The legal principle established in the judgment is the requirement of clear evidence to prove the intention and potentiality of the act to cause death in an attempt to murder under S.307 IPC.

1. The appellant was the first accused in Sessions Case 9/68 on the file of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Mavelikara. He was charged with offences falling under S.307, and 332 IPC., in that on 9 9 67 at about 8-15 p. m. he attempted a blow on pw.1, the Sub Inspector of Police, Mavelikara with an iron rod while the latter, on the complaint of the proprietor of the Chengannoor town foreign liquor shop that the accused behaved disorderly in the shop, was attempting to arrest him. The Sub Inspector immediately on receipt of the report of the accused's misbehaviour in the shop proceeded to the place in a jeep accompanied by two constables. The first accused was seen standing in front of the shop on the steps leading to the shop building. He had an iron rod in his hand and the 2nd accused was standing by his side by way of help and encouragement to him and they were shouting abusive epithets. The Sub Inspector arrested the first accused and when he was about to be taken to custody he aimed a blow on pw 1's head with the rod making the declaration that he would be killed. The blow was warded off by the Sub Inspector with his left hand resulting in an abrasion on the hand. Both the accused were immediately removed from the scene and taken to the police station. Pwl tried to contact the Circle Inspector and in his absence the Dy. S P. over the phone; but the Dy. S. P. was also not available. Therefore the P.1. statement was recorded by Pwl himself and the case also was registered by him under S.307 & 34, IPC. The Circle Inspector came the next morning and the investigation was taken up thereafter by him. He visited the scene of incident and the observation mahazar was prepared. For creating trouble in the liquor shop and causing damage to the shop by breaking bottles, glass etc., on the complaint of the proprietor of the shop a case (Crime No. 148/67) was taken against the accused. Pwl was treated for the injury on the hand in the government dispensary at Pandalam and Ex-P6 is the wound certificate issued by Pw12 the doctor in charge of that dispensary. In the final charge S.332 IPC. was also added.

2. The defence case as put forward by the accused in the 342 statement was that while they were standing on the road near the Chengannoor town foreign liquor shop, Pwl along with another Sub Inspector one Idiculla came that way in a jeep. Seeing the accused on the road they stopped the jeep and got down and without any rhyme or reason Pwl dealt a blow on the first accused's cheek and took him in the jeep. The 2nd accused was also taken in the jeep. In the police station they were subjected to severe torture. The reason for this high-handed action on the part of the Sub Inspector is the enmity resulting from the first accused's conduct in working against Sri Idiculla's father-in-law in a case filed by him in the Magistrate's court. For the maltreatment and the injuries caused to the accused a private complaint C. C. 1/68 was preferred by him to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Chengannur; but that complaint was finally thrown out by the Magistrate and the accused (the two Sub Inspectors) were acquitted. Crime 148/6 which is a case taken against the present accused at the instance of the proprietor of the liquor shop was also dismissed by the Magistrate. In the present case the 2nd accused was acquitted and the first accused was convicted under S.324 and 332 IPC. and sentenced to R.I. for one year on each count; the sentences are directed to run concurrently.

3. On a careful and anxious consideration of the evidence in the light of the probabilities and attendant circumstances, I am clearly of the view that the prosecution case has not been proved and the accused ought to have been acquitted. Pwl, the Sub Inspector, I am constrained to observe, has not played an honest role either in the incident, or subsequently in prosecuting the case. His definite case in his F. I. statement (his own self-drawn out and self reported F. I. statement) wa