IMPORTANT POINT
The absence of the weapon does not preclude conviction if sufficient evidence supports the prosecution's case, and the sentence imposed was appropriate for the nature of the offences.

JUDGMENT :

In this appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., the appellant, the sole accused, in S.C.No.78/2003 on the file of the Court of Session, Kalpetta, challenges the conviction entered and sentence passed against him for the offences punishable under Section 326 and 324 IPC.

2. The prosecution case as revealed from the charge sheet is as follows – the accused due to his enmity towards PW2, on 12/08/1995 at about 09:00 p.m. abused the latter by calling him by his caste him and then voluntarily caused grievous hurt to him by stabbing on his stomach with a knife. When PW1 attempted to intervene, the accused stabbed him also on his left hand causing an injury. Hence as per the final report, the accused is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 324, 326 and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (the Act).

3. Crime No.126/1995 of Meenangadi police station, that is, Ext.P6 FIR was registered by PW7 Head Constable based on Ext.P1 FIS of PW1. The investigation was conducted by PW11, Dy.SP, Crime Detachment, Wayanad, who on completion of investigation, submitted the final report alleging the commission of the offences punishable under the aforementioned sections by the accused.

4. On appearance of the accused, the jurisdictional magistrate after complying with all the necessary formalities contemplated under Section 209 Cr.P.C., committed the case to the Court of Session, Kalpetta. The case was taken on file as S.C.No.78/2003. The trial court after hearing both sides framed a charge for the offences punishable under Section 326, 324 and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, which was read over and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty.

5. On behalf of the prosecution, PW1 to PW15 were examined and Exts.P1 to P13 and M.O.1 shirt of PW2 was marked in support of the case. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution. The accused denied all those circumstances and maintained his innocence.

6. As the trial court did not find it a fit case to acquit the accused under Section 232 Cr.P.C., he was asked to enter on his defence and adduce evidence in support thereof. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the accused. Ext.D1 is the contradiction brought out in the statement of PW12.

7. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, the trial court did not find any evidence to find the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and hence acquitted him under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. of the said offence. However, he has been found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 326 and 324 IPC. Hence he has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and to a fine of Rs.15,000/- and in default to rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC. He has also been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. If the fine amount is realised, an amount of Rs.12,000/- has been directed to be paid as compensation to PW2. The substantive sentences have been directed to run concurrently. Set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. has been allowed. Aggrieved, the accused has come up in appeal.

8. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the conviction entered and sentence passed against the accused/appellant by the trial court are sustainable or not.

9. Heard both sides.

10. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused that CW3, a material witness, has not been examined. Ext. P3 issued by PW5 does not refer to the part of the body where the injury was caused to PW1. PW2 had no external bleeding. The weapon that is alleged to have been used by the accused for the crime was never seized and