A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

1. The appeal is filed by the first accused in SC No.253/2008 challenging judgment dated 3/5/2013 by which he was convicted for offence under section 302 and 307 I.P.C. He is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakhs for the offence under section 302 of I.P.C and rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and a fine of Rs. 50,000/- for the offence punishable under section 307 of I.P.C. with default sentence of simple imprisonment for two years. There were two accused in the case and the trial Court had acquitted the second accused.

2. According to the prosecution, an altercation took place between PW1 and PW2 on the one hand and the accused along with another person on the other hand at about 8 p.m on 25/12/1998. When PW1 and PW2 went back to their house after the altercation, it was realised that PW2's gold chain was missing. They believed that the accused have taken the gold chain and accordingly they along with their deceased brother-in-law Roy went in search of the accused. When they reached the house of one Eayannam Thomas, and proceeding on the basis that the accused would be there, Roy called the first accused. Immediately they came out of the house of Eayannam Thomas armed with chopper and a stone. Prosecution alleges that they had a common intention to cause death of the deceased. They attacked PWs 1 and 2 and deceased Roy. PW2 and Roy sustained grievous hurt and PW1 also sustained certain injuries. All of them were taken to Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode and on the way Roy succumbed to his injuries.

3. PW1 has given Ext.P1, FIS, on the basis of which investigation was conducted. After complying with the procedural formalities and after investigation into the crime, final report was submitted before the First Class Magistrate Court-II Sulthanbathery who committed the case to the Sessions Court, Wayanad. The Sessions Court framed charges which were denied by the accused.

4. To prove the prosecution case, they examined PW1 to PW23 and marked Exts.P1 to P26. MOs 1 to 11 were produced and identified. The defence relied upon Exts.D1 to D5 contradictions in the case diary. After giving an opportunity to explain the incriminating circumstances against the accused in terms of section 313 of Cr.P.C., 1973 Court found the first accused guilty for the offence of murder and attempt to murder and accordingly imposed sentence as stated above.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that a case of culpable homicide amounting to murder had not arisen in the case. This is a case in which there was no pre-meditation to commit murder and the incident happened only when PW1, PW2 and the deceased came back to attack the accused. It was also contended that there is no evidence to prove the case set up by the prosecution and the evidence of PW1 and PW2 are not believable and there are several contradictions and omissions in their evidence by which the evidence has become uncredit-worthy. The learned counsel also challenged the recovery of weapons and the manner in which investigation had been conducted.

6. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor supported the judgment of the lower Court and contended that the evidence of PW1 and PW2 who were injured in the case by itself indicates that their evidence is believable and the contradictions pointed out are not sufficient enough to belie the prosecution case.

7. Before proceeding further, it would be useful to initially consider the manner in which Roy succumbed to injuries. PW8 is the Doctor who conducted post mortem examination and Ext.P7 is the postmortem report. The following were the ante-mortem injuries sustained by the deceased:-

"1. Incised wound with contused margins 18x2 cms, extending from left ala of nose, root of nose, forehead, reaching right temporal area, curved, concavity towards right side. Back end was 6 cm above right ear at 1 o'clock position. Underneath the wound nasal bones, right frontal bone outer as