The judgment underscored that an acquittal cannot be reversed unless the lower court's conclusions are found to be unreasonable or perverse.

JUDGMENT

Shaffique, J.

This appeal has been preferred by the State of Kerala against the judgment of acquittal passed by the 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram in S.C.No. 296 of 2005.

2. Prosecution case is as follows:-

Altogether there were six accused. The accused and the deceased belong to southern coastal area of rural Thiruvananthapuram. The third accused namely Mary Dasan had made a request to PW1, who is the sister of the deceased, to draw an electric line over the property of PW1 to the house of 3^rd accused. PW1 did not consent and objected the same. To wreck vengeance, accused herein, who are six in number, on 24/03/2003, formed into an unlawful assembly with a common object to commit murder of the deceased Mettilsy, went to the house of PW1, quarrelled and beat PW1 who was washing vessels. At that time, two children of PW1 and the daughter of PW2 were present in the house of PW1. Seeing the incident, the children of PW1 ran away. PW3 went and brought the deceased to the house of PW1. The deceased scolded PW1 for having quarrelled with the accused. PW3 explained the actual incident to the deceased. Then the deceased consoled PW1. Thereafter, the deceased along with PW3 went to their house which was a little away. While they were going to their house and as they reached in front of the house of one Clara, the accused as a team came and accused no.1 scolded the deceased. The deceased asked A1 why he picked up a quarrel with her. On hearing this, A1 uttered “I will kill you” and gave a blow on the head of the deceased with MO1 kattadikkuzha (a cylindrical wooden plank). The deceased suffered an injury on her head and there was bleeding. Thereafter, the second and third accused beat the deceased using reapers. Accused nos. 4 to 6 beat the deceased with their hands. Seeing this, PW2 went and informed PW1 about the incident. Immediately, PW1, PW2 and the husband of PW1 and CW1 came to the spot. They saw all the accused beating the deceased with reapers. When CW1 and PW1 made an attempt to take away the reapers from the hands of the accused, the second accused beat PW1 on her head and right shoulder. CW1 tried to take MO1 from the hands of 1^st accused and then accused nos. 1 to 3 beat CW1. Thereafter CW1 forcibly took MO1 from the hands of 1^st accused and kept the same at the kitchen of PW1's house. PW2 thereafter went to call the husband of the deceased i.e., PW3 who was sleeping at his house. Immediately, PW3 along with PW2 came to the place of occurrence. PW3 found the deceased bleeding from her head. CW1 and PW3 took the deceased to a nearby private hospital namely Christuraja Pally Hospital, Pulluvila. PW8 the Doctor gave first aid to the deceased and referred her to Medical College Hospital (MCH), Thiruvananthapuram. On the way to MCH, they stopped in front of their house to take some clothes and at that time the deceased vomitted blood. Immediately she was taken to MCH in an autorickshaw and on the same day at 7.15 p.m., she was declared dead by hospital authorities.

3. The learned Special Government Pleader for Attrocities Against Women and Children Smt.Ambika Devi argued that the Court below erred in arriving at the conclusion that the accused are not guilty. Court below went wrong in concluding that the evidence of eye-witnesses PWs 1 and 2 is not believable since they did not explain how A3 got injured during the incident. Court failed to appreciate even the basic facts of the case. Court below also went wrong in finding that there was no blood-stains even on MO1. In spite of clear proof as to the place of occurrence from the evidence of witnesses, Court below took a view to find that the place of occurrence is not proved. Court below also failed to notice that the false explanation made by A1 should be taken as an additional circumstance against him in the light of available evidence. The impugned judgment is quiet unreasonable and perverse. She vehemently argued for the reversal of the finding of the t