The court modified the appellant's sentence from imprisonment to a fine while affirming the conviction under IPC Section 324, balancing justice and mercy.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 12^th day of March, 2026 The 4^th accused in S.C. No.326/2013 on the the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Kasaragod, has filed this appeal, under Section 378 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [hereinafter referred as ‘Cr.P.C.’ for short], challenging the conviction and sentence imposed against him as per the judgment dated 08.04.2016. The State of Kerala, represented by the Public Prosecutor is arrayed as the respondent herein.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor, in detail. Carefully gone through the verdict under challenge and the records of the Sessions Court.

3. Parties in this appeal shall be referred as ‘accused’ and ‘prosecution’, hereafter.

4. The prosecution allegation is that, accused Nos.1 and 2 stabbed PW1 using a knife and accused Nos.3 and 4 stabbed PW1 with a stone, after sharing common intention to do away him. Although PW1 sustained grievous injuries, he survived. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offence punishable under Section 307 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code [hereafter referred as ‘ IPC ’

for short], by the accused.

5. After framing charge for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 326 read with 34 of the IPC , the 4^th accused alone was separately tried by the learned Sessions Judge. During trial, PWs 1 to 8 were examined, Exts.P1 to P8 and MO1 were marked on the side of the prosecution. Even though, the accused was given opportunity to adduce defence evidence after questioning him under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C, he did not opt to adduce any defence evidence.

6. On appreciation of evidence, the Sessions Court found that the 4^th accused was guilty for the o punishable under Section 324 read with 34 of IPC . Accordingly, the 4^th accused was convicted for the said offence and sentenced as under:

“In the result, the convict is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- under section 324 of IPC . In default of sentence of payment of fine, he is to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of 3 months. The convict shall deposit the fine amount within a period of 30 days from today. If the fine amount is deposited or realised, the same shall be given to the victim, PW1 under section 357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. Set off for a period from 21.09.2002 to 22.9.2002 and 21.8.2008 to 22.8.2008 will be allowed.”

7. While assailing the verdict impugned, the learned counsel for the appellant/4^th accused given much emphasis to the FIS, without using the same for the purpose of contradicting the evidence of PW1 during cross-examination, to disbelieve the prosecution case. According to him, due to personal vendetta, this case was foisted against the 4^th accused. Therefore, the verdict impugned is liable to be interfered.

8. Whereas, the learned Public Prosecutor fully justified the finding of the learned Sessions Judge and submitted that no interference in the impugned verdict is necessary and the same is liable to be confirmed.

9. In view of the rival submissions, the points arise for consideration are:

1. Whether the Sessions Court is justified in finding that the 4th accused committed the offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC ?

2. Whether the verdict of the trial court would require interference?

3. Order to be passed?

10. Point No.1:- In this case, the occurrence was proved by the evidence of PW1. According to PW1, the occurrence was at about 8.30 p.m. on 04.03.2002, while he was going to the mosque from his house. On the way to the mosque, four persons wrongfully r