The prosecution's reliance on credible testimony can uphold convictions despite hostile witnesses, while procedural irregularities are insufficient to undermine guilt if substantive evidence exists.

O R D E R

The concurrent findings of conviction and sentence under Section 326 I.P.C of the Assistant Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta and Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc) Fast Track-II, Pathanamthitta in S.C No.24/1998 and Crl.A No.81/2003 respectively, are under challenge in this revision filed at the instance of the accused in the aforesaid case.

2. The prosecution case is that on 06.09.1996 at about 6:00 p.m, the petitioner splashed acid upon the face of PW8 causing serious burn injuries including the privation of the right eye sight. The reason for the assault is said to be the enmity which the petitioner nurtured with PW8 due to the act of PW8 who maintained illicit relationship with PW7 who is the half sister of the petitioner. In connection with the above incident, the Circle Inspector of Police, Konni laid the final report alleging the commission of offence under Section 307 I.P.C.

3. In the trial before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses as PW1 to PW13, and brought on record 14 documents as Exts.P1 to P14. The petitioner did not opt to adduce any defence evidence. After analysing the above evidence, the Assistant Sessions Judge found the petitioner guilty of commission of offence under Section 326 I.P.C and convicted him thereunder. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine Rs.10,000/- with a default clause of rigorous imprisonment for one year. Though the petitioner challenged the aforesaid verdict in appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge who considered the appeal concurred with the findings of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence. It is aggrieved by the above concurrent verdicts of the Courts below that the petitioner is here before this Court with this revision petition.

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

5. Among the witnesses examined from the part of the prosecution, PW1 and PW2, the independent witnesses turned hostile and discredited the prosecution story. However, PW7, the lady with whom the injured (PW8) was said to be having relationship, supported the prosecution case. So also, PW8 tendered evidence, narrating the incident in clear and convincing terms. In addition to that, the medical evidence let in by the prosecution through the examination of PW9 and PW13, the Doctors who treated PW8, corroborated the nature of burn injuries sustained by PW8. It is by relying on the aforesaid evidence, that the Trial Court and the Appellate Court found the petitioner guilty of Section 326 I.P.C, and proceeded with the conviction and sentence.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the Trial Court and the Appellate Court ought not have relied on the interested testimonies of PW7 and PW8 towards finding the guilt of the accused. It is further pointed out that the independent witnesses examined as PW1 and PW2 turned hostile to the prosecution, and that the prosecution did not examine the other available independent witness, who was cited as CW3 in the final report. I am not inclined to accept the above argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner to displace the concurrent findings of the Courts below. It is well settled that the mere interestedness of the witnesses is not a ground to eschew their evidence, if it is found otherwise trustworthy. As far as the present case is concerned, the Courts below, after analysing the evidence of PW7 and PW8, arrived at the categoric finding that those witnesses are trustworthy and reliable. In the above circumstances, the non-examination of