Koshy. J.

Appellant in this case along with one Meenakshi, his mother, were charge sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case is that at about 7.30 p.m. on 26.11.1997 the deceased had occasion to witness accused No.1 having illicit connection with PW2 Saffia, in the veranda of his residence bearing Panchayath No.X/104 of Edarikode and that they had a deliberation in between which resulted a scuffle and that accused No.1 with an intention of committing murder of the deceased, snatched a knife from his hands and committed murder by stabbing him on the dorsal side and neck and that accused No.2 being the mother of accused No.1 in furtherance of their common intention of screening the evidence and in order to save accused No.1, destroyed the blood stained cloth worn by accused No.1 at the time of the incident, by setting them on fire and therefore the accused are alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Sec. 34 of I.P.C. Twenty witnesses were examined on the side of the prosecution. Exts. P1 to P13 and MO1 to MO12 were marked. Even though there was no direct evidence, based on circumstantial evidence, mainly based on the depositions of PWs 2 and 3, the Sessions Judge found that the second accused, mother of the appellant was not guilty under Section 201 of I.P.C. But, the appellant was found guilty under Section 302 of I.P.C. and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-. Even though the appellant admitted that he had intimacy with PW2 denied his involvement in the murder.

2. PW1 who gave the F.I. Statement only reported that he found the dead body of the deceased at 8.40.a.m. on 27.11.1997 when he went to the house of the deceased and he immediately reported the matter. He has not connected anybody with the murder of the deceased. PW2 has deposed before the court that she had some illicit relation with the appellant/first accused and they were in love. She deposed that at about 7 p.m. on 26.11.1997 the first accused called her to the house of the deceased. Nobody was there. She went into the veranda(kola). First accused went inside the house and after above five minutes he came back to the veranda. They talked for five minutes. Then the deceased came. She returned to her house. She was declared hostile. During cross examination she stated that earlier occasions she used to have illicit connection with the first accused and on that day when they were about to have illicit sexual intercourse. The deceased came. Then the first accused told her to go away and she returned to her house. After she went, the first accused and the deceased had altercation and she had seen it standing in the nearby plantation. She further stated that both persons thereafter went inside the house and she was seeing the same in view of the kerosene lamp lit therein. After some time she heard loud cry of the deceased. She went and informed her mother. Her mother advised her not to tell anybody else. She also deposed that the relationship between her and the first accused is known in their place and her mother was against it. She further stated that when she went there, nobody was there. PW3 mother of PW2 also stated that she came to know about the death of the deceased only on the next day morning. There was some programme in the nearby school on the date of the incident. Her daughter was not there in their house at 7.30.p.m. PW3 thought that she must be in the latrine. After 15 minutes she came there and stated that she has gone to the house of the deceased with the first accused and there was scuffle between the first accused and the deceased. PW3 advised PW2 not to tell anybody regarding this. During cross examination she deposed that she was against the first accused as she disliked the relationship between him and PW2. She deposed as follows:

PW4. brother-in-law of the ap