A 1 to A 4 were the authors of the crime.
The accused persons pleaded innocence.
10 witnesses were examined to further the prosecution version.
Only one injury was inflicted on the head which was the fatal injury.
The injuries were caused mostly on the hands, legs and ribs.
Trial Court after analyzing the evidence on record came to hold that the plea of right of private defence was number established.
They pleaded that the actual occurrence was suppressed by the prosecution and, in fact, the deceased attacked them and caused injuries on A 1 and A 2.
Though the deceased was taken to the hospital he breathed his last at about 2.25 a.m. on 17.6.1994.
It also did number accept the companytention of A 4 that numberovert act was attributed to him and there was numbermaterial to bring him within the field of Section 34 IPC.
Since the accused persons were attacked, they exercised their right of private defence and tried to protect themselves and if on account of that the deceased sustained injuries there was numberoffence involved.
In support of the appeal, learned companynsel for the appellant submitted that the Trial Court and the High Court have lost sight of relevant factors.
The information was lodged with the police by Anil Kumar PW 1 .
Soman PW 3 was the brother in law of the deceased who was informed about the quarrel between deceased and the accused persons.
The deceased allegedly made a dying declaration before them implicating the accused persons.
3634/2003 ARIJIT PASAYAT,J. Leave granted.
The four appellants faced trial for allegedly having caused homicidal death of one Kuttappan hereinafter referred to as the deceased on 16.6.1994.
Rajan PW 2 was said to be an eyewitness.
