The evidence of eyewitnesses and medical evidence can be relied upon to establish the commission of an offense, even if the investigation is found to be lacking in certain aspects.

The appellant is the accused in S.C. No. 252 of 2007 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Adhoc-II), Kottayam and he is challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on him for the offence under Section 326 IPC .

2. The prosecution case is that the accused was employed as a driver in the house of the father-in- law of PW1 at Peroor. Since the conduct and behaviour of the accused was not good, he was subsequently removed from that job. PW1, who is residing at Thiruvananthapuram came to Kottayam along with his business partner on 21.03.2007 for taking his wife and children to Thiruvananthapuram. Subsequently, while PW1 was in his wife's house, at about 9 p.m., the accused reached there and addressed PW1 in obscene words. Thereafter, at about 11 p.m., while PW1 was returning from the house of his friend, Kurian Koshy, at Peroor and when he was about to enter the car parked near the gate of the house of Kurian Koshy, the accused came running with a chopper in his hand and attacked PW1 with the chopper aiming his neck and when PW1 prevented the attack with his left hand, the tip of the chopper caused to hit on his neck and cheek causing injury and he also sustained comminuted fracture to his left hand and the accused is thereby alleged to have committed the offences under Sections 326 and 308 of IPC .

3. In the trial court, when the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge, PWs 1 to 9 were examined and Exhibits P1 to P7 and MO1 were marked from the side of the prosecution and from the side of the accused, Exhibits D1 to D5 were marked.

4. After hearing both sides and considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, as per the impugned judgment dated 05.09.2008, found the accused guilty under Section 326 IPC , convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.

5. Heard Sri. Aneer M. S., the learned counsel representing the learned counsel for the appellant on record and Sri. Vipin Narayan, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor and perused the record.

6. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant/accused is legally sustainable?

7. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that PWs 1 to 4 are interested witnesses and there are serious contradictions and omissions in their evidence and the prosecution has not produced the copy of the x-ray or treatment records of PW1 to prove that he sustained grievous hurt to attract the offence under Section 326 IPC . It is also argued that MO1, chopper, was not sent for forensic examination and that the Investigating Officer has not seized the dress worn by PW1 at the time of occurrence and the prosecution has also not examined any independent witness and therefore, the accused is entitled for the benefit of reasonable doubt.

8. The learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that the evidence of PW1, the injured victim, is supported by the evidence of PWs 2 to 4 regarding the occurrence and there is no reason to doubt the presence of PWs 2 to 4 at the place of occurrence and therefore, they are natural witnesses. It is also pointed out that the evidence of PW5 doctor and Exhibit P2, wound certificate, also corroborate the evidence of PW1 regarding the injury sustained and there is no material contradiction or omission in the evidence of the material witnesses, who supported the prosecution, and in that circumstance, there is no reason to interfere with the findings in the impugned judgment.

9. PW1 deposed that the incident occurred in between 10.30 p.m. and 11.30 p.m., on 21.03.2007 while he was returning from the house of Kurian Koshy at Peroor. According to PW1, while he was about to enter his vehicle, the accused came running by asking ‘will you remove me from job’ and attacked him with a chopper aiming his