Independent evaluation of witness credibility is essential in criminal convictions, affecting both guilt determination and sentencing considerations.

ORDER

Petitioners, accused 1 to 3 in S.C.No.148/1994, along with accused 4 to 7, were tried by learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307 and 379 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. Prosecution case was that on 2.5.1992 at about 9.15 p.m., in furtherance of their common object, the seven accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and armed with deadly weapons like choppers and knife attacked PW1 at Aduppukoottanpara on Peroorkkada-Vazhiyila public road while PW1 was driving a jeep and inflicted grievous injuries with the intention to cause his death and also committed theft of the gold chain and the watch worn by PW1 and thereby committed the offences. Petitioners along with the other accused pleaded not guilty.

CRRP 5/03 2

2. Prosecution examined ten witnesses and marked nine exhibits and identified Mos 1and 2. After questioning the accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, though accused were called upon to enter on their defence and adduce evidence, they did not adduce any evidence. On their side only Exhibits D1 and D2, portions of the statement of PW3 recorded under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure were marked.

3. Learned Assistant Sessions Judge, on the evidence, found accused 4 to 7 not guilty of all the offences and acquitted them. It was found that petitioners are not guilty of the offences under Sections 148, 307 and 379 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. But, finding that petitioners have independently voluntarily caused hurt to PW1 with choppers, which are dangerous weapons, learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge convicted them for the offence under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code. They were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment CRRP 5/03 3 for one year and a compensation of Rs.10,000/- each. Petitioners challenged the conviction and sentence before Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram in Crl.A.No.55/1997. Learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence. This revision is filed challenging the concurrent conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code.

4.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor were heard.

5. Argument of the learned counsel is that learned Sessions Judge did not consider the criminal appeal on merits. Even though learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge did not rely on the evidence of PWs 3 and 4, who claimed to be eye witnesses, learned Sessions Judge proceeded on the basis that learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge had believed them and without showing the reasons, relied on the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 and confirmed the conviction. It was argued that CRRP 5/03 4 learned Sessions Judge was bound to independently re-appreciate the evidence, which was not done and therefore, dismissal of the appeal was illegal. Learned counsel would also argue that when the evidence of PW1, the injured and PW2, the eye witness, which were relied on by the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge as well as by learned Sessions Judge, establish that their version as against accused 4 to 7 were disbelieved by the courts below and PWs 1 and 2 are proved to be not trustworthy witnesses, evidence of PWs 1 and 2 should not have been believed even as against the petitioners. It was argued that though names of the assailants were not disclosed to the Doctor when PW1 was examined by the Doctor within hours of sustaining the injuries, in Exhibit P1 F.I. Statement furnished by PW1, apart from the names of the seven accused, who faced trial, name of one Asokan was also mentioned and later, strangely, Asokan was removed from the array of the accused.

CRRP 5/03 5 It was argued that statement of PW1, after Exhibit P1 F.I. Statement, was seen recorded, as per the case diary only on 23.12.1992 and when PWs 2 to 4 asserted before the Investigating Officer that Asokan was present at the scene of occurrence, his n