The court confirmed the convictions under IPC sections for grievous hurt and attempted murder, affirming the reliance on ocular evidence.

ORDER

The concurrent findings of the Assistant Sessions Court, Perumbavoor, and the Additional Sessions Court, North Paravur, convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the commission of the offences under Sections 326 and 307 IPC , are under challenge in this revision petition filed by the accused in the said case.

2. The prosecution case is that on 24.08.2013, at about

8.45 pm, the petitioner / accused physically assaulted PW2 with an iron pipe fitted with a tile cutting blade on its tip portion and caused grievous hurt of fracture of skull and right leg. The case has been registered by the Kalady Police on the basis of the First Information Statement given by PW1, who was said to be there along with PW2, at the time when the petitioner / accused mounted physical assault upon PW2. After the completion of the investigation, the Inspector of Police, Kalady, laid the Final Report alleging the commission of the offences under Sections 326 , 307 and 506(ii) IPC against the petitioner.

3. In the trial before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Perumbavoor, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses as PW1 to PW14, and marked 17 documents as Exts.P1 to P17. Six material objects were identified as MO1 to MO6. From the part of the accused, three witnesses were examined as DW1 to DW3 and one document was marked as Ext.D1 in support of his case that PW2 got injured in an accident, and not due to the physical assault attributed against him. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, after an evaluation of the aforesaid evidence, found that the prosecution had successfully established the commission of the offences under Sections 307 and 326 IPC by the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for four years and fine Rs.25,000/- for the offence under Section 307 , and Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and fine Rs.15,000/- for the offence under Section 326 . Appropriate default sentence terms were also provided for non-payment of fine. It was further directed that the substantive sentence will run concurrently.

4. In the appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, North Paravoor, embarked upon a re-appraisal of the whole evidence and concurred with the findings of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the aforesaid concurrent verdicts of the courts below, the petitioner is here with this revision.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

6. The Trial Court placed heavy reliance upon the evidence tendered by PW1 and PW2 to arrive at the finding that the petitioner has inflicted grievous hurt upon the defacto complainant (PW2) by hitting upon his head and limbs with an iron pipe fitted with a tile cutting blade on the tip portion of it. The evidence tendered by PW3, who took the injured to the hospital, was also relied on to a certain extent for arriving at the finding that the petitioner committed the aforesaid offences. Another witness, which the prosecution examined to establish the occurrence, was PW10. But he turned hostile to the prosecution and did not state before the Trial Court in tune with the prosecution version.

7. The reliance placed by the courts below upon the prosecution evidence has been strongly assailed on multiple grounds. It is stated that the collection of samples and the analysis done at the Forensic Science Laboratory, in respect of MO2 to MO6, which are the wearing apparel of PW2, hair collected from the scene of crime and the soil, which was said to be blood stained, were faulty. The challenge in