The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused inflicted injuries with the intention to commit murder to justify a conviction under section 307 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Accused 1 to 3 in S.C.No.203/1998 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Irinjalakuda are the revision petitioners herein. The revision petitioners along with another accused were charge sheeted by the Circle Inspector of Police, Valappad in Crime No.130/1997 of Valappad police station alleging offences under sections 341 and 307 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell was that, on 8.5.1997 at about 5 p.m on the public road near Sreekrishna temple at Karayamvattom, accused 1 to 4 wrongfully restrained the injured-PW2 and in furtherance of their common intention to commit murder, attacked him with swords on vital parts like head and hands and the 4th accused by bringing them to the place of occurrence in his auto rickshaw knowing their intention helped them to commit the offences and thereby all of them have committed the above said offences.

3. After investigation, final report was filed for the offences under sections 341, 324 and 307 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and it was taken on file as C.P.No.25/1998 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kodungallur. The case was committed to the Sessions Court by the Magistrate under section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') and after committal, it was taken on file as S.C.No.203/1998 on the file of the Sessions Court, Thrissur and thereafter it was made over to the Principal Assistant Sessions Court, Irinjalakuda for disposal.

4. When the accused persons including the revision petitioners appeared before the court below, after hearing both sides, the Assistant Sessions Judge framed charge under sections 341 and 307 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against accused 1 to 3 and under section 307 read with section 109 of the Indian Penal Code against the 4th accused and the same was read over and explained to them and they pleaded not guilty. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, Pws 1 to 15 were examined and Exts.P1 to P10, P1(a), P3(a), P4(a) and Mos 1 to 4 were marked on the side of the prosecution.

5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were questioned under section 313 of the Code and they denied all the incriminating circumstances brought against them in the prosecution evidence. They have further stated that they have not committed any offence and they have been falsely implicated in the case on account of political enmity. Since evidence in this case did not warrant an acquittal under section 232 of the Code, the Assistant Sessions Judge directed the revision petitioners to enter on their defence. Except marking Ext.D1 through PW15, no other evidence was adduced on their side in defence. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge found the 4th accused not guilty of the offence under section 307 read with section 109 of the Indian Penal Code and acquitted him of that charge giving him the benefit of doubt under section 235 (1) of the Code. But the learned Assistant Sessions Judge also found the present revision petitioners not guilty of the offence under section 341 of the Indian Penal Code and acquitted them of the charge under section 235 (1) of the Code but found them guilty of the offence under section 307 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted them thereunder and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years each and also to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- each, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each. It is further ordered that, if fine amount is realized from accused 1 to 2, the same be paid to PW2 as compensation under section 357 (1)(b) of the Code. Set off was also allowed for the period of detention undergone by them under section 428 of the Code.

6. Aggrieved by the same, they filed Crl.A.No.140/2000 before the Session Court, Thrissur and it was made over to the Third Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc-I) f