IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRL A No. 290 of 1999()
1. STATE
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SATHYAN
... Respondent
For Petitioner :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
For Respondent :SRI.C.HARIKUMAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.THANKAPPAN
Dated :23/05/2007
O R D E R
K. Thankappan, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.A.No. 290 of 1999
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2007
JUDGMENT
State has assailed the judgment in S.C.No.211/95 on the file of the Court of the
Assistant Sessions Judge, Thrissur. Respondents 1 and 3 to 6 along with one Pradeep
Kumar were charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under sections 143, 147, 148,
323, 324 and 307 read with section 149 IPC. The prosecution case was that on 5-9-
1994 at about 10.30 A.M. the accused persons formed themselves into an unlawful
assembly with the common object of murdering PW1 and in furtherance of the common
intention they attacked and caused injuries to him. To prove the case, the prosecution
examined PW1 to PW10 and marked Exts.P1 to P7. MO1 and MO2 were also marked.
After closing the prosecution evidence, the accused were questioned under section 313
Cr.P.C. They denied the prosecution allegation and stated that the case was foisted
against them due to political enmity. After considering the entire evidence, the trial
court found that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the respondents
beyond the shadow of doubt and hence they were acquitted.
2. The prosecution case against the respondents is that on the date of the
incident when PW1 went to fetch an autorickshaw, they prevented him, rounded him
and shouted that they would finish him. It is also alleged that 1st accused shouted “kill
Crl.A.290/99 2
him”, the 2nd accused stabbed him towards his neck and when he warded off
the stab, the stab hit his upper part of the left hand inner side and due to the
stab the muscle was cut and he sustained injuries. On hearing his cry,
neighbours came there. The respondents mainly attacked the nature of the
injury. According to them, there was no possibility of causing any such
injury to PW1. After considering the entire evidence, the trial court by the
impugned order acquitted the accused. Against the above finding this appeal
is filed.
3. This Court heard the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the
appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. PW1 who
is the injured stated that on 5-9-94 at about 10.30 a.m. when he had gone to
fetch an autorickshaw, the respondents came from the opposite direction,
prevented him, beated with hands and kicked him and the 2nd respondent
stabbed him towards his neck. He also stated that when he warded off the
stab and then stab hit his upper part of the left hand inner side. It is also the
case of PW1 that there was a political clash before the incident between the
RSS and Marxist. PW4 who was the doctor stated that he had examined
PW1 who came with an allegation that he was stabbed with sword. He noted
an injury with 20 c.m. Long curve wound over the dorsal aspect of left arm,
cutting the muscle exposing the humerus and radial nerve. He also noted
Crl.A.290/99 3
that the injury was a minor injury. He admitted that it was possible due to
fall. In his evidence PW1 stated that he fell down on the road side. The
defence case is that PW1 had a simple injury and that was not sufficient to
cause death and that the injury can be possible by some other means also.
The trial court after considering the evidence found that since there was no
corroborating evidence, the possibility of fall could not be ruled out. The
trial court also found that two persons who was with PW1 were not
examined and as such about the actual stab, there was no evidence to
corroborate the evidence of PW1. The trial court further found that even
though some overt act of the 2nd respondent was deposed to by the witness,
no one is speaking any thing about the role of the remaining accused.
Hence, the trial court acquitted the respondents stating that the prosecution
had failed to establish the guilt of the respondents beyond the shadow of
doubt.
4. The prosecution is mainly relied on the evidence of PW1, the
injured, PW2 and PW3, eye witnesses. According to PW1, two persons
were with him, but they were not examined. There is no corroborative
evidence of PW1. The trial court after considering the evidence, found that
there was some doubt in the prosecution case.
Crl.A.290/99 4
4. Having considered the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor
and the learned counsel for the respondents and after having perused the
evidence, this Court is of the view that the finding of the trial court does not
require any interference by this Court. Hence, the appeal fails and it stands
dismissed.
K. Thankappan,
Judge.
mn.
K. Thankappan, J.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Crl.A.No. 290 /1999
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Judgment
23-5-2007