The conviction under Section 308 of IPC was upheld based on sufficient eyewitness and medical evidence establishing the accused's intent and the severity of the injuries inflicted.

ORDER

Under challenge in this revision petition is the conviction and sentence rendered against the revision petitioner under Section 308 of IPC .

2. The revision petitioner is the sole accused in S.C.No.307 of 2014 on the files of the Assistant Sessions Court, Chavakkad. He stood trial before that court for committing an offence punishable under Section 308 of IPC .

3. The prosecution case is that on

14.01.2014 at about 10.00 p.m, while PW1 was returning home and when he reached in front of Biju Hotel at Guruvayoor, the accused came from the opposite direction and picked up a quarrel with PW6, who was accompanying him. When PW1 tried to pacify, the accused stabbed him with a knife on his back. It is alleged that the accused also tried to stab on the neck of PW1 and he timely evaded the attack.

4. The trial court, on an elaborate appreciation of the evidence on record, found the accused guilty of committing an offence punishable under Section 308 of IPC and convicted him thereunder. It sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- under of , with a default clause.

5. The accused carried the matter in appeal by filing Crl.A.No.14 of 2015 before the Additional Sessions Court-III, Thrissur. The said court, by judgment dated 23.05.2015, dismissed the appeal. 6. Heard Sri.Adv.Lavaraj M.G, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Smt.Maya M.N, the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the records.

7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that even if the entire prosecution evidence is accepted in toto, the offence under Section 308 of IPC is not attracted in this case. He also submitted that the independent witnesses examined by the prosecution has turned hostile and the evidence of PW1 and PW6 are not believable. He further submitted that the identification evidence of PW1 and PW6 is also not credible, since the incident has taken place during night time and no light was available.

8. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgments and contended that there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 9. The evidence on record goes to show that both the trial court and the appellate court have placed heavy reliance upon the evidence of PW1 and PW6, who are the injured and the eye witnesses to reach a conclusion of guilt against the accused. The evidence of PW1, the injured, is to the effect that, on 14.01.2014 at about 10.00 p.m, while he was returning home along with PW6 and when they reached near Biju Hotel, the accused who came from the opposite direction, got into contact with the body of PW6. It resulted in an altercation between them and when PW1 tried to intervene, the accused stabbed him on his back using a knife. Thereafter, the accused also aimed at the neck of PW1 using the knife, but he timely evaded the attack and the knife fell upon his left hand, causing serious injuries. Thereafter, the accused fled from the scene. He identified the accused and the weapon used to attack him as MO1. His evidence also shows that immediately thereafter, he was taken to Rajah Hospital and from there, to Medical College Hospital where he underwent 18 days treatment as inpatient. He further stated that his left hand is now paralysed due to the attack and that sufficient street lights were available at the place, in order to identify the accused and the weapon used by him. It is to be seen that the evidence of PW6, who was accompanying PW1, also supports the evidence of PW1 regarding the events and the involvement of the accused. Even though these witnesses have been cross- exami