Under S.232 Cr.P.C, the judge should only consider whether there is legal evidence connecting the accused with the commission of the crime, without evaluating the reliability or trustworthiness of the evidence.

1. In connection with the murder of one Sankunni Kurup, Velayudhan, Sankaran, Arumughan and Mundan were tried by the Court of Session, Manjeri Division, for offences punishable under various sections of the IPC. The respondent herein, the 4th accused in the case, had to face a charge under S.449 and 302 IPC. On the conclusion of the trial all the accused were acquitted.

2. The State has now come up in appeal challenging only the order of acquittal of the 4th accused.

3. The accused persons are all Harijans and are mazdoors by profession. The occurrence was on June 6, 1978, sometime between 6 and 6 30p. m. from near an illicit arrack-cum-toddy shop and from inside the house of one Vettan, husband of Cheruneeli (Pw. 11) Devaki (Pw. 8) and her husband Velayudhan were conducting an illicit arrack-cum-toddy shop in a small shed situated very close to their house. While Parameswaran Nair (Pw. 1) was engaged in collecting paddy seedlings from a seed bed nearby on the southern side of the house of Velayudhan alias Appunni, Kumaran Nair (Pw. 2) came there and was standing near Pw 1. On hearing a wordy altercation from the house of Velayudhan, both pws. 1 and 2 went there, when they saw accused 1 to 3 in a drunken state making loud noise. Sankunni Kurup also came there at that time. The second accused then asked Sankunni Kurup to return back a cigarette lighter which Sankunni Kurup had taken from him some time back during the Bharani festival at Cranganore. Sankunni Kurup denied having taken any such cigarette lighter from the second accused. Following this there was exchange of words between the second accused and Sankunni Kurup pws 1 and 2 intervened and asked them not to pick up quarrel on a silly matter. Thereafter, the accused persons went to the arrack shop while Sankunni Kurup proceeded towards east. The first accused then ran after Sankunni Kurup, overtook him and wrongfully restraining him from his front side struck him with an umbrella on his neck. Sankunni Kurup then turned back and ran westwards. When Sankunni Kurup reached on the northern side of the arrack shop, accused 1 to 3 surrounded him and attacked him by beating, fisting and kicking. Sankunni Kurup then drew out a dagger and waved it, as a result, some of the accused sustained injuries. Sankunni Kurup then entered the house of Vettan and hid himself there. At this time, the 4th accused, the elder brother of the first accused, came to the house of Velayudhan with a dagger in his hand asking him where Sankunni Kurup was. Pw 8, wife of Velayudhan prevented him from entering the house. The 4th accused from there went straight to the bouse of Vettan and entered his house. pws. 1 and 2 then heard a cry from inside the bouse The 4th accused came out of the house with the dagger and disappeared Then pws 1 and 2 along with Velayudhan went to the house of Vettan with a lantern and saw Sankunni Kurup lying with a bleeding injury on his leg, inside Vettan's house. Sankunni Kurup told them that he was stabbed by the 4th accused. While arrangements were being made to take Sankunni Kurup to the hospital, he succumbed to the injury. On the next day morning, Pw 1 went to the Kattiparathi Police Station and laid Ext. P1, first information statement, at 7 a.m and a case was registered on that basis Pw 19, Circle Inspector of Police, taking up investigation into the case, held inquest, made recoveries and questioned witnesses. Pw. 10, doctor, held autopsy over the dead body. The 4th accused was arrested on 13-6-1978 and in pursuance of a statement given by him. M. 0 1 dagger and M. 0.10 sheath were recovered under mahazar Ext P14.

4. While denying his guilt, when examined under S 313 Cr. P. C the accused gave a detailed statement, raising a plea in the nature of self defence of person.

5. The learned Sessions Judge after a full discussion and evaluation of the prosecution evidence acquitted the accused holding that the evidence of pws. 1,2,8,11 and 12 is unreliable and cannot b