Back
2012 Supreme(Online)(KER) 50754
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.S.GOPINATHAN, J
SHAIJU KOCHUMON SO RAVEENDRAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF EKERALA – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION 1696/2004
The judgment clarified that evidence of serious injuries and intent can sustain a conviction for attempted murder under Section 307 IPC.
Headnote:
Assault - Violent Offences - IPC Section List - The court upheld the conviction for attempted murder under Section 307 IPC, interpreting the nature of injuries and intent, while modifying the sentence and imposing fines to ensure justice for the victims.
Fact of the Case:
The revision petitioners were convicted for assaulting PW2 and PW1 with deadly weapons during a trespass, resulting in severe injuries, including amputations. The case arose from a dispute linked to wooden logs near PW2's house.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the testimonies of eyewitnesses credible, showing intent to cause serious harm. The prosecution's evidence was sufficiently corroborated, leading to a confirmation of the conviction by both the trial and appellate courts.
Issues: The court examined the credibility of witness testimonies and whether the evidence supported a conclusion of attempted murder as charged under Section 307 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that clear evidence of intent and culpability existed, with testimonies corroborating severe injuries inflicted using deadly weapons, affirming that the conviction under Section 307 IPC was justified.
Final Decision: The revision petition is allowed in part; conviction is upheld, but the sentence is reduced to two years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine.
O R D E R
The revision petitioners were found guilty by the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Kottayam in Sessions Case No. 40/1999 for offences under Sections 324, 447 and 307 read with 34 IPC. They were convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and and a fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 307 IPC with a default sentence of imprisonment for three months. No separate sentence was awarded under Sections 324 and 447 IPC. Aggrieved by the above conviction and sentence, they preferred Cril.A.No.93/2003 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Kottayam. By the impugned judgment dated 12/3/2004 the Additional Sessions Judge, Kottayam to whom the appeal was made over, while confirming the conviction and sentence, dismissed the appeal. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence, this revision petition is preferred.
2. PW11, the Circle Inspector of Police, Changanassery Police Station in Crime No.267/1997 filed the charge sheet against the revision petitioners accusing offences under Sections 323, 324, 447 and 307 read with 34 IPC with an allegation that at 4 P.M. on 20/4/1997, the revision petitioners in furtherance of their common intention, trespassed into the courtyard of the house of PW2 bearing Door No.IV/3 of Thrikodithanam Panchayath. Both of them were armed with two sword sticks which are deadly weapons. MOs 1 and
2 are the weapons. In furtherance of their common intention to commit murder, PW2, who was giving water to the cows, in front of the cattle shed, was hacked by the first accused with MO1. Thereupon PW2 fell down. The 2nd revision petitioner then hacked PW2 with MO2 at his neck which was warded off with both hands. As a result, the left index, middle and ring fingers were amputated. The right index finger was severed and hanging on muscle. When PW1, who is the son of the brother of PW2 attempted to intervene, he was also hacked with the sword stick. He also sustained injuries. PW3, the brother of PW1, and PW4, another relative, also attempted to rescue. They were also assaulted and sustained injuries.
3. PW2 was first taken to the Government Hospital at Changanassery. On getting intimation, PW10, the Head Constable went to the hospital and recorded Exhibit P1 statement given by PW1. Case was registered against the revision petitioners and another. PW2 was later shifted to the Specialist Hospital at Ernakulam and had undergone treatment. PW11 took over the investigation. On completing the investigation, PW11 removed the third accused from party array and submitted the final report against the revision petitioners before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Changanassery. The case was committed to the Court of Session. From there it was made over to the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, before whom the revision petitioners faced the trial.
4. I have heard Adv. Smt. Mable, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners and Miss. Madhu Ben, the learned Government Pleader. The judgments impugned as well as the material evidence were perused.
5. The conviction under challenge is based upon the testimonies of PW1 to 4. Though PWs 3 and 4 were also said to have sustained simple hurt, no medical evidence in support of the allegation was produced. Therefore, the trial court acquitted the revision petitioners for the offence under Section 323 IPC. Now the question that arises for consideration is whether the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 is believable to sustain the impugned conviction and sentence. The defence advanced is that Raveendran, the father of the revision petitioners had kept some wooden logs near the house of PW2.
When he went there to take back the wooden logs PWs 1 and 2 picked up quarrel with Raveendran. Raveendran was assaulted by beating with wooden logs. Seeing that, the 2nd revision petitioner rushed to the spot in rescue of Raveendran. He was also assaulted. Thereafter, there was scuffle and somehow or other PWs 1 and 2 sustained inju
