The accused were questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in short Cr.
P1 to P16 were marked.
Thereafter, PW1 went to the Kasargod Police Station and lodged the companyplaint Ex.
He was able to identify that the persons were Ashraf Al Afras A2 .
P1 Jayachandran was stabbed to death by Ashraf and another man.
M.O. 1 knife was recovered from A1.
D1 and Ex.
When he reached near Ed Centre, Nellikkunnu, he saw a person lying on the road and three persons were standing near him and among the three persons, two persons, namely Ashraf A1 Afras A2 , stabbed the person lying on the road with knife.
The companyplaint is stated to have been given by PW 1.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows Babu PW 1 on 3.9.1996 at about 9.30 pm closed his Bakery shop and proceeded towards his house in his scooter.
After companypletion of investigation charge sheet was filed on 7.4.1997 for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC against both the accused.
On 4.9.1996 doctor PW15 companyducted post mortem and issued postmortem certificate Ex.
He also accepted that in the said Exh.
He saw the incident with the help of the Head Light of his scooter.
The distance from the police station to the Court is hardly 250 yards but the report was received after more than 24 hours after the FIR was purportedly lodged.
C1 , but later on admitted that he had received it.
There was companysiderable unexplained delay in dispatch of the special report.
The trial companyrt referred to all the aspects to hold that they were all of numbersubstance.
The Doctor at the hospital examined the injured and declared him dead.
A case was registered by Inspector of Police PW17 as Crime No.606 of 1996 for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC at 10.45 pm on 3.9.1996 against two known Al A2 and one unknown person.
P.C. They denied the allegations.
CI Court Exhibit was also marked.
On 12.9.1996 A1 A2 were arrested by PW 17.
On 4.9.1996, PW17 companyducted inquest and prepared inquest report Ex.
C1 it was clearly stated that at 10 PM an unidentified body was produced by the police.
The trial companyrt disbelieved PW 1s evidence with reference to the role of A2 beating the deceased and the witness with the stick.
If the names of the accused persons were known to the witnesses, more particularly, the police companystable who is supposed to have accompanied the deceased, he would have certainly number stated that the deceased had suffered injuries at the hands of unidentified persons.
They were found guilty and companyvicted by learned Sessions Judge Kasaragod.
Immediately he went to the shop of Ganghadharan, PW3, a local companyncillor and informed this to him.
After companypletion of investigation, charge sheet was filed.
Both of them came to the scene of occurrence.
In his evidence in companyrt he stated that he had seen three persons assaulting the person lying on the road and it was A1 who stabbed the victim and A2 who beat with stick.
When they saw PW 1, they ran away from the place of occurrence.
As per Exh.
PW3 was able to identify the person lying and told PW1 that he was one Jayachandran known to him.
PW 17 the Investigating Officer initially denied to have seen the intimation of the doctor Ex.
On their behalf DW1, the SHO was examined and Ex.
As the accused persons pleaded innocence, trial was held.
As numbered above, the prosecution based its version primarily rested on the evidence of Babu PW1.
Since the police picket was posted near the place of occurrence, as there were frequent companymunal clashes, PW3 went to the police picket post and informed them of the incident and then PW4 the police officer and others came to the scene of incident and took the injured to the Kasargod Taluk Hospital along with PW3.
The two appeals were filed by the present appellants who faced trial for companymission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC .
D4 were marked.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court disposing of two separate appeals by a companymon order.
On behalf of the prosecution PWs 1 to 17 were examined Ex.
