The court's decision emphasized the importance of witness credibility, the nature of injuries, and the application of Section 34 of the IPC in determining the culpability of the appellants.

Thomas, J.

Spectators of a final volley ball match in a tournament became spectators of a murderous bout. 11 happened on the May Day of 1989 between deceased on the one side and four appellants on the others. Deceased sustained fatal stab injuries to which he succumbed without delay. Learned Sessions Judge convicted all the four (who are brothers between them) of the of fence of murder with the aide of S.34 of the Indian Penal Code and they were all sentenced to imprisonment for life. Hence this appeal by them.

2. The scene of occurrence was the compound of St.Mary's Church, Muttinakam. There was long standing hostility between the two families of the deceased and the appellants. According to the prosecution version, appellants were looking forward to settle grouses with the deceased and on the May Day evening, after the final match was played and prize distribution was over, the four appellants confronted the deceased and caught hold of him. First appellant had a knife with him. When the deceased was held by three appellants from behind, first appellant held him by the neck with his left arm and inflicted a stab injury on the left leg and three slab injuries on the chest. When the grip on the deceased was loosened, the deceased crouched and then first appellant stabbed him on the back. The victim slumped down and then all the assailants took to their heels. Before the deceased could be removed to the nearest hospital, he breathed his last. This, in brief, is the prosecution story.

3. One of the eye witnesses (P.W.I) went to the local police station and lodged First Information Statement at 10 p.m. All the appellants later surrendered before the Magistrate's Court on 6-5-1989. Investigating Officer secured their custody and on the basis of the statement elicited from the first appellant, a knife (M.O.I) was recovered from a pond.

4. Appellants have a different version of the occurrence. According to them, deceased was drunk and he picked up a quarrel with first appellant by taunting him with the words "don't try to become smart"; it was followed by a brawl and a tussle and then the other appellant's rushed to separate them; deceased had a knife and after strenuous efforts the -knife was wrested from him.

5. Prosecution version has been supported by four eye witnesses (PWs.1,2,4 and 5). They all said that they saw the incident which took place after the volleyball match. Sessions Judge accepted their evidence. The defence examined four witnesses among whom D.Ws. 2 to 4 spoke to the defence version and D.W.1 (brother of P. W.1) said that after the volley ball match was over he and P. W.1 together went home. Learned Sessions Judge disbelieved the defence evidence.

6. We have no hesitation to agree with the learned Sessions Judge regarding the defence evidence. None of them said that deceased sustained injuries. Post-mortem certificate shows the injuries found on the dead body. Out of three incised penetrating wounds, one was on the neck having a depth of 12 cros. which entered into the abdomen and right lobe of the liver; the other two were on the chest which pierced into the abdomen cutting the diaphram and the stomach. He had two other stab wounds, one on the chest and the other on the left leg, but they did not involve any vital organs. The defence witnesses who said that they did not see any one of the appellants slabbing the deceased were obviously speaking falsehood.

7. A contention was raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that the trial judge adopted a partisan attitude by putting cross questions to the defence witnesses alone without pultingany question to the prosecution witnesses. Learned counsel invited our attention to the observations recently made by Manoharan, J. in Damin v. State (1993 (1) KLT 408 = (1993 (1) KLJ 356). 1n that case, learned single judge was dealing with the argument that questions put by the trial judge to the defence witnesses "would show that the same are aimed to strengthen th