Credible testimony and corroborative evidence, including weapon recovery, can uphold conviction for grievous bodily harm under Section 326 IPC.

JUDGMENT

The accused in Sessions case 777/2011 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Vatakara, who has been convicted of the offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC ) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, has come up in appeal. The prosecution case is that on 02.08.2006 with a chopper at the house of the victim, the appellant cut off her right hand and thus committed the offence under Section 307 . The trial ended in his conviction for the offence under . The order of conviction and the sentence are challenged.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant (State Brief) and the learned Public Prosecutor.

3. The victim was examined as PW1. The appellant is husband of her niece. Both of them were residing in the same house with the members of their families.

4. It is seen from the testimony of PW7 Dr.Ravikumar of Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode and Ext.P6 discharge certificate issued by him that the right upper limb of PW1 was amputated at wrist level. Immediately after the occurrence PW1 was taken to government hospital, Nadapuram, from where she was referred to the Medical College. Ext.P5 is said to be the wound certificate issued by the doctor of the hospital at Nadapuram. But this document has not been proved properly. It was marked through the investigating officer. So it cannot be acted upon. But the testimony of PW7 and Ext.P6 issued by him prove that PW1 sustained grievous hurt.

5. The prosecution relied on the evidence of the victim (PW1) and her son PW2 Sasi and his wife PW3 Chandri to prove the occurrence. Their evidence is substantially the same. According to them, between 8 and 9 in the night on the date of the occurrence, a quarrel took place between the appellant and his wife. PW1 attempted to separate them, when the appellant struck her with a chopper. Her right hand was cut off completely. She along with the cut off hand was taken to the hospital at Nadapuram. There was a hurricane lamp burning in the house when the incident took place. There are some minor discrepancies in their evidence, which is quite natural. But nothing could be brought out in the cross-examination to show that their evidence is false. It was not even suggested to them that they could not identify the assailant properly. There is no reason for them to raise a false allegation against the appellant.

6. On 21.08.2006 the appellant surrendered before the learned magistrate concerned, who remanded him to the judicial custody. PW6 C.I. of Police obtained his custody on application. The prosecution relies on recovery of MO1 chopper through him to prove that it was with that weapon PW1 was assaulted. It came out in the evidence of PW6 C.I. of Police that on the information given by the appellant while he was in custody that he had concealed the weapon in a property it was recovered. This was not challenged in the cross-examination effectively. So the recovery of MO1 also corroborates the testimony of PW1 to PW3 that the appellant was the assailant of PW1. I do not find any reason to disagree with the conclusion reached by the learned trial judge that the appellant assaulted PW1 with MO1 causing loss of her right hand. He was rightly convicted of the offence under Section 326 IPC . The sentence imposed on the appellant is rigorous imprisonment for four years and a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of the fine, simple imprisonment for two months. It cannot be said to be harsh having regard to the facts of the case. This appeal is liable to be dismissed.

In the result, this appeal is dismissed.