Convicting someone requires clear, consistent evidence; discrepancies in eyewitness accounts and lack of independent witnesses raise reasonable doubt, leading to acquittal.

JUDGMENT

The appellants are the accused Nos.1 to 10 in S.C. No.1370/2014 on the file of Additional Sessions Court, (Marad Cases), Kozhikode. The aforesaid case arises from Crime No.75/2014 of Peruvannamuzhi Police Station. The said case was registered against the appellants herein, and another for the offences punishable under Sections 143 , 147, 148, 447, 341, 323, 324, 326, 307, 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code .

2. The prosecution case is as follows: On 18.03.2014 at 5.30 p.m., all the accused ( Appellants herein and accused No 11) formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with a common object to commit or for attempting to cause the murder of CW1, with deadly weapons and trespassed into his compound, A1 beat him with a stone which was covered in a flag of DYFI ( Democratic Youth Federation of India; the youth wing of a political party), A2 stamped on his chest and belly, A3 hit on his right stomach and A5 fisted on his chest. The other accused persons slapped his chest and back. It is also alleged that the 3^rd accused pelted stone, resulting in injury to the son of the de facto complainant. Immediately thereafter, he was taken to Taluk Hospital, Perembara and later, he was taken to Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode. Based on the above incident, a crime was registered, the investigation was conducted, and a final report was submitted for the offences above.

3. After completing the procedural formalities, the learned Magistrate committed the matter to the Sessions Court, Kozhikode. Later, the same was made over to the Additional Sessions Court (Marad Cases), Kozhikode, where the case was tried as S.C. No.1370/2014.

4. In support of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 13 were examined, Exts.P1 to P25 were marked and Material Objects 1 to 6 were identified. After completing the prosecution evidence, the appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and the incriminating materials brought out during the trial were put to them. All of them denied the same and pleaded innocence. No defence evidence was adduced.

5. After evaluating the materials on record, the learned Sessions Judge concluded that the appellants, who are accused Nos.1 to 10, are guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 143 , 148, 447, 326, 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code . The 11^th accused was found not guilty, and he was acquitted. Based on the finding of guilty, the appellants herein were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each under Section 143 read with IPC , rigorous imprisonment for six months each under Section 148 , rigorous imprisonment for three months each under Section 447 , rigorous imprisonment for three years each under Section 326 and rigorous imprisonment for seven years each and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each with a default sentence of six months each under Section 307 . It was ordered that, if the fine amount is realized, an amount of Rs.10,000/- will be paid to PW1 under Section 357 (1) of Cr.P.C. It was also ordered that the sentences shall run concurrently. This appeal is filed challenging the aforesaid order of conviction and consequential sentence.

6. Heard Sri. P.K. Varghese, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Ranjith George, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. The defacto complainant/ PW1 got himself impleaded in this appeal as an additional 3^rd respondent, and I have heard Sri. Julian Xavier, learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants raised various contentions. It was contended that the evidence of occurrence witnesses, namely PWs 1 to 5, are inconsistent. Learned counsel pointed out several discrepancies in their evidence. It was also submitted that all the witnesses above are close relatives of the victim. Despite the availability of other possible witnesses, the prosecution failed to examine any of the same. Learned counsel further pointed out the discrepancies in the seizure mahazar