Direct evidence of the crime can establish guilt even absent proof of motive.

JUDGMENT

The appellants were the accused in S.C.No.1385 of 2008 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court-IV, Thrissur. They have been found guilty for the offence under Section s 341 , 324 and 307 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, IPC ) and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for varying periods with a maximum of five years under Section 307 r/w Section 34 . The appellants have, in this appeal, challenged the conviction and sentence imposed on them.

2. The prosecution alleges that on 18.11.2006, at around 8.30 p.m., the accused had, in furtherance of their common intention to murder PW4, trespassed into his house and attacked him. While the second accused restrained PW4, the first accused stabbed him with a knife on different parts of his body and when PW2 the son of PW4 tried to intervene, he was also stabbed. The prosecution further alleged that the injured were immediately shifted to a hospital and after a few days of treatment, they survived the attack and hence the accused were charged with the offences including the attempt to murder.

3. Sri. R.Rajit, the learned counsel for the appellants contended that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove their case and without noticing the infirmities in the prosecution case, the learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty which judgment ought to be interfered with. The learned counsel also submitted that the prosecution had failed to recover the weapon of offence and instead, a knife allegedly produced by the first accused is relied upon as the weapon of offence. According to the learned Counsel, in the absence of any statement that led to the discovery of the weapon, the court cannot rely upon the said weapon as that used for commission of the alleged offence. It was also argued that the prosecution had failed to prove the motive for the commission of the offence and therefore the same is also an infirmity in the present case, which entitles the accused to be given the benefit of doubt. The learned counsel further submitted that the material witnesses examined by the prosecution witnesses are all interested witnesses and therefore their testimony is not reliable. The learned counsel further submitted that none of the injuries allegedly inflicted on PW2 and PW4 were fatal and they were only incised wounds without any depth having been measured and those injuries could have been sustained due to other reasons as evident from the deposition of the doctor and therefore the accused ought to be given the benefit of doubt. It was also submitted that the blood stained clothes were never recovered during investigation which is a clear instance of failure of the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and hence the accused ought to be acquitted.

4. Sri. Noushad K.A., the learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand contended that, though the motive as alleged could not be proved, the same is not a reason to discard the prosecution case in its entirety. It was also submitted that the injuries were serious and the evidence adduced by the prosecution is sufficient to conclude that there was a clear attempt to commit murder and hence the impugned judgment does not warrant any interference.

5. I have considered the rival submissions and have also perused the evidence adduced by the prosecution.

6. PW2 is the son of PW4. Both of them were injured. PW2 has specifically given evidence that on 18.11.2006, when he saw his father about to be assaulted by the accused, he ran towards PW4 and by the time he reached him, the 2^nd accused restrained PW4 and the first accused stabbed PW4 repeatedly. PW4 also supported the prosecution case and stated that he was restrained by the 2^nd accused, while the