Shaffique, J.

This appeal is filed by the accused in SC No.28/2012 of the Addl.Sessions Judge (Adhoc-II) Kottayam challenging judgment dated 12/3/2013 by which he was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence u/s 302 of I.P.C. and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-in default of which to undergo imprisonment for a further period of five years, convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year for the offence u/s 450 of I.P.C. and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-for the offence u/s 450 of I.P.C.

2. Prosecution case is that on 11/10/2010 at about 9.30 am, the accused with the intention of committing murder, trespassed into the house of Sheela (the deceased) with a bucket containing formic acid. He poured it over her head and she suffered grievous burn injuries. She was taken to Pampadi Taluk Hospital and thereafter to Medical College Hospital, Kottayam. She succumbed to the burn injuries on 25/10/2010 at 4.40pm at the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode. The case was registered based on the first information statement given by the deceased before PW36, the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Pampady on 11/10/2010. On the same day, FIR was registered and the accused was arrested on 13/10/2010. Investigation was conducted by the Circle Inspector of Police, Pampady and final report was filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I Kottayam on 1/6/2011. Thereafter the matter was committed to Sessions Court, Kottayam and made over to the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc)-II for trial and disposal.

3. The accused was charged u/s 450 and 302 of I.P.C.. To prove the prosecution case, PWs 1 to 43 were examined and they relied upon Exts.P1 to P36. MO1 to MO8 series were produced and identified. On the side of defence, Exts.D1 and D2 were marked. After completing the procedural formalities and after hearing the accused, he was convicted as stated above.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the evidence available in the case was not sufficient enough to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is argued that the Court below was not justified in placing reliance on the FI statement of the deceased as enough evidence was available to indicate that she was on loggerheads with the accused. The statement of witnesses have not been properly appreciated by the Sessions Court. Various contradictions which were pointed out were completely ignored by the Trial Court and that apart, there is substantial lacuna in the prosecution case which were all unanswered and therefore, the accused is entitled for the benefit of doubt.

5. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor while supporting the judgment of the trial Court justified the judgment by contending that substantial evidence has been adduced by the prosecution to prove the guilt against the accused. The dying declaration given by the victim immediately after the incident itself proves a case of culpable homicide amounting to murder. The contradictions alleged to have been brought out were not material to the facts of the case and therefore, this is a fit case in which the conviction and sentence is to be confirmed.

6. Before proceeding further, it would be useful to analyse the evidence once again. Though several witnesses had been arrayed, during trial, prosecution gave up some of them.

7. PW1 is the occurrence witness. He is the younger son of the deceased who was 4 years at the time of the incident.

Court below recorded his statement at the time when he was 6 years old. It was found that he is a competent witness and capable of giving evidence with regard to the incident. He gave evidence clearly stating that he saw the accused pouring acid on his mother. Some of the drops of acid fell on him also. He was also taken to the hospital for treatment. He identified the accused as the person who had poured acid on his mother. He is acquainted with the accused as he was called 'Achayan'. He along with his mother and elder bro