The court affirmed that assault with intent to kill constitutes attempt to murder, and victim’s testimony is sufficient to establish guilt even without independent witnesses.

JUDGMENT :

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

The sole accused in S.C.No.378/2012 on the files of Additional Sessions Judge, Pala, assails conviction and sentence imposed against him as per judgment dated 27.01.2014 in this appeal. Respondent is the State of Kerala.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the accused/appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the prosecution side.

3. I shall refer the parties in this appeal as ‘prosecution’ and ‘accused’ hereafter for easy reference.

4. Perused the trial court records and the judgment under challenge.

5. In this matter the accused was tried after framing charge for the offences punishable under Sections 452 , 294(b), 354 and 307 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (`IPC’ for short). The prosecution case is that at 5.30 p.m on 20.05.2012 the accused entered in the middle room of house No.55 in Ward No.5 of Teekoy Grama Panchayat while PW3 alone was there and uttered obscene words on her. Then the accused pulled the tuft of PW3’s hair and pushed her down. When PW3 got up, the accused attempted to murder PW3 by cutting on her neck and on her right palm by using a folding knife, a dangerous weapon.

6. Trial court examined PW1 to PW12 and Exts.P1 to P22 and M.O No.1 to M.O No.5 were marked on the side of the prosecution.

But no defence evidence was adduced by the accused.

7. Finally, the trial court found that the accused committed the offences punishable under Sections 452 and 307 of IPC and he was sentenced as under:

“The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years for offence U/s 452 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. He is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years for offence U/s 307 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default simple imprisonment for three months. The sentences shall run concurrently. MOs.1 to 5 being valueless, shall be destroyed after the appeal period is over. The period in which he was in custody shall be set off from the sentence.”

8. The learned counsel for the accused argued highlighting 4 points to upset the trial court verdict. According to him there is delay of 18 hours in registering the FIR. Further in this matter, crime was registered recording the statement given by PW3. But in the FIS there is no whisper regarding any attempt on the part of the accused to commit murder of PW3. It is also pointed out that no independent witnesses either cited in the final report or examined to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt that apart in M.O1, no blood stains were found as per the FSL report and the shadows doubt as to the use of M.O1 in committing crime. On these grounds enlarging benefit of doubt, the accused is liable to be acquitted.

9. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed these contentions. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the occurrence was at 5.30 p.m on 20.05.2012 and crime was registered on the next day recording the statement of PW3 marked as Ext.P1. Therefore, there is no delay in registering the FIR. It is also pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor that FIS was given by PW3, the injured, while she was at the hospital. Therefore, PW3, who was under a trauma, might not be able to state about the attempt of murder. But in the additional statement recorded after her initial information, she spoke about the attempt to commit murder. Therefore, the argument at the instance of the petitioner in that regard is not sustainable. Regarding absence of independent witnesses, the learned Public Prosecu