Appellant was said to have been seen before or after the occurrence by several tea shop owners and the labourers in the tea stall etc. To corroborate the evidence of tea stall owners, labourers were examined that they had seen the appellant with blood stained clothes and same were recovered pursuant to the statement under S.27 of Evidence Act. It is preposterous to place absolute reliance on such suspect evidence. It is curious that the appellant claimed to have gone to each tea stall for tea just to enable them to note his movements. The normal human conduct would be to avoid any body noticing him either before or after committing the offence. It is highly unbelievable that he had used two types of weapons one stabbing and another cutting weapons.

The most startling aspect we came across from the record is that the criminal trial was unfair to the appellant and the procedure adopted in the trial is obviously illegal and unconstitutional. The Sessions Court in fairness recorded the evidence in the form of questions put by the prosecutor and defence counsel and answers given by each witness. As seen the material part of the prosecution case to connect the appellant with the crime is from the aforestated witnesses. The Sessions Court permitted even without objection by the defence to put leading questions in the chief examination itself suggesting all the answers which the prosecutor intended to get from the witnesses to connect the appellant with the crime. For instance, see the evidence of PW. 1 "Then I saw Jose (appellant) coming from the north and going towards south." Did you notice his dress then? Yes. He had worn a white dhoti ... Did you notice his dhoti '! Yes. I had seen two or three drops of blood on his dhoti. Suddenly I had a doubt". Similarly PW. 4 also at that time "Did anyone from Ramanattu house came for tea? Yes. Jose came. When did Jose came to tea I do not remember ... Did Jose came on the previous day. Yes came about 6 p.m. in the evening. Did he say anything? He brought a bag and said let it be here I shall t.1ke this bag after some time ...

What was the dress of the accused when he came to the shop? He was wearing white dhoti and tied a cloth on his hand. Have you noticed any thing particular on the dhoti ? No.·". Similar leading questions were put to other witnesses also to elicit on material part of the prosecution case in the Chief examination itself without treating any of the witness hostile. Section 141 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 defined loading question to mean" any question suggesting the answer· which the person putting it wishes or expects to receive, is called a 'leading question. Section 142 Leading questions must not, if objected by the adverse party, be asked in an examination-in -Chief, or in a re-examination, except with the permission of the Court. The Court shall permit leading questions as to matters which are introductory or undisputed, or which have, in its opinion, been already sufficiently proved. Section 143 envisages that Leading questions may be asked in cross-examination. Section 145 gives power to put to the witnesses in the corss-examination as to previous statement made by him in writing or reduced into writing, and relevant to matters in question, without such writing being shown to him, or being proved; but if it is intended to contradict him by the writing, his 'attention must, before the writing can be proved, be called to those parts of which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him.

Leading question to be one which indicates to the witnesses the real or supposed fact which the prosecutor (plaintiff) expects and desires to have confirmed by the answer. Leading question may be used to prepare him to give the answers to the questions about to be put to him for the purpose of identification or to lead him to the main evidence or fact in dispute. The attention of the witness cannot be directed in Chief examination to the subject of the enquiry/tr