k. Hema, J.

The appellant was charge sheeted for offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) and after trial, he was convicted and sentenced by Additional Sessions Court under Section 302 I.P.C. to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The said conviction and sentence are challenged in this appeal.

2. Prosecution case, briefly: On 24.12.2003 at about 5 p.m., while deceased Moideen Koya was going to the market along with PW1, who is his minor son, accused, who is the younger brother of the deceased, came from opposite side and stabbed the deceased with MO1-knife. A scuffle ensued for the knife and in the course of scuffle, both of them fell down to the paddy field which is lying at a lower level from the road. The accused took a granite stone from the side wall and hit the deceased with the same. He also poured acid on his face from a bottle carried by him.

3. The accused committed the above acts, pursuant to the dire enmity he had towards the deceased, on account of some property dispute. The deceased sustained injuries and he was rushed to the hospital by the control room police. But, he died at the hospital on the same day. A first information statement was given to the police by PW1. FIR was registered and after investigation, a charge sheet was laid against the accused for offence under Section 302 of I.P.C.

4. To prove the prosecution case, prosecution examined PW1 to PW20, marked Exts.P1 to P22 and MOs 1 to 14. The accused did not adduce any evidence, either oral or documentary. While questioned under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code' for short), accused stated that he was assaulted by the deceased on several occasions on account of some problems relating to property. The deceased stabbed him with a knife and he caught hold of it when accused sustained an injury on his hand. There was a scuffle between the two and they fell into the paddy field. He did not know what happened thereafter.

5. The trial court, on an analysis of evidence accepted prosecution case and held that accused intentionally caused murder of the deceased. The plea of right of private defence was rejected.

6. Heard both sides. Perused the records. The points to be considered in this appeal are:

1. Whether accused intentionally caused the death of deceased Moideen Koya, by stabbing him with MO1, hitting him with a stone on his head and pouring acid on his face, as alleged by prosecution?

2. Whether the conviction and sentence passed against appellant are sustainable?

7. Points 1 and 2: The fact that deceased died due to the incised wound sustained by him, which is described in detail in Ext.P7-postmortem certificate, is proved by prosecution by the medical evidence. Therefore, the question is whether such injury was inflicted by the accused as alleged by prosecution. The prosecution is mainly relying upon evidence of PWs 1 to 3 to prove the incident.

8. PW1 is an alleged eye witness to the entire incident. He is the son of deceased Moideen Koya. He was aged about 15 years at the time of incident. According to him, the incident happened on 24.12.2003 at 5 p.m. while he was going from his house along with his father for purchasing household articles to Karanthoor on Ovungara-Vadakkethala Road. His father's brother, who is the accused in this case, came from the opposite side of the road and on seeing him, his father moved to the side of the road and continued to walk.

9. While so, accused proceeded towards his father and caught hold of his shirt stating that he would finish his greed for property, drew MO1-knife and stabbed the deceased on his stomach. PW1 further deposed that a push and pull ensued and both of them fell into the paddy field. When the accused continued stabbing, PW1 asked him not to kill his father. On hearing all these, PW2 and one Abbas came to the scene. On seeing them, accused threw off his knife, took a gra