The court affirmed the conviction for murder, emphasizing the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence and dying declarations establishing the accused's guilt.

J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 7^th day of October, 2024 C. Pratheep Kumar, J This is an appeal filed by the accused in SC No.179 of 2014 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge III, Manjeri convicting him under Section 302 of IPC and sentencing to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.50.000/-

2. The prosecution case is that on 4.10.2013 at about 5.30 p.m., the accused due to his enmity towards deceased Sundar Raju as he demanded the wages due to him, the accused stabbed him using a knife on his chest and as a result of the above injury, Sundara Raju succumbed to the injury.

3. The evidence in this case consists of the oral testimonies of PWs1 to 17 and Exhibits P1 to P17. MOs 1 to 4 were also identified. No oral evidence was adduced by the accused. However, relevant portion of Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2 was marked as Exhibit D1. After appreciating the available evidence, the trial court found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC and convicted him as above. Aggrieved by the above judgment of conviction and sentence, he preferred this appeal raising various grounds.

4. Now, the points that arise for consideration are the following:

1. Whether the accused has committed murder of deceased Sundara Raju on 4.10.2013 at about 5.30 p.m.?

2. Whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence calls for any interference, in the light of the grounds raised in the appeal?

5. Heard both sides.

6. Points 1 and 2:- Sri.K.P. Shereef, learned counsel for the accused would argue that none of the witnesses have spoken about the actual incident of stabbing by the accused and as such the trial court was not justified in convicting the accused.

7. On the other hand, Sri. E.C. Bineesh, learned Public Prosecutor would argue that the prosecution has produced ample evidence to prove the charge against the accused and according to him, there is absolutely no grounds to interfere with the finding of the trial court. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

8. PW1, one of the witnesses relied upon by the prosecution would swear that one evening in 2013, when he reached in front of Madeena Hotel at Valanchery, he saw a mob and also saw a person lying on the floor. He also saw a person holding a knife in his hand, near to the person, who was lying on the floor. People present there told him that the person, who was holding the knife, stabbed the person who was lying on the floor. He along with PWs 2 and 3 took the person, who was lying on the floor in an autorickshaw to a hospital at Nadakkavu from where he was referred to Medical College Hospital as his condition was serious. Immediately he was sent to MES Medical College Hospital in an ambulance. He reported the matter to the police and Exhibit P1 is the statement given by him to the police in that respect. He also identified the accused as the person, who was standing near the victim holding a knife in his hand. He also identified MO1 as the said knife. Though during chief examination, PW1 deposed that the incident was at 7-730 p.m., during cross-examination, he deposed that when he reached the police station, time was around 7.30 p.m. During re-examination also he clarified that he is not remembering the exact time of the incident.

9. PW2, another witness relied upon by the prosecution would swear that he is conducting a tea shop near Valanchery bus stand. He knew the accused as well as deceased Sundara Raju. On 4.10.2013 at about 5.30 p.m., he saw a wordily altercation between the accused and the deceased Sundara Raju. Thereafter, he was engaged in the business in his shop. After 3-4 minutes, he saw Sundara Raju lying on the floor holding his hands on his stomach. The accused was found standing near to Sundara Raju holding a blood stained knife in his hand. When the accused ran away, he along with some other persons chased him to some distance and thereaf