Kerala HC Upholds Brothers’ Attempted-Murder Convictions, Finds Their Injuries Arose In A Separate Later Incident

The appellants, accused Nos. 1 and 2, appealed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against their convictions by the Additional Sessions Court-I, Kollam, for offences under Sections 341 and 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

The prosecution alleged that they wrongfully restrained PW1 and attacked him with a chopper while he was returning home on 29 January 2006.

The trial court sentenced each appellant to one month’s simple imprisonment under Section 341 and two years’ simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹10,000 under Section 307 read with Section 34

The defence relied on injuries recorded for both appellants and argued that the prosecution had not explained them

The Court considered Sections 341 and 307 read with Section 34 IPC, concerning wrongful restraint, attempted murder, and joint liability, and Section 374(2) CrPC, under which the appeal was brought

It also considered the principle in Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar, (1976) 4 SCC 394, quoted through Parshuram v. State of M.P., 2023 KHC OnLine 6973: failure to explain injuries sustained by an accused around the time of an incident may support an inference that the prosecution has suppressed the occurrence’s genesis, particularly where witnesses are interested or inimical.

The omission is not necessarily fatal where the injuries are minor or the prosecution evidence is otherwise clear, cogent, and credible

The Court found that PW1’s account was supported by the medical evidence: the doctor recorded multiple injuries to PW1’s head, scalp, and shoulder, which could have been caused by the chopper.

It also relied on the supporting evidence of PWs 2–6 and the evidence that the weapon had been made and supplied to the appellants.

The Court rejected the argument that the appellants’ injuries undermined the prosecution case. It accepted that those injuries arose in a separate occurrence after the attack on PW1; PW1 was not an accused in that other case. The prosecution therefore had not failed to explain injuries sustained in the incident under appeal.

On the evidence, the Court found the appellants’ joint attack and intention to kill PW1 proved.

It cancelled the suspension of sentence and bail bonds, directed the appellants to surrender before the Sessions Court forthwith, and directed that court to execute the sentences if they failed to surrender.