IMPORTANT POINT
A dying declaration can serve as the sole basis for conviction if found trustworthy, supported by corroborative evidence.

JUDGMENT :

G. GIRISH, J.

1. Down the serene valleys of the Wayanad Hills, as they existed at that time, on Arnamala Estate Road, lay 24-year-old Ratheesh Kumar in a pool of blood, spilled from 43 incised wounds on his body, from thighs to head, on the night of 29.05.2010. His fervent cries caught the attention of two persons by name Pandian (PW3) and Velayudhan @ Sivanandan @ Swami (PW4) residing in that locality, who rushed to that place. Pandian, on the way to the above place, is said to have seen Nagaratnam, the alleged assailant, fleeing through Arnamala Estate road in his opposite direction with a knife in his hand and a bag around his shoulder. The accused is said to have not responded to Pandian though Pandian called him by his name. The injured, it is said, exhorted Pandian to save him. Within a short time, as informed by Swami, Mohanan (PW5) also reached the spot. Ratheesh Kumar, who was writhing in pain, is said to have told the above persons that Nagaratnam, the accused herein had hacked him with a knife. Mohanan immediately called the parents of Ratheesh Kumar and also one Sankaran Kutty (PW9) residing in that locality who was owning a jeep, to come with his jeep for the hospitalisation of Ratheesh Kumar. They came to the spot within a short while. The witnesses claim to have seen the victim in moon-light, torch-light and lights from lamps of a nearby temple and bungalow. Ratheesh Kumar is said to have told Balasubramanian (PW1), his father, and also his mother, that Nagaratnam had hacked him with a knife. Ratheesh Kumar was immediately taken in the jeep driven by Shiju (PW10) to Leo Hospital, Kalpetta where the Doctor (PW20), who was present there, applied first aid and referred him to Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode. Though Ratheesh Kumar was taken in an ambulance from the said private hospital to Kozhikode Medical College Hospital, the Doctor who attended him at Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode at about 12:30 midnight declared him as brought dead.

2. On the basis of the first information statement (Ext.P1) given by Balasubramaniyan, the Meppadi Police registered F.I.R Ext.P1(a) at 09:30 a.m on 30.05.2010 in respect of the offence under Section 302 IPC against the accused. PW25, the C.I of Police, Kalpetta took over the investigation and initiated the required procedures of inquest, preparation of mahazars etc. The body of the deceased was subjected to autopsy by the Deputy Police Surgeon (PW23) at Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode. The accused was put under surveillance from the night of 30.05.2010 and he was arrested on the next day. On the basis of the alleged confession made by the accused, PW25 is said to have recovered the chopper (MO6) used for the commission of the offence from a drainage ditch covered by ginger-harvest litter by the side of the above said Estate road at a distance of about 60 to 70 meters from the place of occurrence. The Investigating Officer also took into custody the lungi (MO4) and shirt (MO5) worn by the accused at the time of his arrest, since they were said to be the very same dress which he wore at the time of commission of crime. The above items as well as the items recovered from the scene of crime, and from the body of the deceased, and the weapon of offence, were sent for forensic analysis. After the completion of the investigation, the C.I. of Police, Kalpetta filed the final report before the Magistrate concerned.

3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Kalpetta, to whom the case was made over after committal, heard the prosecution as well as the accused, and framed charge under Section 302 IPC against the accused. The charge was read over and explained to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty. In the trial that ensued, 26 witnesses were examined from the part of the prosecution as PW1 to PW26 and 28 documents were marked as Exts.P1 to P28. Eight material objects were identified as MO1 to MO8. After the close of prosecution evidence, the accused was question