IMPORTANT POINT
The evidential value of an injured witness and the requirement to prove the accused's intention or knowledge to commit the act are central legal principles established in the judgment.

JUDGMENT :

JOHNSON JOHN, J.

1. The appellant is the accused in S.C. No. 38 of 2007 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Adhoc No. II Manjeri and he is challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on him for the offences under Sections 324 and 308 IPC.

2. The prosecution case is that because of previous enmity, the accused assaulted PW-1 with iron pipe and knife on 25.11.2005, at about 6 p.m. while PW-1 was engaged in the sale of lemon on the side of the road near Tanur Railway Station. The accused beat PW-1 with an iron pipe on his head and thereafter, assaulted him with a knife aiming his neck and when PW-1 flinched, he sustained injuries on his left hand and right side of the abdomen. It is alleged that the accused also beat PW-1 on his right leg and back with the iron pipe and that the accused committed the act with the requisite intention or knowledge to cause culpable homicide, not amounting to murder.

3. On the basis of Exhibit P1, First Information Statement of PW-1, Exhibit P8 FIR was registered by PW-7 on 26.11.2005 and after completing the investigation, PW-9, Assistant Sub Inspector of Tanur Police Station, filed the final report and after committal, when the accused appeared before the trial court, charge was framed for the offences under Sections 324 and 308 of IPC and when the charge was read over and explained, the accused pleaded not guilty.

4. Thereafter, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 9 and marked Exhibits P1 to P8 and MOs I and II. No evidence was adduced from the side of the accused.

5. After hearing both sides and considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, as per the impugned judgment dated 14.03.2008, convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 years under Section 308 IPC and simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 3 months for the offence under Section 324 IPC.

6. Heard Sri. Joseph Sebastian Purayidam, the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor, Sri. Vipin Narayan and perused the records.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the trial court has not appreciated the evidence in the correct perspective and that there are serious contradictions and omissions in the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and therefore, the accused is entitled for the benefit of reasonable doubt.

8. But, the learned Public Prosecutor argued that PW-1 is the injured witness and PW-2 is an independent witness and their evidence regarding the occurrence is supported by medical evidence and that the prosecution has established the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

9. The de facto complainant, when examined as PW-1, deposed that he was conducting sale of lemon in a goods vehicle on the side of the road at about 6 p.m. on 25.11.2005 and then the accused Ayub, who came from behind, beat him with an iron pipe on the back side of his head by saying that he will kill him. According to PW-1, when he turned back, the accused took out a knife and swung the knife aiming his neck and when he flinched, the knife caused to hit on his hand and he sustained injuries. PW-1 stated that if he had not flinched, the assault with the knife aiming his neck would have caused his death. PW-1 stated that the accused also beat on his legs and back with the iron pipe and when he fell down, the accused ran away.

10. According to PW-1, one Sameer took him to Janatha Hospital and from there, he was taken to Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode and on the next day, he was again admitted in Janatha Hospital. PW-1 identified his signature in Exhibit P1, First Information Statement, and also deposed that the accused was having enmity towards him for the reason that the accused was not allowed to marry his sister. According to PW-1, the accused used to disturb his sister while she was studying in the