The judgment emphasizes the importance of evaluating evidence from interested and inimical sources and clarifies the admissibility of statements leading to the discovery of facts under S.27 of the Evidence Act.

S. Padmanabhan and P.K. Shamsuddin, JJ.

1. Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 1985 is by accused 2, 3 and 4 against their conviction and sentence. In Crl. R. P. No. 61 of 1985, accused 1 and 5 also challenge their conviction and sentence. Criminal Appeal No. 213 of 1985 is by the State against the acquittal of accused 1, 2, 4 and 5 for the offences under S.143, 147, 148 and 302 read with S.149 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Accused 1 to 3 are direct brothers. PW 19 is their direct sister. PW 20 is her husband. He is a Head Constable. PW 5 Kuttan is the brother of their father. Accused 4 and 5 are the sons of the first accused. PW 1 and deceased Suresh Kumar alias Boban are the sons of PW 19 and 20. PWs 4 and 11 are the sons of PW 5. PW 15 is the wife of the third accused and PW 16 is the wife of PW 5. The parties are thus close relations. They are neighbours also.

3. Third accused had a dispute with PWs 9 and 20 over a pathway Litigations were also there. Though litigations ended, enmity continued. On 21-12-1980 PW 11 was bitten by the dog of third accused and PW 15. PWs 15 and 16 quarrelled over it. Deceased came and joined the quarrel and gave a slap to PW 15. Next morning, PW 5 was beaten by the second accused. Deceased saw this from the opposite bank of the river and challenged second accused. At 6 30 PM, when the deceased was talking to PW 14 in front of his shop on the other bank of the river, all the five accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and came there with the common object of murdering Boban. Second accused was having a wooden stick and accused 3 and 4 kept concealed two daggers inside the umbrellas carried by them. Fifth accused slapped the deceased after finding fault with him for having beaten PW 15. Deceased returned a slap. First accused beat Boban on his neck. Thereupon, second accused beat him with a stick several times. Third accused took out a sword stick and stabbed Boban on his right shoulder. Fourth accused took out a knife and stabbed him on the left shoulder Deceased ran to the shop of PW 14. Third accused chased and stabbed him below his left ear. Deceased was taken first to a local doctor PW 9 and then to the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam where he died at 11.40 that night itself. This is the prosecution case.

4. Unlawful assembly, rioting and common object to commit murder were found against by the Sessions Judge. Third accused alone was found guilty of murder and sentenced to imprisonment for life. Accused 1, 2 and5 each were convicted only under S.323. Accused 1 and 5 were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one month each and second accused to rigorous imprisonment for six months. Fourth accused was convicted under S.324 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year.

5. The fact that these people, though close relations, belong to two rival inimical camps is not in dispute. Enmity was generally spoken to by the witnesses. The incidents, which acted as immediate motive, were spoken to by PW 16, who saw them. PW I has also spoken to it. Further motive is not in serious dispute and it is also irrelevant in view of the direct evidence regarding the incident.

6. PWs 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 14 and 19 are the occurrence witnesses. Among them, PWs 8, 10 and 14 are hostile. PWs 1, 4, 5 and 19 are closely related and inimical witnesses. The only independent witness is PW 2. All of them have spoken to the basic features of the actual occurrence with uniformity in accordance with the prosecution case. Except some very minor discrepancies on details such as the exact sequence of events, the nature of the weapon or the exact portion of the body where the injuries were received, there is no contradiction also between them on the substratum of the incident. PW 14. who is also a hostile witness admitted the presence of PWs 1, 4 and 5. The actual incident is to a certain extent corroborated by PW 8, who is also a hostile witness. PW 7 is the doctor who first attended the deceased at 9 PM and issued