R. Basant, J.

1. Is the accused entitled to the benefit of doubt on the basis of the totality of inputs available in this case? This question is raised for consideration before us in this appeal by Sri. P.Vijaya Bhanu, the learned senior counsel for the appellant.

2. The appellant has been found guilty, convicted and sentenced under Section 302 I.P.C to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2 lakhs. Default sentence has also been imposed. The appellant is alleged to have caused the death of his brother in law Balan, by inflicting multiple stab injuries on him with MO.1 weapon on the public road near the shop of PW1. Property disputes allegedly operated as the motive.

3. Investigation commenced with Ext.P1 (a) F.I.R registered on the basis of Ext.P1 F.I statement lodged by PW1, an alleged eye witness. Investigation was completed and final report was filed by PW11 before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction. The learned Magistrate after observing all legal formalities committed the case to the court of session. The learned Sessions Judge took cognizance of the offence alleged against the appellant. The appellant denied the charge framed against him by the learned Sessions Judge. Thereupon the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 11 and proved Exts.P1 to P10. MOs.1 to 11 series were also marked.

4. In the course of cross examination of the prosecution witnesses and when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the appellant/accused appears to have taken up a defence of total denial. He took the specific stand that the witnesses were not speaking the truth. He did not adduce any defence evidence -oral or documentary.

5. The learned Sessions Judge, on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs, came to the conclusion that it has been proved satisfactorily that the deceased succumbed to homicidal injuries suffered by him at the hands of the appellant with a weapon like MO.1. Accordingly, the learned Sessions Judge proceeded to pass the impugned judgment.

6. Arguments have been advanced before us by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution has not succeeded in proving its original case. When they found it impossible to prove their original case, the prosecution attempted to fall back on circumstances and did attempt to contend that the indictment stands proved by circumstances. These circumstances have not been established satisfactorily. These circumstances cannot lead to a safe inference of guilt. At any rate, the accused must be held entitled to the benefit of doubt. The precise genesis of the incident having not been proved satisfactorily by the prosecution, the appellant is, at any rate, not liable to be convicted. The learned counsel further contends that in any view of the matter, the appellant is entitled to mitigation and is not liable to be convicted under Section 302 I.P.C.

7. We have considered all the relevant inputs. An appellate judgment is; is intended to be read and ought to be reckoned as a continuation of the judgment of the trial court. In that view of the matter, we deem it unnecessary to resort to re-narration of the oral and documentary evidence placed before the learned Sessions Judge. Suffice it to say that the learned counsel have taken us in detail and meticulously through the oral evidence of PWs 1 to 11 and the contents of Exts.Pl to P10. We have also been taken through the charge framed by the learned Sessions Judge against the appellant as also the answers given by the appellant in the course of his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. We shall refer specifically to relevant materials if necessary in the course of the discussions to follow.

8. The prosecution initially wanted to establish its case on direct ocular testimony expected from PW1. PW1 had lodged Ext.P1 F.I statement in which he claimed to be an eye witness to the occurrence. PW1 turned hostile to the prosecution