J U D G M E N T

This appeal has been filed challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/accused by the III-Additional Sessions Court, Thrissur (Adhoc) (Fast Track-I) in S.C. No.632/2005 in a prosecution alleging the commission of an offence punishable under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The gist of the prosecution case is that the appellant/accused with the intention to commit culpable homicide of PW5, stabbed PW5 with a knife and caused injuries on the chest of PW5 below the left nipple and on the right thigh at about 9.15 p.m, on 25-03-2005 and since all these injuries were likely to cause the death of PW5 the accused had committed the offence punishable under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Following the investigation a final report was filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chalakudy which was committed to the Sessions Court, Thrissur for trial and disposal. The matter was finally made over to the III-Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) (Fast Track-I), Thrissur where a charge was framed for the offence punishable under Section 308 of the IPC. On the accused pleading not guilty, trial was conducted. The prosecution examined PWs 1 to 8 and marked Exts.P1 to P7 and identified M.Os 1 & 2. On closure of the prosecution evidence the appellant/accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Though the appellant/accused was called upon to enter his defence, no defence evidence was let in.

4. Sri. K.M. Jamaludheen, the learned counsel for the appellant/accused would contend primarily that this is a case where there is no proper recovery or identification of the knife which was allegedly used by the appellant/accused to cause injuries on PW5. He would submit that the mahazer witness is a hired witness and not a genuine witness. He would also submit that the knife was not sent for any technical examination to determine the existence or otherwise of any blood stain. He refers to Ext.P1 wound certificate to contend that person who brought PW5 to the hospital (one Gopi) was not examined by the prosecution. He would also point out that Ext.P1 wound certificate does not bear the time at which the PW5 was brought to the hospital. He submitted that the evidence of PWs 6 & 7 who are stated to be eye witness is not sufficient to establish the prosecution case as PW6 has clearly stated that he did not witness the appellant/accused stabbing PW5. He finally submits that the injuries noted in the wound certificate are not sufficient to convict the appellant/accused for an offence under Section 308 of the IPC.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor with reference to the evidence of PWs

5, 6 & 7 would submit that there is clear evidence to suggest that the appellant/accused had stabbed PW5 on account of some animosity arising from the refusal of PW5 to permit the accused to take part in a ‘Kavadi’ associated with a nearby temple. He would refer to the evidence of PW5 would show that the evidence tendered by PW5 was consistent with the evidence given by PWs 6 & 7 who are occurrence witnesses. He submits that though PW6 has stated in the box that he did not actually witness the appellant/accused stabbing PW5, he has tendered evidence to the effect that just before the incident he had seen the appellant/accused and PW5 talking to each other and further that immediately after the incident PW5 had stated that the appellant/accused had stabbed him. It is also submitted that the evidence of PW7 who is an eye witness is very specific in confirming that the appellant/accused had stabbed PW5 with a knife and that the appellant/accused had stabbed PW5 with a knife similar to M.O1. He also submits that M.O1 has been clearly identified by PW5. He would therefore submit that the evidence is consistent with the prosecution case and that the trial court had rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant/accused for an offence punishable under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code.

6. I have gone through the depositions of