Under Section 307 IPC, intent to cause death can be established without severe injuries; circumstantial evidence and the nature of the weapon can indicate such intent.

JUDGMENT :

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

1. This appeal is at the instance of the sole accused in S.C.No.785/2003 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta. The State of Kerala, represented by the Public Prosecutor, is arrayed as the sole respondent herein.

2. Heard Adv.Akash S, the learned Amicus curiae, appearing for the appellant/accused and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State, in detail. Perused the verdict under challenge and the records of the trial court.

3. In this case, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 448 and 307 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’ for short) by the accused. The specific case of the prosecution is that due to prior animosity towards the defacto complainant (CW1), since he refused to withdraw an earlier case, viz. C.C.No.135/2002, launched by the defacto complainant, pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ranny, the accused, with intention to cause murder of the defacto complainant, criminally trespassed upon the northern-eastern corner of the northern varanda of the stationery shop situated on the eastern side of Paroor house, at 7.30 pm on 23.01.2003 and threatened to kill the defacto complainant. As a follow up, he caused injuries to the defacto complainant by beating on his head and in consequence thereof, the defacto complainant sustained injuries on his both hands and head, though he survived.

4. On committal of the matter before the Sessions Court, the same was made over to the Additional Sessions Court for trial and disposal. The trial court framed charge for the said offences and recorded evidence. On the side of prosecution, PW1 to PW10 were examined and Exts.P1 to P12 and MO1 and MO2 were marked.

5. After completion of the prosecution evidence, even though the accused was given opportunity to adduce defence evidence after questioning him under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. he did not adduce any evidence.

6. Thereafter, on evaluation of evidence, the learned Sessions Judge found that the appellant/accused is guilty for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC, while acquitting him for the offence punishable under Section 448 of IPC. Accordingly, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only). In default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for a period of one month also was imposed. The above conviction and sentence are under challenge in this appeal.

7. While assailing the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court, the learned Amicus curiae vehemently argued that once the court found that the accused did not commit offence under Section 448 of IPC, the finding that the accused committed offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC by beating on the head of the defacto complainant, who was examined as PW1, is an impossibility. If so, for the said reason, the conviction and sentence are liable to be set aside. In this connection, the learned Amicus curiae given much emphasis to the evidence of PW7, the Village Officer, who prepared Ext.P6, site plan, which would suggest that it is not possible to criminally trespass upon the varandha because of two desks, one put up on the northern extremity of the showroom and the other put up on the eastern extremity of the shop room. He also argued that in the circumstances, the prosecution case is in the midst of doubts and thereby the accused deserves acquittal.

8. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the finding of the trial court, merely relying on the evidence of PW7 and E