KUTTAPPAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) P.W. 1 Christudas and P.W. 3 Simon are brothers. They reside together at Parasala by the side of a road leading from the Trivandrum Nagercoil road to the south. Both are drivers in the K.S.R.T.C. On 21-1-1984 P.W. 2 had to report for duty early morning and P.W. 1 had to go only a little later. By about 4.30 a.m. P.W.2 was on his way through the branch road when P.W. 1 was getting himself ready. The three appellants, in furtherance of their common intention to murder him on account of enmity, way laid him. Accused 1 and 3 were armed with chopper and dagger. At the excitation of the second accused who forcibly bent P.W. 2, accused 1 and 3 inflicted several injuries on P. W. 2 after announcing their intention and ran away with weapons. This is the prosecution version, which was accepted by the Sessions Judge. All the three were convicted under sections 307 and 324 read with section 34 and each of them was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 8 and 2 years respectively.

(2.) Defence version is that scene of occurrence is a little away and the time was a little earlier at 3 a.m. It is said that on account of previous enmity P. Ws. 1 and 2 attacked them with weapons when they were returning home after second show film resulting in injuries to accused 2 and 3 who were immediately admitted in the Neyyattinkara Govt. Hospital. A case was registered on the information given by the second accused but it was referred as false after investigation. There minor injuries found on the body of the second accused and one on the third accused are the trump cards to contend that P.Ws. 1 and 2 were the aggressors and the incident took place in a different manner.

(3.) P. Ws. 1 to 4 are the occurrence witnesses. The incident was not far away from the residence of P.Ws. 1 and 2. Therefore on hearing the cry of P.W. 2. PW. 1 was able to reach the scene. By that time the incident was almost over and P.W. 1 could only see P.W. 2 with injuries and the accused with weapons. P.W. 2 is the injured and his presence con not be disputed. P.W. 3 is the driver of a taxi regularly parked in the Neyyattinkara Bus Stand and P.W. 4 is its owner-cum-cleaner. They were there because they were returning in the taxi after dropping some passenger who came by the Guruvayur Express which reached Neyyatinkara at 4 a.m. P. Ws. 2 to 4 have given a consistent and uniform version of the incident from beginning to end and it is in tune with the prosecution case in its basic facts. Medical evidence of P.W. 5 and Ext. P2 wound certificate issued by him fully support the ocular evidence. If the prosecution evidence is accepted proir concert and presence and participation in action of the three accused in furtherance of the common intention of committing murder and commission of an offence punishable under section 307 are clearly made out.