The testimony of an injured eyewitness carries substantial weight in establishing guilt, and minor inconsistencies do not undermine the overall credibility of the evidence presented.

JUDGMENT :

Johnson John, J.

The appellant is the accused in S.C. No. 158 of 2011 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge-V Palakkad and he is challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on him for the offence under Section 324 IPC as per the impugned judgment dated 04.02.2014.

2. The prosecution case is that on 11.07.2010, at about 7 p.m., there occurred a quarrel between the accused and his wife in connection with a dispute in providing a way to the brothers of the accused and the accused attacked PW5 with a chopper and inflicted cut injuries on her left thigh, above the left ankle, on her back, near the left thumb and chin and he also attacked her with the chopper aiming her throat and the same was prevented by PW5 with her hand and thereby, she sustained injuries on her throat and hand and it is alleged that the accused committed the acts with the intention and knowledge to cause the death of his wife and he is thereby alleged to have committed the offences under Sections 324 and 308 IPC .

3. When the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge under Sections 324 and 308 IPC , PWs 1 to 9 were examined and Exhibits P1 to P9 and MO1 were marked from the side of the prosecution and from the side of the defence, Exhibits D1 and D2 were marked.

4. After hearing both sides and considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial court found the accused not guilty of the offence under Section 308 IPC and guilty of the offence under Section 324 IPC . The accused was convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 324 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months.

5. Heard Sri. Nireesh Mathew, the learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. Hasnamol N.S., the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the prosecution has no consistent case regarding the place of occurrence and that the trial court ought to have found that PWs 1 and 8 are interested witnesses having enmity towards the accused and in the absence of independent evidence regarding the occurrence, the accused/appellant is entitled for the benefit of reasonable doubt.

7. The learned Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of the injured, PW5, is supported by the evidence of PWs 1 and 8 who are neighbours of the accused and victim and the minor variations in their evidence while narrating the incident cannot be taken seriously and that the evidence of PW5, injured, is supported by medical evidence and the evidence of PWs 1 and 8, neighbours who reached there at the time of occurrence.

8. According to PW5, on 11.07.2010, at about 7 p.m., while they were on the back side of their house, her husband, Chellan, informed her that he wanted to sell the house and property and when she objected the same, there occurred a quarrel and thereupon, her husband Chellan took out a chopper from the kitchen and inflicted cut injuries on her left leg, thigh and back. The accused also attacked her with the chopper aiming her neck and when she prevented the same with her hand, she sustained injuries on her left hand and cheek. According to PW5, she fell down with bleeding injuries near the lean-to and subsequently her brothers came there and took her to the hospital. PW5 identified the accused and MO1, chopper, before the court

9. In cross examination, PW5 stated that she was not in good terms with he