SHIRCY V., J.

1. Being aggrieved by the Judgment dated 23rd July 2011 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge- 1, Alappuzha in Sessions Case No. 653/2008, the appellants (hereinafter referred to as accused) have preferred these appeals.

2. The prosecution case in a nutshell could be stated thus:

Asokan, the 3rd accused and Mohanan, the deceased are direct brothers. Ajayan, the 2nd accused is the brother-in-law of Muraleedharan, the 4th accused. Shibu the 1st accused is the brother-in-law of the 2nd accused. The 3rd accused, while working at Bangalore had entrusted his property to the deceased to run a chapra (a shed used to make coir) and when he demanded it back on his return the deceased refused to do so. Hence a civil suit was filed. Because of the civil dispute pending between them they were on inimical terms with each other. The 4th accused was also entertaining enmity towards the deceased, as the deceased had questioned him about the allegation of misappropriation of funds of the family temple. Due to the enmity of the 3rd and the 4th accused towards the deceased, they hatched a criminal conspiracy with the other accused to finish off Mohanan and in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy, the 1st and the 2nd accused trespassed into the residential compound of the deceased at 6 p.m. on 17.1.2005 with deadly weapons and attacked him and intentionally caused his death. When PW-2, the wife of the deceased Mohanan and PW-1, his son, intervened to rescue him, the 1st and the 2nd accused had also inflicted injuries on them. The 2nd accused had stabbed on the abdomen of the deceased with a knife and had beaten him on his head with a wooden log and caused grievous injuries to him. Though he was rushed to the hospital, he succumbed to injuries. The 1st accused had also hacked PW-2, the wife of the deceased, with an iron bar and inflicted injuries on PW-1, the son of the deceased, when they tried to intervene to save the deceased from the hands of the accused.

3. The accused were charged and tried for offences punishable under sections 120-B, 109, 448, 323, 324, 326, 307 and 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, hereinafter referred to as IPC).

4. The prosecution examined 19 witnesses to prove the case. Exts.P1 to P18, Exts.X1 and X2 and C1 were also marked. MOs.1 to 12 were identified. On the defence side, DW1 and DW2 were examined and Exts.D1 to D3were marked.

5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, on a scrutiny of the evidence on record and after analysing the rival contentions, convicted the 1st and the 2nd accused for the offences under sections 448, 324, 326 and 302 read with section 34 of IPC. They were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under section 448 of IPC, rigorous imprisonment for one year under section 324 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month under section 326 IPC and imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months for the offence under section 302 read with section 34 IPC. The 3rd and 4th accused were convicted for the offence under section 302 read with section 120-B IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

6. The learned senior counsel appearing for the accused contended that, the evidence of the eye-witnesses and the injured are not believable and also that the conviction entered against all the accused on the basis of the defective investigation are liable to be set aside. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor would argue that the prosecution has proved the case beyond any reasonable doubt, against all the accused and therefore the conviction and sentence are only to be confirmed.

7. We have carefull