JUDGMENT : (C.S. SUDHA, J.) In this appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. the appellants, who are accused nos.1 and 2 (A1 and A2) in S.C.No.141/2004 on the file of the Court of Session, Kozhikode challenge the conviction entered and sentence passed against them for the offences punishable under Sections 450 and 307 IPC. 2. The prosecution case as stated in the final report/charge sheet is – the accused persons, five in number, who are Muslims had enmity towards Hindus residing in Maradu Beach, Kozhikode. In order to disturb the communal harmony between the Hindus and Muslims, to promote enmity between the two religions and to cause the death of CW1, Rajendran, the accused along with 20 other persons formed themselves into an unlawful assembly at about 07:45 p.m. on 03/01/2002. They trespassed into the house of CW1, pelted stones resulting in the window panes in front of the house of CW1 being broken causing damages to the tune of more than Rs.3,000/- to him. After trespassing into the house of CW1, A1 and A2 inflicted grievous injuries on CW1 by hacking him with swords and thereby attempted to murder him. Hence, as per the final report/charge sheet, the accused persons were alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Section 143, 147, 148, 153A, 427, 450, 307 read with Section 149 IPC. 3. Crime no.20/2002, Beypore police station, that is, Ext.P6 FIR was registered by PW7, the then Sub Inspector based on Ext.P1 FIS of CW1, the injured. The initial investigation was conducted by PW9, Sub Inspector, Kozhikode City Trafic police station and thereafter by PW10, Circle Inspector, Cheruvannoor who on completion of investigation submitted the charge sheet/final report alleging the commission of the offences punishable under the aforementioned Sections by the accused persons. 4. On appearance of all the accused persons, the jurisdictional magistrate after complying with all the necessary formalities contemplated under Section 209 Cr.P.C. committed the case to the Court of Session, Kozhikode. The case was numbered as S.C.No.141/2004 and thereafter made over to the Special Additional Sessions Judge (Marad Cases), Kozhikode, for trial and disposal. 5. On behalf of the prosecution, PW1 to PW11 were examined and Exts.P1 to P10 and MO.1 to MO.2 were marked in support of the case. The case was numbered as S.C.No.141/2004 and thereafter made over to the Special Additional Sessions Judge (Marad Cases), Kozhikode, for trial and disposal. 5. On behalf of the prosecution, PW1 to PW11 were examined and Exts.P1 to P10 and MO.1 to MO.2 were marked in support of the case. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused persons were questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution. The accused persons denied all those circumstances and maintained their innocence. 6. As the trial court did not find it a fit case to acquit the accused persons under Section 232 Cr.P.C., they were asked to enter on their defence and adduce evidence in support thereof. The first accued offered himself as a witness and hence he was examined as DW1. Exts.D1 and D2 are the contradictions brought out in the testimony of PW1 and PW2. 7. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, the trial court by the impugned judgment found no evidence to find the accused persons guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 427, 153A read with Section 149 IPC and hence they were acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. in respect of the said offences. Accused Nos. 3 and 5 were also found not guilty of the offences punishable under Section 450 and 307 IPC. Hence they were acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. However, A1 and A2 have been found guilty under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. of the offences punishable under Section 450 and 307 IPC. Hence, they have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to a fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under 307 IPC and to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default, to simple imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence punishable under Section 450 IPC. The substantive sentences of imprisonment have been directed to run concurrently. Set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. has been allowed. Out of the fine amount, if realized, Rs.25,000/- has been directed to be given to PW1 as compensation under Section 357(1) of Cr.P.C. Aggrieved, A1 and A2 have come up in appeal. 8. The substantive sentences of imprisonment have been directed to run concurrently. Set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. has been allowed. Out of the fine amount, if realized, Rs.25,000/- has been directed to be given to PW1 as compensation under Section 357(1) of Cr.P.C. Aggrieved, A1 and A2 have come up in appeal. 8. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the conviction entered and sentence passed against A1 and A2/the appellants by the trial court are sustainable or not. 9. Heard both sides. 10. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the accused persons/appellants that the trial court went wrong in relying on the sole testimony of PW1 and finding the accused guilty of the offences alleged against them. PW1 is not a credible witness. The testimony of PW1 regarding the place of occurrence does not tally with the description given in Ext.P3 scene mahazar. Doubts arise from the materials on record as to whether the veranda or courtyard of the house of PW1 was the place of occurrence because, going by the recitals in the scene mahazar, it is from the courtyard, shards of glass alleged to be blood stained were seized by the Police. No scientific examination has been conducted on the material objects or at the place of occurrence. There is also delay in registering the crime. It was also pointed out that PW1 in her cross examination admitted that the overt acts of A2 had not been stated by her to the police. This omission has been proved through PW9, the investigating officer. The medical and ocular evidence do not tally and they are inconsistent. According to PW1, CW1 her husband had sustained two injuries in the incident. But going by Ext.P9 wound certificate CW1 is seen to have sustained six injuries. None of the weapons alleged to have been used by the accused for the attack have been recovered by the police. Further, A1 examined himself as DW1 to prove his defence of alibi. But the trial court on a misappreciation of the evidence and law regarding the said defence, rejected the same and wrongly convicted the accused persons. 11. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that PW1, admittedly the wife of CW1, the injured, is an inmate of the house where the incident occurred. Therefore, PW1 is a natural witness. 11. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that PW1, admittedly the wife of CW1, the injured, is an inmate of the house where the incident occurred. Therefore, PW1 is a natural witness. Whether the incident occurred in the veranda or courtyard of their house does not make much of a difference because both are in the vicinity of their house. DW1 was unable to establish his defence of alibi. There is no infirmity in the findings of the trial court calling for an interference by this Court, goes the argument. 12. I make a brief reference to the testimony of PW1 relied on by the trial court to establish the prosecution case. PW1 deposed that the incident took place on 03/01/2002 between 7:30 and 7:45 p.m. At the time of the incident, she along with her husband and children were in her house at Marad beach. Hearing sounds from outside, they came out of the house and looked. Suddenly, a stone hit the window panes of the house causing damage. When PW1 looked in the direction from which the stone had come, she saw a group of people coming toward her house. She cried out loudly to her neighbor PW2. PW2 came to the courtyard of her house. By that time five persons, that is, the accused persons herein, from the mob entered the veranda of her house. A5 Latheef shouted that Rajrendran is in the house and that he be killed as no Hindus should be left alive. A1 Aboobacker hacked on the head of CW1 her husband, with a sword. CW1 warded off the blow with his left hand, as a result of which the blow fell on his left elbow. A2 Babu also hacked her husband which again he warded off with his two hands. The blow fell on his left palm and on his right hand fingers. PW1 further deposed that when her husband was attacked, he entered into the house and escaped through the door behind. PW1 also deposed that there were quite big stones in the hands of A3 and A4 with which they broke the window panes. PW1 identified all the five accused persons involved in the incident. She also identified the signature of her husband in Ext.P1 FIS. According to PW1, the accused tried to kill her husband on account of religious enmity. 12.1. PW1 identified all the five accused persons involved in the incident. She also identified the signature of her husband in Ext.P1 FIS. According to PW1, the accused tried to kill her husband on account of religious enmity. 12.1. PW2 is stated to be an alleged occurrence witness. However, PW2 has been disbelieved by the trial court. 13. It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused persons/appellants that going by the testimony of PW1 the incident in which her husband was hacked took place in the veranda of their house. However, the scene mahazar does not refer to any blood on the floor of the veranda. It also does not show that the window panes of the windows adjacent to the veranda had been broken. It was also pointed out that going by the testimony of PW1, due to the attack there was blood stains on the shards of glass, however, there is no material to substantiate her testimony. No scientific examination of the scene was conducted. This was pointed out as one of the major defects in the prosecution case. 14. CW1, the injured died before the trial commenced and hence could not be examined. The testimony of the PW1, his wife is that the incident took place in the veranda situated in front of her house. In Ext.P3 scene mahazar also, the scene of occurrence is stated to be the veranda of the house. Going by the contents in Ext.P3 scene mahazar, the investigating officer had inspected the house of PW1 on 08/01/2002, on which day he had seen blood stains on the window panes. It is true that there is no material to show that there was blood on the floor of the veranda. As rightly pointed out by the trial court, absence of blood stain(s) on the floor of the veranda does not automatically mean that CW1 Rajendran had not sustained injuries at that place as PW1 has no case that pursuant to the attack there was a pool of blood or blood stains on the floor of the veranda. In the light of the injuries seen caused to CW1, it was unlikely that there would have been a huge mount of blood or a pool of blood on the floor. The scene mahazar was prepared five days after the incident. In the light of the injuries seen caused to CW1, it was unlikely that there would have been a huge mount of blood or a pool of blood on the floor. The scene mahazar was prepared five days after the incident. Merely because the scene mahazar does not refer to the blood stains alleged to have been there at the scene of occurrence, is no reason to doubt the prosecution case. Though the accused persons had taken a defence that CW1 Rajendran had sustained the injuries seen on him when he took part in the riots that had taken place on 03/01/2002 at Marad Beach, there are no materials to support the said aspect. PW1 was extensively cross examined. However, no major contradiction(s) has been brought out in her testimony. 15. Now coming to the medical evidence on record. PW11, Lecturer Orthopaedic, Government Medical College, Calicut, deposed that on 03/01/2002 at 08:30 p.m. he had examined CW1, who was brought to the hospital with a history of assault on the same day at 07:00 p.m. The patient was conscious and oriented. On examination, he noted the following injuries - (1) Incised wound of the size 10x5x3cm at proximal one-third of left ulna. (2) Incised wound over dorsum of left hand of the size 3x1x0.5cm cutting extensor tendon to index finger. (3) Incised wound of the size 2x1x0.5cm at the medial aspect of left wrist, superficial radial nerve exposed and cut. (4) Abrasion of the size 2x1cm on the lower third of the leg. (5) Incised wound of the size 3x1x0.5cm over dorsum of hand on the base of left index finger. (6) Abrasion of the size 2x1cm on the front of right arm.” PW11 also deposed that the X-ray revealed that CW1 had sustained a fracture of proximal one-third of left ulna. The doctor also deposed that the injuries noted could be caused by a sharp edged weapon like a sword. Ext.P10 discharge certificate issued by PW11 would show that CW1 had been admitted in the hospital on 03/01/2002 and discharged on 14/01/2002. 16. PW1 has deposed regarding the overt acts committed by A1 and A2. It is true that she has not specifically referred to all the parts of the body of CW1 where he had sustained injuries. Ext.P10 discharge certificate issued by PW11 would show that CW1 had been admitted in the hospital on 03/01/2002 and discharged on 14/01/2002. 16. PW1 has deposed regarding the overt acts committed by A1 and A2. It is true that she has not specifically referred to all the parts of the body of CW1 where he had sustained injuries. However, there is no major inconsistency or contradiction regarding the injuries seen in the wound certificate and the injuries spoken to by PW1. All the injuries noted in the wound certificate are on the arms and fingers of CW1. This tallies with the overt acts spoken to by PW1 and hence I find that the argument that the medical evidence and ocular testimony are inconsistent is not correct. 17. Now coming to the testimony of DW1, the first accused herein to establish his case of alibi. According to DW1 at the time of the incident, he had taken one Kunjikoya who was seriously injured in the riots that took place on that day to the hospital. According to DW1, he was examined as a prosecution witness in S.C.No.805/2003 relating to the murder of Kunjikoya. On 03/01/2002 at about 07:30 – 07:35 p.m., he had seen Kunjikoya in an injured condition outside the gate on the southern side of the mosque at Marad. He fetched an autorikshaw and along with two other persons took Kunjikoya to the Medical College Hopital. He did not return to Marad on the said day as he stayed at the house of his friend. A1 relies upon the testimony of PW3 in support of his plea of alibi. 18. PW3, the Khatheeb of the Marad mosque during the year 2002 deposed that on 03/01/2002 at 07:45 p.m. he was at the mosque. While prayer was going on, he heard noises from outside. After sometime, Kunjikoya was brought into the mosque in an injured condition. A few persons switched on the loudspeaker in the mosque and made repeated calls for prayer. In the cross examination PW3 deposed that immediately after Kunjikoya was brought to the mosque, the latter was taken to the hospital. PW3 further deposed that it was after Kunjikoya was taken to the hospital, repeated calls for prayer had been made from the mosque. In the cross examination PW3 deposed that immediately after Kunjikoya was brought to the mosque, the latter was taken to the hospital. PW3 further deposed that it was after Kunjikoya was taken to the hospital, repeated calls for prayer had been made from the mosque. Therefore, relying on the testimony of PW3 and DW1, it was canvassed by the learned counsel for the accused/appellants that the materials on record would show that A1 was not at the spot at the relevant time and therefore the prosecution case has to fail. I am afraid I am unable to agree to the argument. 19. The defence of alibi is seen dealt with in detail by the trial court and the same has been rejected. I do not find any infirmity in the reasonings given by the trial court. It has come out in evidence that the mosque as well as the place of incident in the case on hand are situated quite nearby and so it cannot be said with absolute certainity that it was impossible for DW1 to have been present at the scene of crime. There appears to be no improbability or impossibility of the accused being present at the spot at the relevant time. The appreciation of evidence and the law on the point has been rightly done by the trial court and I do not find any infirmity in the said findings. 20. It is true that the weapons that are alleged to have been used by the accused persons/appellants could not be recovered by the police. However, recovery of weapon(s) used in the commission of an offence is not a sine qua non to convict the accused [See Mritunjoy Biswas v. Pranab alias Kuti Biswas, AIR 2013 SC 3334 ; Sanjeev Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P., (2015)11 SCC 69 ; Yogesh Singh v. Mahabeer Singh, (2017)11 SCC 195 ; Rakesh v. State of U.P., (2021)7 SCC 188 ; State through the Inspector of Police v. Laly alias Manikandan, AIR 2022 SC 5034 ). The testimony of PW1, who is none other than the wife of CW1, the injured along with medical evidence proves that the first and the second accused had hacked the latter with swords and caused grievous hurt to him. No materials have been brought on record to show that PW1 had deposed falsely due to prior enmity or like reason(s). The testimony of PW1, who is none other than the wife of CW1, the injured along with medical evidence proves that the first and the second accused had hacked the latter with swords and caused grievous hurt to him. No materials have been brought on record to show that PW1 had deposed falsely due to prior enmity or like reason(s). The testimony of the doctor shows that the injuries caused on CW1 could be caused by a sharp edged weapon. The materials on record show that the accused persons armed with deadly weapons had trespassed into the veranda of the house CW1, hacked him with swords which he warded off with his hands resulting in causing injuries to him. The testimony of PW1 shows that CW1 Rajendran on being attacked had taken to his heels and escaped through the back door of his house. Had CW1 not escaped, the attack probably would have turned fatal. The trial court on the basis of the materials on record was right in holding that the offences under Sections 450 and 307 IPC have been made out. I find no infirmity in the findings of the trial court calling for an interference by this Court. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.