The court affirmed that a victim's credible testimony, corroborated by medical evidence, can sustain a conviction even in the absence of independent witnesses.

JUDGMENT

In this appeal filed under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C., the appellant who is the accused in S.C.No.237/2013 on the file of the Court of Session, Kasaragod challenges the conviction entered and sentence passed against him for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC .

2. The prosecution case is that the accused on account of his previous enmity to PW1 and with the intention of voluntarily causing hurt to him, on 01/02/2013 at 12:30 p.m. stabbed PW1 on his abdomen and chest causing injuries. Had PW1 not resisted the attack by the accused, it would have resulted in causing much more serious injuries on his abdomen sufficient to cause his death. Hence, as per the final report the accused is alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Sections 326 and 308 IPC .

3. Based on Ext.P1 FIS of PW1 recorded on 02/02/2013 by PW6, the Head Constable, Badiadka police station, crime no.65/2013, that is, Ext.P5 FIR was registered. Investigation was taken over by PW7, Sub Inspector, Badiadka who completed the investigation and submitted the charge sheet before the Court, alleging the commission of the aforesaid offences.

4. The jurisdictional magistrate after complying with all the necessary formalities contemplated under Section 209 Cr.P.C., committed the case to the Court of Session, Kasaragod. The case was taken on file as S.C.No.237/2013 and made over to Additional Sessions Judge-III, Kasaragod, for trial and disposal.

5. After the appearance of the accused before the trial court, on 10/11/2014 a charge under Sections 326 and 308 IPC was framed, read over and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty.

6. On behalf of the prosecution, PW1 to PW7 were examined and Exts.P1 to P12 and MO.1 were got marked in support of the case. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution. The accused denied all those circumstances and maintained his innocence.

7. As the trial court did not find it a fit case to acquit the accused under Section 232 Cr.P.C., he was asked to enter on his defence and adduce evidence in support thereof. Ext.D1 is the contradiction brought out in the statement of PW1.

8. 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 of the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC and hence sentenced him to simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to a fine of ₹15,000/- and in default to simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The accused has been directed to deposit the fine amount on or before 20/02/2016. Out of the fine amount if realized, an amount of ₹10,000/- has been directed to be given to PW1 as compensation under Section 357 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. Aggrieved, the accused has come up in appeal.

9. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the conviction entered and sentence passed against the accused by the trial court are sustainable or not.

10. Heard both sides.

11. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the accused/appellant that the evidence on record is totally unsatisfactory to find the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. There is an unexplained delay in registering the crime and the FIR reaching the Court. No independent witnesses have been examined. There is only the testimony of PW1 the injured, in support of the prosecution case. None of the other witnesses who had witnessed the incident or the witnesses who were present at the place of occurrence, have been examined. PW1 and his other family members are involved in several criminal cases. The testimony of PW1 is not credible. The accused and PW1 are in inimical terms and because of this enmity, the present false case has been foisted against him. In the light of the unsatisfactory evidence on record, the accused is entitled to