IMPORTANT POINTS
• In order to attract S.307 of I.P.C., the essential ingredient required to prove is that death of PW2 was attempted or that the injuries were inflicted with the intention of causing death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death or that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. In the case on hand, it is rather clear that the intention of assault was not to do away with the injured. The assailants could have caused severe injuries on PW2, whereas the injuries caused to PW2 were not fatal.
• The injuries according to PW10 were serious injuries, but there is no evidence to indicate that those injuries were enough to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. In Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh [(1988) 4 SCC 551], the Apex Court held that while examining whether a case of commission of hase him and finish him off-Prosecution has not established that the accused committed the offence u/s 307 of I.P.C. But in so far as hurt has been caused to PW2 using dangerous weapons like MO1 and MO2, the accused 1, 2 and 6 would become liable to be punished for the offence u/s 324 r/w S.34 of I.P.C.

Shaffique, J.

This appeal has been filed by accused nos. 1, 2 and 4 to 8 challenging the judgment of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Kollam in S.C. No. 56 of 2007 by which all of them were convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year each under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( for short, 'IPC'), also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months each under Section 307 of IPC, further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months each under Section 143 of IPC, again to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each under Section 147 of IPC and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each under Section 148 of the IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 28.01.2002, accused nos. 1 to 9, in furtherance of their common object for rioting, formed an unlawful assembly with dangerous weapons, at the courtyard of the house of eighth accused, with the intention to commit murder of Udayarajan and CW2 Jayaprakash (PW2). A1 was armed with a sword, A2 with a dagger, A4 to A6 with bamboo sticks and A8 with a chopper. When the deceased and PW2 went to the house of A8 to enquire about the incident occurred in the temple compound in which the brother of PW2 was assaulted, the deceased Udayarajan was forcibly taken to the kitchen of the house of A8 and A1 inflicted cut injuries on several parts of the body of the deceased Udayarajan, A2 stabbed him with dagger, and A8 cut him with a chopper and due to all these attacks, Udayarajan succumbed to the injuries subsequently. The accused also voluntarily caused injuries to PW2 with dangerous weapons with the intention of causing his death. A4, A5 and A6 beat PW2 using bamboo sticks and injured him. The appellants thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 307, 323 r/w Section 149 of the IPC.

3. After trial, A3 and A9 were acquitted. The rest of the accused were convicted as mentioned above.

4. The prosecution examined PWs 1 to 19 and marked Exts. P1 to P19. Material Objects 1 to 16 were also identified and marked.

5. A2 is represented by learned Senior Counsel Sri.B.Raman Pillai, A4 and A5 by Adv. Renjith B. Marar and A1, A3, A6 and A7 were represented by Adv. Arjun Sreedhar. To avoid repetition and also for clarity and convenience, the arguments raised by the counsels are detailed together, in brief. The learned counsels argued that the prosecution purposefully suppressed the real incident and presented a concocted version as their case in the matter. The appellants are falsely implicated. The appellants are Harijans belonging to Pulaya community. The deceased, CW2 and their group belonged to higher caste, Ezhava and Vishwakarma. The prosecution failed to bring before the Court, the fact that the deceased and CW2 along with a group of people attacked the colony in which the appellants were residing with their families peacefully. The deceased and his team unleashed attack on the people and property over there and Udayarajan might have sustained injuries during the said fight. The deceased and his team destroyed the alleged place of occurrence and many of the houses of the colony. There is absolutely no evidence to connect the appellants with the crime. The fabrication starts even from the stage of registration of crime itself. There is no enmity between the appellants and the deceased. The version of the prosecution that the deceased was taken to the kitchen of the house of A8 itself is unbelievable. Key witnesses were left unexamined purposefully. The wound certificate of the deceased and the injured would show that CW2 received the injuries prior to that of the deceased and he has not witnessed the incident. The very inception of the whole