To establish murder, the prosecution must prove a causal link between the accused's actions and the death, with corroborative eyewitness and medical evidence.

J U D G M E N T

C.S.SUDHA, J.

In this appeal filed under Section 383 Cr.P.C., the first accused (Alex) in S.C.No.110/2011 on the file of the Court of Session, Thrissur, challenges the conviction entered and sentence passed against him for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC .

2. The prosecution case as described in the final report/charge sheet is that-Suresh, son of CW1, had questioned the conduct of the first accused (Alex) and his accomplices/friends harassing women and people of the locality under the influence of alcohol and ganja. Due to this enemity, A1(Alex), A2(Sanoop) along with two children in conflict with law (CCL), namely, Joy and Sachin, in furtherance of their common intention, on 21/03/2010 at 19.15 hrs attacked Suresh by beating and fisting him as well as stabbing him with a knife, resulting in his death. Hence the accused are alleged to have committed the offence punishable under the above-

mentioned Sections.

3. On the basis of Ext.P2 FIS given by CW1, PW9, the then Sub Inspector, Anthikkad Police Station, registered Ext.P8 FIR, i.e., Crime No.223/2010 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC . PW11, the then C.I., Thrissur West, conducted the initial investigation and PW12, the C.I. who thereafter took charge, completed the investigation and submitted the charge sheet against accused persons, two in number, alleging commission of the offence punishable under the above-

mentioned Sections.

4. On appearance of the accused before the court below, copies of all the prosecution records were served on them. On 08/07/2014, the Sessions court framed a charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC , which was read over and explained to the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 12 and got marked Exts.P1 to P20 and MO1 to MO6 in support of their case. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused were questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution. Both of them denied all those circumstances and maintained their innocence. As the trial court did not find it a fit case to acquit the accused under Section 232 Cr.P.C., the accused were asked to enter on their defence and adduce evidence in support thereof. No oral evidence was adduced by the accused. Ext.D1 is stated to be the contradiction brought out in the testimony of PW3.

5. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, the Sessions Court by the impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced both the accused to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of ₹5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC . They were held entitled to set off for the period they were in custody. It is this judgment which is assailed in the present appeal filed by the first accused.

6. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the conviction entered and sentence passed against the first accused by the Sessions Court are sustainable or not.

7. Heard Smt.Yemuna P., the learned counsel appointed as legal aid counsel for the appellant/1st accused and Sri. Alex M.Thombra, the learned Public Prosecutor .

8. As stated earlier, there are four assailants in the crime. Of the four, two were CCL and hence produced before the Magistrate concerned. The remaining two were tried together and the impugned judgment passed.

The second accused is seen to have filed Crl.Appeal No.757/2015 and this Court by judgment dated 17/07/2019 dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence passed against him by the Sessions Court. It is true that it would have been ideal, had both the appeals been heard and disposed of together. However the present appeal is seen received in the Registry only on 28