JUDGMENT :

Ziyad Rahman A.A., J.

1. This appeal is filed by the accused in S.C.No 287/2015 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Manjeri, wherein he was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 450, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. As per the judgment passed by the Sessions Court, he was convicted and sentenced for imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- with a default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 6 months.

2. The prosecution case is as follows :

On 28-12-2014 at 4 AM, the accused committed trespass into the house of the victim by climbing over the concrete roof thereof, where the deceased and PW1 were sleeping, inflicted multiple blows on his head and body with a heavy hammer, causing fracture of skull bone, ribs, thoracic vertebrae and fled from the spot immediately thereafter. The accused succumbed to the injuries instantaneously and the Inspector of Police, Perinthalmanna registered Crime no 1710/2014 in respect of the said incident, chargesheet was filed after investigation, and the accused was tried. The prosecution examined PWs 1 to 12, marked Exhibits P1 to P23, and identified Mos 1 to 11. Contradiction in the deposition of PW4, with his statement recorded under S.161 of Cr.PC, was marked as Exhibit D1. After prosecution evidence, all the incriminating evidence were put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C and he denied the same. On analysis of the entire materials, the Tribunal found the accused guilty and accordingly he was sentenced in the manner mentioned above.

3. We heard Mr. P.P. Padmalayan, the learned counsel for the Appellant/accused and the learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Alex Thombra. The learned counsel for the accused contented that the prosecution miserably failed in establishing the guilt of the accused and the judgment passed by the Sessions Court is not legally sustainable. The learned counsel points out that there are several discrepancies in the evidence. He disputes the prosecution case as to the time of death by placing reliance upon the postmortem certificate. The place of occurrence is also disputed, as according to him, the offence was allegedly committed on the roof of a building, which is built in a slanting position towards both sides from the middle and as per prosecution case, at the relevant time, the victim along with PW1 was sleeping on the roof. According to him, it is impossible to sleep on the slanting roof. He also raises serious disputes as to the veracity of prosecution version, by pointing out that taking into consideration the total space available on the roof, it is impossible to commit the act alleged by the prosecution. The evidence of PW2 is highly suspicious. PWs 1 to 3 are planted witnesses, whose presence was highly unlikely. The son of the deceased who was available in the house was not examined. The version of PW2 that in the early morning the accused trespassed into the house armed with the hammer is very improbable given the circumstance that she did not alert the other persons residing therein. Similarly, he disputes the motive alleged against the accused. The evidence projected by the prosecution for showing the way the accused fled from the scene of occurrence, is not believable. The recovery of weapon is also seriously disputed by highlighting certain discrepancies in the evidence of PW4, the attestor of the seizure mahazar of MO10 weapon. We shall deal with all those contentions in due course, one by one.

4. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor objects to the contentions of the learned counsel for the accused and asserted that the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused without any reasonable doubt. The discrepancies highlighted by the learned counsel for the accused are not at all material and not sufficient to discard the case of the prosecution. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

5. Ext P22 FIR was registered on the basis of the information furnished by PW1, vide Ext P1 First I