Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S. SUDHA, J.
Ashokan, S/O Krishnan – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
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 S
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.
The absence of the weapon does not preclude conviction if sufficient evidence supports the prosecution's case, and the sentence imposed was appropriate for the nature of the offences.
The conviction of accused based on the reliable testimony of injured witnesses is valid, even without weapon recovery, as their evidence is corroborated by medical records.
Intent is crucial in determining the severity of charges under IPC; relevant evidence must reflect intention to kill for conviction under attempted murder.
The court found insufficient evidence of intent to kill, modifying the conviction from murder to grievous hurt and simple hurt under IPC.
The intent to commit murder must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, and in this case, it was established that the act fell under grievous hurt.
Conviction under Section 307 IPC affirmed based on corroborated eyewitness testimony and evidence suggesting intent to kill, regardless of fatal injury. The appeal was dismissed.
The conviction of accused under unlawful assembly and assault was confirmed, while the charges of using a dangerous weapon were dismissed due to lack of evidence; compensation awarded to victims per ....
The court confirmed conviction under Section 326 IPC for grievous hurt, setting aside conviction under Section 324 IPC as it constitutes a lesser included offence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
