IMPORTANT POINT
The court reaffirmed that the intent to kill can be inferred from the nature of the assault and the weapon used, and that minor discrepancies in witness testimonies do not undermine the overall credibility of the prosecution's case.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Appellant being dissatisfied and aggrieved by the impugned Judgment and Conviction dtd. 31/8/2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panaji in Sessions Case No.36/2012, preferred present appeal amongst various grounds as found mentioned in the memo of appeal.

2. The appeal was admitted on 29/9/2017 and thereafter, the records and proceedings have been called. Paper book was prepared and accordingly, the matter was placed for final hearing.

3. Heard learned Counsel Mr Pavithran A.V. appearing for the Appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr Pravin Faldessai appearing for the State at length.

4. In nutshell, the Appellant/Accused was found guilty for the offences punishable under Sec. 307 and 452 of IPC and accordingly, he has been sentenced to suffer 3 years and 1 year's respective imprisonment along with a fine.

5. The case of Prosecution, as revealed from the charge sheet discloses that on 6/1/2011, the victim being an Advocate was assaulted with an iron pipe on his face by the Accused, with an intention to kill. Such incident took place at around 6:45 p.m. in the office of the victim situated at First Floor, Fonseca Arcade, Near Civil Court Building, Ponda, Goa.

6. On committal of the matter to the Court of Sessions, an order was passed on 20/10/2014 thereby directing to frame charge against the Accused for the offences punishable under Sec. 452 and 307 of IPC. Accordingly, the charges were framed and explained to the Accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In all, 13 witnesses were examined including the victim. The statement of the Appellant/Accused was recorded under Sec. 313 CrPC, to which he denied entire case of the Prosecution and claimed that he has been falsely implicated. Neither the Accused nor any witness stepped into the witness box in defence. By the impugned Judgment, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that the Prosecution has proved the case against Accused on both counts and accordingly, sentence was passed which is challenged by way of present appeal.

7. Learned Counsel Mr Pavithran strongly contended that first of all, charges were not framed by the learned Trial Court and that there is no document on record which shows the exact ingredients of charges explained to the Accused. He submits that this is not an irregularity as such and therefore, the entire trial stands vitiated.

8. Mr Pavithran would then submit that since the victim is an Advocate, the Accused did not get proper representation and that the cross examination conducted during the trial would suggest that proper defence was not put forth on behalf of the Appellant and the relevant contradictions and omissions were not brought on record.

9. Mr Pavithran would then submit that even otherwise, there are serious discrepancies about the identification of the Accused by the witnesses, the motive which the Prosecution has claimed, the lacunae in the entire Prosecution case, which has not been considered by the learned Trial Court. He submits that presence of the so-called witness who had seen the Accused entering the office of the victim is a planted witness and his testimony is seriously doubtful. He submits that the findings of the Trial Court are perverse as material brought on record clearly goes to show that there are serious doubts in the case of the Prosecution and benefit ought to have been given to the Accused. He then would submit that delay in arrest of the Accused, the so-called recovery at the instance of Accused is also doubtful. He then submitted that the Accused was not sent for medical examination and more so for blood examination and therefore, the blood found on the clothes of the Accused cannot be confirmed as that of the victim only. He finally submitted that there is no conclusive proof that the Accused is the perpetrator of the said crime as witnesses clearly deposed that there were two other persons present at the spot near the said building out of which, one