22.Next comes the overt act attributed on each of the appellants/accused. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that the 1st appellant/A-1 had stated that A-1 stabbed him on the left side of neck and stomach and A-2 also stabbed him using a pen knife. Whereas, it is the evidence of P.W.2 that A-1 was armed with a knife while A-2 was armed with a wooden log. P.W.2 also had given a contradictory evidence as regards the injuries sustained by P.W.1. He had stated P.W.1 had sustained injuries on the back, thumb finger, eyebrow due to A-1 stabbing with the knife and also a stab injury on the stomach. If the version of P.W.2 is stated to be true, then the prosecution had failed to recover the wooden log which was said to be in the possession of A- 2/Pandi. A threadbare reading of the evidence of P.W.2 reveals that it is an exaggerated version and does not corroborate the evidence of P.W.1. The medical evidence through the doctors, P.Ws.7 and 8 and Exs.P.7 and 8 – Accident Register and Wound Certificate, also did not support the case of the prosecution from any angle. P.W.7 had noted three injuries, all are lacerations in nature, on the right side of the stomach, right forehead and in the right index finger and P.W.8-Doctor had noted as many as 10 injuries on P.W.1 and however, he did not specifically state as to which are all the injuries are grievous in nature. Further, the X-Rays taken in this behalf, were not marked by the prosecution. Thus, the medical evidence has not supported the prosecution in any manner with regard to the overt act of the 2nd appellant/A-2.
