons. Then, the crux of the case will show that the respondents herein assaulted the injured by using weapons and thereby caused the injuries. Hence, the court below erred in acquitting the accused.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondents submitted before this court that here is a case where the appellate court considered the unworthiness of PW1, the injured witness. When the independent witnesses were not supporting the prosecution case, the evidence of the injured witness should be intrinsically reliable to come to a conclusion that the overt act or involvement attributed against the respondents are reliable to come to a conclusion that they had committed an offence as alleged by the prosecution.