Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) leader and Member of Parliament (MP) from Lakshadweep PP Mohammeed Faizal approached the Kerala High Court on Thursday challenging the order of a trial court that sentenced him to 10 years imprisonment in an attempt to murder case [Sayed Mohammed Noorul Ameer & Ors. v Union Territory of Lakshadweep]..Yesterday, the Kavaratti Sessions Court had convicted four persons, including Faizal for committing offences punishable under the following provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC):Section 143 - unlawful assembly;Section 147 - rioting;Section 148 - rioting armed with deadly weapon;Section 307 - attempt to murder;Section 324 - voluntarily causing hurt;Section 342 - wrongful confinement;Section 448 - house tresspass;Section 427 - committing mischief causing loss/ damages of ₹50+; and Section 506 read with Section 149 - criminal intimidation.They were all sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and directed pay fine of ₹1 lakh each for attempting to murder Padanath Salih, the son-in-law of former Union Minister, PM Sayeed in relation to a political controversy during the 2009 Lok Sabha elections..When the appeal came up before the Court today, Justice A Badharudeen refused to pass orders on Faizal's connected application for sentence suspension, without hearing all parties. The judge allowed the de-facto complainant's request to file objection to the sentence suspension application and listed the matter for hearing on Tuesday, January 17. .The appeal stated that the evidence against the appellants consisted of the depositions of three prosecution witnesses who were workers of the Congress Party, while the appellants belonged to the NCP.It is also pointed out that Faizal is the returned candidate in the parliamentary election that took place immediately after the alleged incident.Therefore, it was contended that the evidence is partisan without any corroboration. It was further argued that the weapons that were allegedly used were not recovered and that the doctors said that the injuries were not life-threatening and could not have been caused with the type of weapons described by the witnesses."The case in the court is totally opposed to the narration in the first information statement with respect to the weapons and the manner of the occurrence. The overt acts were also different. When Pw1/injured was confronted with the FIS he disowned the same. The 2nd appellant is a sitting member of parliament and there is no allegation of an offence of abusing his office. Hence the petitioners filed this appeal," the appeal stated..The appellants were represented by advocate Sasthamangalam S Ajithkumar.