P.B. Suresh Kumar, J.

1. The sole accused in S.C.No.449 of 2010 on the file of the Sessions Court, Thalassery, is the appellant. He has been found guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, hereinafter, referred to as 'the IPC', for short.

2. The accused, a native of Dakshin Karnataka, was an employee in a fishing boat, operated from Azhikkal Harbour. On 19.4.2001, a co-worker of the accused Sankara was found dead at a place near the Harbour. The case of the prosecution is that between 9 p.m. on 18.4.2001 and 2 a.m. on 19.4.2001, the accused had committed the murder of Sankara by stabbing him on his chest with a knife.

3. PW1, the brother-in-law of the deceased lodged Ext.P1 First Information statement concerning the death of the deceased and a case has been registered by the Valapatanam Police based on the said statement. Initially, PW12 was the officer-in-charge of the investigation. He prepared Ext.P2 scene mahazar, seized Mos.1 to 5 and 9 from the scene of occurrence and recorded the statements of the witnesses. Later, the investigation was continued by Pws.14 to 16 and among them, PW16 completed the investigation and submitted the final report against the accused, alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.

4. On appearance, the accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution thereupon examined 16 witnesses as PW1 to PW16, marked 9 documents as Exts.P1 to P9 and caused identification of 10 material objects as Mos. 1 to 10, to establish the guilt of the accused. After the evidence of the prosecution, when the accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure concerning the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied those circumstances and pleaded that he has no connection whatsoever with the occurrence. Since this was not a case of no evidence for the prosecution, the accused was though called upon to enter on his defence, he chose not to adduce any evidence.

5. The Court of Session, on an appraisal of the materials on record, found that the accused caused the death of the deceased and he is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

7. The point arises for consideration is whether the accused is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.

8. Injury Nos.1 to 5 noted on the body of the deceased in Ext.P4 post mortem certificate read thus:

"1) Wedge shaped incised penetrating wound 2.5x0.5cm horizontal on the left side of chest, the inner end being 1.5c.m. below the nipple. There was a tailing, 6cm long, starting from the inner end and directed inwards and slightly upwards. The wound entered the chest cavity through the 5th intercostal space and was directed downwards, backwards and to the right, to terminate by puncturing the apex of the heart (0.8x0.2 cm).

2) Incised wound 1x0.3 cm on the front of chest, 7cm below the left nipple.

3) Incised wound 1x0.3 cm on the left side of trunk, 12cm below the nipple.

4) Wedge shaped incised penetrating wound 2x0.5 cm, in the right flank, 6.5 cm to the right of midline and 10cm below the costal margin. The wound directed backwards, downwards and to the left, terminated in the abdominal cavity without injuring any organs. Total minimum depth was 3 cm.

5) Two superficial cuts, 2 cm each in length, 1cm apart on the right side of lower abdomen, 2.5 c.m. above inj. no.4."

It is opined in Ext.P4 that the death of Sankara was due to the stab injury on his chest, involving the heart. The doctor who conducted the post mortem was examined as PW9. He has reiterated the findings in Ext.P4 post mortem certificate. In addition, he deposed that injury Nos.1 to 5 could be inflicted with a weapon like MO1 and injury Nos.1 and 4 are independently sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. He has also stated that the death of the d