JUDGMENT (Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C., to set aside the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court dated 02.08.2014 passed in S.C.No.203 of 2012 on the file of Mahila Court, (Fast Track Mahila Court), Tiruppur, Tiruppur District and allow the above Criminal Appeal.) Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C., against the order of conviction and consequentail sentence passed by the Judgment dated 02.08.2014 made in S.C.No.203 of 2012 by the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, (Fast Track Mahila Court), Tiruppur.) Common Judgment: 1. The appellants in these two appeals C.A.No.437 of 2014 and C.A.No.444 of 2014 are the accused 1 & 2 respectively in S.C.No.203 of 2012, on the file of Mahila Court, Fast Track Court, Mahila Court, Tiruppur. A1 was tried for charge under Sections 341 r/w 307 of I.P.C. Whereas A2 was charged for offences under Sections 341, 307 r/w 34 of I.P.C. 2. The substance of the charge against these appellants is that, on 01.02.2010 at about 8.00 p.m., due to previous enmity these two appellants went to the house of one Palaniammal (P.W.3) who was alone in her house. A2 caught hold of her hands and A1 cut her throat with knife with intention to cause death. Palaniammal struggled and tried to raise alarm, so both the accused flee away. 3. The motive for the said act is attributed to the fact that, P.W.3 who is the mother-in-law of Lakshmi saw Lakshmi in compromise position with A1 who is the husband of P.W.5 (sister of Lakshmi) and she scolded Lakshmi. Hence, A1 & A2, came to Palaniammal house and cut her throat with an intention to kill Palaniammal. Palaniammal whose trachea was cut unable to speak about the assailants. She went to her son's factory situated near by and explained by sign language. Her son P.W.1, took her a Private Hospital at Thiruppur. Considering the severity of the injury, the Doctor referred her to Coimbatore Government Medical College Hospital, where she was admitted as inpatient. 4. P.W.1, who is the husband of Lakshmi had lodged the complaint (Ex.P.6) and First Information Report (Ex.P.7) was registered in Crime No.827 of 2010 at 10.00 hours on 02.02.2010 at that time, since the injured Palaniammal was not able to speak, the assailants detail was not recorded. 4. P.W.1, who is the husband of Lakshmi had lodged the complaint (Ex.P.6) and First Information Report (Ex.P.7) was registered in Crime No.827 of 2010 at 10.00 hours on 02.02.2010 at that time, since the injured Palaniammal was not able to speak, the assailants detail was not recorded. Later, when she regained speech, narrated how she was attacked and by whom she was attacked and reason for the attack. Thus, after completion of investigation, final report was filed and charges mentioned above came to be framed and against these two appellants. 5. To prove the charges, the prosecution has examined 10 Witnesses marked 12 Exhibits and 1 Material object which is the knife used by A1 to cause grievous injury to Palaniammal (P.W.3). 6. The Trial Court, on appreciation of evidence held that the charge framed against A1 for offences under Sections 307 and 341 r/w 34 and the charges against A2 for offences under Sections 341 and 307 r/w 34 proved beyond doubt and sentenced and convicted them as below:- Accused For Offences under Section Sentence and Conviction imposed by the trial Court A1 307 of I.P.C To undergo 7 years R.I and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default one year S.I. 341 r/w 34 of I.P.C To undergo 1 year R.I. and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default one week S.I. A2 341 of I.P.C To undergo 1 year S.I and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default one week S.I. 307 r/w 34 To undergo 7 years R.I and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default one year S.I. Out of the above fine amount, the accused were directed to pay Rs.5000/- each as compensation to the victim lady P.W.3. 7. In the appeal, challenging the order of conviction and sentence, the Learned Counsel for the appellants has made submissions on three folds:- (i). In the First Information Report, the defacto complainant has not mentioned the name of the assailant. The delay in F.I.R and implicating these accused subsequently clearly expose the malicious intention of the prosecution. The F.I.R came to be registered on the complaint given by P.W.1 who went to the Police Station and lodged the complaint after admitting his mother at C.M.C, Hospital, Coimbatore. The delay in F.I.R and implicating these accused subsequently clearly expose the malicious intention of the prosecution. The F.I.R came to be registered on the complaint given by P.W.1 who went to the Police Station and lodged the complaint after admitting his mother at C.M.C, Hospital, Coimbatore. According to prosecution, the injured was first taken to hospital at Tiruppur and then, on reference admitted in C.M.C, Hospital, Coimbatore but no intimation from these two hospitals received by the Police. The First Information Report alleged to have been received from P.W.1, who came to the Police on the next day at 10.00 a.m., and given the complaint which was marked as (Ex.P.6) bristles with manipulation. (ii). P.W.3 had deposed that she saw her daughter-in-law Lakshmi (P.W.6) in the compromise position with A1 and she reprimanded her. Infuriated by that, A1 came with A2 and attacked her. The motive attributed to the crime by P.W.3 not supported by P.W.1 or P.W.2. Since, Lakshmi (P.W.6) the estrange wife of P.W.1 was not living with him, P.W.3 with an ulterior motive had implicated these appellants attributing motive for the attack. Since there is no corroboration for the said theory, the trial Court ought to have acquitted the accused. (iii). The recovery of M.O.1 (Knife) alleged to have been used to cause the injury is highly doubtful. According to prosecution, M.O.1 was recovered based on the confession statement of the accused and same was witnessed by P.W.4 & P.W.7. However, these two witnesses for the recovery mahazar has not identified the knife or supported the case of the prosecution in their testimony. 8. Per contra, the Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent submitted that the incident has occurred when P.W.3, Palaniammal was alone in her house. Her Trachea was cut and windpipe got severed. She was not able to speak and she rushed to the place where her son was working and by sign she intimated that she was attacked by the accused. Immediately her son, P.W.1 called his father. P.W.2 (Rangan), P.W.4 (Muthusamy) and P.W.7 (Duraisamy). These witnesses took P.W.3 to A.S.M Hospital, Tiruppur. She was examined by P.W.8 (Dr.Muniyasamy). At that time, P.W.3 was found unconscious with cut injury on her trachea by 20 c.m x 6 c.m x 6 c.m and her windpipe severed. After given first aid, she was referred to Coimbatore Medical Government Hospital. P.W.2 (Rangan), P.W.4 (Muthusamy) and P.W.7 (Duraisamy). These witnesses took P.W.3 to A.S.M Hospital, Tiruppur. She was examined by P.W.8 (Dr.Muniyasamy). At that time, P.W.3 was found unconscious with cut injury on her trachea by 20 c.m x 6 c.m x 6 c.m and her windpipe severed. After given first aid, she was referred to Coimbatore Medical Government Hospital. The nature of injury and treatment for the injured from 02.02.2010 to 01.03.2010 as inpatient is proved through Ex.P.5 and through the evidence of P.W.8 (Dr.Muniyasamy). Immediately after regaining her speech, P.W.3 has narrated the incident to the Investigating Officer and based on the information given by injured, these two accused were arrested and prosecuted. 9. P.W.3 evidence is unimpeachable and she is the person who is can competent to speak about the injury and weapon used to cause the injury and persons who caused the injury. While Ex.P.5 Wound Certificate indicates a cut injury on the Trachea by size 20 c.m x 6 c.m x 6 c.m and Trachea was severed by the said injury, it has taken about 30 days for recvoery and regain her speech. P.W.3 was taking treatment for a month as inpatient and the injury was grievous in nature. Therefore, the finding of the trial Court cannot be assailant. 10. Heard the Learned Counsel for the appellants and the Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent. Perused the records. Point (i):- As per the prosecution evidence, the incident occurred on 01.02.2010 at 8.00 p.m when the victim P.W.3 was alone at her home. The injury caused to P.W.1 is proved by Doctor P.W.8 and Ex.P.5 wound certificate. The consistent case of the prosecution is that till the injured victim regained her speech, the identity of the assailants was not able to ascertain. After P.W.3 regained her speech and got discharged from hospital, the Investigating Officer P.W.10 has recorded the statement of the injured P.W.3 and thereafter these two appellants were arrested based on her information. Therefore, the prosecution through its witnesses had explained why in F.I.R the assailants were shown as unknown person and how they came to be identified. The name of the assailant in the F.I.R cannot be expected to mention and it is not a failure or omission to suspect the prosecution case. Therefore, the prosecution through its witnesses had explained why in F.I.R the assailants were shown as unknown person and how they came to be identified. The name of the assailant in the F.I.R cannot be expected to mention and it is not a failure or omission to suspect the prosecution case. Point (ii):- In the course of Investigation, based on the confession of the accused M.O.1 (knife) had been recovered in the presence of P.W.4 & P.W.7. No doubt these two witnesses not supported the case of the prosecution in so far as the recovery of M.O.1. However, when the injured could able to identify the weapon and same is marked as M.O.1, no further doubt about the weapon used to cause the said injury needs to be entertained. Hence, the ground raised by the Learned Counsel for the appellants that the weapon used to cause the injury not properly identified is unsustainable and hence, liable to be rejected. Point (iii):- The last ground raised in the appeal are that, regarding delay in F.I.R. From P.W.1 evidence, it is seen that, immediately after the occurrence, the victim was taken to local private hospital and then, to Government Hospital at Coimbatore. As per the evidence, P.W.8, he has seen the patient on 01.02.2010 at about 9.20 p.m., at Thiruppur, A.S.M. Hospital and referred the patient to Coimbatore. The patient got admitted soon thereafter and was treated as inpatient till 01.03.2010. This complaint given by P.W.1 who has accompanied the injured to the hospital got her admitted in the hospital and then went to the police station. There is no record to show the private hospital at Tiruppur or Government Hospital, Coimbatore, intimating the police about the Medical Legal case. This is not a reason to suspect the prosecution case. The failure of the hospital to intimate police is not the fault of the police or the defacto complainant. The Police got written information on next day morning, which has been treated as First Information and commenced the investigation. The delay in sending F.I.R to the Magistrate is also not fatal to prosecution. The victim was alone and she lost her speech in the attack. Once the accused was identified and arrested, they were remanded to judicial custody on 09.03.2010 and documents collected were produced before the Judicial Magistrate. This could be seen from the endorsement made in F.I.R and other documents. The victim was alone and she lost her speech in the attack. Once the accused was identified and arrested, they were remanded to judicial custody on 09.03.2010 and documents collected were produced before the Judicial Magistrate. This could be seen from the endorsement made in F.I.R and other documents. Therefore, the grounds in the appeal are only imaginary plea and not supported by any evidence. 11. Regarding the motive attributed by P.W.3. If the overt act is proved beyond doubt the proof of motive is not essential criteria for holding a person guilty. Furthermore, in this case, the motive is in respect of the disgraceful act of adulterous behaviour by the daughter-in-law of the victim. The victim has witnessed the adulterous act of her daughter-in-law Lakshmi (P.W.6) with A1. Fearing shame to the family reputation, she would have not disclosed it even to her son and others. Therefore, P.W.1 husband of Lakshmi (P.W.6) and P.W.2 father-in-law of Lakshmi had not said anything about the adulterous life of Lakshmi. This cannot be taken as embellishment of any vital fact when the accused persons were identified by the injured and the identified of weapon used by them to cause injury. The said attack and gravity of the injury clearly indicates the intention of these two appellants was to cause the death of Palaniammal (P.W.3) without the medical intervention first by P.W.8 who provided first aid for the cut of trachea and referred the patient to higher treatment and subsequently by the C.M.C., Coimbatore for better treatment, the likelihood of death cannot be ruled out. 12. For the said reasons, this Court finds no error in the finding of the Courts below holding the appellants guilty of the said charges. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeals are dismissed. The judgment of the Lower Appellate Court dated 02.08.2014 passed in S.C.No.203 of 2012 on the file of Mahila Court, (Fast Track Court), Tiruppur District is hereby confirmed.