The testimony of the injured party can establish guilt even in the absence of independent corroboration, and sentences may be modified for leniency based on the time elapsed since the incident.

JUDGMENT

Accused Nos.1 to 3 in S.C.No.26 of 2004 before the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc)-I, Pathanamthitta are the appellants. They were convicted for the offences under Sections 324 and 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 ( IPC ). They were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,500/- each under Section 324 and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- each under Section 326 of the . The said judgment is under challenge in this appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 (Code).

2. The case of the prosecution was the following:

At about 9.30 p.m. on 11.12.2002 PW1 Somasekharan Nair was returning to his house from his Tharavad house along Kanamukku-Andhyalankavu Road. When he reached Kanamukku, accused Nos.1 to 4 were waiting there. The 1^st accused uttering that why did he file a case against the 1^st accused, he hit at the head of PW1 using a stone. When he fell down, the 2^nd accused beat him using an iron pipe at his left hand and also at both of his legs. The 3^rd accused stabbed him using a knife at left shoulder. PW1, as a result of that attack, sustained grievous hurt. It was an attempt on his life.

3. At the trial, Pws.1 to 11 were examined and Exts.P1 to P9 were marked. During Section 313 examination the accused maintained that they were innocent. The trial court after hearing both sides, found accused Nos.1 to 3, the appellants herein, guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 326 read with Section 34 of the IPC . Although charged, they were not found guilty of the offence under Section 308 of the . Accused Nos.4 was acquitted. The appellants assail the findings of the trial court as wrong and illegal.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. PW1, the injured, alone deposed regarding the incident. PWs.2, 3 and 6 were cited and examined as occurrence witnesses. But they denied having witnessed the incident. It was PW6 Thankappan Nair along with father of PW1, who took the injured to the hospital. Dr.Koshy examined and treated PW1. Exts.P2 and P3 are the treatment and wound certificate of PW1. Although Dr.Koshy, who examined PW1, was not examined, the certificate issued by him was duly proved through PW4 Dr.Ajith C.George. From their evidence and Exts.P2 and P3, injuries sustained by PW1 have been duly proved. He sustained grievous hurt, inasmuch as the injuries sustained by him includes fracture of bone of the left hand and both legs. From the oral testimony of PW1 and the evidence tendered by PW4, it is proved that PW1 had sustained such grievous hurt as a consequence of his manhandling at about 9.30 p.m. on 11.12.2002.

6. When Pws.2, 3 and 5 failed to state anything about the assault on PW1 by the appellants, the evidence that can be depended upon by the prosecution is that of PW1 alone. Of course, PW6 stated that on hearing hue and cry he reached the spot to find PW1 with injuries and he along with the father of PW1 took him in a jeep to the hospital. PW6 did not see the incident or the assailants. From the evidence of PW6, it can be seen that the incident took place near to his house and PW1 had serious injuries. It was at about 9.30 p.m. on 11.12.2002. The question therefore is whether the evidence of PW1 coupled with Ext.P1 F.I.Statement would prove that the appellants were the assailants.

7. The overt act of the appellants/accused Nos.1 to 3 stated by PW1 are cogent. The 1^st appellant hit at his forehead using a stone. The 2^nd appellant beat him using an iron pipe on his left hand and both legs, resulting in fracture of bones and the 3^rd appellant inflicted a cut injury using a knife at his right shoulder. As regards the aforesaid overt acts