The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of Sections 299 and 300 of the IPC, the doctrine of res gestae, and the principles of dying declaration to determine the appellant's culpability for the murder of his brother.

JUDGMENT :

(Kauser Edappagath, J.) :

The sole accused in SC No.575/2016 on the file of the IIIrd Additional Sessions Court, Kollam (for short, 'the trial court'), who was convicted for fratricide, is the appellant before us.

2. The appellant, Anil Kumar, and the deceased, Sunil Kumar, were brothers. They were residing along with their parents, PW2 Kumaran and PW5 Retnamma, at the house viz. Pochayil Vadakkathil Veedu, Karunagapally, belonging to PW2. It is a small, thatched house consisting of two bedrooms and a hall, as evident from Ext.P8 scene plan and Ext.P9 mahazar. The alleged incident took place in the southern bedroom of the said house on 5/3/2016 at 5.30 p.m. Another son of PW2 and PW5 viz., Suresh (PW1) was residing along with his daughter PW3, Nisha and son Nithin in the house situated adjacent to the house where the incident took place.

3. The appellant and the deceased were working as tree climbers. The prosecution version is that in the morning hours on the date of the incident, the deceased, Sunil Kumar, took away a rope belonging to the appellant, Anil Kumar, which he used for his work and kept at the house without his permission. When the deceased came back to the house at 4.30 p.m., the appellant asked him for the rent of the rope. Then, an exchange of words and altercation occurred between them. Shortly thereafter, by about 5.30 p.m., Sunil Kumar went to the southern bedroom of the house to get oil. At that time, the appellant, Anil Kumar, who was sitting in the northern bedroom, rushed to the southern bedroom, pushed aside PW5, her mother who was standing there, caught hold of the neck of the deceased Sunil Kumar and stabbed his left chest with MO2 knife. He succumbed to the injuries at the hospital on the same night.

4. PW1 Suresh went to the Karunagapally police station at around 8.30 p.m. and gave Ext.P1 FI Statement to PW16, S.I of Police. Based on Ext.P1, PW16 registered Ext.P10 F.I.R. against the appellant under Sections 294(b), 201, 449, 506(ii) and 302 of IPC. PW17, C. I of Police, Karunagapally, took up the investigation. After investigation, he filed a final report before the Judicial First-Class Magistrate Court, Karunagapally. The learned Magistrate, after completing the statutory formalities, committed the case to stand trial before the Sessions Court, Kollam. The case was then transferred to the trial court for trial and disposal.

5. The trial court, after hearing the learned Prosecutor as well as the appellant, framed the charge against the appellant under Sections 201, 449, 506(ii) and 302 of IPC. The appellant denied the charge and pleaded not guilty. The parties went on trial. The prosecution examined PWs1 to 17 and marked Exts.P1 to P23. MO1 to MO8 were identified. The appellant was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. He denied all the incriminating circumstances which were put to him. On the side of the defence, Exts.D1 and D2 were marked. After trial, the trial court found the appellant guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 201, 449 and 302 of IPC, and he was convicted for the said offences. He was acquitted of the offence charged under Section 506(ii) of IPC. The trial court sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 302 of IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 449 of IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten days for the offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC. The sentence was ordered to run concurrently. Out of the fine amount, Rs.1,25,000/-was ordered to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased as compensation under Section 357(1) of Cr.P.C.

6. As the appellant was not represented by his