JUDGMENT

Vinod Chandran, J.

Sibling rivalry led to the allegation of attempted murder raised by the younger brother against the elder brother. The accused, two in number, the elder brother and his friend, were charged under Sections 341,326,307 r/w 34 IPC. The accused were acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge against which the appeal is filed by the injured victim. Sri R.Ranjith argued for the appellant and the Government was represented by the learned Public Prosecutor Sri.V.S.Sreejith. None appears for the accused respondents against whom service is complete.

2. Chandrappa and others v. State of Karnataka (2007 (4) SCC 415) restated the principles regarding the scope of the power of appellate Court to re-appreciate, review or reconsider evidence and interfere with an acquittal. The general principles were encapsulated in the following manner:

42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:

(1) An appellate court has full power to review, re-

appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.

(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.

(3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial and compelling reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds”, “very strong circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.

(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.

(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.

3. PW1 was the injured who made the FIS marked as Ext.P1. According to him, on 06.11.2011 at about 6:00 p.m in front of the Milma Society on the 66th mile, the autorickshaw in which he was travelling was waylaid by the accused. Both of them had iron rods in their hands with which, the victim allegedly was assaulted mercilessly. The first blow delivered by A1 was deflected by the victim, which however caused an injury on his left hand. Then both A1 and A2, it was alleged, repeatedly beat him on his legs, hands and all over his body. His arms, legs and head sustained bleeding injuries. A2 is also alleged to have stabbed his head repeatedly with a knife. Hearing the noise, one Thankachan and an auto driver, by name Prince, came running, hearing the commotion. When the people gathered at the scene of occurrence, the accused fled and Thankachan and Prince took the victim in an auto to the hospital. The motive was alleged to be enmity between the brothers by reason of a dispute regarding the use of a pathway and the right to take water. A1 is said to have objected to the same, for reason of which, PW1 filed a suit, got an order of injunction against obstruction and appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for local inspection. This enraged the elder brother who attempted to kill the younger brother, is the allegation.

4. The victim was examined as PW1. He spo