Failure to identify the accused in court as the assailant undermines the prosecution's case, establishing reasonable doubt.

ORDER :

1. The challenge in this revision petition is the conviction and sentence imposed against the revision petitioner under Sections 341 and 326 of IPC.

2. The revision petitioner is the sole accused in C.C.No.118 of 2004 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ponnani.

3. The prosecution case is that, on 06.02.2004 at about 10.30 p.m, while a function was going on in the house of one Velayudan, situated near Eramangalam boat jetty in connection with a marriage ceremony, the accused picked up a quarrel with PW2 and PW5 and when PW1 intervened, wrongfully restrained him and inflicted a stab injury on his abdomen using a knife.

4. In the trial court, from the side of the prosecution, PW1 to PW9 were examined and Exts.P1 to P8 documents and MO1 were marked. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in evidence and contended that he is innocent. Even though an opportunity was granted, the accused did not adduce any defence evidence. The trial court, on an appreciation of the evidence on record, found the accused guilty and convicted him under Sections 341 and 326 of IPC. The accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month under Section 341 of IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.30,000/- under Section 326 of IPC, with a default clause.

5. The accused carried the matter in appeal by filing Crl.Appeal No.334 of 2012 before the Additional Sessions Court-III, Manjeri. The said court, by judgment dated 14.12.2015, dismissed the appeal.

6. Heard Sri.T.K.Sandeep, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Adv.Sanal P.Raj, learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the records.

7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that both the trial court and the appellate court did not properly appreciate the evidence on record and has arrived at a wrong conclusion of guilt against the accused. He submitted PW1 while giving evidence, has categorically stated that MO1 is not the weapon used to attack him and the prosecution did not make any endeavour to identify MO1 through the other eye witnesses. He argued that none of the eye witnesses, including the injured has identified the accused, as the person who has attacked and inflicted injuries upon PW1. He further submitted that the evidence relating to the recovery of MO1 is also not credible and believable.

8. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgments and contended that there are no grounds to interfere with the same. He submitted that even if the weapon used to attack the victim is not produced or identified, the same is not a ground to discard the otherwise credible evidence of the eye witnesses who have specifically spoken to, about the accused inflicting a stab injury using a knife on his abdomen. He also submitted that the evidence of PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW5 would clearly show that it is none other than the accused who has inflicted the injury upon PW1.

9. An appraisal of the materials on record goes to show that the prosecution is mainly relying upon the evidence of PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW5 who are the eye witnesses, to prove the incident. PW1 is the injured and he deposed that on 06.02.2004 at about 8.30 p.m, when he intervened in a quarrel between the accused and his wife, the accused had stabbed him using a knife on his abdomen. Thereafter, he was taken to Government Hospital, Ponnani and from there to a hospital in Edappal and thereafter to the Medical College Hospital, Thrissur, where he underwent two surgeries. He also stated that he was totally bedridden for about ten days after the incident and even after the discharge, for about 25 days. It is to be