The judgment emphasizes the importance of properly appreciating the evidence and cautions against the misuse of local inspection, highlighting the need for local inspection to be used only to appreciate the existing evidence and not to create additional evidence.

NARAYANA PILLAI, J.

This is an appeal from acquittal. There were six accused persons in the case. The charge against them at their trial at the Sessions, Trichur, was that they were members of an unlawful assembly and that in furtherance of the common object of that assembly one Bava was murdered by the first and fourth accused beating him with sticks and the remaining accused persons fisting him with hands.

2. The occurrence took place at or about 2.30 p.m. on May 2, last year at a place on the beach within the jurisdiction of Mathilakam Police Station. Accused 1 to 5 are related to each other. The sixth accused is their friend. The relationship between Bava's sons on the one hand and the accused on the other was not cordial for some time past. There were criminal cases between them.

3. Before the occurrence Bava was repairing a fishing net at the scene of occurrence. After coming in a body to that place the first and fourth accused beat Bava with a stick, the first accused on the head and the fourth accused on the left leg. The remaining accused fisted him. Hearing cries from the scene of occurrence several persons including P.W. 1 came there. Accused 1 and 4 then threw came there. Accused 1 and 4 then threw the sticks into the sea and ran away along with the remaining accused.

4. Bava was removed from the place by P.W. 1 and others first to the Cranganore Government Hospital and thereafter for better treatment to the Trichur District Hospital. He died at 10 p.m. On getting information about the removal of Bava with injuries on his body to hospital a Head Constable of the Mathilakom Police Station went to the Trichur District Hospital and recorded there at 11 p.m. the first information statement, Ext. P. 1, given by P.W. 1. On the basis of it a case was registered against the accused. They were arrested on June 12, 1972.

5. Both in the committal and trial Courts the accused denied having had anything to do with the occurrence. The did not examine any witness on the behalf.

6. It is not disputed that Bava died as a result of the injuries sustained by him at the time of the occurrence Exts. P-10 and P-11 are respectively the post-mortem certificate and the inquest report. Only two injuries, both lacerated are noted in Ext. P. 10, one on the fronts area of the scalp and the other on the left leg below the knee. The injury on the head fractured the left frontal bone and anterior and middle cranial fossa. It was necessarily fatal.

7. The important question to considered is whether it was accused and 4 who caused the injuries found on Bava and whether it was in the circumstances stated by the prosecution that the occurrence took place. The occurrence witnesses are P.Ws. 1 to 4. The trial Judge refused to act upon their evidence.

8. Admittedly Bava's sons were on bitterly terms with the accused. P.Ws. 1 and 2 are nephews and P.W. 4 is brother of Bava. They had gone out to the sea to catch fist. After coming back to the shore they sold the fist caught that day for Rs. 12/- and handed over the money to Bava. Thereafter they went to take tea in a shop about two furlongs away. After taking tea from the shop, on their way to the beach they are said to have heard Bava's cries from the scene of occurrence and then on looking from a place near one Bhargavi's tea shop, about 35 metres away, seen the accused committing the crime. After, the day's work instead of going to their houses, three furlongs away, they are said to have come back to the beach after taking tea. The explanation given for coming back to the beach was to repair nets. That was not mentioned during investigation. It was not mentioned in Ext. P. 1 also. P.W. 3 is Bhargavi's brother-in-law. His house is some distance away from Bhargavi's tea shop. After the death of Bhargavi's husband he used to look after Bhargavi's property. There used to be stealing of coconuts from Bhargavi's property and it was to check that P.W. 3 is said to have come on the date of occurrenc