JUDGMENT :

M.Nirmal Kumar, J.

PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Sections 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the judgment of the learned XV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chennai passed in S.C.No.203 of 2021 dated 16.12.2022 and acquit the appellant.

The appellant/accused in S.C.No.203 of 2021 on the file of the learned XV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chennai was convicted by judgment dated 16.12.2022 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 307 IPC, further to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 324 IPC and no fine sentence imposed by the Trial Court. Against which, the present appeal is filed.

2. Before the Trial Court, on the side of the prosecution P.W.1 to P.W.10 were examined, Ex.P1 to Ex.P8, M.O.1 and M.O.2 were marked. On the side of the defence, no witnesses examined and no documents marked.

3. The case of the prosecution in short is that on 29.06.2020 at about 8.00 a.m., the defacto complainant Rajendran, his wife/P.W.1/Jamuna along with P.W.2/Rani, a neighbour were sitting in front of their house in veranda and were talking, at that time the appellant/accused who is residing in the opposite house came with a hammer and attacked P.W.1 on her head uttering ',OTHER LANGUAGE. When P.W.1 attempted to ward off, her left index finger got injured and fractured. Her husband/defacto complainant who came to her rescue was inflicted with a cut injury on his left ear and thereafter, the appellant fled from the scene of occurrence. Thereafter, the defacto complainant called his friend Narasimman/P.W.6, who came in an auto took the defacto complainant and P.W.1 to Royapettah Government Hospital where P.W.8/Casualty Medical Doctor gave treatment to both P.W.1 and Rajendran, recorded injuries in the Accident Register/Ex.P4 and Ex.P5. Thereafter, the defacto complainant went to the respondent Police Station, lodged a complaint/Ex.P1 with P.W.9, who registered the FIR/Ex.P6. P.W.9/Sub-Inspector of Police after registration of the case, sent FIR to the Court and informed the higher officials. P.W.10/Investigating Officer on receipt of the same visited the scene of occurrence, prepared observation mahazar/Ex.P3, rough sketch/Ex.P7 in the presence of P.W.7 and another, seized the hammer/M.O.1 and blood stained piece of cement floor/M.O.2 by Ex.P3/Seizure Mahazar. P.W.10 examined the witnesses present in the scene of occurrence and recorded their statement. Further, P.W.10 after getting opinion and medical report altered the sections by alteration report/Ex.P8 and filed the charge sheet before the concerned Court. In the meanwhile, the appellant/accused obtained anticipatory bail and thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The Trial Court on the evidence of the witnesses and the documents and material objects, convicted the appellant as stated above.

4. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that in this case the defacto complainant/Rajendran passed away due to natural death even before trial and hence, he could not be examined. He would submit that in this case, P.W.1/Jamuna, wife of defacto complainant is projected as an injured witness and P.W.2, eye witness during attack, P.W.2 not supported the case of the prosecution. P.W.3/Sister-in-law of P.W.1 projected as an eye witness, gave an exaggerated version. P.W.3 claims that she along with her friend P.W.4 were chatting before their house, at that time, they saw the occurrence, P.W.4 has not stated anything in this regard. P.W.4 was not treated as hostile witness and the evidence of P.W.3 is contra to evidence of P.W.4. Thus the presence of P.W.3 at the time of occurrence is highly doubtful. P.W.5/Son-in-law of P.W.4 states that he was informed about the incident and his presence was not spoken by any other witness, hence his evidence is in the nature of hearsay witness. P.W.6/Auto-Driver, friend of defacto complainant states that he enquire