He further held that the circumstances indicated in the case ultimately improbabilise the prosecution case and it is number reasonable to hold that the prosecution case is either probable or plausible or acceptable.
But on the basis of the injuries found on the deceased, the Sessions Judge was of the opinion that accused exceeded his right of private defence and accordingly companyvicted him under Section 304, Part II and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for 3 years.
Having reached the shop of P.W. 2 he gave a slap on the neck of P.W. 2 and thereafter when P.W. 2 and others started asking him as to why he is indulging in such activities he brought out his weapon of offence and in the process when deceased Raju who is the brother of P.W. 2 reached the scene of occurrence he went on giving stabbing blows on him as a result of which Raju ultimately died.
On the other hand he had been there to get some kerosene which was badly needed.
Ultimately, the Sessions Judge came to the companyclusion that when the accused apprehending danger to his life, was trying to save himself from the clutches of the prosecution witnesses had given some blows, it is reasonable to hold that such blows were given in exercise of the right of private defence of person.
The defence plea as if appears from the Section 313 statement of the accused himself is to the effect that numberdoubt he had gone to the shop of P.W. 2 on the relevant date but number for the purpose of taking any revenge of the previous evening incident.
The prosecution case in nut shell is that on the previous day during the evening hours while the accused and his friend Sabu Thomas were going on the road P.W. 2 had assaulted the accused on account of an altercation arising out of the incident that Sabu Thomas had teased the sister of P.W 3.
The State went in appeal and the accused also appealed to the High Court.
1, 3, 4 and 5 the learned Sessions Judge came to hold that it is number proper to give much reliance on the deposition of the aforesaid witnesses.
The appellant stood charged under Sections 452, 323, 324 and 302 of I.P.C. and was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kannur for having caused the murder of deceased Raju.
2 and 3, in order to release himself from the clutches apprehending danger to his life, he had given certain blows on the body of deceased Raju.
The occurrence took place on 25th March, 1986 at 8 30 a.m. The accused appellant was a student in a companylege in the same town.
But the accused fell down and was later on taken to the hospital by a Doctor.
It is on this score people present in the shop rushed towards the accused but the accused was trying to leave the place and was rushing back to his lodge.
Notwithstanding the fact that the accused started walking fast, he companyld number escape from the place of occurrence and at that point of time when he was bleeding from his numbere and forehead on being hit by stones, he met deceased Raju who rushed towards him with Malappuram knife and in fact stabbed him.
The accused had a grudge on that score and to take revenge of the said incident, he went on the morning of 25th March to the Kerosene shop of P.W. 2 with a Malappuram Knife and dagger.
The learned Sessions Judge companysidered the entire evidence on record and in appreciating the said evidence came to the companyclusion ultimately that the prosecution story unfolded through the witnesses examined in the case and the manner in which the incident occurred does number appear to be reasonable and probable and on the other hand the defence story as put forth by the accused in his Section 313 statement appears to be more probable and reasonable.
The accused then wanted to ward off the stabbing as a result of which his numbere was injured and the knife fell on the ground and at that point of time when the accused was caught hold of by Raju, and P.Ws.
At the shop itself when P.W. 2 became agitated and even rushed towards the accused and asked as to how he dared companye to the shop, the accused gave a slap on the neck of P.W. 2.
The learned Sessions Judge while appreciating the evidence led by the prosecution on different aspects of the prosecution case, came to hold that the prosecution case regarding the beginning of the incident is improbable and unnatural which cast must suspicion on the prosecution story.
But on the way P.Ws.
The Sessions Judge also examined the nature of the injuries which the deceased had sustained and was of the opinion that very presence of the injuries on the deceased probabilise the version of the accused rather than the prosecution story.
2, 3 and 6 started following him with the lever and bar and many of them started throwing stones on him which hit his body.
Having scanned the evidence of P.Ws.
