The main legal point established in the judgment is the proper application of Section 153 of the Evidence Act, which prohibits the admission of evidence to contradict a witness on irrelevant matters that do not affect the principal matter in dispute. The court emphasized that the trial court's acceptance of impermissible evidence under this section had led to a miscarriage of justice.

1. The petitioner is the wife of deceased Rajan. Rajan had a homicidal death. The incident took place on 21.3.1994 at about 6.30 PM at Koothuparamba. It was alleged that the accused, who are respondents 2 to 12 herein, formed themselves into unlawful assembly with the common object of causing the murder of Rajan and in prosecution of the common object of that unlawful assembly, the accused committed rioting with deadly weapons, wrongfully restrained deceased Rajan and inflicted various cut injuries on his body to which he succumbed. The First Information Report was given by PW1, Harish an eye witness to the occurrence, at about 7.00 PM on the same day. It was recorded by the A.S.I. of Koothuparamba Police Station, based on which Crime No:101/1994 was registered. Investigation was taken over by the Circle Inspector of Police, Koothuparamba. The inquest on the body of the deceased was conducted by him and scene mahazar was prepared. The post mortem examination was conducted by the Doctor. Since offences under TADA were also incorporated the investigation was handed over to DySP. But subsequently, offences under the TADA were deleted and again investigation was entrusted to Circle Inspector of Police, Koothuparamba. After completing investigation charge sheet against respondents 2 to 12 were filed before the learned Magistrate who later committed the case to the Court of Session.

2. PWs 1 to 18 were examined and Exhibits P1 to P20 were marked. Exhibits X1 to X9 were also marked. On the side of the defence, Dws 1 to 17 were examined and Exhibits D1 to D12 were marked.

3. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted all the accused giving them benefit of reasonable doubt. No appeal was preferred by the State.

4. The wife of the deceased, in this Revision filed by her under sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., challenges the said verdict of acquittal. The petitioner contends that the reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge to disbelieve the oral evidence of PWs 1 to 3 are totally untenable. The incident took place in a busy road in Koothuparamba town at 6.30 PM. Because of the terror and shock unleashed by the accused who belonged to a very strong political party, nobody came forward to speak the truth, for fear of retaliation at the hands of the accused who were supported by a militant political party who ruled the State. Hence, the Court below should have found that it was in that factual backdrop that no other person came forward to give evidence in the matter. The reasons put forward by the Court below to reject the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is wholly erroneous and as such the verdict of acquittal given by the Court below is liable to be set aside, the petitioner pleads.

5. The fact that Exhibit P1 was lodged within half an hour of the incident and it reached the hands of the Magistrate on the same night should have been given weight by the Court below. The further fact that the names of the assailants were mentioned in Exhibit P1 also should have been taken into account by the Court below, the petitioner further contends.

6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 12 and also the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for R1, the State. The following points arise for consideration.

1) Whether the Court below has improperly and illegally rejected the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses?

2) Whether the reasons given by the Court below to acquit the accused is wholly erroneous? And

3) Whether the verdict of acquittal is to be set aside.

Points 1 and 2

7. The fact that Kolanandi Rajan was attacked by a group of persons and he sustained fatal injuries, at about 6.30 PM on 21.3.1994 at Koothuparamba, to which he succumbed is not in serious dispute. Exhibit P7, the post mortem certificate proved by PW 11 (the Doctor) who conducted the autopsy, could see 27 ante mortem injuries on the body of the deceased. Injury No.8, mentioned in Exhibit P7 is found to be a very