SUNEESH (ACCUSED NO.2) S/O. KUNJAPPAN AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY S.I. OF POLICE, PONKUNNAM, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,, ERNAKULAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence in S.C.No.50 of 2004, on the files of Additional District and Sessions Court (Fast Track) (Adhoc)-II, Kottayam. The conviction was under Section 324 of IPC. The sentence was to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each (Rupees One Thousand Only), in default of the payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each. Originally there were six accused. The charge was under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 427, 323 and 308 r/w Section 149 of IPC. All accused except accused nos. 2 and 6 were acquitted by the trial court. Accused No.2 and 6, who are the appellants herein convicted under Section 324 of IPC and acquitted on all other heads. No appeals filed by the State challenging the judgment.

(2.) When the appeal came up for hearing, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted before this Court that, here is a case where the prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of the offence. It is the submission of the learned Counsel that, even though, the prosecution got a case that MO1 and MO3, iron rods were used, there was no such corresponding injury as evident from the wound certificates. It is also the submission of the learned Counsel that the trial court not believed or relied on Ext.P1 relating to PW1. PW2 was the person who gave F.I.statement in this case. When the earliest version was given by a person who was found as not trustworthy, it can be only said that the case built upon such F.I statement also will not be a reliable one. It is also the submission of the learned Counsel that, even though, iron rods were used, the injury sustained to other witnesses which are evident from Exts.P2 and P3 are minor injuries. When only minor injuries sustained, the version that whether MO1 and MO3 were the actual weapons of offence is also doubtful.

(3.) I heard the learned Public Prosecutor. The prosecutor submitted before this Court that here is a case where the accused came in a Tata Sumo van and blocked the autorikshaw in which the injured were traveling and thereafter attacked, that also using MO1 and MO3 iron rods. From the nature of the weapons used, it can be seen that the intention was to actually cause death, that is why originally they were charged under Section 308 of IPC. But surely there is no appeal filed by the State.