The main legal point established is the requirement to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, considering the evidence, intention, and conduct in inflicting the injuries.

JUDGMENT :

P.B. Suresh Kumar, J.

1. The sole accused in S.C. No. 796 of 2017 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court-IV, Kollam has come up in this appeal challenging his conviction and sentence in the said case.

2. The accusation in the case in essence is that the accused who is the husband of the victim lady was subjecting the victim lady to cruelty demanding more dowry, and on 17.12.2014, at about 2.30 pm, with the intention of committing the murder of the victim lady, the accused stabbed her with a knife at her left flank and also at her left hand while she was entering into the house. The offences alleged are the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (the IPC)

3. On the accused pleading not guilty of the charges levelled against him, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses as PW1 to PW17 and proved through them 22 documents as Exts. P1 to P22. Among the witnesses examined on the side of the prosecution, PW1 is a relative of the victim lady, PW2 is the victim lady, PW8 is the doctor who examined the victim lady at the District Hospital, Kollam, PW10 is the Sub Inspector of Police attached to the Women Cell, Kollam, PW13 to PW15 are the police officers who have investigated the case and PW17 is the doctor who treated the victim lady at the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. Among the documents, Ext. P1 is the First Information Statement proved by PW1, Ext. P3 is the wound certificate proved by PW8, Ext. P5 is the copy of the petition register at the Women Cell, Kollam proved by PW10, Exts. P9 and P10 are lists of documents proved by PW13, Ext. P13 is the scene mahazar proved by PW15, Ext. P17 is the recovery mahazar proved by PWP15 and Ext. P22 is the case sheet proved by PW17.

4. On an appraisal of the materials on record, the court below found that the prosecution has not established the guilt of the accused under Section 498A of the IPC. The court, however, found that the accused is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC. The accused was accordingly convicted for the said offence and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. As noted, the accused is aggrieved by his conviction and sentence.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the accused as also the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. At the outset, the learned counsel for the accused contended that though the charge in the case is that the accused has committed the offence at 2.30 pm, on 17.12.2014, there is no evidence, not even formal, to prove the time of occurrence. Similarly, it was contended by the learned counsel that the scene of occurrence in the case has not been proved by the prosecution. Placing reliance on the decision of this court in Mohanan v. State of Kerala [2011 (4) KLT 59], it was argued by the learned counsel that mere production of the scene mahazar or marking of the same through the police officer who prepared the same, is not sufficient to prove the facts stated therein. It was also contended by the learned counsel that unusually the blood stains collected from the scene of occurrence have not been sent for forensic examination. It was further contended by the learned counsel that the specific case spoken to by PW2 is that the occurrence took place when she came back home following the accused from the Women Cell, where both of them were summoned to undergo counselling, whereas Ext. P5 copy of the petition register at the Women Cell would show that there was no counselling at all on the date of occurrence. It was further contended by the learned counsel that there is no evidence in the case as to the information stated to have been received from the accused which led to the alleged recovery of MO1 knife, and even assuming that there is evidence in the case as to any such information, the same is of no use to the prosecution, for it was not established that th