The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; lack of corroborating evidence and injuries on the accused undermined the prosecution's case.

JUDGMENT :

GOPINATH P., J.

The appellants are accused Nos. 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, and 17 in S.C.No.811/2005 on the file of the Sessions Court, Thalassery. S.C.No.811/2005 arises from Crime No.171/2001 of Mattannur Police Station, Kannur district, which was registered alleging commission of offences under Sections 143 , 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, and 307 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ IPC ’), and under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the '1908 Act'). The trial of the case against accused No.1 was split up, as he was/is absconding. The prosecution examined 17 witnesses (PWs 1 to 17) and marked 13 exhibits (Exts P1 to P13). The defence examined 5 witnesses (DWs 1 to 5), and 6 exhibits were marked (Exts D1 to D6). Two material objects were produced as MO1 and MO2. Following the trial, the Sessions Court acquitted accused Nos. 2, 5, 7, 8, 14, 15, and 18. Accused No.11 in the case had died pending trial. The appellants herein were found not guilty under Section 3 07 r/w Section 149 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of the 1908 Act. The appellants were found guilty under Sections 143 , 147, 323, 324, and 326 r/w Section 149 of the IPC . The appellants (except appellant No.8/accused No.16) were also found guilty under Section 148 of the IPC . The appellants/accused were sentenced to varying terms of imprisonment. The maximum term of imprisonment was for the offence under Section 3 26 r/w Section 149 of the IPC , for which the appellants were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years and to a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. The appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month each under Section 143 r/w Section 149 of the IPC , rigorous imprisonment for three months each under Section 147 r/w Section 149 of the IPC , rigorous imprisonment for three months each under Section 3 23 r/w Section 149 of the IPC , rigorous imprisonment for one year each under Section 3 24 r/w Section 149 of the IPC . Accused Nos. 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 17 were also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months each under Section 148 of the IPC . All substantive sentences were to run concurrently. The amount of fine, if recovered, was directed to be paid as compensation to PW9 under Section 3 57(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 .

2. Sri. K.S. Madhusoodanan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, has invited the attention of the Court to the First Information Statement (hereinafter referred to as the ‘FIS’) (Ext. P9) given by PW8. He has also taken the Court to the depositions of PW8, PW9, PW10, and PW11. He also referred to the depositions of PW4 (the doctor who examined PW10 and PW11 at the Indira Gandhi Co-operative Hospital, Thalassery, and issued Exts. P4 and P5 wound certificates) and PW12 (who examined PW9 and issued Ext. P10 wound certificate). The learned counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to Ext. P12, the discharge summary from the Kasturba Medical College Hospital, Mangalore, in respect of PW9. It is pointed out that even according to the prosecution, PW8, PW9, PW10, and PW11, and the accused, belong to rival political fronts. It is submitted that even according to the prosecution, the injured persons, namely PW9, PW10, and PW11, along with some others, had been called to the Mattannur Police Station in connection with a complaint given by the accused No.14 (Balakrishnan), and they were attacked when they were returning from the Police Station. It is submitted that the attack admittedly took place in front of the s