1. Accused No.3 in S.C.No.1141/2018 on the files of the Assistant Sessions Court, Perumbavoor, has filed this appeal challenging the conviction and sentence imposed against him, in the above case, as per judgment dated 12.09.2025.

2. Since the learned counsel for the appellant failed to appear and argue the matter on merits on 26.03.2026, and argue on 01.07.2026, Adv.Monisha, a lawyer with sufficient experience in handling criminal cases appointed as State Brief to argue the case of the appellant/3rd accused. Accordingly, the learned State Brief and the learned Public Prosecutor were heard in detail on 27.07.2026. While so, an advocate appeared on 27.07.2026, as instructed by the appellant, knowing appointment of the State Brief and submitted he had filed vakalath and his contentions also to be considered. Accordingly, this appeal posted on 29.07.2026, for the said purpose. On that day, the advocate, who appeared on behalf of the appellant on 27.07.2026 did not appear and he also did not file any vakalath. Perused the judgment under challenge along with the records of the Sessions Court.

3. Here, the prosecution alleges commission offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 326 and 307 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC’ hereinafter) by the accused.

4. The prosecution case is that, while attending a function at CW2's house at Manthrimukku in Malayattoor Village on the evening preceding CW2's wedding, PW1 allegedly made fun of the 1st accused. It was further alleged that PW1 had given evidence before the court against the 4th accused, who was a goonda leader, and that PW1 had trespassed into the house of the 4th accused, threatened his mother and killed his dog, in connection with which a case had been registered at Kalady Police Station arraying PW1 as the 7th accused. Owing to these incidents, the accused persons, numbering seven, along with a child in conflict with law, allegedly harboured enmity towards PW1. On 11.09.2016 at about 10.00 p.m., the 1st accused, who was a member of the goonda group led by the 4th accused, allegedly hit PW1 on the head, and the 4th accused and the child in conflict with law also allegedly hit PW1 on the head with a plastic chair. The local people intervened, separated them and sent them away. Thereafter, while PW1 was returning to his house, accused Nos.1 to 7 and the child in conflict with law, allegedly with the intention of killing PW1, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons and, in prosecution of their common object, accused Nos.2 and 6 wrongfully restrained PW1 at Kappela Madhurima Road, about 30 metres away from CW2's house and near the house of Korattikunnel Devassy. When PW1 attempted to escape, the 3rd accused allegedly came from the opposite side armed with an iron rod and hit PW1 on his leg and back. As a result of the assault, PW1 fell down, whereupon accused Nos.3 to 7 and the child in conflict with law allegedly kicked him on his back and assaulted him. The 1st accused allegedly exhorted the others to kill PW1 and stabbed him with a knife, causing a deep injury. The 2nd accused also allegedly stabbed PW1 with a knife, causing another deep injury. The 3rd accused allegedly struck PW1 on his back with the iron rod, causing fracture of his vertebrae and injuries to his spinal cord and kidney, which allegedly resulted in paralysis below his waist. Thus, according to the prosecution, the accused persons and the child in conflict with law attempted to kill PW1 and thereby committed the aforesaid offences.

5. In this case, at the time of committal proceedings, the 1st accused was absconded and accordingly, case against accused Nos.2 to 7 was committed to the Sessions Court, Ernakulam and numbered as S.C.No.352/2018. Later, the 1st accused was produced in the committal proceedings and thereafter, the case against the 1st accused was also committed and numbered as S.C.No.705/2018. While so, the 3rd accused, the appellant herein absconded and accordingly, his case was split up and the other accused were tried together. The 8th person is a juvenile in conflict with law, and his case was considered by the Juvenile Justice Board. Thereafter, the 3rd accused was arrested and brought before the court and thereafter, his case alone was re-numbered as S.C.No.1141/2018. Thus, charge for the above said offences was framed against him and the learned Assistant Sessions Judge proceeded with trial.

6. During trial, PW1 to PW21 were examined, Exts.P1 to P22, and MO1 to MO9 were marked on the side of the prosecution. Exts.D1 and D2 contradictions were elicited during examination of the prosecution witnesses and the same were marked on the side of the defence. Thereafter, on appreciation of evidence, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge found that the appellant/3rd accused committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 326 and 307 r/w 149 of the IPC and he was sentenced as under:

                  “3rd accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 3 months for the offence under S.143 of IPC. 3rd accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under S.144 of IPC. 3rd accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under S.147 of IPC. 3rd accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 2 years for the offence under S.148 of IPC. 3rd accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence under S.341 r/w 149 of IPC. 3rd accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 6 months for the offence under S.323 r/w 149 of IPC. 3rd accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 2 years for the offence under S.324 r/w 149 of IPC. 3rd accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- for the offence under S.326 r/w 149 of IPC. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a further period of 3 months. 3rd accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- for the offence under S.307 r/w 149 of IPC. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a further period of 6 months. The period of substantive sentences shall run concurrently. On realisation of fine amount, Rs.1,00,000/- shall be given to PW1 as compensation under S.357 (1) Cr.P.C. The period of detention already undergone by the 3rd accused shall be set off against the substantive term of imprisonment.”

7. In this case, the main challenge raised by the learned State Brief for the appellant/3rd accused is that the evidence of PW1 alone is available to find the guilt of the accused, since PWs 2, 3, 4, 11, 12, 14, 15 and 16 examined on the side of the prosecution turned hostile to the prosecution. It is submitted that the evidence of PW1, though supported by the evidence of PW8 and PW9, the Doctors, Ext.P6 wound certificate, and Ext.P7 discharge summary, which were relied on by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge to find the accused guilty, is not wholly reliable and, therefore, cannot be acted upon as the sole basis for conviction. According to the learned State Brief, the evidence of PW1 is that the appellant herein beat on his leg by using an iron rod and he fell down because of the same. However, it is submitted that Exts.P6 and P7 medical records do not disclose any corresponding injuries on the legs. It is further pointed out that, although the prosecution alleges that, thereafter, Manoj (the appellant) and the other accused, namely, Arun @ Kuruvi, Ashwin Raj, Eldho @ Achi Eldho, Kaara Ratheesh, Bobby, and Albin @ Thumban, kicked and beat PW1 after he fell down, the stab injury was inflicted by the 1st accused using a knife. Therefore, it is contended that the principal overt act is attributable to the 1st accused alone. It is also submitted that during cross-examination, Ext.D1 contradiction got marked, as PW1 denied his previous statement that he had sustained injury on the back of his head. It is submitted further that no independent witness cited and examined to prove recovery of MO3 iron rod and therefore, the recovery is not properly proved. Accordingly, the learned State Brief for the appellant/3rd accused pressed for interference with the verdict impugned to set aside the same, and to acquit the appellant/3rd accused.

8. Whereas, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, even though certain minor omissions were extracted during the cross-examination of PW1, the same were not brought to the attention of PW20, who recorded the FIS, and no attempt was made by the accused to prove the same as contradictions. Therefore, the contradictions in the form of omissions were not proved at all. It is also submitted that ignoring the said fact, if the same are treated as contradictions, for argument sake, the same are not materials to disbelieve the prosecution case. It is submitted further that the evidence of PW1, supported by the medical evidence given by PW8 and PW9 supported by Exts.P6 and P7 categorically established the offences found to be committed by the appellant and therefore, hostility of other witnesses, PWs 2, 3, 4, 11, 12, 14, 15 and 16 has no consequence. Therefore, the verdict impugned does not require any interference.

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

                  (i) Whether the Sessions Court was right in holding that the appellant/3rd accused committed offence punishable under Section 143 r/w 149 of the IPC?

                  (ii) Whether the Sessions Court was right in holding that the appellant/3rd accused committed offence punishable under Section 144 r/w 149 of the IPC?

                  (iii) Whether the Sessions Court was right in holding that the appellant/3rd accused committed offence punishable under Section 147 r/w 149 of the IPC?

                  (iv) Whether the Sessions Court was right in holding that the appellant/3rd accused committed offence punishable under Section 148 r/w 149 of the IPC?

                  (v) Whether the Sessions Court was right in holding that the appellant/3rd accused committed offence punishable under Section 341 r/w 149 of the IPC?

                  (vi) Whether the Sessions Court was right in holding that the appellant/3rd accused committed offence punishable under Section 323 r/w 149 of the IPC?

                  (vii) Whether the Sessions Court was right in holding that the appellant/3rd accused committed offence punishable under Section 324 r/w 149 of the IPC ?

                  (viii) Whether the Sessions Court was right in holding that the appellant/3rd accused committed offence punishable under Section 326 r/w 149 of the IPC?

                  (ix) Whether the Sessions Court was right in holding that the appellant/3rd accused committed offence punishable under Section 307 r/w 149 of the IPC?

                  (x) Whether the verdict would require interference?

                  (xi) The order to be passed?

Point Nos.(i) to (xi)

10. Having heard both sides, the prime witness for the prosecution case is none other than PW1, the injured. PW1 deposed that on 11.09.2016, at about 9.30 - 10.00 p.m., at Manthrimukku, Malayattoor, at the house of CW2, Prince, where a function in connection with CW2's wedding scheduled for the next day was being held, PW1 had gone to attend the function. At that time, accused Nos.1 and 3 to 7 and some others were having food. PW1 sat on the opposite side. Thereupon, the 1st accused came from behind and struck him on his head, and the 4th accused hit him with a chair. PW1 ran towards the rear side of the wedding house. After some time, on noticing that everyone had left, he came out. At that time, the 6th accused and the child in conflict with law came on a motorcycle. On seeing them, PW1 attempted to turn back and run. However, the 3rd accused, who was standing in front of him armed with an iron rod, struck him on his leg, causing him to fall down. Thereafter, all the accused together assaulted him, and the 1st accused stabbed him with a knife while threatening to kill him. When people gathered at the scene, the accused fled from the place. There was sufficient light at the wedding house, and the occurrence took place near a street light, enabling PW1 to identify the accused. PW1 was thereafter taken by PW14 to PW16 in a Qualis vehicle to L.F. Hospital, Angamaly. From there, he was taken to Rajagiri Hospital. Since no doctor was available there, he was shifted to Medical Trust Hospital. As a result of the injuries sustained, he became paralysed from the chest downwards. PW1 further deposed that the 3rd accused had struck him on his leg with an iron rod, and after he fell down, the 3rd accused, along with the other accused, kicked and assaulted him. According to PW1, the accused had attacked him with the intention of causing his death. PW1 further stated that he had earlier given evidence before the Paravoor Court against accused Nos.3 to 5 in another case and that the accused had attacked him for the said reason. He also deposed that the accused persons in the said case, including the 3rd accused herein, had been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for ten years. According to PW1, he was stabbed three times. He identified the 3rd accused before the court. He also identified the knives allegedly used for stabbing him, which were marked as MO1 and MO2, the iron rod allegedly used by the 3rd accused, which was marked as MO3, and the shirt and inner banyan worn by him at the time of the incident, which were marked as MO4 and MO5. The First Information Statement given by PW1 to the police was marked as Ext.P1.

11. During the cross-examination of PW1, as pointed out by the learned State Brief for the appellant/3rd accused, Ext.D1 contradiction got marked. During the cross-examination, it was suggested to PW1 that he had failed to mention in the FIS that, at the time of the occurrence, the appellant/3rd accused was also present and had beaten and kicked him. PW1 denied the suggestion and deposed that he had stated the said fact before the police. Even though the same was recorded as an omission, when PW20, who recorded the FIS given by PW1, was examined, no attempt was made to prove the same, in any manner known to law. Same is the position as regards to Ext.D1 contradiction extracted during cross-examination of PW1. Therefore, contradictions above mentioned in the form of omission and Ext.D1 not proved at all in the manner known to law. It is true that an omission extracted during cross-examination of PW1 that he had not stated in the FIS that the 3rd accused was present at the time of eating food, and the said omission was conceded by PW20. Thus, the said omission is proved. In fact, the same is not a material omission. Thus, no material contradictions in the evidence of PW1 to disbelieve him, who, in fact, deposed before the court with the marks of the injuries he sustained pursuant to the occurrence with assurance of truth.

12. It is true that PW2, PW3 and PW4, the occurrence witnesses though supported the occurrence at 8.30/9.00 p.m. on 11.09.2016, they did not depose in detail supporting the prosecution case. Accordingly, they were declared hostile to the prosecution.

13. PW5 and PW6 were cited as witnesses to prove the scene mahazar prepared in this case. Both of them identified their signatures in the scene mahazar, and the same was marked as Ext.P5. Both of them stated that they had signed the mahazar at the place of occurrence.

14. The brother of PW1 got examined as PW7. He deposed that PW1 was taken from the hospital at Angamaly to Rajagiri Hospital, but since there was no doctor available there, PW1 was taken to Medical Trust Hospital. While they were in the ambulance, PW1 told him about the incident, stating that when he had entered the road, he was hit with an iron rod by the accused persons and they had beaten him and stabbed him. The incident occurred on the night of 11.09.2016. PW7 identified the clothes worn by PW1 at the time of the incident.

15. The medical evidence in this case is confined to that of PW8 and Ext.P6. PW8, the Doctor who examined PW1 at L.F. Hospital, Angamaly deposed that on 11.09.2016, while he was working as the Casualty Medical Officer, he had examined PW1 at 10.35 p.m., who was brought with a history of assault at Malayathodu at about 10.00 p.m. The patient was conscious at the time of examination. The wounds were bleeding. The injuries were an irregular lacerated wound measuring 3 cm × 2 cm × 3 cm deep over the posterior abdominal wall and another irregular lacerated wound measuring 2 cm × 2 cm × 3 cm deep close to the previous wound. Since the Radiodiagnostic Doctor was not available, PW1 was referred to another major centre. In his opinion, the injuries could have been caused in the manner alleged. He had issued the wound certificate, which would bear his signature. The wound certificate was marked as Ext.P6. MO1 and MO2 knives were shown to the Doctor, and he deposed that the injuries could have been caused by the said knives.

16. The Scientific Officer who had examined the place of occurrence in this crime got examined as PW10. She deposed that on 12.09.2016, while she was working as Scientific Officer at the Forensic Science Laboratory Unit of Ernakulam Rural, she had examined the place of occurrence in this case and had collected material objects for laboratory examination. The examination was conducted in the presence of the Investigating Officer, and the items collected were packed in two separate packets, labelled and handed over to the Investigating Officer along with a third packet of control (unstained) cotton gauze. She also handed over a report regarding the collection, which would bear her signature. The packet labelled as Item No.2 - brown stain collected in cotton gauze from the road was marked as MO7. The packet labelled as Item No.3 - control cotton gauze was marked as MO8. The packet labelled as Item No.1 - brown stain stone pieces collected from the road was marked as MO9.

17. PW11 and PW12 examined in this case are also the occurrence witnesses. PW11 deposed that the incident had occurred on 11.09.2016 at about 9.30 p.m. at his wife's house. It was the previous day of his brother-in-law's marriage. PW12 deposed that the incident had occurred at her house at about 8.30 - 9.00 p.m. on 11.09.2016, that there had been a scuffle, but she did not know the persons involved in the scuffle, and that on the next day she came to know that PW1 had sustained injuries. Thus, PW11 was declared hostile to the prosecution. PW13 deposed that, on 12.09.2016, while he was working as Assistant Sub Inspector of Kalady Police Station, he had signed as a witness to the mahazar prepared for taking into custody the three packets handed over by the Scientific Officer (PW10). The mahazar was marked as Ext.P9. PW14 deposed that he had not witnessed the incident, but had taken PW1 to the hospital. While he was driving his vehicle, he saw PW1 lying on the road after having been assaulted. He took PW1 to L.F. Hospital, Angamaly. PW1 was bleeding, but he did not know the nature of the injuries sustained by PW1 or how the injuries had been sustained. He denied that he had given any statement to the police. PW14 was also declared hostile to the prosecution case.

18. Another occurrence witness examined as PW15 deposed that he had not witnessed the incident in this case. But he deposed that when PW1, who had sustained stab injuries, was taken in the vehicle, he had reached there. He also got into the vehicle and went to L.F. Hospital, Angamaly. The incident had occurred at Manthrimukku, Malayattoor. PW1 was lying there. He did not know how PW1 had sustained the injuries. The 2nd accused was his mother's brother's son. He denied his signature in Ext.P3 mahazar. He denied that he had stated to the police that he had seen the incident. PW15 was declared hostile to the prosecution case. Somewhat similar is the evidence of PW16, another occurrence witness, he also was declared hostile.

19. PW17 a witness to Ext.P13 seizure mahazar identified his signature in the seizure mahazar. He deposed that he had produced the clothes worn by PW1 before the police and that Ext.P13 mahazar had been prepared for the same. He identified MO4 and MO5 are the items seized as per Ext.P13.

20. Ext.P14 mahazar prepared for taking into custody the chair involved in the incident. PW18, a witness to Ext.P14, identified his signature in the mahazar. PW18 deposed that he had put up the pandal, tables and chairs for the marriage of PW2's son, and that on the day after the marriage, when he went to remove the pandal, he came to know about the incident that had occurred on the previous night. One of his chairs had been damaged, and he was paid money for the same. He identified MO6 chair produced before the court as belonging to him.

21. Ext.P15 is the seizure mahazar proved through PW19. He identified his signature in Ext.P15. He deposed that the 1st accused is his brother and that the police had come to his house and had taken a shirt from his house, and that when the police asked him to sign, he had signed in the mahazar.

22. PW20 examined in this case is the Police Officer who had recorded the FIS and registered the FIR herein. His evidence was that on 12.09.2016, while he was working as Sub Inspector of Kalady Police Station, information was received that PW1 had sustained injuries and had been admitted to Medical Trust Hospital, Ernakulam. Thereupon, he went there and recorded the FIS of PW1. He identified his signature in Ext.P1 FIS. Thereafter, he had returned to the police station and registered Ext.P16 FIR in this case. According to him, further investigation of this case was conducted by PW21.

23. The Investigating Officer in this case got examined as PW21. He deposed that on 12.09.2016, while he was working as Circle Inspector of Police, Kalady, he took over the investigation in this case and went to the place of occurrence and prepared Ext.P5 scene mahazar. Thereafter, on 12.11.2016, he arrested the 3rd accused. He recorded the confession statement of the 3rd accused. The 3rd accused confessed that he had concealed the iron rod at a place in the Pallikkodi area of Malayattoor and that, if he was taken there, he would show the place where the iron rod had been kept and the iron rod. Thereupon, they reached the place along with the accused and recovered the iron rod by preparing a seizure mahazar, which was produced before the court. He recorded the statements of the witnesses. The arrest memo, inspection memo and custody memo prepared at the time of the arrest of the 3rd accused were marked as Exts.P17 to P19. The seizure mahazar prepared while taking the iron rod into custody was marked as Ext.P20. PW21 identified MO3 iron rod. He identified the 3rd accused before the court. PW21 thereafter filed the final report before the jurisdictional court.

24. The main challenge raised by the learned State Brief for the appellant/3rd accused is that the evidence of PW1 alone is available to find the guilt of the accused, since PWs 2, 3, 4, 11, 12, 14, 15 and 16 examined on the side of the prosecution turned hostile to the prosecution. It is submitted that the evidence of PW1, though supported by the evidence of PW8 and PW9, the Doctors, Ext.P6 wound certificate, and Ext.P7 discharge summary, which were relied on by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge to find the accused guilty, is not wholly reliable and, therefore, cannot be acted upon as the sole basis for conviction. According to the learned State Brief, the evidence of PW1 is that the appellant herein beat on his leg by using an iron rod and he fell down because of the same. However, it is submitted that Exts.P6 and P7 medical records do not disclose any corresponding injuries on the legs. It is submitted further that no independent witness cited and examined to prove recovery of MO3 iron rod and therefore, the recovery is not properly proved. Accordingly, the learned State Brief for the appellant/3rd accused pressed for interference with the verdict impugned to set aside the same, and to acquit the appellant/3rd accused.

25. In this case, MO3 is the weapon alleged to have been used by the accused to beat PW1 and was recovered based on Ext.P20 mahazar. On a perusal of Ext.P20 mahazar, the ingredients required to attract Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short, ‘the Evidence Act’ hereinafter), could be found, and one witness has also attested the same. But the prosecution not examined independent witness. According to the learned State Brief for the appellant/3rd accused, the non-examination of an independent witness renders the recovery of MO3 unbelievable and, therefore, no credence can be attached to the said recovery.

26. As regards the non-examination of the independent witness, who signed the recovery mahazar at the time of recovery of MO3 iron rod pursuant to the disclosure statement given by the appellant/3rd accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, it is to be noted that the law does not mandate that the recovery of a weapon under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, based on the authorship of concealment disclosed by the appellant/3rd accused, should be effected in the presence of independent witnesses, though the presence of witnesses would make the recovery more credible. It is the well settled law that in the absence of witnesses also, if the evidence given by the officer, who get custody of the recovered item, as discovered by the appellant/3rd accused on his disclosure statement is reliable, there is no reason to disbelieve the recovery, in any manner. Here, one independent witness also signed in the mahazar. The prosecution not examined the independent witness. However, that by itself would not make the recovery evidence inadmissible, as the evidence of the officer, who got custody of MO3 is reliable.

27. Regarding the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant/3rd accused that since no injuries sustained on the legs of the victim even though PW1 given evidence that the 3rd accused beat on his legs, capable of pulling him down, the same by itself is not a reason to discard the evidence of PW1 in toto which is supported by the medical evidence showing serious injuries to PW1. Here, PWs 2, 3, 4, 11, 12, 14, 15 and 16 examined on the side of the prosecution turned hostile to the prosecution. In this connection, the evidence of PW1 is very relevant. PW1 deposed that the accused persons, particularly the appellant/3rd accused, attacked him because he had given evidence before the Paravoor Court against accused Nos. 3 to 5 in another case, and he was attacked in the present case on account of the animosity arising therefrom. In this case, the appellant/3rd accused is a person having involvement in 15 crimes which are as under:

                  1) Cr. 37/10 under Sections 441,323,506(I), 427 of IPC.

                  2) Cr.755/10 under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 307, 149 of IPC & 27 of Arms Act.

                  3) Cr. 109/11 under Section 107 of Cr.P.C.

                  4) Cr.46/12 under Sections 143, 147, 452, 506(I), 149 of IPC & Sec. 27 of Arms Act.

                  5) Cr. 232/12 under Section 5 of Explosive & Substances Act.

                  6) Cr.715/12 under Section 506(I), 34 of IPC.

                  7) Cr.395/11 under Sections 366(A), 376(2)(g), 372, 373, 354, 34 of IPC.

                  8) Kollam West PS.8 Cr.723/12 under Sections 399 of IPC & 27 of Arms Act & 5 of Explosive Act.

                  9) Cr.112/13 under Sections 323, 341 324, 294(b), 506(ii), 34 of IPC

                  10) Cr.636/13 under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148,120(B), 326, 109, 262, 324, 307, 149 of IPC

                  11) Cr.620/14 under Sections 341, 307, 143, 147,148, 149 of IPC

                  12) Angamaly, Cr. 562/14 under Sections 225(B), 212, 34 of IPC

                  13) Cr.2180/16 under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, read with 149 of IPC & Section 27 of Arms Act

                  14) Cr.2195/16 under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 308,

323, 324 read with 149 of IPC

                  15) Cr.249/22 under Sections 364(A)(I)(1) of IPC, 7 read with 8 & 9 (l) (m) read with 10, 11(IV) read with 12 of POCSO Act.

28. Thus, it is discernible that the appellant/3rd accused is a person, who used to manhandle persons who give evidence against him. In such a case, hostility of PWs 2, 3, 4, 11, 12, 14, 15 and 16 is of least significance where the evidence of PW1 appears to be wholly reliable supported by the medical evidence and other evidence discussed in detail. Thus, on re-appreciation of evidence, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the learned Sessions Judge properly analysed the evidence and entered into conviction finding that the evidence available is wholly reliable and the said finding is only justified. So, the conviction does not require any interference.

29. Coming to the sentence, having noticed the gravity of the offences committed and the trauma suffered by PW1, the sentence also is found as reasonable. In view of the above, the sentence also does not require any interference. Accordingly, the same is also confirmed.

In the result, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed by confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the Sessions Court. Since the appellant/3rd accused is undergoing sentence, no further orders are required.

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