The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on trustworthy evidence, including the testimony of eye witnesses and medical evidence, in confirming the conviction and sentence for the offences under the Penal Code.

K. Sreedharan, J.

1. First accused in S C. 71 of 1989 on the fife of the Sessions Court, Thrissur is the appellant, He, along with another was charged with offences punishable under S.302 and 307 read with S.34 of the Penal Code. After trial, learned Sessions Judge found first accused guilty of offence under S.302 and 324 of the Penal Code and convicted him thereunder. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under S.302 of I. P. C. He was again sentenced to pay a fine of Rs, 2,000/- and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under S.324 of I. P. C. It was also ordered in case the fine is realised, Rs. 1,000/- should be paid to the injured. Conviction and sentence passed against him are under challenge.

2. The prosecution version of the incident, in a nutshell, is as follows. - At about 11-30 P.M. on 9-7-1988, accused, appellant herein and the second accused before the Trial Court, reached the hand cart shop of PW 4, which was at that time at the side of the road in front of S. N. Theatre at Kodungallur. P. Ws. 1 to 3 were near that shop. PW 1 was helping PW 4 in conducting the sales. Appellant demanded a packet of beedi. PW 1 gave one packet. Stating that the beedi is duplicate, appellant threw it away. He demanded betel for chewing. They took betel for chewing and gave the money. Thereafter appellant and second accused moved towards east. Then appellant told deceased that they are intending to beat someone there. Deceased asked appellant and the second accused to go home without picking up quarrel. Then appellant pushed the deceased. Consequently the deceased fell down. When he got up, second accused caught hold of him from behind. Appellant took out a knife from his waist and inflicted a stab on left chest of the deceased. PW 1 then pushed the appellant. Then he turned towards PW 1 to stab him. PW 1 took position behind PW 2, son of the deceased. Appellant then inflicted stab injuries on the shoulder and chest of PW 2. Thereafter appellant and second accused ran towards south.

3. Ramakrishnan and PW 2, who sustained injuries, were immediately taken in an autorikshaw to Government Hospital at Kodungallur. Doctor, on examination, found Ramakrishnan dead. PW 2 was referred to Medical College Hospital, Thrissur.

4. To prove the prosecution version of the incident, PWs. 1 to 16 were examined and Exts. P1 to P 11 were proved. M. Os 1 to 9 were also marked. No evidence, either oral or documentary, was let in on the side of the defence. PWs. 1 to 6 were examined as eye witnesses to the incident. PW 1 gave the First information Statement at 12.30 A.M. on 10-7-1988, i.e. on the same night. 10-7-1988 was a Sunday and F. I. R. reached the Magistrate on 11-7-1988. Appellant was arrested on 11-7-1988. On the basis of the information given by him, M. O.1 blade and M. O.1 (a) handle of the knife, alleged to have been used for inflicting the stab injuries, were recovered under Ext. P5 recovery mahazar. Attestor to that mahazar was examined in the case as PW 10.

5. PWs, 1 to 4 speak to the entire prosecution story. PW 2, the injured, and PW 3 are the sons of deceased Ramakrishnan. It has come in evidence that PWs. 1 to 3 were helping PW 4 in conducting business in his mobile bunk shop. It has also come in evidence that the business of PW 4 will continue till about 1.00 O'clock in the night. Appellant has not disputed the fact that deceased Ramakrishnan and PW 2 sustained injuries. According to him, the injuries wore inflicted in exercise of the right of private defence. He would contend that wordy altercation took place between him and Ramakrishnan. Seeing the presence of PWs. 2 and 3 at the scene, it is said that Ramakrishnan became aggressive. He whipped out a knife and tried to stab the appellant. The stab was warded off and there was a scuffle for the knife. In the course of the scuffle, Ramakrishnan and PW 2 sustained injuries. It is his further case that P. Ws. 1 and 3 were inimically disposed to