The judgment underscores the importance of fair trial procedures, the duty of the court to ensure a reasonable opportunity for the accused to prove innocence, and the need for reliable evidence to establish guilt in criminal cases.

1. The accused in Sessions Case No. 11 of 1958 of the Sessions Court of Ernakulam has filed this appeal against his conviction for the offence of murder punishable under S.302, Indian Penal Code, and the sentence of death therefor passed by the learned Sessions Judge. The referred trial is the reference made by the Sessions Judge for confirmation of the sentence.

2. The charge against the accused was that, at about 6 P. M. on the 30th March 1958, he stabbed his younger brother, Varghese, with a pen-knife on the right side of his neck near the region the cheek joins the neck and thereby caused his death.

3. Pw. 7 is the accused's father. It would appear from the evidence in the case that besides the accused Pw. 7 had at least three sons In order of seniority, Pw. 7's sons were one Ouseph, the accused, the deceased Varghese, and Pw. 4. Pw. 7 had some properties, and there were quarrels between the accused on the one hand and Pw. 7 and Varghese on the other on account of certain testamentary dispositions made by Pw. 7. These quarrels had resulted in a petition by the deceased Varghese to the Police on the 22nd October 1956 alleging that he apprehended danger to his personal safety from the accused. According to the prosecution, on account of these property disputes and Varghese's conduct in giving the petition to the Police the accused was on inimical terms with Varghese and resolved to kill him and with that intention he went, on the date of the occurrence, to a rubber estate at Edakkattuvayal village where the deceased Varghese and Pws.1 to 3 were playing cards and after, watching the game for about three-quarters of an hour he suddenly whipped out a pen-knife and stabbed Varghese on the neck and left the place immediately, drawing back the knife from the wound and leaving it at the scene of occurrence. Pws. 1 to 3 also took to their heels immediately. Varghese went to the shop of Pw. 6, about 90 feet from the scene of occurrence, bleeding profusely from the injury caused by the accused, and there Pws.1 to 3 joined him and Pw. 5 bandaged his wounds. Two persons, Kurian and Kutti, who have not been examined in this case, sent information about the occurrence to Varghese's people through Pw. 9, and on receipt of it Pw. 4 came to Pw. 6's shop and took Varghese on a cot to the hospital. Before they could reach the hospital Varghese died on the way and his body was left on the road near a cupola. On the next morning at about 9 A.M. Pw. 4 appeared at the Tripunithura Cusba Police station and gave the first information statement, Ex. P1. The accused also appeared at the police station on 31-3 -1958 and he was then arrested. This, in short, is the prosecution case.

4. The accused's plea in the Sessions Court was one of denial. According to him, he had not gone to the scene of occurrence and he had not stabbed Varghese. Some persons including his elder brother, Ouseph, went to his house on the night of 30th March 1958 and threw stones and broke the tiles and so he went on the next morning to the police station to complain about the incident and then the police arrested him saying that it was he who had caused Varghese's death. It would appear from the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge that it was contended on behalf of the accused that Varghese must have been done to death by one of the participants of the game of cards, probably by Pw. 3, in the heat of a quarrel during the game itself and that, at any rate, the present prosecution version was totally false. As the accused was too poor to engage a counsel for himself he was defended in the Sessions Court by an advocate engaged by the court under R.21, Criminal Rules of Practice.

5. The learned Sessions Judge disbelieved the accused's plea and refusing also to accept the contention put forward by his counsel found the prosecution case true and convicted the accused under S.302, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to the extreme penalty.

6. In this court also the case on beh