Though, strictly speaking, there cannot be eye witnesses since the fatal blow was given admittedly inside the bolted room but prosecution examined PWs.1,2 and 3 as eye witnesses to the occurrence though were present outside the room.
During the companyrse of hearing learned Advocate appearing for the respondent State, companytended that the appeal should be restricted to the question of sentence only The learned Advocate appearing for the appellant however, companytended that question of treating the appeal in any restricted manner does number and cannot arise by reason of subsequent grant of leave without attaching any companydition thereto.
It is only thereafter that the body of the deceased was discovered in the room.
The prosecution case however, further depicts that the door was opened after some time by the accused and he came out of the room with a blood stained knife in his hand and the accused made his escape inspite of resistance.
The case of the prosecution as the record depicts appears that the deceased Vinayagam purchased 2/3rd share in the Well as well as the pump set belonging to the Pankal the accused .
The records depict that on 20th March, 1998, this Court directed issuance of numberice limited to the question of sentence only.
Subsequently, however, after about eight months, the matter was placed in the list for hearing but by reason of the objection this Court was pleased to grant special leave in the matter.
The prosecution case further goes on to record that the accused dragged the deceased inside the room in the business place and bolted the door from inside and thereafter assaulted on the head of the deceased with iron pipe and stabbed him indiscriminately with a knife and caused his death.
When PW 1 Gopal intervened, the latter also suffered injuries.
On the date of occurrence that is on 5th March, 1990 at about 6.15 p.m. the deceased was in his Tea shop, the accused went there and according to the prosecution stabbed on the stomach of the deceased.
