In criminal cases, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and discrepancies in eyewitness accounts can lead to acquittal, emphasizing the significance of reliable evidence.

JUDGMENT

Vinod Chandran, J.

The injurious destinies that befell, a group of young men, for reason of a wrong delivery of an SMS is the case projected herein; which resulted in the murder of one and incarceration of some others. A minor girl sent an innocuous message about her exams to a male friend, which was received by a stranger. There were exchanges between the sender and the stranger/recipient, querying about each others identity, which infuriated the friend of the sender. The friend hence repeatedly called the recipient and abused him over the mobile phone, upon which the recipient complained to his friends. The friends took up cudgels on behalf of the recipient and called back the person who abused him, when they were asked to come to a nearby toddy shop. At the toddy shop a scuffle ensued and one of the friends of the recipient was stabbed. He was taken to the hospital, in fact three hospitals, in the last of which, he succumbed to the injuries. Nine persons were arrayed as accused, out of which six were convicted and three acquitted. The convicted accused A1 to A4 and A5 & A8 are before us in separate appeals.

2. Before the Trial Court the prosecution examined 41 witnesses and the defence, two witnesses. While the prosecution marked documents from Exts.P1 to P39, the defence marked Exts.D1 to D5. There were also eleven material objects marked in trial. The accused Nos.1 to 5 & 8 were found guilty of the offence of murder under S.300, punishable under S.302 IPC . They were also found guilty of offences under Ss.143, 147, 148, 323 & 324. While various terms of sentences were imposed for the other offences, they were convicted to life under S.302 with a fine of Rs.5 lakhs each. Fines were imposed under the other offences also and appropriate default sentences.

3. Sri.Nirmal Kumar, learned Counsel for A1 commenced with the argument that the medical evidence does not tally with the ocular testimony. The Wound Certificate issued by two hospitals, in succession, differ considerably. There is no evidence as to how the victim was taken from one hospital to the other and there is possibility of the fatal injuries being inflicted on the way. The ocular testimony and omissions pointed out would not inspire the confidence of a Court, to hand down a conviction, especially when the fatal injury to the chest, is not spoken of by those who allegedly saw the incident. The eye-witnesses were not believable and there is no corroboration of the material particulars in their testimonies. It is pointed out that the deceased, along with his friends, had gone to the crime scene with aggression in their minds, to question the abuses showered on their friend. Their testimony has to be scrutinized very carefully and the omissions are very fatal. There is no recovery of weapon from A1 and the prior statements of the witnesses does not speak of A1 having wielded any weapon.

4. Smt.Bindu Sreekumar, learned Counsel, appearing for A2, submits that though the charge is that A2 took the knife from A3 and gave it to A1; there is no substantive evidence led, to that effect. PW1 & PW35 also did not have any allegation against A2. Learned Counsel Sri. Ieans C. Chamakkala pointed out that there is no proper identification by PW1 and PW35, did not at all identify A3. The omission proved through the I.O, PW40, clearly indicates that the prior statements did not speak of A3 having brought a knife to the crime scene. It is pointed out that PW35 spoke of having seen the accused on the morning of 13.03.2010, whereas Ex