Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S. SUDHA, J.
Viswanathan S/o Balan – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
In this appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., the appellant, the sole accused, in S.C.No.78/2003 on the file of the Court of Session, Kalpetta, challenges the conviction entered and sentence passed against him for the offences punishable under Section 326 and 324 IPC.
2. The prosecution case as revealed from the charge sheet is as follows – the accused due to his enmity towards PW2, on 12/08/1995 at about 09:00 p.m. abused the latter by calling him by his caste him and then voluntarily caused grievous hurt to him by stabbing on his stomach with a knife. When PW1 attempted to intervene, the accused stabbed him also on his left hand causing an injury. Hence as per the final report, the accused is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 324, 326 and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (the Act).
3. Crime No.126/1995 of Meenangadi police station, that is, Ext.P6 FIR was registered by PW7 Head Constable based on Ext.P1 FIS of PW1. The investigation was conducted by PW11, Dy.SP, Crime Detachment, Wayanad, who on completion of investigation, submitted the final report alleging the commi
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.
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 court upheld the conviction for attempted murder but granted probation instead of imprisonment, emphasizing rehabilitation over punishment due to the appellant's age and reformation.
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 affirmed the conviction for attempt to murder but granted probation instead of imprisonment due to the appellant's age and subsequent conduct, emphasizing rehabilitation over punishment.
The court clarified that common intention under Section 34 IPC requires clear evidence of prearranged plans, leading to the first accused's conviction for culpable homicide under Section 304 while ac....
Conviction upheld for grievous assault and trespassing; however, due to circumstances, sentence reduced from three years to one.
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
