IMPORTANT POINT
The conviction under Section 324 IPC was upheld due to sufficient evidence of grievous injury, despite the absence of the weapon and the political affiliations of witnesses.

JUDGMENT :

In this appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., the appellants, who are accused no.1 and 2 (A1 and A2) in S.C.No.677/2004 on the file of the Court of Session, Kasargod, challenge the conviction entered and sentence passed against them for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC.

2. The prosecution case is that the accused persons, two in number, who are Congress party sympathizers due to their political enmity towards PW6, a CPI(M) worker on 08/05/2002 at 17:00 hours while he was driving his auto bearing registration No.KL-14C-3708 with PW5 as passenger, attempted to murder him by stabbing him with a sword and causing injuries to him. Hence, as per the final report/charge sheet, the accused persons are alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC.

3. Crime No.103/2002, Bedakam police station, that is, Ext.P4 FIR was registered by PW4, the Head Constable based on Ext.P3 FIS given by PW5, the occurrence witness. The investigation was conducted by PW9, C.I. Adhur, who on completion of the investigation submitted final report, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under the aforementioned Sections.

4. On appearance of the accused persons, the jurisdictional magistrate after complying with all the necessary formalities contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C., committed the case to the Court of Session, Kasargod. The case was taken on file as S.C.No.677/2004 and thereafter made over to the Additional Sessions Judge (Ad Hoc-I), Kasargod for trial and disposal. The trial court after hearing both sides, framed a charge under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC, which was read over and explained to the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty.

5. On behalf of the prosecution, PW1 to PW9 were examined and Exts.P1 to P12 and M.O.1 to M.O.3 were marked in support of the case. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused persons were questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution. The accused persons denied all those circumstances and maintained their innocence.

6. As the trial court did not find it a fit case to acquit the accused persons under Section 232 Cr.P.C., they were asked to enter on their defence and adduce evidence in support thereof. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the accused persons.

7. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, the trial court did not find any evidence to find the accused persons guilty of the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. However, the trial court concluded that from the evidence on record the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC was made out and hence convicted them thereunder and has sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to a fine of ₹10,000/- and in default to simple imprisonment for 4 months. The fine amount, if realised, has been directed to be given as compensation to PW6 under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C. Set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. has been allowed. Aggrieved, the appellants/A1 and A2 have come up in appeal.

8. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the conviction entered and sentence passed against the appellants/A1 and A2 by the trial court are sustainable or not.

9. The first appellant/A1 was reported to have died on 12/06/2011. Therefore, the substantive sentence of imprisonment passed against him stands abated. However, since fine has also been imposed, the appeal does not abate. None of his legal representatives has come on record to prosecute the appeal. There was no representation for the second appellant/A2 and hence as per order dated 18/11/2024, Adv. V.S.Afsal Khan was appointed as State Brief for both the appellants/A1 and A2.

10. Heard both sides.

11. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants/A1 and A2 that the