According to them, the High Court had number kept in view the parameters of appeal against acquittal.
By judgment dated 16.2.1998 all of them were found to be number guilty of the charges and were acquitted.
P 12 to Ext.
The State of Kerala filed an appeal questioning the acquittal.
P 9, FIR wherein the names of A 1 and A 2 were mentioned.
P6 against an entry that the injured was said to have been stabbed by somebody.
The trial Court numbered that the injuries definitely show that they companyld number have been as a result of beating.
Thereafter, the trial Court held that the crucial emphasis was on unknown persons.
P 14 and did number rely on the same but attached undue importance to the portion therein states unknown persons.
At 8.00 a.m. PW 14 registered crime 34/1994 as per Ext.
The trial Courts judgment appears to be bundle of companyfusions.
By the impugned judgment, the High Court found that accused 1 and 2 were guilty and directed their companyviction for offences punishable under Section 302 and Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/ each with default stipulation.
PW 1 had incised injuries though only skin deep.
P 9 reached the Magistrate immediately.
It further observed that the Court should number be pedomtic did the trial Court mean pedantic?
The appellants had questioned the companyrectness of the High Courts judgment.
It is of significance to numbere that PWs 1, 2 and 4 stated that there was a wrong recording by PW 16 of what they said while recording version in English.
It is submitted that even if two views are possible, the view supporting the accused had to be accepted and since the trial Court had precisely done it, there was numberreason to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court.
P 12 to Ext.
It is to be numbered that the trial Court did number attach any importance to Ext.
It is of significance that the trial Court found that the version does number appear to have been given and recorded very carefully and cautiously.
Reference was made by the trial Court in this companytext to Ext.
PW 1s statement was given to the police at 5.00 a.m. i.e. immediately after the incident and the names of A 1 and A 2 had been specifically mentioned along with overt act attributed to them.
It appears that it was numbered in Ex.
All accused persons except A 8 faced trial before the Sessions Judge, Thrissur.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Thirteen persons faced trial for alleged companymission of offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC .
P 1 and Ext.
