The prosecution must prove the identity of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and any reasonable doubt must benefit the accused.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is at the instance of the sole accused in SC No.279 of 2003 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc-III), Thalassery, challenging the conviction and sentence in the impugned judgment dated 19.10.2007.

2. The accused by name Palakka Shaji was charge sheeted by Circle Inspector of Police, Mattannur in Crime No.109 of 2000 of Mattannur Police Station under Sections 341 , 324 and 307 of IPC .

3. The prosecution case is that, on 26.04.2000 at 00.15 hours midnight, the accused wrongfully restrained PW1 Sri.Rajan by holding his collar and with an intention to kill, he stabbed him with a dagger on the left side of his abdomen, left side of chest and also on the left side of his neck causing severe injuries, which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature, to cause his death. 4. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.

5. Prosecution examined PWs 1 to 15, marked Exts.P1 to P13 and identified MOs 1 to 4, to prove its case.

6. On closure of the prosecution evidence, accused was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C and he denied all the incriminating circumstances brought on record. DWs 1 and 2 were examined from the defence side.

7. On appreciating the facts and evidence and on hearing the arguments put forward from either side, learned trial Judge found the accused guilty under Sections 341 , 324 and 307 of IPC and he was convicted thereunder. After hearing him on the question of sentence, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 341 of , rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 324 of and rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs.25,000/- under Section 307 of with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for six months. Set off was allowed for the period he had undergone in judicial custody, and out of the fine amount if realised, Rs.20,000/- was directed to be paid to PW1, the injured, as compensation under Section 357(1) of Cr.P.C.

8. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the accused has come up with this appeal. According to him, he is absolutely innocent of this crime. In fact, PW1 had some illicit connection with one Smt.Fathima whose husband was abroad. On a misunderstanding that the accused was the person responsible for spreading the news of their illicit relationship, and also to prevent him from going abroad, he was falsely implicated in a criminal case.

9. Now let us see whether there is any illegality or impropriety in the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence warranting interference by this Court.

10. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor.

11. Learned Public Prosecutor contended that, though there was no eyewitness to the incident, the testimony of PW1, the injured, is liable to be believed as it is free from any kind of infirmities. He suffered severe injuries on the vital parts of his body, which were sufficient enough in the ordinary course of nature to cause his death, and that fact is supported by medical evidence also. Moreover, there was no question of any mistaken identity as the accused was a close friend of the injured. The name of accused Shaji was stated by the injured, immediately after the incident, to the witnesses including the Doctor. So, there is nothing to doubt the identity of the assailant.

12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that, there was nothing to connect the appellant with the alleged incident and there was no motive spoken to by the injured even in the FI statement which was given after 15½ hours of the incident. According to PW1, the injured, there was only little moonlight at the scene of occurrence and so he identified the appellant from his sound. He had no case that there was sufficient light so as to identify the assailant by sight. The weapon allegedly used by the assailant was recovered from an open place, on the second day of the incident and there was no recovery under Section 27 of the India