J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 17th day of June, 2022 This criminal appeal has been preferred challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the III Additional Sessions Court, Fast Track Court-I, Thrissur (for short, “the court below”) in S.C.No.320/2006 dated 10.07.2007.

2. The appellants are the accused Nos. 3 to 5.

Altogether, there are five accused. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452 and 307 read with Section 149 of IPC. The appellants herein alone faced trial at the court below. The accused Nos. 1 and 2 were absconding then. Now it is reported by the learned Sessions Judge that the case as against the accused No.1 was committed to the court and numbered as S.C.No.649.2007. The case was tried and the accused No.1 was convicted. The learned Sessions Judge further reported that the case against the accused No.2 was subsequently committed to the Sessions Court and now it is pending as S.C.No.629/2012.

3. The prosecution case in short is that the accused formed an unlawful assembly with common object to cause death of PW4 and in prosecution of the common object, they assembled with deadly weapon, trespassed into the bakery of PW7 situated at Kuriachira on 17.07.2003 at 9.45 am and assaulted PW4 with sword at his arms and legs, with an intention to kill him and thereby committed the offences.

4. On the side of the prosecution, PW1 to PW10 were examined and Exts. P1 to P8 were marked. On the side of the defence, no one was examined and Exts.D1 to D3 were marked. MO1 sword was identified. The learned Magistrate after completing the statutory formalities committed the case as against the accused Nos. 3 to 5 to stand trial at the Court of Sessions. After hearing both sides, charge was framed for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 452 and 307 read with 149 of IPC against them. The charge was read over and explained to them to which they pleaded not guilty. On appreciation of the evidence, the court below found the accused guilty under Sections 143, 147, 452. 307 read with Sections 149 and the accused Nos.3 and 4 were also found guilty u/s 148 of IPC and they were convicted for the said offences. The court below sentenced the accused Nos.3 to 5 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each and to pay a fine of ₹1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days each under Section 143 of IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each and to pay a fine of ₹1,500/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month each under Section 147 of IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each and to pay a fine of ₹3,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months each under Section 452 of IPC, rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of ₹10,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for four months each under Section 307 read with Section 149 of IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine of ₹2,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months each under Section 148 of IPC. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the accused Nos. 3 to 5 have preferred this appeal.

5. The appellants were initially represented by a lawyer.

However, later, the counsel did not appear. Hence this Court appointed Sri. Dheerendrakrishnan as Amicus Curiae to assist this Court. I place on record the able assistance rendered by the Amicus Curiae Sri. Dheerendrakrishanan.

6. Heard the learned Amicus Curiae as well as Smt. T.V.

Neema, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

7. PW4 is the victim. PW5 and PW7 are occurrence witnesses. PW7 has given Ext.P4 FIS. However, in the box he specifically deposed that he could not identify the accused. Hence, his evidence is not much helpful to support the prosecution. What remains is the evidence of PW4 and PW5. PW4, the victim clearly gave evidence in tune with the prosecution case. He deposed the manner in which each of t