K. Abraham Mathew, J.

1. In Sessions Case No.52 of 2013 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Kalpetta the appellant was tried for the offences under Sections 307 and 450 IPC. The allegation against him was that in the small hours of 26.8.2012 he trespassed into the room in a shed in which his co-worker Sreedharan was residing and attempted to murder him by striking with a chopper. Learned Sessions Judge found the evidence adduced by the prosecution sufficient to prove the case against the appellant and convicted him of the both offences. For the offence under Section 307 IPC the Sessions Judge sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of the fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three more months, and for the offence under Section 450 IPC to undergo rigorous for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of the fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 3 months. There is a direction to pay the fine amount, if realised, to the victim.

2. In the charge framed by the learned Sessions Judge the victim has been referred to as CW2. The learned Sessions Judge did not take notice of Rule 65 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, which runs as follows:

The person against whom an offence is alleged to have been committed shall be described in the charge by his name and not by his position in the case as prosecutor or witness.

3. The rule prohibits the person against whom the offence is alleged to have been committed being described by his position in the case as prosecutor or witness and mandates that he shall be described only by his name in the charge. This is more often violated than complied with. There is a purpose behind every rule. A charge is framed for the purpose of giving notice to the accused as to the case he has to meet. To the extent possible there shall not be any vague statement in the charge. But since it is clear from the evidence that the misdescription of the victim in the charge has not caused prejudice to the appellant, it is only to be ignored.

4. In the trial court judgment witnesses are referred to as CW1, CW2 etc. This compels the appellate court – trial court also – to refer to the report filed by the investigating officer under Section 173(2) Cr. P.C to ascertain the identity of the person. It is an unwholesome practice to refer to the witnesses as CW1, CW2 etc. in the deposition of other witnesses and in the judgment. If a witness is not examined, in the deposition of other witnesses and in the judgment he shall be referred to by his name and if he has already been examined only as Prosecution Witness suffixing his number(PW1 and PW2 etc.).

5. In 11 paragraphs learned Sessions Judge has given a summary of the testimony of each of the witnesses examined in the case, which was totally unnecessary. But he has not analysed their evidence. There is no discussion as to the acceptability or otherwise of their evidence or the probative value of their evidence. In just one paragraph he considered the applicability of Sections 307 and 450 IPC before he reached the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case against the appellant.

6. The injured PW2 Sreedharan and the appellant were workers in the property of PW3 Alice Devasya. PW1 had worked for her family for 5 years and the accused for 4 months on the date of occurrence. They were residing in separate rooms in a shed which was within a stone's throw from her house. Immediately after the incident PW2 Sreedharan was taken to Government Hospital, Pulpally and from there to District Hospital, Mananthavady. Later he was treated at Medical College Hospital, Kozhikod. To prove the injuries sustained by him the prosecution examined PW11 Dr Unnikrishnan, who was working as a doctor at the Community Health Centre, Pulpally. In his deposition there is no mention about any of the injuries sustained by PW2 Sreedharan. The wound certificate