1. The appellant is the accused in S.C. No. 258 of 2011 on the file of the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, North Paravur and he is challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on him for the offence under Section 307 IPC.

2. The prosecution case is that the accused and PW3 are members of Jacobite Syrian church, North Paravur and during the General Body meeting of the parish on 28.09.2008, there occurred a scuffle between the accused and PW3. For the reason that PW3 preferred a complaint to the police in that connection, the accused attacked PW3 with a sword on 05.01.2009 at about 8.30 p.m., while PW3 was passing urine on the side of the way near his house. It is stated that the accused inflicted severe cut injuries on various parts of the body of PW3 by uttering that he will kill PW3 and the accused is thereby, alleged to have attempted to commit the murder of PW3.

3. On the basis of Exhibit P1, First Information Statement of PW2– the elder brother of the injured, PW9, Sub Inspector, registered Exhibit P4 FIR and PW11, Circle Inspector, conducted the initial investigation and thereafter, PW12, Circle Inspector, completed the investigation and filed the final report.

4. Before the trial court, when the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 12 and Exhibits P1 to P14 and MO1 were marked and no evidence adduced from the side of the accused.

5. After hearing both sides and considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial court convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 307 IPC.

6. Heard Sri. P.S. Anishad, the learned State Brief appearing for the appellant and Sri. Alex M. Thombra, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor and perused the records.

7. The learned State Brief appearing for the appellant argued that the evidence of PW12, Circle Inspector, regarding the alleged recovery of MO1 on the basis of the alleged disclosure statement of the accused, is not supported by any independent evidence and the same is not reliable. It is also argued that PWs 2, 6 and 7 are close relatives of PW3, injured, and the prosecution has not examined any independent witness and therefore, the accused is entitled for the benefit of reasonable doubt.

8. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of PW3, injured victim, regarding the occurrence is supported by the evidence of PWs 2, 6 and 7, who witnessed the occurrence, and even though they are seriously cross examined, no material omission or contradiction was brought out to discredit their evidence in chief examination and considering the time and place of occurrence, there is nothing to disbelieve the evidence of PWs 2, 6 and 7 that they witnessed the incident that occurred near to their house.

9. PW3 deposed that the incident occurred at about 8.30 p.m., on 05.01.2009 in front of the eastern gate of his house. According to PW3, after attending a marriage function, he was returning to his house, and while he was urinating on the side of the way, someone inflicted a cut injury on his back and when he turned, he saw the accused uttering that he will kill him and attacking him with a sword aiming at his neck. PW3 stated that he prevented the attack with his hand and then the accused again attacked him with the sword and he sustained injuries on his back, shoulder, hands and legs. PW3 stated that his elder brother, sisters and younger brother came there and then the accused threatened his elder brother with the sword and ran away. PW3 also deposed that the accused was inimical towards him for the reason that there occurred a scuffle in the General Body meeting of the church. PW3 identified the accused and MO1 sword before the court.

10. PW2 is the elder brother of PW3. According to PW2, at about 8.30 p.m., on 05.01.2009, while he was sitting in his house, he heard the cries of his younger brother and when he came out of the house, he saw the accused attacking PW3 with a sword. According to PW2, the accused also threatened him with the sword and when people gathered there, the accused ran away. PW2 identified his signature in Exhibit P1, First Information Statement, and he also identified MO1 sword and the accused before the court.

11. PW6 is the wife of PW3 and PW7 is the wife of PW2 and their evidence shows that they also came out the house along with PW2 on hearing the cries of PW3 and saw the accused attacking PW3 with a sword. PWs 7 and 8 also identified the accused and MO1 sword before the court.

12. PW5 is the Village Assistant who prepared Exhibit P3 scene plan. PWs 4 and 8 are attestors to Exhibit P2, seizure mahazar, for the recovery of MO1 sword. The evidence of PW12, Circle Inspector, shows that he arrested the accused and on the basis of Exhibit P2(a), disclosure statement of the accused, he effected recovery of MO1 sword. Exhibit P12 is the copy of the forwarding note and Exhibit P13 is the report of the chemical analysis which shows that blood was detected in the sword; but, its origin could not be detected for want of sufficient quantity.

13. The learned State Brief appearing for the appellant argued that even though the alleged recovery of MO1, as per Exhibit P2 mahazar, was on 29.04.2010, the property was produced before the court only on 24.05.2010 and Exhibit P11, property list, would show that the sword seized was not packed or sealed, when the same was produced before the court. In Exhibit P12, copy of the forwarding note also, there is nothing to show that the sword was packed or sealed and the specimen seal is also not seen affixed in the forwarding note.

14. It is well settled that investigation is not the solitary area for judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial and even if the investigation is illegal or even suspicious, the rest of the evidence must be scrutinized independently and criminal justice should not be made a casualty for the wrongs committed by the investigating officers in the case and if the court is convinced that the testimony of a witness to the occurrence is true, the court is free to act on it, irrespective of the suspicious role of the investigating officers in the case, as held by the Honourable Supreme Court in State of Karnataka vs. K. Yarappa Reddy [(1999) 8 SCC 715].

15. In Balu Sudam Khalde and another v. State of Maharashtra [2023 Livelaw (SC) 279], the Honourable Supreme Court held that the following legal principles are required to be kept in mind, while appreciating the evidence of an injured witness:

                  “(a) The presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his deposition.

                  (b)      Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused.

                  (c)      The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly.

                  (d)      The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions.

                  (e)      If there be any exaggeration or immaterial embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness, then such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment should be discarded from the evidence of injured, but not the whole evidence.

                  (f)      The broad substratum of the prosecution version must be taken into consideration and discrepancies which normally creep due to loss of memory with passage of time should be discarded.”

16. In the present case, PWs 2, 6 and 7 are eye witnesses to the occurrence and PW3 is the injured victim. Even though, the said witnesses were seriously cross examined, no material discrepancy affecting the credibility of their evidence is brought out and mere variations in the narration of the incident cannot be accepted as a material discrepancy, in as much as the witnesses cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory to narrate the details of the incident in the same manner. It is well settled that, ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in a short time span. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that there is nothing to disbelieve the presence of PWs 2, 3, 6 and 7 at the time and place of occurrence and in the absence of any material contradiction in their deposition, I find that their evidence regarding the occurrence is reliable.

17. PW10 is the doctor who examined PW3 at Medical Trust Hospital, Ernakulam on 05.01.2009 at 9.35 p.m and issued Exhibit P5, wound certificate. The evidence of PW10 and Exhibit P5 shows that PW3 sustained the following injuries:

                  1. Incised wound on the right infra scapular region, oblique downwards and laterally, 24 x 2 cm, muscles injuries

                  2. Incised wound on the right shoulder 4 x 1.5 cm superiorly.

                  3. Incised wound on the right shoulder superiorly 4 x 1.5 cm. 2 cm away from the 2nd wound in the same line.

                  4. Incised wound on the left hand medially over the palm extending to the dorsum of wrist 20 x 3.5 cm muscles and neurovascular bundle cut.

                  5. Incised wound on the left leg laterally 16 x 2 cm with muscular cut.

                  6. Linear contusion on the left arm medially 1 cm wide, vertically placed.

18. In cross examination, PW10 denied the suggestion of the defence that the injuries noted in Exhibit P5 cannot be caused by using MO1. Exhibit P3, scene plan, and the position of the electric post and electric bulb within a short distance from the place of occurrence corroborates the evidence of the injured and the occurrence witness that there was sufficient light for them to identify the accused.

19. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor pointed out that Exhibit P1, First Information Statement of PW2, was recorded while he was in the hospital at 11 p.m., on 05.01.2009 and Exhibit P4 FIR reached the court on 06.01.2009. The evidence of PWs 2 and 3 regarding the occurrence tallies with the narration of the incident in Exhibit P1, First Information Statement. Even though, a First Information report is not a piece of substantive evidence, great importance is attached to a prompt FIR, as it reduces the chances of improvement of the prosecution story and has great value in ascertaining the truth.

20. In Jage Ram v. State of Haryana [(2015) 11 SCC 366], it is held as follows:

                  "12. For the purpose of conviction under Section 307 IPC, the prosecution has to establish (i) the intention to commit murder; and (ii) the act done by the accused. The burden is on the prosecution that the accused had attempted to commit the murder of the prosecution witness. Whether the accused person intended to commit murder of another person would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. To justify a conviction under Section 307 IPC, it is not essential that fatal injury capable of causing death should have been caused. Although the nature of injury actually caused may be of assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be adduced from other circumstances. The intention of the accused is to be gathered from the circumstances like the nature of the weapon used, words used by the accused at the time of the incident, motive of the accused, parts of the body where the injury was caused and the nature of injury and severity of the blows given, etc."

21. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Saleem [(2005) 5 SCC 554], the Honourable Supreme Court held as follows:

                  “12. To justify a conviction under this section, it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. Although the nature of injury actually caused may often give considerable assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be deduced from other circumstances, and may even, in some cases, be ascertained without any reference at all to actual wounds. The section makes a distinction between an act of the accused and its result, if any. Such an act may not be attended by any result so far as the person assaulted is concerned, but still there may be cases in which the culprit would be liable under this section. It is not necessary that the injury actually caused to the victim of the assault should be sufficient under ordinary circumstances to cause the death of the person assaulted. What the court has to see is whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the section. An attempt in order to be criminal need not be the penultimate act. It is sufficient in law, if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof.

                  13. It is sufficient to justify a conviction under Section 307 if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. It is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. The section makes a distinction between the act of the accused and its result, if any. The court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the section. Therefore, an accused charged under Section 307 IPC cannot be acquitted merely because the injuries inflicted on the victim were in the nature of a simple hurt.”

22. On a careful re-appreciation of the entire evidence, I find that the evidence of PWs 2, 3, 6 and 7 regarding the occurrence is supported by the medical evidence of PW10 doctor and Exhibit P5, wound certificate, and it is in evidence that the accused attacked PW3 with MO1 sword uttering to kill him and therefore, considering the nature of the weapon and the injuries on the vital parts of the body of PW3, I find no reason to disagree with the finding of the trial court that the accused committed the act with the intention to kill PW3 and with the knowledge that death will be caused and therefore, I find that the trial court has rightly convicted the accused for the offence under Section 307 IPC.

23. The learned State Brief appearing for the appellant also argued for a lenient view in the matter of sentence. It is well settled that sentence cannot be reduced merely on account of lapse of time without considering the nature of offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed. It is also well settled that courts must not only keep in view the rights of the criminal, but also the rights of the victim and the society at large while considering the imposition of appropriate punishment and therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the gravity of the offence committed by the accused, I find no reason to interfere with the sentence imposed by the trial court and therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court as against the accused for the offence under Section 307 of IPC are confirmed.

24. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The bail bond executed by the accused/appellant shall stand cancelled and he is directed to surrender before the trial court forthwith to undergo sentence, failing which the trial court is directed to execute the sentence without fail.

Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the jurisdictional court for compliance and further steps.