The prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal case.

JANARTHANAM, J.

The appellant was the first accused in S.C. No. 8 of 1987 on the file of the Court of Session, Kanniyakumari Division, Nagercoil. He was found guilty of offences punishable under Sections 341 and 302 of Indian Penal Code, convicted thereunder and sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and simple imprisonment for one month under Section 341 of Indian Penal Code, with a direction for the sentences to run concurrently. The other accused, namely, the second accused was found not guilty of offences under Sections 341 and 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, with which he stood charged and acquitted thereof

2. Aggrieved by the said conviction and the sentence, the present action had been resorted to by the appellant-first accused

3. Brief facts are :-

(a) The first and the second accused, brothers, are residents of Mandaikadu Puthur, situate within the jurisdictional limits of Manavalankurichi Police Station. They have been eking out their livelihood by catching fish in the sea. One Andrews (since deceased) had been assisting the first and the second accused, in their profession of catching fish in the sea

(b) P.W. 3 is the sister of the first and the second accused. The deceased and P.W. 3, it appears, loved each other and consequently they decided to marry. Opposition emerged for such a marriage from the first and the second accused, apart from other family members

(c) One year prior to the occurrence, which event happened on 3-10-1986, the services of the deceased in fishing operation had been dispensed with, with a view to sever his connection and intimacy with P.W. 3. The attempt so made by the accused ended in colossal failure, in the sense of the intimacy between the deceased and P.W. 3 growing thicker and thicker. This was not digested by the first and the second accused and it appears, they threatened the deceased with dire consequences on and often and despite issuance of such threats, the affair between the deceased and P.W. 3 continued, as before(d) On 3-8-1986 P.W. 3 happened to stay in the house of the first accused, situate in Middle street of the village. The deceased had been residing at the house of PW 1. At 8.00 a.m. on the day of the occurrence the deceased happened to pass through the house of the first accused. At that time P.W. 3 was stated to be standing in front of the house of the first accused. The deceased was followed by his brother P.W. 1, P.W. 2, a neighbour was also stated to have passed through the said street, at that juncture, to attend some personal work. On sighting the deceased, the first and the second accused prevented him from proceeding further and, thereafter the first accused throttled his neck with his hands by preclaiming. At that time the second accused was stated to have beaten the deceased on his chest and back with his hands. Then both of them pushed the deceased down. The moment the deceased fell down, both the first and the second accused trampled on his chest. At that juncture the deceased was making a hue and cry. The first and the second accused ran away from there. The deceased was then lying unconscious. P.Ws. 1 and 2 then bodily lifted the victim-deceased towards the road side. A car happened to pass that way then. The services of the said car were requisitioned and in the said car the victim-deceased towards the road side. A car happened to pass that way then. The services of the said car were requisitioned and in the said car the victim-deceased had been taken to Manavalankurichi Police Station by P.Ws. 1 and 2

(e) P.W. 5 was the then Sub-Inspector of Police Manavalankurichi Police Station. At 8.30 a.m. on 3-10-1986 while he was in charge of Police Station, P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 along with the victim-deceased appeared before him. Even then the victim-deceased was unconscious. Consequently, P.W. 1, gave a statement, which was reduced into writing by P.W. 5. After completion of the statement he read over the same o