JUDGMENT :

The appellants are accused Nos.1 and 2 in S.C. No. 491 of 2001 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Adhoc-III, Thalassery and they are challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on them for the offences under Sections 450, 324 and 307 IPC.

2. The prosecution case is that the accused persons, 9 in number, because of political enmity and in furtherance of their common object to commit the murder of PW2, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons on 25.10.1998, at about 10 p.m. and trespassed into the veranda of the house of PW2 bearing No. 3/377 of Peringathur Panchayat, and when PW2 came to the veranda on hearing the calling bell, the first accused caught on the shirt collar of PW2 and assaulted him with sword aiming the right side of his neck and the second accused inflicted a cut injury near the left side knee of PW2 with sword and the third accused beat PW2 with iron rod on his right hand and accused Nos. 4 to 9 also beat PW2 on various parts of his body with iron rods and sticks and they are thereby alleged to have committed the offences as aforesaid.

3. On the basis of Exhibit P1 First Information Statement of PW1, Exhibit P8 FIR was registered on 26.10.1998 and after completing the investigation, PW12, Circle Inspector, filed the final report and after committal, when the accused were produced before the trial court, charge was framed for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 448, 450, 324, and 307 r/w 149 IPC and when the charge was read over and explained, the accused persons pleaded not guilty.

4. Thereafter, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 14 and marked Exhibits P1 to P11 and MOs 1 to 7. Since it is found that the accused are not entitled for an acquittal under Section 232 Cr.P.C., they were called upon to enter on their defence; but, no evidence was adduced from the side of the accused.

5. After hearing both sides and considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, as per the impugned judgment dated 11.10.2006, acquitted accused Nos. 3 to 9 on the finding that they are entitled for the benefit of doubt and convicted and sentenced accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offences under Sections 450, 324 and 307 IPC. The trial court also found accused Nos. 1 and 2 not guilty of offences under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 448 IPC. For the offences under Sections 450 and 324 IPC, accused Nos. 1 and 2 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each and for the offence under Section 307 IPC, they are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months each.

6. Heard Sri. V. Vinay, learned counsel representing the learned counsel for the appellants on record, Sri. S. Rajeev, and Sri. Vipin Narayan, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor and perused the records.

7. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the conviction and the sentence passed against the accused/appellants are legally sustainable.

8. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that there is unexplained delay in registering the FIR and that there is no proper identification of the accused persons by the material witnesses and that the trial court failed to appreciate the evidence in proper perspective and also failed to consider the plea of false implication raised by the accused persons. It is also argued that the material witnesses who supported the prosecution are highly interested witnesses and their exaggerated testimonies cannot be relied upon.

9. But, the learned Public Prosecutor argued that PW1 is the mother of the injured and PW2 is the injured victim and their evidence regarding the occurrence is supported by the evidence of PWs 3 and 4 neighbours and there is also clear medical evidence and that the prosecution has established the charge against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.

10. T