The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of scrutinizing the evidence and legal principles related to the preparation of the FIR and inquest report, and the limited scope of proceedings under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

BALAKRISHNAN, J.

A long standing civil dispute culminated in violance and resulted in the death of two persons. A woman who had lost her husband in an earlier episode, when her children have grown up, made triumphant came back and vanquished her enemies by killing two of them, one at the prime of his youth and the other in early sixties.

2. Varkey, father of Thressiamma ownd 2.55 acres of property. Varkey died intestate and the property devolved on PW-1 - Mariamma, PW-3 - Thressiamma and their two sisters. PW-3 Thressiamma sold her share of property to the 4th accused - Chellamma in 1974. According to PWs-1 and 3, the extent of property sold to the 4th accused was only 45 cents whereas the 4th accused maintained that it was 63.5 cents. The dispute regarding the extnet of property sold to fourth accused - Chellamma was the reason for discord between the family of 4th accused and PW-1 - Mariamma. In 1975, Raman the husband of 4th accused was allegedly murdered by Kunhilo Ulahannan, the husband of PW-1, Ulahannan was tried by the Court of Sessions but he was acquitted of the murder charge. The family feud continued and there were series of civil litigations.

2(a). On 13-6-90, at about 5.45 p.m., P.W. 1 went to the disputed property to cut grass. When she was reaping the grass, the 4th accused Chellamma scolded her and asked her to stop the work, P.W. 1 did not accede to this demand and her husband Ulahannan, who was standing nearby encouraged P.W. 1 in doing the work. There was exchange of words between P.W. 1 and 4th accused and the other accused also came there. While so, the son of P.W. 1 Jose @ Joseph came that way through the nearby public pathway. On seeing him some of the accused exhorted that he should be killed. Jose was chased and he ran to the nearby property belonging to one Kuttappan Nair. According to the prosecution, Jose fell on the ground and he was over-powered by accused 2 and 3 and while they were holding him, the first accused - Gopalakrishnan inflicted stab injuries on the chest of Jose. P.W. 1 tride to intervene, then she was also stabbed by the first accused. Seeing this, Ulahannan-husband of P.W. 1 rushed to that place and while he was standing there, the 4th accused who was standing behind cut him with chopper and on sustaining this injury, Ulshannan slumped down and the 5th and 6th accused stabbed him on the chest. According to prosecution, the 4th accused again inflicted another cut on the neck of Ulshannan and then all the accused retreated from the place.

3. P.W. 22, the Sub-Inspector got information of the incident and he rushed to the place and made arrangements to take the injured to the nearby hospital. He asked a constable to guard the scene. Jose and Ulshannan were dead by the time they were brought to nearby Adimali Govt. Hospital and injured P.W. 1 was removed to a nearby private hospital P.W. 22 recorded the F.I, statement from P.W. 1 and FIR was registered at 12.30 a.m. on 14-6-90. On 14-6-90, he went to Taluk Head-quarters hospital and conducted inquest of the dead body of Jose and Ulshannan. At about 3.30 p.m. on the same day, he visited the scene of occurrence and prepared the scene mahazar. Some articles were also seized from the place of occurance. On 15-6-90, the investigation of the case was taken over by P.W. 23, the Circle Inspector. He questioned the various witnesses and recorded their statement. On 18-6-90, accused 1, 2, 5 and 6 were arrested and based on an alleged statement given by 5th accused, knives alleged to have been used in the commission of cime were recovered. Thereafter, P.W. 23, completed the investigation and charge-sheeted the accused.

4. On the side of prosecution, P.Ws. 1 to 23 were examined. Except P.W. 1, all other eye witnesses turned hostile to the prosecution case and the conviction of these appellants is based on the evidence of P.W. 1 and the recovery of M.Os. 1, 2, 7 and 8 knives. The finding of the learned Sessions Judge is challenged in thi