Back
2013 Supreme(Online)(KER) 29703
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J
ANIL KUMAR AGED 32 SON OF BHASKARAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION 1457/2002
Mens rea is essential to substantiate a conviction for attempted murder; evidence indicating lesser intent leads to a conviction under a lesser charge.
Headnote:
Crime - Conviction - IPC Section List - The court discussed the applicability of Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 307, and 149 of IPC, ultimately confirming the conviction under Section 324 but setting aside the conviction under Section 307, emphasizing the need for mens rea and actus reus to establish intent for murder.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were convicted of multiple offenses after being accused of forming an unlawful assembly and attacking the victim with deadly weapons, resulting in serious injuries. Their initial conviction included attempted murder under Section 307 IPC, which was later contested in a revision petition.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the evidence sufficed to uphold the conviction for attempted murder under Section 307 IPC or if lesser charges applied.
Ratio Decidendi: To establish an offence under Section 307 IPC, both mens rea and actus reus must be proven; the court found the prosecution failed to establish the requisite intent to cause death, leading to a conviction under Section 324 IPC instead.
Final Decision: The conviction under Section 307 IPC is set aside; the revision petitioners are convicted only under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC.
O R D E R
Petitioner's counsel absent. No representation. Dismissed for non-
prosecution.
02-02-2012 SD/- N.K.BALAKRISHNAN,JUDGE /TRUE COPY/
P.S.TO.JUDGE sts P. D. RAJAN, J.
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
Crl. R.P. No. 1457 of 2002 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
Dated this the 9th day of April, 2013 JUDGMENT Revision petitioners were convicted by the trial court U/s. 143, 147, 148, 324 and 307 r/w section 149 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for different periods and also directed to pay fine under the aforesaid sections. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. An appeal filed was partly allowed by the Additional Sessions Court, Alappuzha confirming the conviction and sentence passed U/s. 324 and 307 IPC and set aside the conviction and sentence U/s. 143, 147and 148 IPC. Challenging the said judgment this criminal revision petition has been preferred.
2. The prosecution case is that on 20.10.1997 at
4.30 p.m. the accused along with four identifiable persons formed themselves into an unlawful assembly carrying deadly weapons like sword stick and iron bars near the Thanneermukkom School junction and inflicted injuries on Crl.R.P. 1457/2002 2 PW1 cutting with sword and beating with iron rodes. When PW1 flee from the place of occurance, they chased him and inflicted injury on the forearm. Immediately PW1 took shelter in the nearby house of Smt. Mayamani. PW1 sustained serious injuries and he was removed to hospital. On the basis of information, Mohamma Police registered Crime No. 236/97 under sections 143, 147, 148, 324 and 307 r/w section 149 IPC. After investigation, the C.I of police laid charge before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - II, Cherthala, from where it was committed to Sessions Court for trial and disposal.
3. In the trial court prosecution examined PW1 to PW10 and marked Exts. P1 to Ext.P12 and Mos.1 to 4 in evidence. The incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence were denied by the accused while questioning under section 313 Cr.P.C. The trial court convicted the accused under sections 143, 147, 148, 324 and 307 r/w section 149 IPC. Against that order they preferred appeal before the Sessions Court in which their conviction and sentence under sections 143, 147 and 148 were set aside Crl.R.P. 1457/2002 3 and confirmed their conviction and sentence under sections 324 and 307 IPC. Aggrieved by that, the accused preferred this revision petition.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners contented that the petitioners are innocent and harsh sentence was awarded against them. The evidence of PW2 is not believable, since he is a sympathizer of a political party and his evidence is an interested one. The evidence of PW1 is inconsistent with the evidence of PW2 and the actual incident was suppressed by them and falsely foisted a case against the revision petitioners. There was no attempt to commit murder and no offence under section 307 IPC was proved against them in the trial court. The Trial Court, without considering and appreciating the legal principles and guidelines, convicted the accused for a serious offence. The injuries in Exts. P2 and P3 are not insufficient to prove the offence under section 307 IPC. There are several lapses from side of PW10 to find out the actual persons involved in the aforesaid crime and suppressing material evidence, he implicated the revision Crl.R.P. 1457/2002 4 petitioners in a serious offence. Therefore, the revision petitioners are entitled to get the benefit of doubt.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor strongly resisted the above contention and contented that the offence under section 307 IPC was already proved and established in this case. The injuries noted in Exts.P2 and P3 are sufficient to attract Section 307 IPC. There is no reason to disbelieve the oral testimony of PWs. 1 and 2. PW1 is the injured and no incriminating circumstances are brought out by the defence counsel in cross-examin
