1. The sole accused in S.C.No.594/2018 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court - III, Pathanamthitta, assails the judgment of conviction and sentence in the above case, dated 25.02.2025 in this appeal filed under Section 415(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the judgment under challenge along with the records of the Special Court.

3. Here, the prosecution case is that, the accused, due to previous animosity towards PW1, wrongfully restrained him at 1.45 p.m. on 30.07.2014, while PW1 was going on his way to Idathara from his house on a motorcycle along with PW6, his cousin, as pillion rider at Kollante Padinjattethil with intention to commit murder of PW1. Thereafter, the accused abused, assaulted and caused injury on the head of PW1 by using an iron rod. In the said occurrence, PW1 sustained serious injuries and PW6 also sustained injuries, though PW1 survived. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 341 and 308 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC’ hereinafter), by the appellant/ accused.

4. In this matter, the Sessions Court framed charge for the said offences and proceeded with trial. During trial, PW1 to PW10 were examined and Exts.P1 to P12 and MO1 were marked on the side of the prosecution. On contradiction, Ext.D1 was marked on the side of the defence.

5. On appreciation of evidence, the learned Sessions Judge found that the appellant/accused committed offences punishable under Sections 323, 341 and 308 of the IPC and accordingly, the appellant/accused was sentenced as under:

                  “In the result, the accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 1 month and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default, Simple Imprisonment for 7 days for the offence punishable u/s 341 of IPC.

                  The accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 months for the offence punishable u/s 323 of IPC.

                  The accused is further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default, Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months for the offence punishable u/s 308 of IPC. The substantive sentence shall run consecutively. Set off u/s 428 Cr.PC is allowed from 25.08.2014 to 19.09.2014 against the substantive sentence awarded.”

6. Multiple contentions have been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused to assail the verdict impugned. According to him, the evidence of PW1 is not trustworthy. It is pointed out that as per the evidence given by PW1 and as alleged by the prosecution, the accused beat on the head of PW1 by using an iron rod. But, in fact, the same was not an iron rod, it was an iron pipe. It is also pointed out that as per the evidence of PW9, the Doctor and as could be seen from Ext.P9 wound certificate, PW1 sustained only one injury, i.e., lacerated wound on his scalp 4x2x5 c.m. and no other injuries sustained. But, during cross-examination of PW1, he had answered to a question that he had sustained injury on his leg. According to the learned counsel, in the First Information Statement, PW1 also given statement that he had lost gold and money in this occurrence. But he himself given additional statement correcting the same stating that money and gold ornaments were not lost and he obtained the same later. It is submitted further that coming to the evidence of PW6, PW6 had no previous acquaintance with the accused and therefore, his identification of the accused at the dock is insufficient. It is submitted that therefore, the evidence available would not suggest the ingredients to find commission of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341 and 308 of the IPC and the evidence available is not free from doubts. Accordingly, the appellant/accused would deserve acquittal, on getting benefit of doubt.

7. The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the above contentions and submitted that the evidence of PW1, who had been familiar with the appellant/accused for the last 15 years, prior to the date of occurrence, clearly established his identity as the offender and the evidence of PW1 is corroborated by the evidence of PW6, who also deposed in support of the occurrence in tune with the version of PW1. That apart, PW9, the Doctor, who issued Exts.P6 and P7 wound certificates of PW1 - Jayakrishnan and PW6 - Vijayakumar also supported the prosecution case. The learned Public Prosecutor has placed the decision of this Court in Vipin v. State of Kerala reported in [2026 KHC OnLine 555], where this Court discussed the ingredients for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC.

8. Adverting to the rival arguments, the points arise for consideration are;

                  (i) Whether the Sessions Court was right in holding that the appellant/accused committed offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC?

                  (ii) Whether the Sessions Court was right in holding that the appellant/accused committed offence punishable under Section 341 of the IPC?

                  (iii) Whether the Sessions Court was right in holding that the appellant/accused committed offence punishable under Section 308 of the IPC?

                  (iv) Whether the verdict would require interference?

                  (v) The order to be passed?

Point Nos.(i) to (v)

9. The learned Sessions Judge relied on the evidence of PW1 and PW6, the occurrence witnesses to find commission of the above offences, who are the injured in this case. PW1 - Jayakrishnan deposed that he was aware of the occurrence which held at 1.45 p.m. on 30.07.2014. According to him, at the time of the occurrence, he was proceeding from his house to Idathara along with his sister's husband, Vijayakumar (PW6), in connection with the purchase of electrical goods for starting a new workshop. While they were travelling on a Hero Honda DLX motorcycle, bearing Registration No.KL-25-3360, and when they reached near Kollante Padinjattethil, near Udaya Junction, the appellant/accused, Rajeev, S/o. Janardhanan Nair, Kottamthara, suddenly jumped in front of the motorcycle, abused and wrongfully restrained him. Thereafter, the appellant/accused asked him why he would not obey his instruction to do something said by him, and threatened him by stating that he would not be allowed to remain alive any further. Soon the appellant/accused beat on the top of his head by using an iron rod and he sustained injuries therein and there was bleeding. When he placed his hand on the wound, the appellant/accused kicked the motorcycle, thereby, himself and PW6 fell down from the motorcycle. Thereafter, the appellant/accused kicked him on his back and hands and legs. When PW6 attempted to restrain the

appellant/accused, he caught hold on his neck and pushed him and beat on his shoulder and body. According to PW1, thereafter, the appellant/accused again attempted to assault PW1 with an iron rod. His version further is that if PW6 would not have restrained the appellant/accused; the appellant/accused would have caused his death. He deposed further that the appellant/accused proceeded towards the nearby plantation carrying the iron rod. PW6 and others reached the place of occurrence and took him to the Government Hospital, Pathanapuram, where four stitches were put on his head. He was advised to undergo a CT scan and to consult the Neurosurgeon at the Taluk Hospital, Punalur. According to PW1, he had given statement before the police regarding this occurrence, and he identified Ext.P1 as the statement so given by him at 11.00 a.m. on 31.07.2014. PW1 identified the appellant/accused at the dock and also identified MO1 as the iron rod used to beat him. According to him, even though in the FIS, he had stated that the appellant/accused tore his pocket and taken away Rs.10,000/- and gold chain being 2 ½ sovereigns, later, he got the same from the place of occurrence and accordingly, additional statement also given in this regard. During cross-examination, PW1 deposed that he did not mention the address of the appellant/accused while giving FIS, though he had specifically stated his name. He was cross-examined with a view to hold that MO1 is not an iron rod, but an iron pipe, PW1 answered that he did not know the difference between iron rod and iron pipe. The defence case suggested during cross-examination of PW1 was that false case was registered due to political rivalry and the same was denied. During re-examination, he stated that he fell down on the road after bleeding from his head.

10. PW6, the brother-in-law of PW1 was another injured witness in this case, and the evidence of PW1 would get corroboration from the evidence of PW6. PW6 deposed that, on 30.07.2014, he and PW1 were proceeding on a motorcycle to purchase electrical items for a new workshop and, when they reached near Udaya Junction at about 1.45 p.m., the appellant/accused jumped in front of the motorcycle and wrongfully restrained them. According to PW6, the appellant/accused suddenly struck PW1 on the top of his head with MO1 iron rod (iron pipe), shouting the words, IMAGE IMAGE PW1 sustained an injury on his head, and blood started oozing from the wound. When PW1 covered his head with his hand, the appellant/accused kicked the motorcycle, causing PW1 and PW6 to fall down along with it. Thereafter, the appellant/accused kicked PW1 and, when PW6 attempted to intervene, the appellant/accused pushed him away by holding his neck and slapped him on his face and cheek, causing injuries. On hearing the hue and cry, people gathered at the place of occurrence, and on seeing them, the appellant/accused escaped through the nearby rubber plantation, carrying MO1 in his hand. PW6 identified the accused and MO1 before the court. He categorically deposed that the appellant/accused had attacked them with MO1. During cross-examination, PW6 further stated that he had realised that it was an iron pipe only when he saw it before the court and that, prior thereto, he had believed it to be an iron rod. PW6 was cross-examined in detail, but no material contraditions elicited to discredit his testimony. On appraisal of his evidence, it could be seen that he had witnessed the occurrence in which the appellant/accused attacked PW1. His evidence categorically proved that PW1 was attacked by the appellant/accused with MO1 and that PW1 sustained an injury on his head.

11. As regards to the injuries sustained to PW1 and PW6, PW9, Doctor Arun Ravi was examined and it was through him, Ext.P6, the wound certificate pertaining to PW1 - Jayakrishnan, Ext.P7 wound certificate pertaining to PW6 - Vijayakumar, were tendered in evidence. PW9 supported the injuries of PW1 and PW6 and the same reads as under:

                  PW1 – Jayakrishnan

                  “He sustained lacerated wound over his scalp of 4x2x.5 cm.”

                  PW6 - Vijayakumar

                  “Abrasion of .5x.5 cm over the right nostril.”

                  Doctor was cross-examined by suggesting that the injuries could be caused by a fall on a hard object, and was answered in the affirmative.

12. PW2 examined in this case was the Sub Inspector of Police, Pathanamthitta District Control Room and according to him, while he was working as SCPO in Koodal Police Station as on 31.07.2014, he recorded the statement of PW1 and he identified Ext.P1 as the statement so given, he also supported the registration of Ext.P1(a) on its basis. In fact, nothing extracted in the cross-examination of PW2 to disbelieve his version.

13. PW3, who was examined to prove the scene mahazar turned hostile to the prosecution. Same was the position as regards to PW4, though he stated that he had put his signature on white paper.

14. PW5 was the ASI of Police during the relevant period. He deposed that he had arrested the appellant/accused, and it was through him that Ext.P2 arrest memo and Ext.P3 inspection memo were tendered in evidence.

15. PW7 supported the prosecution as regards to preparation of scene mahazar marked as Ext.P4 and he deposed about its contents and his signature therein. He also deposed that his statement was recorded by the police on 31.07.2024 and he deposed regarding the occurrence happened at 1.45 p.m. in fact, supported the evidence of PW1 and PW6.

16. In this case, MO1 was recovered at the volition of the appellant/accused by preparing Ext.P5. PW10, the Station House Officer of Koodal Police Station, deposed regarding the investigation conducted by him and also deposed that, when the appellant/accused was questioned while in police custody, he had given a disclosure statement with authorship of concealment of the iron pipe stating that the same was kept inside the grass near the place of occurrence. Accordingly, the appellant/accused led him to the said place and, on reaching there, the appellant/accused took MO1 iron pipe, and he had recovered the same as per Ext.P5. He deposed about the production of the same before the court and the other investigation conducted by him, including the deletion of the offence under Section 394 of the IPC.

17. PW8 is an independent witness who signed in Ext.P5 mahazar and he deposed in support of the same. According to the learned counsel for the appellant/accused, PW1 did not witness the recovery of the weapon by the appellant/accused as he had deposed in cross-examination that at the time of preparation of mahazar, other than the Sub Inspector, he himself and one Murugan were alone there. In fact, the evidence of PW10 disclosed the place of concealment, which led to the recovery of the material object at the volition of the appellant/accused not shaken during cross-examination and therefore, the recovery of MO1 is within the mandate of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and that part of evidence is admissible in evidence.

18. Now, it is necessary to look into the ingredients for the offence punishable under Section 308 of the IPC, which reads as under:

                  308. Attempt to commit culpable homicide.—Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.

                  (a) Essential Ingredients.- An offence under this section has following essential ingredients:

                  (i) That an act was committed by the accused;

                  (ii) That the said act was done with the intention or knowledge that he shall be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder;

                  (iii) That culpable homicide does not amount to murder,

                  (a) if the act is done with the intention or knowledge referred to in section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, but under circumstances which would bring the case within one of the exceptions mentioned in that section, or

                  (b) if the act is done with the intention or knowledge referred to in section 299 but not falling under clauses (2), (3) and (4) of section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

                  (b) Evidence.- To prove an offence under section 308 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 the prosecution is to prove the following (a) that the accused did some act towards the victim (b) the act was done with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstance that had it caused death, the accused would have been guilty of culpable homicide not amounting into murder.

                  Before an accused can be held to be guilty under section 308 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, it was necessary to arrive at a finding that the ingredients thereof, namely, requisite intention or knowledge was existing. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that such an intention or knowledge on the part of the accused to cause culpable homicide is required to be proved. Six persons allegedly accosted the injured. They had previous enmity. Although overt-act had been attributed against each of the accused who were having lathis, only seven injuries had been caused and out of them only one of them was grievous, being a fracture on the arm, which was not the vital part of the body. The accused, therefore, could not be said to have committed any offence under section 308 IPC. The same would fall under sections 323 and 325 thereof. When, the accused can be attributed only knowledge that by inflicting such injuries he was likely to cause death and an attempt to commit such an offence would be one punishable under section 308 IPC.

                  Whether the injury was grievous or simple deserved a back seat in face of the charge under section 308 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Offence punishable under section 308 IPC postulates doing of an act with such intention of or knowledge and under such circumstances that if one by that act caused death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. An attempt of that nature may actually result in hurt or may not. It is the attempt to commit culpable homicide which is punishable under section 308 IPC whereas punishment for simple hurts can be meted out under sections 323 and 324 and for grievous hurts under sections 325 and 326 IPC. Qualitatively, these offences are different.

19. Similarly, the ingredients for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC are as under:

                  (a) Essential Ingredients.- An offence under this section has following essential ingredients:

                  (i) That the accused voluntarily caused hurt to another person;

                  (ii) That such a hurt was in exception to cases provided under section 334;

                  (iii) That such hurt was caused

                  (a) by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which used as a weapon of offence is likely to cause death; or

                  (b) by means of fire or any heated substance, or

                  (c) by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or

                  (d) by means of any explosive substance; or

                  (e) by means of any substance which is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or receive into the blood; or

                  (f) by means of any animal.

                  (b) Evidence.- To bring home an offence punishable under section 324, the prosecution is to prove: (a) that the accused caused hurt i.e., caused bodily pain, or disease or infirmity (vide section 319 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860) to another; (b) that it has been caused voluntarily i.e., with knowledge or intention to cause; (c) that it has been caused by any instrument for shooting, or stabbing or cutting, or by any instrument which qua weapon of offence is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which is deleterious to the human body to inhale to swallow or to receive into blood or by means of any animal, and (d) that the offence does not attract section 334 IPC.

20. Even though it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused that the evidence of PW1 and PW6 supported by the medical evidence would not be sufficient to find commission of the offences, it is relevant to note that the learned Sessions Judge evaluated the evidence and referred two decisions of the Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Naresh and others reported in [2011 (4) SCC 324] and Madhu @ Madhuranatha and another v. State of Karnataka reported in [2013 KHC 4926] to act upon the evidence of PW1 and PW6, on the finding that normal discrepancies are bound to occur in the deposition of witnesses due to normal errors of memory on account of lapse of time or due to mental disposition, such as shock and horror at the time of the occurrence. Therefore, where the omissions amount to contradictions creating serious doubt about the truthfulness of the witnesses, and where other witnesses also make material improvements while deposing before the court, such evidence cannot be safely relied upon. However, minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters which do not affect the core of the prosecution case should not be made a ground on which the evidence can be rejected in its entirety. Further, it was found by the Sessions Court that minor contradictions which do not affect the core of the prosecution case would never per se affect the credibility of the prosecution case.

21. Legal position emerges from the above decisions discussed by the learned Sessions Judge is the well settled law. Thus, on re-appreciation of the evidence, this Court is of the view that the learned Sessions Judge was right in holding that the prosecution succeeded in proving that the appellant/accused committed offences punishable under Sections 323, 341 and 308 of the IPC. Therefore, the conviction does not require any interference. Coming to the sentence, it is relevant to note that the appellant/accused got involved in multiple crimes, the details of which are as under:

                  “1. Koodal PS Cr.No.234/2009 u/s.7, 8 Gaming Act.

                  2. Koodal PS Cr.No.239/2011 u/s.452, 294(b), 354, 323 IPC.

                  3. Koodal PS Cr.No.137/2014 u/s.323, 324, 34 IPC.

                  4. Koodal PS Cr.No.542/2014 u/s.341,294(b), 323, 324,

452, 427, 354 IPC.

                  5. Koodal PS Cr. No.728/2015 u/s.294(b), 447, 506(i), 34 IPC.

                  6. Koodal PS Cr.No.1433/2015 u/s.294(b), 341, 324 IPC.

                  7. Koodal PS Cr.No.1447/2015 u/s.294(b), 341, 323, 324,

34 IPC.

                  8. Koodal PS Cr.No.1206/2016 u/s.447, 294(b), 325, 506(i)

IPC and 15(4) r/w. 19 of the KAA(P)Α 2007.

                  9. Koodal PS Cr.No.677/2022 u/s.294(b), 323, 341, 354,

34 IPC.

                  10. Koodal PS Cr.No.678/2022 u/s.294(b), 323, 353, 332,

34 IPC.

                  11. Crime No.775/2025 of Koodal Police Station u/s. 296(b), 126(2), 115(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

                  Therefore, it is held that the sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge is very reasonable in the facts of the case. Therefore, the same also does not require any interference.

22. In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed by confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Court.

23. In this matter, on finding involvement of the appellant/accused in a subsequent crime as per order, dated 01.04.2026 in Crl.M.A.No.02/2025, this Court cancelled the bail granted to the appellant/accused and the appellant/accused has filed Crl.A.No.10109/2026 before the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court passed an order on 13.07.2026 as under:

                  “1. Issue notice.

2. There shall be interim protection from any coercive steps being taken against the petitioner, until further orders.

3. List after three weeks.”

                  Therefore, the cancellation of bail on the ground of involvement in another crime is a matter to be decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court. However, in view of the dismissal of this appeal, the bail and bail bond would not continue hereafter, since the same was available till the disposal of this appeal, and would stand cancelled in view of the dismissal of this appeal.

                  Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the Sessions Court, for information and execution of the sentence.