Sudheendra Kumar J.,

The appellant is the accused in S.C. No.591/2008 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc -1) Kozhikode, who in this appeal challenges the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court under Section 302 I.P.C.

2. The prosecution allegation is that on 6.10.2007, at about 11.00 a.m., the deceased Paulose was beaten by the appellant with an iron pipe on his head and neck at the court yard of the house of the deceased, and as a consequence, the deceased died at or about the same time.

3. On getting information with regard to the death of the deceased, PW1 went to the place of occurrence. Thereafter, he went to the Police station and gave Ext.P1 F.I. Statement. On the basis of Ext.P1 F.I. Statement given by PW1, PW15 Assistant Sub Inspector of Police registered Ext.P1(a) F.I.R. under section 302 I.P.C. The investigation was taken over by PW16, the then Circle Inspector of Police on 6.10.2007 itself. He conducted the inquest on the body of the deceased at 4.30 p.m. on 6.10.2007 and prepared Ext.P5 Inquest report. On 7.10.2007 at 12 Noon, PW16 arrested the appellant. In pursuance to the disclosure statement given by appellant and as led by appellant, MO1 iron pipe was recovered by PW16 as per Ext.P4 mahazar. After completing the investigation, PW16 laid the charge before the Magistrate Court concerned.

4. The learned Magistrate, after complying with the legal formalities, committed the case to the Sessions Court, Kozhikode. The Sessions Court made over the case to the court below for trial and disposal in accordance with law.

5. Since the appellant did not plead guilty, the trial was conducted. In the trial, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW16 and marked Exts.P1 to P21, besides identifying MO1 to MO6 series. After the closing of the prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he denied the incriminating materials appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He further filed a statement denying his involvement in the commission of the offence. Thereafter, since there was no scope for an order of acquittal under Section 232 Cr.P.C., the appellant was called upon by the court below to enter on his defence. However, the appellant did not adduce any evidence. After evaluating the evidence, the court below found the appellant guilty under Section 302 I.P.C. and convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.10,000/- with a default clause for rigorous imprisonment for one year.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. Johnson Abraham and also the learned Public Prosecutor, Sri. Rajesh Vijayan.

7. The prosecution mainly relies on the evidence of PW2 and PW3 with regard to the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant and also the medical evidence of PW9 and Ext. P8 to connect the appellant with the commission of the offence. PW2 is a local leader of Marxist Party of India. He stated that on 6.10.2007 at about 12 noon, while he was taking rest at home, the appellant came to his house and told him that the appellant had committed murder of a person. When PW2 asked about the person whom he killed, the appellant stated that he killed the deceased in this case. After some time, he went to the bus stop, where he saw Sri. Mathew, who is a relative of the deceased. He went to the place of occurrence in the motor bike of the said Mathew. Thereafter, the said Mathew reported the matter to the police over telephone.

8. PW3 is another person to whom also the appellant made extra-judicial confession. According to PW3, on 6.10.2007 at about 11.30 a.m., while he was tapping the rubber trees, the appellant came near to him and told him that he had given a blow to deceased Poulose. When PW3 asked the appellant as to how he inflicted the blow, the appellant told PW3 that he inflicted the blow with the pipe of a sprayer pump. The appellant also requested PW3 to take the deceased to the hospital.