JUDGMENT :

G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.

1. The appeal is directed against the judgment in S.C. No. 102 of 2011 dated 29.12.2010, on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ariyalur.

2. The appellant was charged for offence under Section 307 of I.P.C., for attempt to murder one Soundararajan. On 06.07.2006, at about 6.00 p.m., when Soundararajan demanded the repayment of Rs. 5,000/- borrowed from him Kannan along with one Boominathan stabbed Soundararajan on his left side rib with knife also caused hurt to Soundarajan, on his head and left shoulder using stick. Hence, Kannan was charged for offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. and Boominathan for offence under Section 323 of I.P.C.

3. Before the trial Court, the prosecution has examined 12 witness. Marked 12 Exhibits and 2 material objects were marked. On behalf of the accused 2 witnesses and 2 Exhibits were marked along with 2 material objects.

4. The trial Court, while acquitting A2 from all charges, convicted A1 for offence under Section 325 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo 5 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default one year R.I.

5. Aggrieved by that, the 1st accused Kannan has preferred the appeal. Though the appeal was preferred, when the matter was taken up for final disposal, the learned counsel filed a memo saying that he has no instruction from his client and therefore, filed memo of revoking appearance. Hence, this Court has requested the Legal Service Authority to appoint counsel to represent the appellant. Accordingly, Mr. T.D. Vasu, was appointed as counsel by the Legal Service Authority.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant had presented the case vividly in which, he has canvassed that the prosecution had deliberately omitted to place the entire materials collected during the course of investigation. The lopsided investigation suppressing the injury sustained by Ammasi (DW-2), the father of the accused and the act of aggression committed by PW-1 not been placed before the Court. Before, the Trial Court, the defence has examined the doctor who treated Ammasi (DW-2) and also Ammasi, father of the accused as defence witnesses, produced the accident register of DW-2 and the opinion given by the Doctor as Exhibit along with x-ray report as material objects.

7. The trial Court below has erred in not considering the injury sustained by DW-2 contrarily a false complaint given by PW-1 to escape from the act of aggression and crime has-been taken up for investigation by police and final report was filed. Alleged lopsided investigation by the respondent and the perversity in the trial Court judgment. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that the trial Court judgment is liable to be set-aside and the appellant is entitled for acquittal.

8. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate would submit that the appellant borrowed a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from Soundrarajan. He repaid only Rs. 5,000/- but was evading to pay the balance sum of Rs. 5,000/-. Irritated by the repeated demand of re-payment by PW-1, the accused decided to kill him and therefore, on 06.07.2006, at about 6 O'clock, when PW-1 came near pump house in Sripuranthan to Arangottai cement Road, he stabbed PW-1 on his left side rib. The injured witness has spoken about the incident and in the same transaction, PW-2 son of PW-1 was also sustained injury. A-2 assaulted Chinnaraja (PW-2) on his head and left shoulder with stick. The injury sustained by PW-2 supported by the accident report given by the doctor.

9. The trial Court, considering the evidence of injured witness and the accident report, the recovery of knife has held that the contradictions and discrepancies between the witnesses does not shack the case of the prosecution as far as, the guilt of A1. But, having failed to prove that A1 has committed the crime with intention to cause death, the trial Court has convicted the accused for offence under Section 325 of I.P.C. instead of Section 307 of I.P.C. The evidence adduced