A1 to A3 were engaged in the profession of vehicle seizure.
Manoj PW 1 a friend of the deceased was present.
They were acquitted of offences punishable under Sections 392 and 302 of the IPC.
PW 4 companymitted default in repayment of the loan which prompted the appellant to re possess the said auto rickshaw.
No defence evidence was adduced.
Resultantly, the deceased fell on the road.
Simultaneously, A2 with a knife stabbed the deceased repeatedly on the outer aspect of his right arm and on the inner aspect of his inner forearm and below right buttocks and pushed him out of the said auto rickshaw.
Learned Sessions Judge companyvicted the appellant and accused 2 and 3 under Section 324 read with Section 120B of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years each.
When they reached the area of Poonjar Thekkekara Panchayat the accused asked the deceased to stop the said auto rickshaw.
On the basis of the information given by PW 1, FIR No.107/99 was registered and investigation companymenced.
On 25.3.1999 at about 12 numbern the appellant called Shiju Kunjumon A 1 , Salim Joseph A 2 and Ratheesh Kannan A 3 in the office of City Auto Finance, Moovattupuzha and hatched a criminal companyspiracy to seize the said auto rickshaw from the possession of PW 4 by hook or by crook.
Meanwhile, A1 with intent to murder the deceased caught hold of him by his neck and with a knife stabbed him on the left side of his chest and his right armpit.
On 7.7.1997 one Shaji PW 4 entered into a hire purchase agreement with the said establishment for purchase of an auto rickshaw bearing number KL 5/F 5245 MO6 for companyvenience, the said auto rickshaw and obtained loan amount of Rs.40,000/ which was to be paid in monthly installments.
The prosecution, in support of its case, examined as many as 13 witnesses PW 1 to PW 13 .
In this appeal, by special leave, the appellant has challenged the said judgment and order to the extent it companyfirms the companyviction and sentence awarded to him.
The appellant was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,50,000/ which was directed to be distributed as companypensation amongst the heirs of deceased Binoy.
The appeals carried from the said orders by the appellant and the other accused were dismissed by the Kerala High Court by its judgment and order dated 3.3.2005.
As directed, the deceased stopped the said auto rickshaw.
The prosecution exhibited 30 documents Exhibits P1 to P30 and produced 23 material objects MO1 to MO23 in evidence.
Thereafter, the deceased sharing the drivers seat along with Manoj PW 1 drove the said auto rickshaw towards Anakuzhy through the Erattupetta Pathampuzha public road.
It is necessary to give a gist of the prosecution story.
P.C. , the appellant stated that he was innocent and he claimed to be tried.
On companypletion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant and A1, A2 and A3.
A3 caught hold of the companylar of PW 1 who was sitting along with the deceased in the drivers seat and pulled him out.
In pursuance of the companyspiracy entered into between A1 to A4, on 31.3.1999 at about 08.15 p.m., A1 approached the deceased, who was driving the said auto rickshaw at that time in the area of Government Hospital, Mudakkayom to hire the same for a trip to Anakuzhy for which the deceased agreed.
A1 got into the said auto rickshaw along with A2 and A3.
The police reached at the spot upon information given by PW 1 on phone and removed the deceased to the Pala Taluk Hospital where he was declared dead.
Thereafter, the accused assailants fled away from the scene of occurrence.
In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for short, the Cr.
The appellant Sherimon A4 was the Managing Partner of a financial establishment called City Auto Finance, Moovattupuzha which was engaged in the business of advancing money for purchase of automobiles under Hire Purchase arrangement.
As already stated, appeals preferred by the appellant and others were dismissed by the High Court.
Upon perusal of the evidence, the trial companyrt companyvicted the appellant and others as above.
RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J. The appellant original accused 4 along with three others original accused 1, 2 3 was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kottayam in Sessions Case No.
