Judgment :- 1. The appeal arises out of the Judgment of conviction and sentence made in S.C.No.334 of 2005 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Tirupattur, Vellore District, whereby, the accused was convicted for the offence under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to undergo four years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo six months simple imprisonment. 2. The respondent Police filed a charge sheet against the accused stating that on 25.08.2004 at 5.00 a.m. the accused assaulted one Jeyakumar in respect of money transaction with an intention to commit murder at Nattampalli-Krishnagiril Road near new Bridge, thereby, committed offence under Section 307 IPC. 3. The case of the prosecution is as follows: (i) P.W.2-Vijayakumar is the brother of P.W.9-Subramani @ Mani. The accused is the friend of P.W.2. P.W.2 is doing agricultural work and residing at Kurlarpalli. When P.W.2 was going to Sivagurupur, where P.W.9 is residing along with his wife, the accused, Errappan borrowed a sum of Rs.10,000/-from P.W.2 for his daughter's marriage and since P.W.9 suspected P.W.2 that he is having illicit intimacy with his wife, a quarrel arose between P.W.2 and P.W.9. Therefore, P.W.2 took a girl, namely, one Jothi, who is the daughter of Vankatpathy and they resided at Bangalore for 10 days. Thereafter, the accused and one Mani took P.W.2 to Kurlarpalli. P.W.9 assaulted P.W.2. Therefore, P.W.2 demanded money from Errappan. But, Errappan handed over only a sum of Rs.3,000/- and the balance amount is yet to be repaid. Then, Errappan took P.W.2 to Tamil Nadu. (ii) On 24.08.2004, they came to Akimanipet where the accused's concubine is residing there. Thereafter, they returned to Vaniyampadi and they went to Lakshmipuram. Till 9.00 p.m. they were chatting with the Teacher at Lakshmipuram and after taking food, they returned to Nattrampalayam-Toll Gate. At that time, they came to know that there was no bus service after 10.30 p.m. and they stayed there. The very next day morning, i.e. on 25.08.2004, they went to the Tea Shop and took tea, at that time, a wordy quarrel arose between them. The accused took P.W.2 near the bye-pass road leading to Nattrampalli and when they reached the bridge, P.W.2 demanded money from the accused. The very next day morning, i.e. on 25.08.2004, they went to the Tea Shop and took tea, at that time, a wordy quarrel arose between them. The accused took P.W.2 near the bye-pass road leading to Nattrampalli and when they reached the bridge, P.W.2 demanded money from the accused. Having got enraged with P.W.2's demand of money, the accused abused him and silt his throat with M.O.1 and also caused injury on his thigh. Thereafter, the accused escaped from that place. P.W.2 came near the Tea Shop with injuries and fell down, at that time, P.W.1-Annadurai and P.W.3-Jegadeesan took him to Tiruppatur Government Hospital, where, P.W.7-Dr.Prameswari, treated him at 7.40 a.m. and at that time, he told that he was assaulted by a known person at 5.00 a.m. near the Toll Gate. P.W.7 pointed out the injuries, sustained by him and sent Ex.P4-Intimation to the concerned Police Station and issued Ex.P5-wound certificate. For further treatment, P.W.2 was referred to the Government Hospital, Vellore, where P.W.8-Senthamarai Kannan treated him. (iii) P.W.10-Vincent Paul, who was working as Sub Inspector of Police during that period, received the intimation and went to Tiruppattur Government Hospital. Since P.W.2 was not able to give statement, he examined P.W.1 and recorded P.W.1's statement as complaint under Ex.P1. He returned back to the Police Station and registered a case in Crime No.658 of 2004 under Section 307 IPC at 11.00 a.m. FIR was marked as Ex.P6. P.W.11-G.Ganesan, Inspector of Police, received a copy of FIR and went to the place of occurrence, where he prepared Ex.P7-Observation mahazar in the presence of P.W.5-Chamundi, Muniraj. He also drew Ex.P8-Rough Sketch. At 17.30 hrs., he seized the Material Objects, M.O.5 to M.O.8 in the place of occurrence under Ex.P9. On that day, he examined P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 and recorded their statements and he went to the Hospital and recovered M.O.2 to M.O.4 from P.W.2 in the presence of P.W.4-Thomas under Ex.P2 and examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. On 30.08.2004 at 13.45 hrs. he arrested the accused near Pacchur Railway Station in the presence of P.W.5-Chamundi, Muniraj, at that time, the accused gave confession statement and the admissible portion of the confession statement was marked as Ex.P10 and seized M.O.1 under Ex.P3. He produced the accused before the Judicial custody and forwarded the material objects to the concerned Court. He examined the other witnesses. He produced the accused before the Judicial custody and forwarded the material objects to the concerned Court. He examined the other witnesses. After concluding investigation, he filed a charge sheet against the accused under Section 307 IPC. 3. The learned Sessions Judge after following the procedure framed necessary charges against the accused. Since he pleaded not guilty, on the side of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.11 were examined as witnesses and Exs.P1 to P10 were marked as documents and M.O.1 to M.O.8 were marked. After considering the evidence of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused for the offence under Section 307 IPC and sentenced as above. 4. Challenging the conviction and sentence, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted the following points: i) the identity of the accused itself is doubtful. ii) P.W.6, who is an eye-witness and P.W.9 were turned hostile. iii) there is a contradictory statement in respect of seizure of M.O.1 iv) the arrest of the accused is doubtful. 5. Resisting the same, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that the identity of the accused is not doubtful. In the evidence of P.W.2, he mentioned that he was assaulted by the appellant and the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3 is also corroborating the same. As soon as, he was admitted in the Hospital, where he told that he was assaulted by a known person. So the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and Ex.P5 clearly proved that the accused alone caused injury. Hence, the prosecution has proved that the accused is guilt of offence. Merely because, P.W.6 and P.W.9 were turned hostile, the same will not vitiate the conviction. He further submitted that there is no material contradiction between the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3. The arrest of the accused has been proved by P.W.5 and P.W.11. Therefore, the trial Court has correctly considered all the aspects in a proper perspective and convicted the accused under Section 307 IPC. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of this appeal. 6. Now, this Court has to decide whether the trial Court is correct in convicting the accused under Section 307 IPC?. The first argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the identity of the accused is doubtful. At this juncture, it is appropriate to consider the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 and Ex.P1 – complaint and Ex.P6-FIR. 7. The first argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the identity of the accused is doubtful. At this juncture, it is appropriate to consider the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 and Ex.P1 – complaint and Ex.P6-FIR. 7. In the present case on hand, P.W.1 and P.W.3 are the strangers to P.W.2. P.W.1-Annadurai, in his evidence, categorically deposed that he was working as Car Driver. On 25.08.2004, he went to Krishnagiri on hire basis. On the same day, at 6.30 a.m., while he was returning towards Krishna Nagar, near the Krishna Tea Shop, he stopped his vehicle as there was a crowd, where he saw P.W.2- Vijayakumar lying down in an unconscious stage with bleeding injuries. Immediately, he took P.W.2 to the Hospital with the help of P.W.3 and gave Ex.P1-complaint. 8. P.W.3-Jagadeesan, in his evidence, deposed that P.W.2 told him that Errappan caused injuries to P.W.2 when P.W.2 was admitted to the Hospital by him and P.W.1. 9. On perusal of Ex.P1-complaint, it was specifically mentioned that when P.W.1 enquired P.W.2, he told that Errappan assaulted him. In Ex.P1, the name of the appellant had also been mentioned and the case had been registered on the same day at 12.00 Noon and the same was received by the Court at 6.00 p.m. Since the complaint had been preferred in time and the same was received by the Court in time, there is no for disbelieving Ex.P1-Complaint. So, I am of the view that the accused alone caused injury to P.W.2 and the same has been corroborated by the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.3 and Ex.P1. 10. P.W.2 is the injured witness and he is a competent witness to speak about the incident. In his evidence, he deposed that he left Andra along with the accused. On 24.08.2004, they stayed at the bus stand till 5.00 a.m. in the next day morning. Thereafter, they proceeded to the Tea shop. When they were at the Tea Shop, P.W.2 demanded money from the accused. Having got enraged with P.W.2's demand of money, the accused abused him and caught hold of his neck and slit his throat. It is true that P.W.2 is a loose moral person. He is having illicit intimacy with his brother's wife and eloped with one Jothi, who is none other than the daugther of Kangojam Ammal and residing near his brother's house. It is true that P.W.2 is a loose moral person. He is having illicit intimacy with his brother's wife and eloped with one Jothi, who is none other than the daugther of Kangojam Ammal and residing near his brother's house. Since P.W.9 assaulted P.W.2, his mother directed the accused to go away from that place along with P.W.2. Therefore, the accused took P.W.2 to Tamil Nadu. The bad character of man will not be the reason for discarding the evidence of P.W.2. Considering the evidence of P.W.2, I am of the view that there is no reason for discarding the evidence of P.W.2. P.W.2, as soon as was admitted in the hospital, where he was treated by P.W.7-Parameswari at 7.45 a.m. on 25.08.2004, at that time, he told that he was assaulted by a known person. So, the evidence of P.W.2 is not trustworthy and reliable. The evidence of P.W.2 has been corroborated by P.W.1 and P.W.3 and Exs.P1 and P5. So, I am of the view that the prosecution has proved that the accused alone caused injury to P.W.2. Merely because, the seizure of M.O.1-knife has not been proved in accordance with law, which will not exonerate the guilt of the accused, since the case is based on the direct eye witness. 11. Now, this Court has to decide whether the ingredients of Section 307 has been made out?. At this juncture, it is appropriate to incorporate the ingredients of Section 307 IPC. 307. 2. The essential ingredients required to be proved in the case of an offence under Section 307 are: (i) That the death of a human being was attempted; (ii) That such death was attempted to be caused by, or in consequence of the act of the accused; (iii) That such act was done with the intention of causing death; or that it was done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as; (a) the accused knew to be likely to cause death; or (b) was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or that the accused attempted to cause death by doing an act known to him to be so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause (a) death, or (b) such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the accused having no excuse for incurring the risk of causing such death or injury. 12. 12. While perusing the evidence of P.W.2, he deposed that the accused proclaimed that since P.W.2 was alive, he was in the habit of demanding money from the accused frequently, hence, the appellant caught hold of the neck of P.W.2 and slit his throat with M.O.1 and the same has been prevented by P.W.1, the accused assaulted him on his head and thigh. The said factum has been proved that the accused had an intention to murder him, therefore, he caught hold of his neck and slit P.W.2's throat. On perusal of Ex.P5, it is seen that the first injury is a deep incised injury at the front of the neck at the level of thyroid cartilage extending towards left about 15 cm x 10 cm x Thyroid cut, Trachea Cut, major vessels cut, muscle found injured on the left side with profuse fresh bleeding. The second and third injuries are incised wound. P.W.2 deposed that the accused, knowing fully well with an intention to commit murder, has caused injuries. Considering the same, it is clear that the accused with an intention to commit murder, caused injuries on vital part of the body of P.W.2, i.e. deep incised cut injury at the front of the neck at the level of thyroid cartilage which cut Thyroid, Trachea, major vessels, muscle, which shows that the ingredients of Section 307 IPC has been proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts. 13. So, I am of the view that the prosecution has proved that the appellant is guilt of the offence under Section 307 IPC and the trial Court has correctly held that the appellant is guilt of the offence under Section 307 IPC and convicted him under Section 307. Considering the quantum of sentence, I do not find any reason for interfering with the same. So, the conviction and sentence passed under Section 307 IPC against the appellant is hereby confirmed. 14. In fine: a) the appeal is dismissed; b) the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court under Section 307 IPC is hereby confirmed; c) the bail bond if any executed by the accused shall stand cancelled; d) the trial Court is directed to secure the custody of the accused to undergo the remaining period of sentence.