The judgment underscores the importance of evaluating the evidence against an absconding accused separately from the outcome of a prior trial involving a co-accused.

Pareed Pillay, J.

Accused is alleged to have caused the death of Bhanuvikrama Kurup on 6-1-1985 at about 7.15 p.m. while he was walking a1ongwith P.W.2 through the Panchayat road. Learned Additional Sessions Judge.. Mavelikara found the accused guilty under S.302 of *he Indian Penal Code and convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life.

2. Prosecution case is that Sarasamma, wife of the accused had applied for a loan under the I.R.D.P. Scheme for conducting a tea shop. The loan was sanctioned on the basis of the permission given by P.W. 3 (husband of P.W.2) to conduct the tea shop in his property. Later P.W.3 withdrew the permission. According to the prosecution. the accused was under the impression that the permission was withdrawn by P.W. 3 at the instigation of Bhanuvikrama Kurup. Accused nursed a grudge against Bhanuvikrama Kurup and that motivated him to commit the murder. It was P.W.1 who lodged the first information statement (Ext. P-1) before the police. P.W. 16. Sub Inspector recorded Ext. P-1. P.W. 17 investigated the case. P.W. 18. Circle Inspector arrested the accused on 21-4-1987 at 10.30 p.m. and after completing the investigation he laid the charge before the Court.

3. Accused (appellant) stood charged along with Madhavan Pillai for having caused the death of Bhanuvikrama Kurup. As the accused (appellant) was absconding. Madhavan Pillai was separately tried in S.C.113 of 1985 by the Additional Sessions Judge. He was acquitted in the case.

4. P.W.1 stated that when he came to the place of occurrence he saw accused and Madhavan Pillai coming from the opposite direction with weapons in their hands. It is also stated by him that he saw Bhanuvikrama Kurup lying with injuries and P.W. 2 sitting near him and weeping. According to P.W. 1. P.W.2 had told him that the accused and Madhavan Pillai had stabbed Bhanuvikrama Kurup and ran away. P.W. 1's evidence also shows that Bhanuvikrama Kurup and P.W. 2 were taken to the Government Hospital. Chengannur and that the doctor after examining Bhanuvikrama Kurup pronounced him dead.

5. Prosecution's trump card is the testimony of P.W. 2. She is the solitary eye witness. She stated that on the date of occurrence at about 7 p.m. Bhanuvikrama Kurup came to her house. that they talked for some time in her house. that accused and Madhavan Pillai came near her house and abused her and Bhanuvikrama Kurup. that they left after some time. that a little latter Bhanuvikrama Kurup wanted to go to his house. that she sensed danger and prevented him from going alone. that without paying any heed to her words Bhanuvikrama Kurup left her house and that she accompanied Bhanuvikrama Kurup to see whether she could send Thottumuzhuppil Vijayan also along with him. It is also stated by her that when they reached the place of occurrence. the accused got down from the western compound and challenged Bhanuvikrama Kurup and exhorted Madhavan Pillai to stab Bhanuvikrama Kurup. Madhavan Pillai stabbed Kurup on the back of his left shoulder with M.0.2 dagger. Immediately the accused stabbed Kurup with a pen-knife (M.O.3) on the back of his right shoulder. P.W. 2 prevented the accused from stabbing Kurup by holding his hand with the knife and as a result of it she sustained injury on her fingers. Accused pushed her away and again stabbed Kurup on his chest. Thereafter. accused and Madhavan Pillai ran away carrying the weapons. P.W.1 coming to the place of occurrence on hearing her cry is also spoken' to by P.W. 2. She and Bhanuvikrama Kurup were taken to the Government Hospital and the doctor after examining Bhanuvikrama Kurup declared him dead.

6. Prosecution mainly relies upon the testimony of P.wW. 2 and the motive for the crime. P.Ws.1 to 3 were also examined to prove the motive. P.W.1 stated that the wife of the accused had applied for a loan under the I.R.D.P. scheme for conducting a tea-shop and P.W.2's husband had agreed to give consent to have it in his property and that he la