The judgment emphasizes the requirement for evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the importance of fair investigation, and the reliability of witnesses.

JUDGMENT :

Accused Nos.3 and 4 in S.C.No.389 of 2001 on the files of the Sessions Court, Thalassery are the appellants. They were convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 324 and 307 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). They challenge legality and correctness of the said judgment in this appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code).

2. There were five accused. Accused Nos.1 and 5 expired. Accused Nos.2 was absconding. Appellants/accused Nos.3 and 4 alone stood trial in the aforementioned case.

3. At the trial PWs.1 to 17 were examined and Exts.P1 to P15 were marked. MOs.1 to 7 were identified. After closing the prosecution evidence the appellants were questioned under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code. They maintained that they were innocent. No defence evidence was adduced. The trial court, after appreciating the evidence, found that all the five accused together trespassed into the house of PW1 by breaking open its door and inflicted serious injuries to PW1 using MOs.1 and 2 choppers. Holding that the common object of the five assailants was to cause death of PW1, the appellants were convicted and sentenced. The findings of the trial court are assailed on the grounds of reliability of evidence, impropriety in the investigation and false implication.

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

5. The case of the prosecution unfolded from the materials on record is as follows:

PW1 Bhaskaran was residing along with his sister, niece, her husband and their children. He was sleeping in the southern room of the house. Others were in different rooms. At about 11 O'clock on 29.06.1999 somebody called his name and asked to open the door. PW2 is his niece. All woke up and switched on the electric lights in the house. PW2 and her mother told that PW1 was not in the house. They said so fearing something untoward in the wake of prevailing political clashes in the locality. But, the assailants rammed inside by breaking open the front door. They then demolished the door of the southern bedroom and attacked PW1 using choppers and axe. PW2 pleaded with the assailants not to assault. They did not yield. The 1st accused, uttering that PW1 would be killed, chopped him using MO2 chopper inflicting him injuries. The 3rd accused chopped him at his left waist, the 2nd accused assaulted him using an axe. The 1st accused again tried to cut him at his neck using a chopper. That resulted a minor injury. PW1 could ward off further attack using the demolished door and rolling under the cot in that room. Hearing the hue and cry, the people from the neighbourhood started coming, and thereupon the assailants escaped.

6. Apart from PWs.1 and 2, PWs.3 and 4 were examined to state about the occurrence. But they did not support the case of the prosecution. PW3, a neighbour, stated that on hearing the cry from the house of PW1, he reached there and at that time PW1 was sitting on the verandah with injuries. He did not see the assailants. Similar is the version of PW4 also. PW3 accompanied PW1 to the hospital. The evidence of PWs.3 and 4 is not available to prove the identity of the assailants. PWs.1 and 2, however, in detail deposed regarding the incident and the complicity of each of the accused.

7. The trial court after detailed consideration found that evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is reliable and their evidence together with the medical evidence, recovery evidence and other circumstances proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

8. The learned counsel for the appellants would, at the outset, find fault with the conviction alleging that the crime being a gruesome one, the court below entered the conviction on a moral satisfaction and not based on any legal evidence. In that regard, the learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on Rahul v. State of Delhi, Ministry of Home Affairs [(2023) 1 SCC 83]. The Apex Court obser