2025:KER:11364 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 23RD MAGHA, 1946 CRL.A NO. 809 OF 2017 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.11.2016 IN SC NO.1691 OF 2010 ON THE FILES OF THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - IV, KOLLAM APPELLANT/ACCUSED: YOHANNAN S/O.FRANCIS, H.NO:155, KADAPPURAM PURAMPOKU, ANUGRAHA NAGAR, NEAR KENNADY LIBRARY, PALLITHOTTAM WARD, PALLITHOTTAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. ADV.GAJENDRA SINGH RAJPUROHIT RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: STATE REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CRIME DEPARTMENT, KOLLAM, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV.ALEX.M.THOMBRA SR.PP THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05.02.2025, THE COURT ON 12.02.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.Appeal No.809 of 2017 -: 2 :- 2025:KER:11364 P.B.SURESH KUMAR & JOBIN SEBASTIAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- Crl.Appeal No.809 of 2017 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of February, 2025 J U D G M E N T P.B.Suresh Kumar, J. The sole accused in S.C.No.1691 of 2010 on the files of the Court of the Additional District and Sessions Judge- IV, Kollam, is the appellant in the appeal. He stands convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 333, 353 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 2. The appellant, a person with a physical disability requiring the use of crutches, lived with his parents. On 26.04.2008 at 11.30 a.m., two linemen and an overseer of the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) who were deputed for disconnecting the power supply of defaulters visited the house of the sister of the appellant , who resides adjacent to the house of the appellant, and since she expressed inability to Crl.Appeal No.809 of 2017 -: 3 :- 2025:KER:11364 clear the dues the power supply to her house was disconnected as directed by the said officials of KSEB. After sometime, the officials of KSEB visited the house of the appellant also and when they attempted to disconnect the power supply therein, there occurred an altercation between the KSEB officials and the mother of the appellant. In the course of the said altercation, one of the linemen, namely Kuriakose sustained stab injuries. Kuriakose was initially taken to the District Hospital, Kollam and from there to the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram and he succumbed to the injuries on 07.05.2008 while undergoing treatment in the latter hospital. 3. A case was registered in connection with the occurrence by Pallithottam Police on the basis of the information furnished by Studymon, the other lineman at 12.30 p.m. on 26.04.2008 itself and the investigation conducted in the said case revealed that it was the appellant who stabbed Kuriakose. By the time the investigation in the case concluded, Crl.Appeal No.809 of 2017 -: 4 :- 2025:KER:11364 Studymon who lodged the First Information Statement, subsequently died in an accident. A final report was filed thereupon against the appellant under Sections 333, 353, 341 and 302 of IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. 4. The accusation against the appellant in the final report is that the appellant who was present on 26.04.2008 in the house of his sister when the officials of KSEB disconnected the power supply, proceeded to his house in anticipation that the officials would come to his house as well to disconnect the power supply, as he was also in default and thereby waited for them. It is alleged that when the officials reached his house at about 11.30 a.m. and attempted to disconnect the power supply, the mother of the appellant prevented them from doing so and there occurred consequently, a verbal altercation between the officials and the mother of the appellant. It is also alleged that in the course of the said altercation, the appellant who came to the scene using a crutch under his left arm, hit on the back of Kuriakose Crl.Appeal No.809 of 2017 -: 5 :- 2025:KER:11364 with his right hand, after which Kuriakose threatened the appellant and his mother that if the dues are not cleared on the same day, there will not be any power supply on the following day. It is also alleged that the appellant, after dropping the crutch onto the floor, caught hold of Kuriakose with his left hand and while Kuriakose was attempting to wriggle out of his hold, the appellant took out a knife from the right pocket of his pants and stabbed Kuriakose repeatedly on his abdomen as also left chest. Kuriakose succumbed to the said injuries on 07.05.2008. 5. On the appellant being committed to trial, the Court of Session framed charges against him to which he pleaded not guilty. The evidence in the case consists of the oral evidence of PWs 1 to 15 and Exts.P1 to P39 proved through them. Exts.D1 and D2 are the portions of the case diary statements of the witnesses examined as PWs 1 and 2. MOs 1 to 5 are the material objects identified by the witnesses. Thereupon, after complying with the procedure prescribed, the Crl.Appeal No.809 of 2017 -: 6 :- 2025:KER:11364 Court of Session found the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 333, 353, 341 and 302 IPC, convicted him and sentenced him to undergo among others, imprisonment for life. The appellant was however acquitted of the charge framed under Section 27(2) of the Arms Act. The appellant is deeply aggrieved by his conviction and sentence in the case, hence this appeal. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as also the learned Public Prosecutor. 7. The point that falls for consideration is whether the conviction of the appellant and the sentence passed against him, are sustainable in law. 8. It is seen that it is based on the oral evidence tendered by the witnesses examined on the side of the prosecution as PWs 1 to 3 that the appellant is convicted. The essence of the elaborate arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that there are inherent infirmities in the evidence of the said witnesses and that, therefore, their Crl.Appeal No.809 of 2017 -: 7 :- 2025:KER:11364 evidence cannot be the basis of a conviction. The learned counsel has pointed out various reasons in support of the said argument, and we are not referring to the same here as we propose to deal with the same elaborately in the latter part of this judgment. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment pointing out that there is absolutely no reason to reject the evidence tendered by the eyewitnesses examined as PWs 1 to 3, and that apart, their evidence is corroborated by the evidence tendered by other witnesses examined in the case. 9. Let us now consider the evidence. PW1 is the overseer of KSEB who accompanied the linemen namely, Kuriakose and Studymon on the relevant day to disconnect the power supply of defaulters. PW1 deposed that on the relevant day, he along with Kuriakose and Studymon went to the house of the sister of the appellant at about 11.00 a.m. and required her to pay the dues and as she sought time to pay the same, the power supply to her house was disconnected. It was Crl.Appeal No.809 of 2017 -: 8 :- 2025:KER:11364 deposed by PW1 that in the meanwhile, he received a complaint from another consumer concerning a street light and that he proceeded to examine the said complaint after directing Kuriakose and Studymon to continue the disconnection procedure. It was deposed by PW1 that he heard a commotion after sometime and that when he proceeded to that place, he saw the appellant hitting on the back of Kuriakose after voicing a threat. According to PW1, even though he instructed Kuriakose and Studymon to leave the place, Kuriakose voiced a threat to the appellant that if he does not clear the dues on the same day, the power supply to his house would be disconnected. It was deposed by PW1 that the appellant then caught hold of Kuriakose with his left hand and stabbed on his abdomen and chest with the knife which he took out with his right hand from the pocket of his pants and that the appellant thereafter went back to his house with the crutches. It was deposed by PW1 that Kuriakose was taken by him and others to the District Hospital, Kollam in an Crl.Appeal No.809 of 2017 -: 9 :- 2025:KER:11364 autorickshaw and from there to the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. PW1 identified the appellant in the dock and also identified MO1 as the knife that was used by him to stab Kuriakose. PW1 also affirmed that he was a witness to the inquest. In cross-examination, it was clarified by PW1 that the police took his statements on a few occasions. 10. PW2 was a neighbour of the appellant. The version of PW2 as regards the occurrence was that at about 11.30 a.m. on the date of occurrence, while he was watching television in the house of his son, he heard a commotion from the house of the appellant and when he proceeded there, he saw a few persons in the midst of an altercation and that two among them were found to be wearing khakhi. It was deposed by PW2 that in the course of the altercation, the appellant hit on the back of Kuriakose and thereupon gave a blow on his head with the crutch and that after holding the neck of Kuriakose with his left hand, the appellant stabbed on his abdomen and chest with a knife which he took out from the Crl.Appeal No.809 of 2017 -: 10 :- 2025:KER:11364 pocket of his pants. PW2 also identified MO1 as the weapon used by the appellant to stab Kuriakose. In cross-examination, it was admitted by PW2 that he only has limited vision for the past three to four years and that he has severe shortsightedness. It was also admitted by PW2 in cross- examination that there was a case between the appellant and the son of PW2 namely, Nixon. It was stated by PW2 in his cross-examination that the appellant used to inch before he started using a crutch and that he cannot walk without a crutch. In re-examination, it was clarified by PW2 that the case between his son Nixon and the appellant was closed on a compromise. 11. PW3 was the driver of the auto-rickshaw in which Kuriakose was taken to the hospital for treatment. The version of PW3 as regards the occurrence was that on the relevant day, he came near the scene of occurrence to drop two ladies who engaged his auto and while he was about to leave, he heard a commotion in which two persons were Crl.Appeal No.809 of 2017 -: 11 :- 2025:KER:11364 wearing khakhi and that he saw then another person proceeding to that place with a crutch and stabbing one of the said two persons with a knife by holding him with his left hand. According to PW3, the said person with the crutch was uttering something at that time and the same was not clear to him. It was deposed by PW3 that while he was about to leave that place, one of the persons who was wearing khakhi called him from behind and when he stopped the auto-rickshaw, the said person came to the vehicle with the injured person and that PW3 took them to the District Hospital, Kollam. PW3 identified the appellant as the person who came with the crutch and stabbed the person who was wearing khakhi. PW3 is a witness whose statement was recorded under Section 164 of the Code. In cross-examination, PW3 however admitted that he had not stated in his statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code that he saw the appellant stabbing anyone with a knife. 12. PW4 was a Medical Officer attached to the District Hospital, Kollam during 2008. PW4 deposed that at Crl.Appeal No.809 of 2017 -: 12 :- 2025:KER:11364 12.01 p.m. on 26.04.2008, he examined Kuriakose who was brought to the casualty with the alleged history of assault while on duty. Ext.P2 is the wound certificate prepared by PW4. The following are the injuries noted by PW4 on the body of Kuriakose: “1. Incised wound 1½ cm long 0.3 cm broad left part of the chest. Depth of the wound not explored 2. Incised wound 1 ½ cm long 0.3 cm broad left part of the abdomen. Depth of the wound not explored.” It was deposed by PW4 that after examination and surgical consultation, the patient was referred to the surgical casualty of the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. It was deposed by PW4 that the injuries noted by him can be caused with MO1 knife. In cross-examination, it was clarified by PW4 that what was recorded by him in the wound certificate is that the injured was brought to the hospital by the subordinates of the latter. PW8 was one of the doctors who treated Kuriakose at the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. Ext.P8 is the treatment certificate issued by PW8. It was deposed by PW8 that the injuries noted on the body of Kuriakose are Crl.Appeal No.809 of 2017 -: 13 :- 2025:KER:11364 injuries that could be caused by using a sharp edged weapon like MO1. 13. PW9 was the doctor who conducted the postmortem examination on the body of the deceased and issued Ext.P9 postmortem certificate. The ante-mortem injuries noticed on the body of the deceased at the time of postmortem examination as deposed by PW9, are the following: “1. Sutured pale scar 1.5cm long on the left side of chest, vertical, upper end 16.5cm below armpit. Incised wound 2.5cm long involving the 8th inter costal space. Left dome of diaphragm seen sutured for a length of 1.5cm underneath. Spleen seen surgically removed. Two sutured wounds 1cm long each, 1cm apart, involving whole thickness of front wall of jejunum, the former 26cm distal to the fixed loop. The wound was directed downwards, forwards and to the right for a depth of 12cm. Mesentery contained reddish brown blood clots. Jejunum, was gangrenous for a length of 60cm, 42cm distal to the fixed loop. Peritoneal cavity contained 150ml of blood stained fluid. 2. Sutured pale scar 2cm long, 0.5cm deep, oblique on the abdomen, its upper inner end 4cm outer to midline and 14cm below costal margin. 3. Sutured pale laparotomy scar, 24 cm long, vertical on the abdomen, its upper end 19 cm below top of breast bone. 4. Surgical drainage wound 1.5cm long on the left side of abdomen 29.5cm below armpit. 5. Sutured intercosal drainage wound on the left side of chest, 1.5cm long, 8.5cm outer to midline and 19cm below Crl.Appeal No.809 of 2017 -: 14 :- 2025:KER:11364 collarbone, with yellowish slough at the edges. 6. Abrasion 0.5x0.2cm, on the right side of back of trunk 2cm outer to and 5.5cm below root of neck. 7. Abrasion 2x0.2cm, oblique on the right side of back of trunk, its inner extent in midline and 20.5cm below top of shoulder. 8. Abrasion 2.5x0.2cm on the right side of back of trunk, vertical, its upper extent, 7cm outer to midline and 17.5cm below top of shoulder. 9. Abrasion 1.5x0.5cm, on the right side of back of trunk 4cm outer to and 4.5cm below root of neck. 10. Abrasion 2x0.3cm on the left side of back of trunk 2cm outer to midline and 17.5cm below top of shoulder. 11. Abrasion 2x0.2cm on the left side of back of trunk 2cm outer to midline and 37cm below top of shoulder.” It was opined by PW9 in her evidence that the cause of death was due to injury 1 involving chest and abdomen and that the same could be caused by using a sharp edged weapon. It was clarified by PW9 in her evidence that injuries 6 to 11 could be caused in a backward fall. 14. PW7 was the Assistant Engineer attached to the electrical section within whose jurisdiction, the house of the appellant falls. PW7 deposed that the deceased, Studymon and PW1 were the staff in his office and that they were on Crl.Appeal No.809 of 2017 -: 15 :- 2025:KER:11364 disconnection duty on 26.04.2008. PW13 was the Station House Officer attached to Pallithottam Police Station from 17.01.2008. PW13 deposed that it was he who recorded Ext.P15 First Information Statement of Studymon. It was deposed by PW13 that Studymon left the signature column blank in the First Information Statement. It was deposed by PW13 that he conducted a search on the same day in the house of the appellant and seized MO1 knife which was found kept on the top of an almirah. PW14 was the police officer who conducted the substantial part of the investigation in the case. It was deposed by PW14 that he arrested the appellant on 17.05.2008 and seized a pair of pants and a shirt from the house of the appellant as per Ext.P12 mahazar. PW15 was another police officer who took over the investigation in the case from PW14 and submitted the final report. It was PW15 who tendered formal proof of the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory which is marked in the proceedings as Ext.P35. 15. It is based on the evidence discussed above Crl.Appeal No.809 of 2017 -: 16 :- 2025:KER:11364 that the Court of Session came to the conclusion that the prosecution has established the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. As noted, it is a case where the prosecution has relied on the oral evidence of PWs 1 to 3 to prove the guilt of the accused. The remaining witnesses were cited and examined only for corroborating the evidence of PWs 1 to 3. As noted, the main contention of the appellant is that the evidence tendered by the ocular witnesses is not reliable and trustworthy. Let us, therefore, consider the sustainability of the said contention. 16. Although PW3, the auto-rickshaw driver gave evidence more or less on similar lines as the evidence tendered by PWs 1 and 2, in cross-examination, PW3 admitted that he had not disclosed in the statement given to the Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code that he saw the appellant stabbing anyone with the knife. The relevant portion of the deposition of PW3 reads thus: “Magistrate-ന മഴ മ ടകമ ൾ ത മ ണ പത ആമമങല കതത ഞൻ പറഞടല. അത ഓർകറവ മ ണക.” Crl.Appeal No.809 of 2017 -: 17 :- 2025:KER:11364 The omission of PW3 in the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code that he saw the appellant inflicting any stab injury on the deceased would amount to a material contradiction and in the light of the said contradiction, we do not find it safe to place reliance on that part of the evidence tendered by PW3. 17. The evidence tendered by PW7, the Assistant Engineer of KSEB within whose jurisdiction the house of the appellant falls, reveals that, PW1 was the overseer who accompanied the deceased and Studymon on the relevant day to disconnect the power supply of defaulters. In the light of the evidence tendered by PW1, he was not present at the scene of occurrence at the time when the altercation took place. But, going by the evidence of PW7, the presence of PW1 somewhere in the vicinity of the house of the appellant, cannot be doubted. The version of PW1 was that after disconnecting power supply to the house of the sister of the appellant, he left the company of Studymon and the deceased to attend to the Crl.Appeal No.809 of 2017 -: 18 :- 2025:KER:11364 maintenance work of a street light and that he went to the scene of occurrence only on hearing a commotion and it was at that point of time that he saw the occurrence. The question, therefore, is whether PW1 could see the occurrence. 18. One of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the evidence of PW1 that he had previous acquaintance with the appellant cannot be believed in the light of the previous statement given by PW1 to the police which is marked as Ext.D1 contradiction and that therefore the rest of his evidence also cannot be believed. True, PW1 deposed in court that he had previous acquaintance with the appellant, and in Ext.D1, what was stated by him was that he came to know of the name of the appellant from those who gathered at the scene at the time of occurrence. Merely for the reason that PW1 came to know of the name of the appellant only from those who gathered at the scene at the time of occurrence, it cannot be said that he had no previous acquaintance with the appellant. As such, the argument that in Crl.Appeal No.809 of 2017 -: 19 :- 2025:KER:11364 the light of Ext.D1 contradiction, the entire evidence tendered by PW1 has to be rejected, cannot be accepted. 19. It is seen that PW1 has stated in cross- examination that it was PW15 who recorded his previous statement for the first time and that it was about three to four months after the occurrence. The relevant portion of the deposition reads thus: "അമന&ഷണ ഉമ*+ഗസന CW26 മ.വ+ർ എനവമ .ഭവതന 3, 4 . ഴഞ അമ2ഹതമ4 office ൽ വചണ ണത. അമ2ഹണ എമ4 മഴ ആ*+ മഖമ8ടതത .” Placing reliance on the said evidence, it was vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that inasmuch as the previous statement of PW1 was recorded several months after the occurrence, it is not safe to place reliance on the evidence tendered by PW1. We do not find any merit in this argument, as the materials on record reveal that the previous statement of PW1 was recorded on 27.04.2008 itself, the day following the date of the occurrence and Ext.D1 contradiction is the portion of the said statement. Needless to say, what was Crl.Appeal No.809 of 2017 -: 20 :- 2025:KER:11364 deposed by PW1 as extracted above is a mistake on his part. 20. Another argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the deposition of PW1 that it was he who took the deceased to the hospital, is false. The said argument is advanced since what is recorded in Ext.P2 wound certificate is that it was the subordinates of the victim who took him to the hospital and if PW1 were to be the person who took the deceased to the hospital being a superior officer, Ext.P2 would not have contained an endorsement that it was the subordinates who took the victim to the hospital. We do not find any merit in this argument also. Merely for the reason that there is an endorsement in Ext.P2 that it was the subordinates of the deceased who took him to the hospital, it cannot be said that PW1 was not present with the deceased when he was taken to the hospital. When an unexpected and untoward incident of the present nature takes place, it is only natural that several persons working with the injured would accompany him to the hospital and the doctor who examines Crl.Appeal No.809 of 2017 -: 21 :- 2025:KER:11364 the injured is not expected to record the names of all who accompanied the injured, as his priority at that point of time is to save the life of the injured. 21. Another argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that PW1 was a person who was present at the time of inquest and had he seen the occurrence as claimed by him, his statement would have certainly been recorded by the officer who held the inquest, and inasmuch as the statement of PW1 has not been recorded by the officer who held the inquest, it has to be taken that PW1 had not witnessed the occurrence. Ext.P1 is the inquest report. PW1 is a witness to Ext.P1 inquest report. The statement of PW1 is not seen recorded at the time of holding the inquest. Instead, the statement of some others, including the brother of the deceased were seen recorded then. Merely for the reason that the statement of PW1 was not recorded at the time of holding the inquest, it cannot be inferred straightaway that PW1 had not seen the occurrence. Needless to say, we do not find any Crl.Appeal No.809 of 2017 -: 22 :- 2025:KER:11364 reason at all to disbelieve the evidence tendered by PW1. 22. Let us now deal with the evidence of PW2. The facts that PW2 is a person residing in the neighbourhood of the appellant and that he is a person who had previous acquaintance with the appellant, are not seen disputed. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant as regards the evidence tendered by PW2 are that he is a person who is partially blind and that he was also a person who maintained a strained relationship with the appellant on account of a case between the appellant and the son of PW2 namely, Nixon. According to the learned counsel, no reliance can, therefore, be placed on the evidence of PW2. We do not find any merit in this contention. It has come out in evidence that the occurrence took place almost seven years before the date on which PW2 gave evidence in the case. What was stated by PW2 in cross-examination is that he has only limited vision for the past three to four years and that he has severe short-sightedness. There is nothing on record to indicate that Crl.Appeal No.809 of 2017 -: 23 :- 2025:KER:11364 PW2 was suffering from any vision impairment at the time of occurrence. Similarly, it has come out in evidence that the case between his son Nixon and the appellant was closed on a compromise. In the circumstances, we do not find any impediment in placing reliance on the evidence of PW2. Of course, there is a minor inconsistency in the evidence tendered by PW2 as regards the occurrence that before inflicting the stab injuries, the appellant had also beat the deceased with the crutch. PW1 does not have such a case. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the said inconsistency in the evidence of PW2 is not sufficient to disbelieve him in toto. 23. As noted, it was deposed by PW2 in his evidence that the appellant is a person who cannot stand without a crutch. Another argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that it is, therefore, not possible for the appellant to attack the deceased in the manner alleged by the prosecution. We do not agree. The appellant has produced Crl.Appeal No.809 of 2017 -: 24 :- 2025:KER:11364 a photograph in the appeal in support of an application preferred by him to suspend the execution of the sentence against him. Having regard to the photograph, we cannot accept the argument that it is impossible for the appellant to attack a person as alleged by the prosecution in the case. 24. Ext.P35 report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram reveals that blood was not found on MO1 knife. The argument raised in this context is that MO1 cannot, therefore, be regarded as the weapon that was used to inflict stab injuries on the deceased. According to the learned counsel, the case of the prosecution has to fail on that sole ground. We are unable to agree. Merely for the reason that the Forensic Science Laboratory could not find blood on MO1, it cannot be inferred straightaway that MO1 was not the weapon used, especially when the weapon was not one seized from the scene of occurrence, but seized hours after the occurrence from a place inside the house of the appellant. We do not find any merit in the argument aforesaid also for the reason that it Crl.Appeal No.809 of 2017 -: 25 :- 2025:KER:11364 is now trite that recovery of the weapon used in the commission of the offence is not a sine qua non to convict the accused [See Rakesh v. State of U.P., (2021) 7 SCC 188]. 25. In short, we find that the evidence tendered by PW1 and PW2 is reliable and trustworthy. True, Studymon left the signature column blank in the First Information Statement. It is of no consequence whether the First Information Statement contains the signature of the informant [See Surendra Pal v. State of U.P., (2010) 9 SCC 399]. The evidence tendered by PWs 1 and 2 is corroborated by Ext.P15 First Information Statement. That apart, the oral evidence of the said witnesses has been corroborated by the medical evidence tendered by PWs 4, 8 and 9 also. 26. The appellant has no case that the evidence tendered by PWs 1 and 2 do not make out the offences charged. In other words, the finding rendered by the Court of Session that the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt, the guilt of the appellant for the offences Crl.Appeal No.809 of 2017 -: 26 :- 2025:KER:11364 punishable under Sections 302, 333, 353 and 341 IPC, is in order. The appeal, in the circumstances, is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE. Sd/- JOBIN SEBASTIAN, JUDGE. ds 05.02.2025