The prosecution must establish mens rea alongside the act to secure a conviction, and the credibility of witness testimonies must be carefully scrutinized for inconsistencies.

JUDGMENT :

JOBIN SEBASTIAN, J.

The sole accused in SC.No.354/2007 on the files of the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-I), Ernakulam, has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed against him in the said case for the offence punishable under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows;

The accused and CW1 are husband and wife. The accused harboured animosity towards his wife, as she was not amenable to the demand of the accused to transfer her property in the accused’s name. Owing to this animosity, on 25.11.2006, at 3.00 p.m., the accused took his wife as a pillion rider on his motorcycle and rode the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner through Chellanam - Pandikkudy road and while riding so, the accused with the intention of committing culpable homicide, suddenly turned the motorcycle and applied the brakes abruptly, causing his wife to fall from the motorcycle and sustain serious injuries. Hence, the accused is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 279, 325, and 308 of the IPC.

3. After the completion of the investigation, the final report was laid before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kochi. On being satisfied that this case is one triable exclusively by a court of Session, the learned Magistrate, after complying with all the necessary formalities, committed the case to the court of Session, Ernakulam, under section 209 of Cr.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge, after having taken cognizance, made over the case for trial and disposal to the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc-I), Ernakulam. On appearance of the accused before the trial court, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing both sides under section 227 of Cr.P.C. and upon a perusal of the records, framed a written charge against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 279, 325, and 308 of IPC. When the charge was read over and explained to the accused, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. During the trial, from the side of the prosecution, PW1 to PW7 were examined and marked Exts.P1 to P8. MO1 series was exhibited and identified. After the completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., during which he denied all the incriminating materials brought out in evidence against him. Thereafter, both sides were heard under Section 232 of Cr.P.C., and as it was not a fit case to acquit the accused under the said section, he was directed to enter on his defence and to adduce any evidence he may have in support thereof. However, no evidence whatsoever was produced from the side of the defence. Thereafter, both sides were heard in detail, and finally, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC and convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-. In default of payment of the fine, the accused was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Aggrieved by the said finding of guilt, conviction, and order of sentence passed, the accused has come up with this appeal.

5. I heard Sri. C.Anilkumar Kallesseril, the learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri. Alex M. Thombra, learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

6. The accused and the injured in this case are admittedly husband and wife. The law was set in motion in this case based on the First Information Statement given by the sister of the injured to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kannamali Police Station. The said sister, who allegedly witnessed the incident,