Ocular evidence can suffice to affirm convictions in assault cases even with inconsistent testimonies and lack of weapon recovery.

J U D G M E N T

In this appeal filed under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C , the appellants who are accused nos.1, 3 and 4 in S.C.No.759/2012 on the file of the Court of Session, Palakkad, challenges the conviction entered and sentence passed against them for the offences punishable under Sections 34 1 , 326 and 427 read with Section 34 IPC .

2. The prosecution case as stated in the final report/charge sheet is - PW1 and the first accused (A1) were earlier friends. But later on, they fell out and due to this enmity, accused nos.1 to 4 (A1 to A4) with the intention of causing the death of PW1, on 19/04/2012 at 12:30 a.m. arrived at the scene of occurrence in motor cycles and autorickshaws armed with swords. A1 exhorted the other accused to kill PW1 (വ(cid:2)ട(cid:4)വ(cid:5)(cid:6)വ(cid:7)ട(cid:6)) and then A1 wrongly restrained PW1 by holding him by his neck and with MO.1 sword hacked him on his forehead ; lips and both legs causing grievous injuries. A2 to A4 who were also armed with swords, hacked CW1 on his legs; back; thighs and on various parts of his body. Thus, the accused are alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 34 1 , 324, 427 and 307 read with Section 34 IPC .

3. PW2, a friend of PW1 and eye-witness gave Ext.P1 FIS on 19/04/2012 at 15:00 hrs to PW12, a senior civil police officer, North Police Station, Palakkad, on the basis of which crime no.766/2012, North Police Station, Palakkad, that is, Ext.P5 FIR was registered by CW14. PW10, the then Circle Inspector, Town North Police Station, conducted the investigation and submitted the final report against the accused persons before the jurisdictional magistrate, who after complying with the legal formalities, committed the case to the Court of Session, Palakkad. The case was thereafter made over to the Additional District and Sessions Judge-III for trial and disposal.

4. On appearance of the accused persons before the trial court, copies of all the prosecution records were given to them. On 20/08/2014 a charge under Sections 34 1 , 324, 427 and 307 read with Section 34 IPC was framed, read over and explained to the accused to which they pleaded not guilty. During the pendency of the trial, A2 died and hence the charge against him stood abated. 5. On behalf of the prosecution, PW1 to PW14 were examined, Exts.P1 to P15 and MO.1 and MO.II series were got marked in support of the case. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused were questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C . with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution. All the accused persons denied those circumstances and maintained their innocence.

6. As the trial Court did not find it a fit case to acquit the accused under Section 232 Cr.P.C ., they were asked to enter on their defence and adduce evidence in support thereof. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused.

7. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, the trial court by the impugned judgment found the accused guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 34 1 , 326 and 427 read with Section 34 IPC . They have been acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C . for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with . The accused have been sentenced to a fine of ₹500/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 7 days each for the offence punishable under 1 read with ; to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years each and to a fine of ₹10,000/- each and in default to rigorous imprisonment for 3 months each for the offence punishable under Section 326 read with and to rigorous im