Shaffique, J.

1. Appellant is the accused in SC No.199/2010 of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Fast Track No.1, Thrissur. He is convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 10,000/- for offence u/s 302 IPC and RI for 7 years along with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence u/s 326 IPC. If default is committed in payment of fine of Rs. 10,000/-, he has to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and in default of payment of Rs. 5,000/-, he has to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.

2. The victim in the case is a lady by name Ammini. She was 60 years old. According to the prosecution, while Ammini was sleeping on the road side, the accused hit her on her head twice with a concrete slab. The incident occurred on 3/11/2008. She was taken to the hospital. She remained unconscious and died at 9 p.m on 12/11/2008.

3. To prove the above case, prosecution examined PW1 to PW11 and marked Exts.P1 to P12 and produced MO1 to MO3.

4. Since the appellant was not represented by a counsel, Adv. S.Sachithananda Pai was engaged as a counsel to argue the matter.

5. It is argued by the learned counsel for appellant that the evidence of PW1 and PW5 who are the eye witnesses to the incident is not believable. There is no scientific evidence to connect the accused with the crime. There is no evidence of any previous enmity between the accused and the deceased, whereas, the deceased suffered injuries on account of a confrontation with PW1 which had been clearly stated by the accused in his statement under S.313. Such a possibility had not been investigated by the police. The details of post mortem report has not been specifically recorded in the evidence of PW7, the Doctor who conducted the post mortem. Even according to PW1 and PW5, somebody called the police immediately after the incident and the police had come to the scene of occurrence, but, the First Information Statement was recorded only at 9.00 am on 3/11/2008 and consequent to which the FIR was prepared and dispatched to the learned Magistrate which reached the Magistrate Court only at 6.00 p.m. It is argued that there are several infirmities in the prosecution case which have not been considered by the Court below. Even otherwise, there was no motive for the accused to commit such an offence and even assuming that the evidence of PW1 and PW5 is believable, there is no evidence to prove that it is a culpable homicide amounting to murder.

6. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor supported the judgment of the Court below and submitted that though there are a few infirmities in the investigation as well as in the conduct of trial, still evidence of PW1 and PW5 is enough to find the accused guilty of the offence u/s 302 IPC.

7. PW1 has given the FI statement at 9 am on 3/11/2008. According to him, he along with PW5 was working as Security Guards of a concern by name Josco Jewellers. By around 8.30 at night, they saw the deceased whom they knew earlier having a conversation with a person aged about 40 years on the northern side of Josco Jewellers and in front of the Bata showroom. They told her not to sit there. The lady did not agree and she slept there itself in the footpath in front of the Bata show room. The other person slept on the northern side, little away from where she was sleeping. By about 2.30 a.m, while PW1 and PW5 were sitting, talking to each other in front of the Josco showroom in the footpath, PW5 saw the person whom they had seen earlier carrying a big stone in his hand. Both of them suddenly went near them. Uttering that she did not pay him back Rs. 510/-, he inflicted a blow on her head with the stone he was carrying. He gave another blow also with the same stone on her head. Immediately PW1 and PW5 caught hold of him and he stopped. They shouted aloud and people near the hospital junction and auto rickshaw drivers came running. Somebody called the police and within 5 minutes the police came to the site. Some people in the