Conviction under criminal charges requires clear, consistent evidence, and any reasonable doubt must favor the accused.

This appeal is filed by the accused in S.C. No. 442 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-I), Manjeri against the conviction and sentence passed against him for the offence under Section 332 IPC as per the impugned judgment dated 03.10.2007.

2. As per the prosecution case, the appellant herein is the second accused in Crime No. 468 of 2004 of Nilambur Police Station and as per the final report, the appellant, along with the co-accused (first accused), voluntarily caused grievous hurt to CW1 and other police officers of Nilambur Police Station by beating and kicking them on 11.08.2014 at about 9.45 p.m. in furtherance of their common intention to prevent the police officers from discharging their official duties and during the course of the same transaction and in furtherance of their common intention, they also caused hurt to CW2 and the incident occurred at the compound of Urvasi Bar on the side of : 3 :

Vazhikadavu Manjeri public road and the accused is thereby, alleged to have committed the offence under Sections 333 and 332 r/w 34 IPC .

3. On the basis of Exhibit P1 First Information Statement of PW1, Exhibit P1(a) FIR was registered by PW8, Sub Inspector, and thereafter, he conducted the investigation and filed the final report.

4. When the accused appeared before the trial court, after hearing both sides, charge was framed for the offences under Sections 333 and 332 r/w 34 IPC and when the charge was read over and explained to him, he pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 9 and marked Exhibits P1 to P13 and MO1 to prove the charge against the accused. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C and he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and maintained that he is innocent. Since the trial court found that the accused is not entitled for an acquittal under Section 232 Cr.P.C.,he was called upon to enter on his defence. But, no evidence was adduced from the side of the accused.

: 4 :

5. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on record and after hearing both sides, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, by the impugned judgment dated 03.10.2007, convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- for the offence under Section 332 IPC and he is found not guilty of the offence under Section 333 .

6. Heard Sri. Babu S. Nair, the learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. Nima Jacob, the learned Public Prosecutor.

7. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the conviction entered and the sentence passed against the accused is legally sustainable.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that even though the trial court recorded a specific finding in paragraphs 20 and 23 of the impugned judgment that the prosecution has not succeeded in proving that the appellant herein shared any common intention with the absentee, first accused, for committing the alleged overt acts, the trial court recorded a finding that the appellant herein caused simple hurt to CW2 so as to prevent him from discharging his official duties and the said : 5 :

finding was made, despite the fact that the prosecution has not examined CW2 as a witness in this case and also without considering the serious omissions and inconsistencies in the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 regarding the occurrence.

9. It is also pointed out that the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 before the court regarding the place of occurrence and the overt acts committed by the appellant does not tally with Exhibit P1, First Information Statement, and that the trial court ought to have found that the appellant/second accused is entitled for the benefit of reasonable doubt.

10. The learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment and argued that the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 regarding the occurrence is supported by medical evidence and there is n