The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to present the entire facts before the court and the principles governing the admissibility of evidence, particularly in establishing the circumstances of the incident.

1. Appellant Ibrahim alias Imbayi is the sole accused. PWs 2 and 4, Mohammedkutty and Abdul Majeed, are his elder brothers. PW 10, Sainaba, aged 50 is their widowed mother. Deceased Avutty aged 26 was their close neighbour. Ever since the death of her husband, PW 10 had a fascination for the deceased to satisfy her lust. The affair went on continuously for about nine years. To enable the sexual liaison, she used to sleep alone in the kitchen under some false pretext. The kitchen has an exit door through which entry from outside without being noticed by others is easy. PWs. 2 and 4 were aware of this liaison and they had to acclimatise and swallow their protest. But the appellant, who was aged only 17 at the time of incident, was unaware of this. On 20-11-83 he had a confrontation with the deceased inside the kitchen at about 11.00 or 11.30 in the night after his sexual liaison with his mother was over. PW 2 interfered and prevented the appellant. Deceased was sent away to his house with an assurance that the matter could be talked over the next morning. Appellant was caged in a room. Within five minutes, the deceased re-appeared near the lane in front and called PW 2. While PW 2 asked him to go away, the appellant rushed near him and stabbed him to death. These are the allegations, on which he was tried and convicted for murder and sentenced to imprisonment for life.

2. Defence is a denial of the second part of the incident. It is said that the' incident started when the deceased forced open the door and committed rape on PW 10 by gagging her and showing a knife inside the kitchen. Contention is that the deceased sustained the fatal injury inside the kitchen with his own weapon in the fight with the appellant who tried to rescue the mother.

3. The only occurrence witness is PW. 2. He turned hostile and supported the defence version. That is the case with PWs.4 and 10 also. Barring their evidence and the medical evidence, which unmistakably indicate that Avutty had a homicidal death, the relevant evidence gets confined to the testimonies of PWs. 1,3, and 5. If the prosecution case is established, it is definitely murder punishable under S.302.

4. On the first information given by PW. 10, a case was registered and investigated. It was referred as false on the conclusion that there was no rape and she was a willing party who was continuing the liaison with the deceased for several years. The doctor, who dealt with her and issued the certificate, was not examined. The certificate was marked only through the investigating officer. Anyhow, PW 10 herself admitted that the deceased had completed sexual intercourse with her that night and medical evidence proved this fact. The defence version that there was sexual assault on her by the deceased by gagging and show of dagger is evidently a manipulation. The door was in tact with the latch and breaking open is an invention. Possibility is PW. 10 opened the door and allowed the deceased entry.

5. But the fact remains that consequent on the sexual affair between the deceased and PW. 10 inside the kitchen, there was confrontation between the appellant and the deceased, which was prevented by PW.2. This fact is clear not only from the testimonies of PWs 2, 4 and 10, but also from PWs.3 and 5. PW.3 was not at all declared hostile. The defence version of the incident in the sense that the injury was in the first encounter itself appears to be more probable and true. If the prosecution version and its evidence regarding the first encounter is accepted, the deceased had no reason for any complaint justifying his re-appearance in the lane to call PW.2. He must have gone home with a guilty conscience and with the satisfaction that he escaped unhurt and unpunished for his wrong. If he escaped unhurt, he could only be expected to keep quiet at home.

6. If we go by the evidence of PWs.2, 4 and 10, there was only one incident which is the first one admitted by the prosecution. It is true that t