The main legal point established in the judgment is the careful assessment of evidence provided by interested witnesses and the limitation on the use of violence in the exercise of the right of private defence.

Balakrishnan, J. :- Seven accused persons were tried by the Court of Session, Kasaragod for various offences including the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. Except first accused, all others were acquitted of all charges. The 1st accused was found guilty of offence punishable under Section 304 Part II and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years. He was also directed to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- with a default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one month. Crl. A. No. 439 of 1993 is an appeal preferred by the first accused challenging his conviction and sentence and Crl. A. No. 805 of 1993 is an appeal filed by the State challenging the acquittal of accused 2 to 7 and also praying for conviction of the first accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C.

2. We heard appellant's counsel and also the learned Public Prosecutor. The prosecution case is that on 14-4-90 deceased Appachan and 7 others had gone to the house of the appellant to enquire as to who had removed the D.Y.F.I. flag hoisted by them. Deceased Appachan and his colleagues are members of the Marxist party. Appellant and his relatives belonged to Congress (I) party. The appellant, his mother, wife, sister and brothers were residing in a house adjoining to a public road. According to prosecution, when deceased Appachan and his friends reached near the house of the appellant, second accused Sunny came out of the house and asked who had filed police complaint against them. Then the deceased came forward and told that he had filed the police complaint. Then PW 6 told that if the Party's flage is lost it is usual to file police complaint. The further case of the prosecution is that then the other accused also came out of the house and threatened deceased Appachan and others. Appachan was pushed down and PW 6 tried to pacify the accused persons. Then the appellant ran to a nearby house belonging to his brother and came out with a dagger and threatened that everyone would be finished and he stabbed deceased Appachan and the other accused also intervened. On sustaining stab injury, Appachan staggered few steps and fell on the ground. PW 6 and others ran away from the place. Aftersome time, PW 6 came to the place and saw deceased Appachan lying there. He later went to Bedakam police station and gave Ext. P1 F.I. statement.

3. PW 9, the Head Constable attached to Bedakam Police Station recorded Ext. P6 F.I. statement and PW 13, the C.I. of Police Kasaragod took over the investigation and held inquest over the dead body: The clothes worn by deceased Appachan were taken into custody and the body was later sent for post mortem examination. PW 13 later prepared a scene mahazar and questioned the witnesses and laid the final charge-sheet.

4. On the prosecution side PWs. 1 to 14 were examined and Exts. P1 to P17 were marked and M.O. 1. to M.O. 15 were exhibited.

5. Deceased Appachan had 5 anti-mortem injuries on his body. Injury No. 1 was an incised wound on the right side of the chest. It had a depth of 8 c.m. This injury had penetrated and caused a deep cut on the right lobe of the liver. Both chambers of the heart were found empty. The deceased had also some multiple abrasions possibly caused due to the falling on the ground. The prosecution relied on 4 eye witnesses. They are; PW 6, PW 10, PW 11 and PW 12. All these witnesses gave a uniform account of the incident. They stated that they along with deceased and others wanted to go to the house of the Panchayat member by name Koraga Naik. When they reached the house of the appellant, the 2nd accused Sunny came out and asked who had filed police complaint against them and then deceased Appachan told that he had filed the police complaint and there was a wordy altercation and scuffle and, according to these witnesses, all the inmates of the house of the appellant came out and it was at that point of time the appellant rushed to a ne