The court upheld the convictions for wrongful restraint and assault, emphasizing the importance of establishing clear evidence of intent and injury.

J U D G M E N T

In this appeal filed under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C., the appellants who are accused nos.1 and 2 in S.C. No.98/2004 on the file of the Court of Session, Manjeri, challenge the conviction entered and sentence passed against them for the offences punishable under Sections 341 & 324 IPC .

2. The prosecution case as stated in the final report is as follows:

Accused nos.1 to 3 were in inimical terms with PW2 as the latter had beaten up accused no.3. Therefore, on 28/09/2003 at about 09:30 a.m., in furtherance of their common intention to retaliate the attack on A3 by PW2, while PW1 and PW2 were proceeding in their bicycles from Valluvangad to Oruvambram through Thampanangadi, accused nos.1 and 2 wrongfully restrained them by parking their autorickshaw bearing registration no.KL-10- K 5183 driven by accused no.2 across the road. Accused no.1 sprinkled chilli powder on the face of PWs 1 and 2, took out an iron rod kept inside the autorickshaw, and accused no.2 a stick, and both of them beat PWs 1 and 2, thereby attempting to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Accused no.3 instigated accused nos.1 and 2 to commit the aforesaid act in order to take revenge on PWs 1 and 2 for having beaten him. Therefore, as per the final report, the accused persons were alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 341 , 308, 324 &

109 read with Section 34 IPC .

3. Crime No.121/2003, Pandikkad police station, that is, Ext.P5 FIR was registered by PW6, the then Assistant Sub Inspector on the basis of Ext.P1 FIS given by PW1, which was recorded by PW9. The investigation was conducted by PW10, the then Sub Inspector, Pandikkad police station, who on completion of the investigation submitted the final report alleging the commission of the offences punishable under the aforementioned sections by accused nos.1 to 3.

4. On appearance of the accused persons, the jurisdictional magistrate after complying with all the necessary formalities as contemplated under Section 209 Cr.P.C. committed the case to the Court of Session, Manjeri. The case was taken on file as S.C. No.98/2004. Thereafter, the case was made over to the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-III (Adhoc), Manjeri, for trial and disposal. On appearance of the accused persons before the trial court, a charge under Sections 341 , 324, 308, 109 read with Section 34 IPC was framed, read over and explained to the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty.

5. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 10 were examined and Exts.P1 to P10 and MO1 to MO3 were marked in support of the case. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused persons were questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution. The accused persons denied all those circumstances and maintained their innocence. 6. As the trial court did not find it a fit case to acquit the accused persons under Section 232 Cr.P.C., they were asked to enter on their defence and adduce evidence in support thereof. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused persons.

7. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, the trial court by the impugned judgment found no evidence to find accused no.3 guilty of the offences alleged against him and hence he was acquitted under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. of all the offences charged against him. Accused nos.1 and 2 have also been acquitted under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. of the offences punishable under Sections 308 and 109 IPC . However, they have been found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 324 . Hence, they hav