require very close scrutiny. He would further submit that the appellant was not known previously to P.W.1 to P.W.4. Therefore, in the absence of a previous Test Identification Parade, the identification made by these witnesses for the first time in court cannot be given any weightage. He would also submit that though it is stated that the appellant/2nd accused attacked P.W.2 with Aruval, in the further statement recorded by P.W.15 under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., P.W.2 had told that he was attacked only by the 1st accused and not by this accused. The learned Counsel would further submit that though it is a case of the prosecution that the material objects, namely, the Aruvals were recovered from the house of the 2nd accused based on the confession statement said to have been given by these two accused, according to the evidence of P.W.15, they were recovered only from the house of the 1st accused. This, according to the learned Counsel for the appellant, completely destroys the recovery of weapon said to have been made on the confession statement said to have been given by this accused. The learned Counsel would also submit that the blood stained clothe said to have been worn by the accused at the time of occurrence has not been proved to the effect that the blood stains pertain to the blood group of P.W.2. Therefore, the Lungi which was said to have been worn by one of the accused at the time of occurrence also has not been proved. The learned Counsel would further submit that because of the above material contradictions, the case of the prosecution is doubtful and therefore, the same needs to be rejected. At the fag end of his arguments, the learned Counsel would contend that assuming that the prosecution has proved the case stating that it was only this accused who has caused the cut injury on the left hand, even then, the offence said to have been committed by this accused would fall under Section 326 of IPC and not under 307 of IPC. He would also submit that the accused was a young man at the time of occurrence and he has got no bad antecedents and therefore, in the matter of sentence, some leniency may be shown. He would also submit that the appellant/accused was in jail for about a total period of 4 ½ years.
