The main legal point established in the judgment is that the evidence presented, including witness testimony and medical evidence, was sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellants for murder under Section 300 IPC.

A. HARIPRASAD, J.

1. Appellants challenge the conviction and sentence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short "IPC") awarded by the learned Sessions Judge, Thrissur in S.C. No. 54 of 2004.

2. Prosecution case, in short, is as follows:

Deceased Bhavani was residing with her children in a Laksham Veedu Colony at Chattikulam in Kodassery Village. The appellants are her neighbours. Deceased Bhavani belonged to Hindu-Pulaya community which is a Scheduled Caste. Appellants 1 and 2 are members of Viswakarma community and the 3rd appellant belongs to Hindu-Pulaya community. There were boundary disputes between the deceased and appellants. Several complaints were preferred against each other in the police station concerned. On 19.01.2000 at 5.10 p.m. the deceased, after finishing her work, was travelling in a bus back home. Along with her, the appellants were also present in the bus. When the bus stopped at Chattikulam bus stop, the appellants 1 and 2 alighted from the bus hurriedly and pulled the deceased by lock of her hair. The 3rd appellant pushed her out from behind. She fell on the road with face down. Thereafter, the appellants incessantly beat, fisted and stamped the deceased, who was lying on the road. It is also contended that one of the appellants hit on her forehead with a piece of stone. When the deceased cried out, large number of people converged and then the appellants fled. She crawled towards the house of CW2 craving for water. Thereafter the matter was informed to police over phone. A police jeep came and she was taken to the Taluk Head Quarters Hospital, Chalakudy. Doctor examined her and found her condition critical. She was referred to Medical College Hospital, Thrissur. As there was nobody to take her to the Medical College Hospital, Thrissur at that time, she was admitted in the hospital. On the next day, she was again referred to the Medical College Hospital and on the way she succumbed to the injuries.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

4. The prosecution examined 17 witnesses and marked 26 documents to prove their case. There was no defence witness. Material objects 1 to 11 are also marked.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the trial court legally went wrong in finding that the appellants are guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC. Further it is contended that the court below did not correctly appreciate the evidence to arrive at the finding. Before dealing with the legal issues raised, we shall deal with the evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove guilt of the appellants.

6. PWs. 1 to 3 are the eye witnesses. PW-3 Shiju has seen the first part of the incident. He was also residing at Chattikulam at the relevant time. He knew Bhavani long before the incident. All the appellants and PW-3 are neighbours and they were known to each other. The incident was on 19.01.2000 at about 7.40 p.m. He is a welder by profession. He was working at Chalakudy on that day. He along with his father came in the same bus in which the appellants and deceased Bhavani travelled. When the bus left Chalakudy, all of them were standing because the bus was crowded. After some time, PW-3, Bhavani and the appellants got seat in the bus. When the bus was about to stop where Bhavani was expected to alight, the appellants 1 and 3 jumped out of the bus. They pulled Bhavani by tuft and the 2nd appellant pushed her. She fell down. The 1st appellant took MO1 stone and hit on her forehead. At that time appellants 2 and 3 exhorted to finish her. All the three appellants repeatedly assaulted the deceased. They fisted and stamped the deceased. The incident took place on a rough surface of a public road margin. On seeing the blood oozing from the body of deceased, PW-3 was petrified. He went away from the place. It is his version that there was enough light to see the incident. A street light was locat