The credibility of witness testimony, the sufficiency of evidence, and the identification of the weapon used in the crime are crucial in establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C., to set aside the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court dated 02.08.2014 passed in S.C.No.203 of 2012 on the file of Mahila Court, (Fast Track Mahila Court), Tiruppur, Tiruppur District and allow the above Criminal Appeal.)

Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C., against the order of conviction and consequentail sentence passed by the Judgment dated 02.08.2014 made in S.C.No.203 of 2012 by the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, (Fast Track Mahila Court), Tiruppur.)

Common Judgment:

1. The appellants in these two appeals C.A.No.437 of 2014 and C.A.No.444 of 2014 are the accused 1 & 2 respectively in S.C.No.203 of 2012, on the file of Mahila Court, Fast Track Court, Mahila Court, Tiruppur. A1 was tried for charge under Sections 341 r/w 307 of I.P.C. Whereas A2 was charged for offences under Sections 341, 307 r/w 34 of I.P.C.

2. The substance of the charge against these appellants is that, on 01.02.2010 at about 8.00 p.m., due to previous enmity these two appellants went to the house of one Palaniammal (P.W.3) who was alone in her house. A2 caught hold of her hands and A1 cut her throat with knife with intention to cause death. Palaniammal struggled and tried to raise alarm, so both the accused flee away.

3. The motive for the said act is attributed to the fact that, P.W.3 who is the mother-in-law of Lakshmi saw Lakshmi in compromise position with A1 who is the husband of P.W.5 (sister of Lakshmi) and she scolded Lakshmi. Hence, A1 & A2, came to Palaniammal house and cut her throat with an intention to kill Palaniammal. Palaniammal whose trachea was cut unable to speak about the assailants. She went to her son's factory situated near by and explained by sign language. Her son P.W.1, took her a Private Hospital at Thiruppur. Considering the severity of the injury, the Doctor referred her to Coimbatore Government Medical College Hospital, where she was admitted as inpatient.

4. P.W.1, who is the husband of Lakshmi had lodged the complaint (Ex.P.6) and First Information Report (Ex.P.7) was registered in Crime No.827 of 2010 at 10.00 hours on 02.02.2010 at that time, since the injured Palaniammal was not able to speak, the assailants detail was not recorded. Later, when she regained speech, narrated how she was attacked and by whom she was attacked and reason for the attack. Thus, after completion of investigation, final report was filed and charges mentioned above came to be framed and against these two appellants.

5. To prove the charges, the prosecution has examined 10 Witnesses marked 12 Exhibits and 1 Material object which is the knife used by A1 to cause grievous injury to Palaniammal (P.W.3).

6. The Trial Court, on appreciation of evidence held that the charge framed against A1 for offences under Sections 307 and 341 r/w 34 and the charges against A2 for offences under Sections 341 and 307 r/w 34 proved beyond doubt and sentenced and convicted them as below:-

Out of the above fine amount, the accused were directed to pay Rs.5000/- each as compensation to the victim lady P.W.3.

7. In the appeal, challenging the order of conviction and sentence, the Learned Counsel for the appellants has made submissions on three folds:-

(i). In the First Information Report, the defacto complainant has not mentioned the name of the assailant. The delay in F.I.R and implicating these accused subsequently clearly expose the malicious intention of the prosecution. The F.I.R came to be registered o