The testimony of an injured witness holds significant evidentiary value, and even minor contradictions do not undermine the reliability of their evidence in establishing an attempt to commit murder.

JUDGMENT :

Johnson John, J.

The appellant is the accused in S.C. No. 258 of 2011 on the file of the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, North Paravur and he is challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on him for the offence under Section 307 IPC.

2. The prosecution case is that the accused and PW3 are members of Jacobite Syrian church, North Paravur and during the General Body meeting of the parish on 28.09.2008, there occurred a scuffle between the accused and PW3. For the reason that PW3 preferred a complaint to the police in that connection, the accused attacked PW3 with a sword on 05.01.2009 at about 8.30 p.m., while PW3 was passing urine on the side of the way near his house. It is stated that the accused inflicted severe cut injuries on various parts of the body of PW3 by uttering that he will kill PW3 and the accused is thereby, alleged to have attempted to commit the murder of PW3.

3. On the basis of Exhibit P1, First Information Statement of PW2–the elder brother of the injured, PW9, Sub Inspector, registered Exhibit P4 FIR and PW11, Circle Inspector, conducted the initial investigation and thereafter, PW12, Circle Inspector, completed the investigation and filed the final report.

4. Before the trial court, when the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 12 and Exhibits P1 to P14 and MO1 were marked and no evidence adduced from the side of the accused.

5. After hearing both sides and considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial court convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 307 IPC.

6. Heard Sri. P.S. Anishad, the learned State Brief appearing for the appellant and Sri. Alex M. Thombra, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor and perused the records.

7. The learned State Brief appearing for the appellant argued that the evidence of PW12, Circle Inspector, regarding the alleged recovery of MO1 on the basis of the alleged disclosure statement of the accused, is not supported by any independent evidence and the same is not reliable. It is also argued that PWs 2, 6 and 7 are close relatives of PW3, injured, and the prosecution has not examined any independent witness and therefore, the accused is entitled for the benefit of reasonable doubt.

8. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of PW3, injured victim, regarding the occurrence is supported by the evidence of PWs 2, 6 and 7, who witnessed the occurrence, and even though they are seriously cross examined, no material omission or contradiction was brought out to discredit their evidence in chief examination and considering the time and place of occurrence, there is nothing to disbelieve the evidence of PWs 2, 6 and 7 that they witnessed the incident that occurred near to their house.

9. PW3 deposed that the incident occurred at about 8.30 p.m., on 05.01.2009 in front of the eastern gate of his house. According to PW3, after attending a marriage function, he was returning to his house, and while he was urinating on the side of the way, someone inflicted a cut injury on his back and when he turned, he saw the accused uttering that he will kill him and attacking him with a sword aiming at his neck. PW3 stated that he prevented the attack with his hand and then the accused again attacked him with the sword and he sustained injuries on his back, shoulder, hands and legs. PW3 stated that his elder brother, sisters and younger brother