Eyewitness testimony of injured parties holds significant weight; intention for murder requires clear evidence of premeditation and knowledge of potential injury, not merely a quarrel.

JUDGMENT :

Johnson John, J.

These appeals are filed by the State and the first accused in S.C. No. 98 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-II), Ernakulam challenging the judgment dated 22.10.2005. The State is challenging the acquittal of accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and the acquittal of accused Nos. 2 and 3 for the offences under Sections 341 , 324 and 307 r/w 34 IPC. The first accused is challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on him for the offence under Section 324 IPC.

2. The prosecution case is that the accused persons, because of previous enmity and in furtherance of their common intention, to murder PW1 and cause hurt to PW2, joined together at a place near Narasimha Swamy temple at Udayamperoor on 05.08.2001 at about 7.30 p.m. and accused Nos. 2 and 3 wrongfully restrained PW1, and the first accused stabbed PW1 with a knife below the left chest with intention to kill him and when PW2 intervened, the first accused inflicted a cut injury with the knife above the ankle portion of the left leg and caused hurt and the accused are thereby alleged to have committed the offences under Sections 341 , 324 and 307 r/w 34 IPC.

3. Before the trial court, when the accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charge, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 16 and marked Exhibits P1 to P20 and MOs 1 to 5 series. The chemical analysis report is marked as Exhibit C1 and from the side of the defence, Exhibits D1 to D3 are marked.

4. After hearing both sides and considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found the first accused guilty under Section 324 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for two years and the first accused was found not guilty of the offence under Section 307 IPC and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are found not guilty of the offences under Sections 341 , 324 and 307 r/w 34 IPC.

5. Heard Sri. Alex M. Thombra, the learned Public Prosecutor and Sri. Jayashankar P.G., the learned State Brief–advocate representing the appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 2506 of 2006 and the respondents in the connected appeal, Crl. Appeal No. 707 of 2012.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, injured witnesses, regarding the occurrence and overt acts committed by the accused persons are not appreciated by the trial court in the facts and circumstances of the case and that the evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their evidence are not to be discarded lightly. It is argued that for attracting conviction under Section 307 IPC, the court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the Section, as held by the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra v. Balram Bama Patil and Others [1983 KHC 367]. It is also argued that the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 would clearly show that accused Nos. 2 and 3 wrongfully restrained PW1 at the time of occurrence so as to help the first accused to stab PW1 and therefore, the findings in the impugned judgment are liable to be set aside.

7. The learned State Brief, Adv.Jayashankar P.G., representing the accused persons, argued that there is nothing in