The importance of proving the case beyond all reasonable doubt and the unfair trial and illegal procedure adopted in the trial.

1. Special leave granted.

2. The appellant was charged, found guilty and convicted under S.302, IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for causing the death of his brother Mathew on August 5, 1988 at about 9 A.m. in their Ramanatha house in Mazhuvannur in Kerala State. It was confirmed on appeal by High Court of Kerala in Criminal Appeal No. 349 of 1989 dated February 6,1992. Thus this appeal by special leave.

3. The prosecution case in nutshell is that Ramanathu Varkey had seven sons and four daughters. During his lifetime he executed repeated settlement deeds settling his extensive properties of 60 acres, double storeyed building and factories which lead to acrimony among his children. In 1976 the deceased Mathew was charged for patricide but was acquitted. He was a discharged military officer and managed to have complete hold of the properties and excluded other brothers and sisters from enjoyment of the properties. The appellant is the youngest and he resented the conduct of the deceased. The prosecution case itself was that later on there was reconciliation between the appellant and the deceased as spoken to by the widow of the deceased (PW.10) and one brother (PW.12). According to the prosecution the accused nursed grievance against the deceased for his obstinance to exclude him of right to residence in their family Rasmanattu house. Consequently he was living at Ernakulam where from his wife hails. The prosecution case was that on the fateful day the appellant came and killed the deceased in the Ramanattu house, bolting the door from inside.

4. From the evidence it is apparent that Mathew met with a gruesome murder with one stab injury and 17 incised injuries, injury No. 14 was a stab injury and was inflicted on the chest said to be with MO-IV and other incised injuries with MO-III chopper on his head, face, shoulder, hands and knees etc. There is little doubt from the prosecution evidence that the deceased met with homicide and the offender committed gruesome murder with an intention to kill. But the main question is whether the appellant alone perpetrated the crime. There is no direct evidence in proof of the prosecution case. It relics upon circumstantial evidence to connect the appellant that he alone had committed the offence. The circumstances relied on are: (1) motive of the accused; (2) preparation; (3) his presence in the neighbourhood and in the locality immediately before the occurrence; (4) presence of the accused in Ramanathu House on the date of occurrence; (5) his presence immediately after the occurrence; (6) recoveries pursuant to his statement under S.27; (7) injury found on the finger of the accused. From these circumstances the prosecution claimed to have established that the appellant had committed the offence of murder.

5. The evidence of P.W. 10, widow P.W. 11, one sister PWs.12 and 16 other brothers and the documentary evidence Ext. P6 etc. would show that disputes among the brothers and sisters regarding the properties did exist, in particular, the evidence of PWs.10 and 12 establishes that Mathew excluded his brothers and sisters, took possession of the entire properties and was enjoying. A preliminary decree for partition at the behest of P.W.12 was granted but final decree proceedings were pending. The deceased kept the Ramanathu House locked. In this case the evidence of PWs.1, 2, 4 to 7,14 and 21 is material to connect the appellant with the crime. Normally when the trial Court and the High Court concurrently found that the accused had committed the crime, this Court would refrain to appreciate the evidence. On going through the judgments of the Sessions Court and the High Court we entertained doubt regarding the conclusiveness of the appellants' compliance. Therefore, we directed the appellant's counsel to produce the evidence. Accordingly the typed evidence has been placed on record. From the evidence we are satisfied that the Courts below did not subject