JUDGMENT

Rajendra Babu, J.-The appellant before us having been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, unsuccessfully appealed to the High Court. Hence this appeal.

2. The prosecution alleged that on 25.9.83 at about 2.30 p.m. the appellant went to the house of Abdulla and called him out when the said Abdulla was stated to be sleeping inside the house. At that time, Hameed, PW 1, son, Manha, PW 2, first wife of Abdulla and Beevi, daughter of Abdulla were sitting inside the kitchen. Abdulla came out of the house and both, the appellant and Abdulla went to the shed situate in the courtyard of the house. Abdulla sat on a bench and the appellant stood near him. In the course of their conversation, Abdulla appears to have demanded repayment of the money owned by the appellant. Annoyed by that demand, the appellant is stated to have taken out a dagger proclaiming that it had been given to him by Pariyaram Abbas to kill him, stabbed Abdulla inflicting injury on his chest. Abdulla was toppled down along with the bench. Hameed, PW 1, Manha, PW 2 and Beevi rushed to the scene. Achibi, PW 3, the second wife of Abdulla, who had come to draw water from the well near the house, also rushed to the scene. Again the appellant is stated to have stabbed Abdulla and inflicted another injury on his left shoulder. The appellant then turned against PW 1 and others who had reached near him. PW 1 caught hold of the appellant from behind and PW 2 took out a wooden stick and beat the appellant. PW 3 took out a chopper and inflicted some injuries on the appellant. On account of the commotion, some of the neighbours are said to have reached the scene of occurrence. Wife of the appellant also came to the scene and took him away from the scene of occurrence. PW 4 and Kariappu were also there in the courtyard at the time of the incident. PW 1 went to the police station and lodged a FIR. On registering a case, PW 17, the Circle Inspector of Police investigated and laid a charge-sheet before the Jurisdictional Magistrate, who committed the matter to the Sessions Court at Tellicherry. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges against the appellant under Section 302 IPC and the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter the matter stood transferred to Kasaragod Sessions Division on formation of a court there. PWs 1 to 7 were examined and several Exhibits and material objects were marked. Statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The appellant did not adduce any evidence in his defence.

3. On behalf of the appellant, the defence set up is that the incident did not take place as alleged by the prosecution. On the other hand, when the appellant was returning home from Church along the pathway in front of Abdulla s house in the afternoon of 25.9.83, Abdulla, Hameed, PW 1, Manha, PW 2 and Kariappu attacked him and inflicted injuries upon him and the appellant secured possession of a knife which Kariappu was having and when he fell unconscious he was taken to the house by his wife and from there he was taken to the hospital. Abdulla asked him and his wife to give evidence in a case against one Somappa Gowda and they did not agree for the same and as a result of the enmity Abdulla and others attacked him. By an order made on 27.10.1988, the Sessions Court acquitted the appellant. However, the High Court in suo motu revision set aside the order of acquittal and remanded the case for proceeding afresh in accordance with law.

4. After remand the trial Court proceeded to formulate the following two questions :

1. Whether the appellant committed murder of Abdulla and is he guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC?

2. And if so, what should be the sentence?

5. The trial Court is of the view that PWs 1 to 4 are the eye witnesses to the incident who have given sufficient details as to how the incident took place and the appellant inflicted fatal in