Babu Mathew P. Joseph, J.

1. The appellant was found guilty of the offence under Section 302 of IPC by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and he was convicted for that offence. He was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-. Rigorous imprisonment for three months was also imposed as default sentence. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant/accused has preferred this appeal.

2. The prosecution alleged that out of previous enmity towards deceased Sajeevan, the accused committed the murder of the said Sajeevan by intentionally causing his death by inflicting a stab injury on the left side of his chest with MO1 knife at 4.30 p.m. on 6.9.2003 at Kizhakkekakra Thekkummuri in Thrikkunnappuzha village. The deceased Sajeevan was first taken to the Government hospital, Haripad. Thereafter, while he was being taken to the Medical College Hospital, Alappuzha, he succumbed to the injury sustained by him at about 6 p.m. on that day.

3. PW1 went to Thrikkunnappuzha Police Station and gave Ext.P1 First Information Statement to PW12, the Sub Inspector of Police, at 8.30 p.m. on 6.9.2003. Based on Ext.P1, PW12 registered Crime No.168 of 2003 of that Police Station. Ext.P1(a) is the F.I.R. thus drawn by PW12.

4. PW13, the Circle Inspector of Police, Haripad, had taken over the investigation of the case on 7.9.2003 and conducted the investigation. After completing the investigation, he had submitted the Final Report, alleging the offence under Section 302 of IPC against the appellant/accused, before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction.

5. Learned Magistrate, after observing the legal formalities, committed the case to the Court of Session, which was, subsequently, made over to the Additional Sessions Court. The accused denied the charge, alleging the offence under Section 302 IPC, framed against him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 13 and marked Exts.P1 to P10. MO1 and MO2 series were also marked. Exts.D1 to D3 were marked on the side of the defence.

6. In the course of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, the accused set up a defence that the deceased Sajeevan sustained stab injury with scissors in an attack between two groups of people that occurred at 2.30 p.m. on the day of 'Pooradam' and thus he died. The accused had denied all the incriminating circumstances shown against him while he was being examined under Section 313 (1)(b) of Cr.P.C. Further, he had stated as follows: An attack between people belonging to two different clubs took place at Manivelilchira on the day of Pooradam. The deceased sustained the fatal injury in that attack at the hands of somebody.

7. The prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of PWs.2 and 3, the eyewitnesses. They also relied on the evidence of PWs.1, 4, 5 and 7 for proving their case. Learned Additional Sessions Judge placed reliance on all these witnesses for finding the accused guilty. According to the defence, the prosecution has not placed the true facts before the court and the evidence of PWs. 1 to 5 and 7 is not at all reliable for finding the accused guilty of the offence alleged. In the facts and circumstances, according to the defence, the accused, at least, is entitled to the benefit of doubt.

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. We have also perused the records.

9. The points that arise for consideration are as follows:

(1) Whether the appellant/accused had committed the offence of murder by intentionally causing the death of Sajeevan as alleged by the prosecution?

(2) Is the appellant/accused entitled to the benefit of doubt?

10. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused argued that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had erred in placing reliance on the oral testimony of PWs. 1 to 5 and 7. Their evidence should have been disbelieved. The FIR reached the court only after a long delay of about 5 days. T