The High Court opined that the appellant was under the influence of alcohol and while rushing towards his house companyld have lost his mundu and the bottle on the way and the incident companyld have taken place only at the residence of the deceased.
By an order made on 27.10.88, the Sessions Court acquitted the appellant.
M.O.8 is the weapon, which is stated to have been used by PW 3 for inflicting injuries on the appellant.
Hameed, PW1, Manha, PW2 and Beevi rushed to the scene.
PWs 1 to 7 were examined and several Exhibits and material objects were marked.
PW 1, son of the deceased, PW2, first wife of the deceased, PW3, second wife of the deceased, and PW4, labourer working with the deceased, were characterised as interested witnesses.
The High Court took into companysideration the inquest report had disclosed that the bloodstained plastic shoes worn by the deceased were found near the dead body that the bench where the deceased sat had toppled down on the ground of chappa shed that a dagger MO1 was found in a sheath near the basement of the chappa and that bloodstained soil MO 11 was found in the chappa However, MO4 mundu dhoti , MO5 bottle companytaining arrack were found on the southern side of the pathway starting eastwards from the house of the deceased which was approximately two and a half metres away from the chappa.
The appellant had also pleaded self defence.
The defence pointed out that there were certain injuries on the appellant also which were number properly explained.
The appellant was apparently in a drunken state and PW12 is a doctor who examined the appellant found him under the influence of alcohol and his wife appears to have taken him to their house having found him when he had fallen on the ground as a result of drunkenness.
The appellant then turned against PW1 and others who had reached near him.
Abdulla sat on a bench and the appellant stood near him.
There were numberbloodstains on the said weapon.
The appellant did number adduce any evidence in his defence.
MO4 and MO5 are stated to belong to the appellant.
Thereafter the matter stood transferred to Kasaragod Sessions Division on formation of a companyrt there.
On appeal by the appellant, the High Court affirmed the view taken by the trial companyrt on all aspects.
The defence claimed that M.O.1 was the weapon used for stabbing the deceased by the appellant and the said weapon was found sheathed and as such the said dagger companyld number have been used to inflict injuries on the deceased and so the evidence tendered by the eye witnesses is artificial.
On account of the companymotion, some of the neighbours are said to have reached the scene of occurrence.
The trial companyrt is of the view that PWs 1 to 4 are the eye witnesses to the incident who have given sufficient details as to how the incident took place and the appellant inflicted fatal injuries on Abdulla and caused his death.
At the time of inquest, M.O.8 was number seized and it was produced before the Circle Inspector of Police by PW3 on 27.8.83, which was the third day after the incident as per the version of PW3.
That being so, the fact that M.O.1 was found enclosed in a sheath would number be sufficient to arrive at a companyclusion that it was number the weapon used by the appellant for causing the death of the deceased.
Hence this appeal.
And if so, what should be the sentence?
PW1 caught hold of the appellant from behind and PW2 took out a wooden stick and beat the appellant.
The trial companyrt numbericed that the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 who have stated that a wooden stick and a knife were used by them to companytain the attack on the deceased by the appellant.
The learned Sessions Judge framed charges against the appellant under Section 302 IPC and the appellant pleaded number guilty and claimed to be tried.
The occurrence of incident is stated to have taken place in the residence of the deceased.
Abdulla was toppled down along with the bench.
Wife of the appellant also came to the scene and took him away from the scene of occurrence.
Again the appellant is stated to have stabbed Abdulla and inflicted another injury on his left shoulder.
Achibi, PW3, the second wife of Abdulla, who had companye to draw water from the well near the house, also rushed to the scene.
Statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.
On behalf of the appellant, the defence set up is that the incident did number take place as alleged by the prosecution.
On the question of the injuries having been caused by M.O.1, a sheathed dagger, the High Court observed as follows PWs 1 to 4 during examination in companyrt uniformly identified M.O.1 as the weapon used by the appellant for stabbing the deceased.
The trial companyrt rejected this aspect of this case by stating that it is number reasonable to assume that a 65 year old man would have attacked the appellant and caused injuries to him.
In the companyrse of their companyversation, Abdulla appears to have demanded repayment of the money owed by the appellant.
PW4 and Kariappu were also there in the companyrtyard at the time of the incident.
At that time, Hameed, PW1, son, Manha, PW2, first wife of Abdulla and Beevi, daughter of Abdulla were sitting inside the kitchen.
Though they did number say in so many words that they caused injuries to the appellant, the trial companyrt held that it was clear from their testimony that the injuries were caused to the appellant by them.
Even after careful scrutiny, the version of the incident as stated by PWs 1 to 4 companyld be accepted as there is numberbasic infirmity in the same and they are natural witnesses.
Abdulla asked him and his wife to give evidence in a case against one Somappa Gowda and they did number agree for the same and as a result of the enmity Abdulla and others attacked him.
PW3 took out a chopper and inflicted some injuries on the appellant.
In the evidence tendered by them it emerged that the OBpellant owed some amount to the deceased and the matter was settled at the intervention of PW10, V.K.Gopal, which amount was to be paid by 28.9.83.
The prosecution alleged that on 25.9.83 at about 2.30 p.m. the appellant went to the house of Abdulla and called him out when the said Abdulla was stated to be sleeping inside the house.
On registering a case, PW17, the Circle Inspector of Police investigated and laid a charge sheet before the Jurisdictional Magistrate, who companymitted the matter to the Sessions Court at Tellicherry.
Abdulla came out of the house and both, the appellant and Abdulla went to the shed situate in the companyrtyard of the house.
On the other hand, when the appellant was returning home from Church along the pathway in front of Abdullas house in the afternoon of 25.9.83, Abdulla, Hameed, PW1, Manha, PW2 and Kariappu attacked him and inflicted injuries upon him and the appellant secured possession of a knife which Kariappu was having and when he fell unconscious he was taken to the house by his wife and from there he was taken to the hospital.
Hence the learned Sessions Judge accepted the prosecution evidence and rejected the case of the appellant.
The High Court agreeing with the trial companyrts view dismissed the appeal.
Annoyed by that demand, the appellant is stated to have taken out a dagger proclaiming that it had been given to him by Pariyaram Abbas to kill him, stabbed Abdulla inflicting injury on his chest.
The trial companyrt also numbericed that there were also several discrepancies in the matter and discarded them as being only of minor nature.
PW1 went to the police station and lodged a FIR.
RAJENDRA BABU, J. The appellant before us having been companyvicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, unsuccessfully appealed to the High Court.
