The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code to determine the offence of murder based on the nature of the injury, the intention of the accused, and the sufficiency of the injury to cause death.

Rajasekharan, J.

The conviction for murder and sentence of imprisonment for life are challenged in this Criminal Appeal by the sole accused.

2. Inside a toddy shop when the appellant was consuming toddy deceased Podia came humming a song. The appellant expressed his displeasure by asking why can't you come without singing? Naturally the deceased questioned the appellant's authority to interfere with his freedom to hum a song, and asked what he could do. The appellant replied that he will be presently dealt with. The quarrel was pacified by the salesman in the toddy shop. Deceased Podiyan walked out and reached the road. The appellant after finishing his drinks hurriedly followed the deceased to the road asking him to stop. From behind the deceased was caught hold of by the appellant and taking M.0.1 dagger the appellant stabbed Podiyan on his left shoulder causing a penetrating injury 6.5x2.5 cros, which entered into the chest cavity through the second inter costal space severing the brachial plexus, subcalvian artery and piercing the upper lobe of the left lung. Minimum depth of the wound was 12 cros. That is what the oculars and medical evidence show. The medical officer said that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cuase death. Death was almost instantaneous.

3. The motive alleged is previous enmity consequent on a quarrel some six days ago in which deceased Podiyan assaulted the appellant. PW-6the widow of the deceased spoke to this fact. The learned Sessions Judge chose not to accept her version for want of corroboration from independent source, and also for the reason that the motive is not relevant, when there is direct evidence regarding the occurrence. The deceased and the appellant belonged to different political parties.

4. PWs 1 to 5 are the occurrence witnesses. Among them, PW-3 turned hostile. PWs 1,2,4 and 5 fully support the prosecution case and their versions tally with the medical evidence. PW-1 is related to the deceased and PW-2 was an accused in a case in which the appellant was the defacto complainant. He was also a co-accused with the deceased in a case. It cannot be disputed that PWs 1 and 2 were in the toddy shop. PW-4 also was a co-accused with the deceased in a case. The objection against

5. PW-5 is that himself and the deceased are Marxists While the appellant belongs to another political party.

6.Their presence at the scene of occurrence is not disputed. The appellant has a further complaint that the prosecution is guilty of suppressing evidence since one Lakshmanan, admittedly an eye witness, was not examined and the explanation brought out by the investigating officer that he was not available is not acceptable. It may be noted that the prosecution is not expected to examine all the occurrence witnesses even if they are available. Suppression of the evidence can be successfully alleged only when an item of evidence necessary for unfolding the true state of affairs," was deliberately withheld with some ulterior motive.

7.When a c rime is committed in a brothel at an odd hour only the prostitutes and their customers will be available as witnesses. The incident inside a liquor shop late in the night could be seen only by the drunkards and persons connected with the trade. Their evidence cannot be rejected for that reason alone on the basis of interestedness or enmity. What they say will have to be tested on the touchstone of credibility. There cannot be any legal presumption that what a related, interested or inimical witness or a drunkard says has to be rejected as untrue. The maximum that could be said in such circumstances is that utmost care has to be taken before their versions are accepted by the court. PWs 1,2,4 and 5 could successfully stand such a stiff scrutiny. When the medical evidence tally with the evidence of these witnesses the evidence of the Witnesses gain further support.

8. M.O.I is a lethal weapon, which normally an ordinary person cannot be expecte