A. HARIPRASAD, J.

1. These two appeals arise out of a judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, whereby he convicted the sole accused under Sections 324 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, IPC). Feeling aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the accused has come up in appeal. The accused was also charged for an offence punishable under Sec.307 IPC, for which he was acquitted. State has preferred another appeal against the acquittal. Both these appeals were heard together. I dispose them by this common judgment. For clarity, the parties are referred to as the accused and the prosecution respectively.

2. Facts, in brief, are thus: Accused is a relative of PW1, the injured witness. They were in enmical terms in connection with a dispute relating to removal of earth by PW1 from his property, which caused loss of lateral support to the land of the accused. Prosecution alleged that the accused, with an intention to murder PW1 and with the knowledge that former's act is likely to cause death of him, attacked PW1 at 7.30 a.m. on 14.05.1999, while he was walking through Thiruvaniyoor-Mamala public road. The accused beat him using madakkala bat (a bat made of stem of coconut palm leaf) from behind. On receiving the blow, PW1 fell down. Thereafter, the accused sat on the chest of PW1 and hit him with a piece of granite, causing severe injuries on his face. PW1 lost teeth in the attack and sustained fracture on nasal bone. Prosecution, therefore, alleged that the accused was guilty under Secs.307, 324 and 326 IPC.

3. Prosecution examined 12 witnesses and marked ten documents. Material objects are MOs. 1 to 7.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the accused and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. Learned counsel for the accused contended that none of the witnesses is reliable. The court below, after having found that some of the ocular witnesses are not reliable, erred in convicting the accused on the basis of oral evidence of some other prosecution witnesses, who are also not reliable. Learned Prosecutor, per contra, contended that the court below should have considered the credible oral evidence tendered by eye witnesses, who are family members of the victim and who had no reason to falsely incriminate the accused. The accused should have been convicted under Sec.307 IPC as well.

6. I have carefully gone through the oral evidence and the judgment of the court below. Prosecution mainly relied on the testimony of PW1, the victim, PWs 2 and 3, his sons and PW8, his wife. Apart from the above interested witnesses, learned Prosecutor placed strong reliance on the testimony of PWs 4, 5 and 6, the independent witnesses who supported the prosecution case.

7. PW1, Sukumaran and the accused were at loggerheads before the incident is an undisputed fact. Accused is the son of PW1's cousin brother. PW1 and members of his family testified that a couple of days before the incident, the accused came on a bicycle, when PW1 was walking through a road, and threatened PW1 with bodily harm. PW1 further testified that on the fateful day, when he was walking towards western direction through a public road, the accused came from behind and beat on his head by using a bat made of a coconut leaf stem. The incident was on a public road running through the southern side of the accused's house. PW1 fell down on receiving the blow. Immediately, the accused picked up a stone and hit on the forehead of PW1. PW1 lost consciousness. Thereafter, the accused sat on PW1's chest and hit him with the stone, causing serious injuries. PW1 was actually proceeding to his paddy field. Time of the incident was about 7.30 a.m. on 14.05.1999. PW1 stated that when he re-gained consciousness, he was in Medical Trust Hospital, Ernakulam. He was an inpatient for 32 days. He had to be fed through nose. He sustained extensive injuries on various parts of face. According to PW1, the accused attacked him with an intention to kill. He identified MOs 1 and 2