1. The Conviction and Sentence dated 20.12.2005 passed by the Learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Vellore in S.C.No.148 of 2002 are now under challenge in the present Appeal filed by the Appellant/Accused.

2. The Appellant was found guilty by the Learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Vellore, in respect of an offence under Section 307 I.P.C. and was awarded with a punishment of 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment and was also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-and in default of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. Further, the trial Court, out of the fine amount of Rs.5,000/-, awarded a sum of Rs.4,000/- as compensation to the Victim viz., Thirunavukkarasu (P.W.11) after the Appeal or the Appeal time was over.

3. The story of the prosecution is that on 06.11.2001 at about 8.45 p.m., due to election enmity, at Adukkamparai Bus Stand, when the victim was taking the Scooter, the Appellant/Accused attempted to murder the victim (Thirunavukkarasu) and assaulted him with Vettaruval on his back neck, left forehead, left chest and left wrist and caused grievous and simple injuries. As such, as against the Appellant, a charge sheet was filed for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code by the Inspector of Police, Vellore Taluk Police Station before the Judicial Magistrate I, Vellore.

4. On the basis of accusation levelled against the Appellant/Accused, the trial Court framed necessary charge under Section 307 I.P.C. and the same was read over and explained to him. The Appellant /Accused denied the charges framed against him.

5. Before the trial Court, on the side of prosecution, witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.14 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.8 were marked. Also, M.O.1 and M.O.2 were marked. On the side of Appellant/Accused, no witness was examined and no document was marked.

6. When the Appellant/Accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him, he denied his complicity in the trial.

The Appellant's Contentions:

7. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant contends that the trial Court had committed an error in relying on the interested inconsistent, uncorroborated and discrepant evidence of the prosecution witnesses.

8. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant was wrongly convicted by the trial Court based on the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.11 and in fact, the contradictions in P.W.1 and P.W.11 chief examination as well as cross examination were not taken into account.

9. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant proceeds to submit that the trial Court had failed to take into consideration that the occurrence took place during night hours. In this connection, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant projects an argument that the presence of light was not mentioned during the investigation and Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement by the witnesses.

10. Advancing his arguments, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant contends that according to the evidence of P.W.1, he was standing at the eastern side of the road at the time of the occurrence. However, P.W.8 had stated in his evidence that P.W.1 came to the occurrence place after he reached there.

11. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that P.W.1/Complainant was not at all present at the time of occurrence and due to election enmity between the Appellant/Accused and the victim family he had implicated the Appellant and preferred the complaint as if he was an eyewitness to the occurrence.

12. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant contends that the Appellant/Accused was not connected with the case and in fact, the Complainant was assaulted by unknown persons and at the time of occurrence on 06.11.2001 there was no Electricity.

13. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant brings it to the notice of this Court that there was no eyewitness to the incident and false and cooked up complaint was prepared against the Appellant/Accu