Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The accused Nos. 1 to 4 in S.C.No.407/2005 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc I), Pathanamthitta, have preferred this appeal challenging the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed against them for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 324, and 326 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows; ​ The accused, CW1 and CW2, were initially followers of the CPI(M), a political party. Subsequently, accused severed their association with CPI(M) and joined another political party named KDP. CW1 later contested in a local body election under the banner of CPI(M), and consequently, the accused developed animosity towards CW1 and CW2. While so, on 09.01.2002 at 1.15 p.m., CW1 and CW2 came in an autorikshaw driven by CW3 and stopped near a rice mill at Mamoodu. Thereafter, CW2, after alighting from the autorikshaw, went to a nearby shop. Then the accused Nos. 1 to 4, in furtherance of their common intention, encircled the ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 2025:KER:5285 autorikshaw in which CW1 was sitting. The 1st accused then caught hold of the hair of CW1 and pulled him out of the autorikshaw and hacked him with a sword stick, causing injuries to his right palm and fingers. Then the 2nd accused hacked at the rib portion of CW1 using a sword stick, and the 3rd accused struck CW1 on his hand with another sword stick. Meanwhile, the 4th accused hit on the back and neck of CW1 with a stone. When CW3, the driver of the autorikshaw, attempted to intervene and asked the accused not to assault CW1, the accused Nos. 2 to 4 beat him with their bare hands. Upon seeing the same when CW2 rushed to the spot, the 2nd accused hacked at his chin with a sword stick. Moreover, the 4th accused struck CW2 on the right side of his face using a stone, causing fracture of mandible. Thereafter, accused Nos. 1, 2, and 4 restrained CW2 and threatened him not to disclose the same to anybody, and the 3rd accused caught hold of the tongue of CW2 and inflicted a cut injury on it. Hence, the accused are alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 341, 324, 326, and 307 r/w 34 of the IPC.

 ​     ​     ​     ​     ​    ​    ​         ​   ​   ​





                                                        2025:KER:5285

8. The law was set in motion in this case on the strength of the FIS given by Suresh Kumar, one of the injured in this case, to the Sub Inspector of Police, Koduman. When the first informant was examined as PW1, he deposed as follows: The accused are residents of his locality, and known to him. He is a social worker. On 09.02.2002 at 1.50 p.m., while he, along with his friend Vinod (PW2), was travelling in the autorikshaw driven by one Chandrabose (PW3) from Adoor to his house, and on the way, the autorikshaw was stopped at Mamoodu Junction. Then Vinod alighted from the autorikshaw and went to a nearby shop. In the meantime, the accused Nos. 1 to 4 rushed towards the autorikshaw, shouting threats to kill him. The 1st accused caught hold of his hair and pulled him out from the autorikshaw and hacked him with a sword stick. He blocked the said attack using his hand, and sustained injuries on his right hand, including cut injuries to three of his fingers. The 4th accused was holding a stone in his hand, and the 2nd and 3rd accused were holding sword sticks in their hands. Thereafter, the 3rd accused hacked on his right hand using the sword stick, and the 2nd accused hacked on his rib area with a ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 2025:KER:5285 sword stick. Furthermore, he was pelted with stone. In the meantime, PW2 rushed to the scene. Then the 4th accused struck PW2 on the head with a stone. Due to the impact of the hit, PW2 fell down. Then the 3rd accused pulled PW2's tongue out and caused a cut injury on it. The remaining accused assisted the 3rd accused in committing this act. On noticing that the local people were gathering there, the accused fled the scene in different directions. Both he and PW2 were workers of the CPI(M). The accused were also previously CPI(M) workers, but recently they joined another political party named KDP. According to PW1, he was a candidate in the last local body election under the banner of CPI(M), and he won the election by defeating the candidate of KDP. It was out of this political rivalry, the accused attacked him and PW2 with the intention to kill them. The sword sticks used by the accused were approximately one hand long and three inches wide. After the incident, both he and PW2 were taken to the Government Hospital, Adoor, by one Saji, in an autorickshaw. After receiving first aid, he was shifted to Maria Hospital Adoor, where he remained under treatment for around 70 days. PW2 ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 2025:KER:5285 was taken to the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam. While undergoing treatment, he gave a statement to the Police.

9. PW2, the other injured witness, deposed that he is a worker of CPI(M), a political party, and the accused are loyalists of another political party, KDP. On 09.02.2002, at 1.50 p.m., while he and Suresh Kumar (PW1) were travelling to their respective houses in an autorikshaw, and when they reached Mamoodu Junction, the autorikshaw was stopped. Thereafter, he went to a nearby shop to purchase beedis. On the way to the shop, he heard a commotion, and when he turned back, he saw the 1st accused pulling out PW1 from the autorikshaw by holding on his hair. Thereafter, the 1st accused hacked PW1 with a sword stick. PW1 tried to block the attack using his hands and sustained injuries. If PW1 had not blocked the said attack, the same would have fallen on PW1's neck, and his death would have occurred. In the meantime, the 4th accused struck PW1 on the back with a sword stick, and the 2nd and 3rd accused also hacked PW1 using sword sticks. Upon seeing the same, when he attempted to restrain the accused, the 4th accused struck him on the face with a stone, ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 2025:KER:5285 causing fracture. The 1st accused hacked him on the chin using a sword stick. Thereafter, Mohanan (A3) and Vijayan (A4) forcefully held both his hands behind his back, and they raised his head backward. Then the 3rd accused pulled out his tongue and inflicted an injury on it using a sword stick. He was also threatened not to say anything that he had witnessed regarding the incident. The accused also assaulted the driver of the autorikshaw in which they came to Mamoodu Junction. The accused were formerly loyalists of the CPI(M) party. However, when they were denied a seat in the last local body election, they left CPI(M) and joined another political party named KDP. PW1 had contested in that election as a CPI(M) candidate, and he actively worked for PW1 in the said election. It was due to the said animosity, the accused attacked him as well as PW1. The accused used to raise threats against him and PW1. After the incident, when he raised alarm, the accused fled from the spot and they took the weapons with them. After the incident, both he and PW1 were taken to the Government Hospital, Adoor, and subsequently referred to the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam.

18. One of the main contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the injuries noted could not ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 2025:KER:5285 have been inflicted using a weapon like a sword stick. It was urged that since injuries noted are lacerated wounds, they could not have been caused by a weapon that has a sharp edge, such as sword stick. According to the counsel, if a sword stick was used to hack PW1 and PW2, then the injuries should have been incised wounds, not lacerated wounds. While considering the said contention, it is to be noted that the evidence of PW7, the Doctor, shows that the history stated by the injured was that they were hacked with a sword stick, and the injuries noted by him could have been caused as alleged. Likewise, during the chief examination, PW7 sticks to the stand that the injuries noted by him can be inflicted using a sword stick. During the cross-examination, PW7 admitted that sharp-edged instruments can cause incised wounds. It is true that generally sharp-edged weapons cause incised wounds, while lacerated wounds are usually inflicted by blunt objects. In the case at hand, the ocular evidence shows that the accused used sword sticks to attack the injured. However, the injuries noted in the wound certificate are lacerated in nature. Anyhow, when the ocular evidence convincingly establishes ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 2025:KER:5285 that the accused used sword sticks to hack PW1 and PW2, and when the medical evidence demonstrates that both sustained multiple serious injuries, the ocular evidence cannot be disbelieved.