The evidence must substantiate charges effectively; corroborative testimony and procedural integrity are essential for a conviction under the IPC.

1. This Criminal Appeal is directed as against the judgement dated 22.02.2018, passed in S.C.No.319 of 2013 by the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram, (Fast Track Mahila Court) Vellore, thereby convicting the appellants for the offences under S.326 and S.307 r/w 34 of IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 02.08.2012 at about 06.30 a.m., in the land belonged to one Pavithra situated at Marakandigail village, while the witnesses were standing in the house site, the accused A1 to A4, due to previous enmity arised out of land dispute, with common intention to commit murder, carrying deadly weapons like knife, crowbar and wooden log, uttered obscene words against the witnesses by saying
In furtherance of the same, the accused A - 1 with common intention to cause death of the witness Chinnakulandai assaulted him with crowbar on back side of his head, left thigh, the accused A - 3 and A - 4 assaulted the witness Chinnakulandai with wooden log on his hand and thereby causing simple hurt to him and when the witness Chinnaponnu intervened, A - 2 assaulted her with knife on her left eyebrow, right hand and right leg and thereby caused grievous hurt and the accused A - 3 and A - 4 assaulted the witness Chinnaponnu with wooden log on her left thigh and also assaulted the defacto complainant Pavithra with wooden log on her left back and right index finger and thereby caused simple injures to them. Hence the complaint.

3. After completion of investigation, the respondent filed charge sheet and the same has been taken cognizance in S.C.No.319 of 2013 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram, (Fast Track Mahila Court) Vellore, for the offences under S.294(b), S.326, S.324 (2 counts) and 307 of IPC as against four accused persons. The trial Court framed charges for the offence under S.294(b), S.326, S.307 of IPC as against the first accused. As far as the second accused, the trial Court framed charged for the offences under S.294(b), S.326, S.307 r/w 34 of IPC and the charges for the offences under S.294(b), S.324 (3 counts) 307 r/w 34 of IPC were framed as against the accused 3 and 4.

4. On the side of the prosecution, they examined P.W.1 to P.W.10 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.16. The prosecution produced material objects in M.O.1 to M.O.4. On the side of the accused, no one was examined and no document was marked. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence the trial Court acquitted the accused A - 3 and A - 4 and convicted the first accused for the offence under S.307 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The trial Court also convicted the second accused for the offence under S.326 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.4,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and also convicted for the offence under S.307 r/w 34 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo sever years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.6,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment of one month. Insofar as the accused A - 3 and A - 4 are concerned, the trial Court found not guilty for the offences under S.294(b), S.324 (3 counts) and 307 r/w 34 of IPC, and acquitted them. Aggrieved by the same, the accused A - 1 and A - 2 preferred this appeal.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the weapon allegedly used in the crime was pr