The judgment underscores the requirement for clear and credible evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases involving serious charges.

JUDGMENT :

The appellants were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) by the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-I), Thalassery, as per the judgment dated 18.08.2006 in S.C.No.314 of 2000. They were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for various periods and also to pay fine.

2. They challenge legality and correctness of the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence in this appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code).

3. The allegations against the appellants were that on the morning of 26.10.1999 they formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, attacked PW2 Sri.Balan using choppers and inflicted him various injuries, some of which were grievous. PW2 is a C.P.I. (M) worker and due to political enmity he was attacked by the appellants, who are RSS/BJP activists. Before the court below, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 9 and proved Exts.P1 to P9. MOs.I to VI were identified as well. The incriminating circumstances appeared in the evidence were put to the appellants during their examination under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code. They denied such evidence and maintained that they were innocent. No evidence was let in by them.

4. The court below, after analysing the evidence, found the appellants guilty. Correctness of the findings of the court below leading to their conviction and sentence are challenged in this appeal.

5. Heard the counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. PW2 is the injured. He deposed in detail regarding the attack perpetrated by the appellants. He was working in the Water Authority on contract basis. On 26.10.1999 at about 10.30 a.m. he was returning from the pump house in the Brennan College, Palayad and at the mud road behind the college, seven assailants attacked him uttering, ‘kill him’. He asserted that it was the 1st accused, who so uttered and assaulted him first. He brandished a chopper causing an injury at his right wrist. He was also inflicted with injuries at his left side of chest, left elbow, both knees and back. Besides him, accused Nos.3 to 5 were the other persons who chopped him. When people started coming, the assailants took on their heels.

7. There was a police picket in that area. PW1 was a police personnel on duty there. PW2 stated that policemen from the police picket and later his relatives reached the place. He told the policemen that Shinoj and others attacked him. He was immediately taken to the Co-operative Hospital, Thalassery and from there to Medical College Hospital, Calicut, where he was treated for 19 days. His treatment continued for another 34 days in the Co-operative Hospital, Thalassery.

8. No occurrence witness is available. PW1 testified that while on duty in the police picket post, which is half-a-kilometre away from the place of occurrence, knew about the incident as told by a jeep driver. He as well as other policemen on duty rushed to the spot where they saw PW2 with bleeding injuries. It is his version that PW2 told him that seven persons, including Shinoj, attacked him. PW1 further stated that he made arrangements to send PW2 to the hospital and submitted a report, which is Ext.P1 to the Sub Inspector of Police. It is based on Ext.P1, the crime was registered by PW8 as per Ext.P5, FIR. The investigation was conducted by PW9, the Circle Inspector of Police.

9. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the evidence tendered by PW2 is insufficient to prove the charge, particularly the identity of the assailants. The reason for the attack is said to be political rivalry and therefore the possibility of implicating innocent persons cannot be ruled out. When there is no evidence to render support to the identification of the appellants before the court by PW2, his sole evidence cannot be acted upon. Further, it is submitted that PW2 did not identify the appell