He further stated that the local police was inimical towards him following a companyplaint filed by him against the then C.I. and three police companystables.
Similarly the evidence of PW1 did number inspire companyfidence.
He held inquest over the dead body from the mortuary of the District Hospital, Kanhangad and gave his findings in Ext.
On Ext.
Dr. C.V. Jayarajan PW8 , Asst.
The accused was arrested, produced before the Magistrate and he was remanded.
Unfortunately the High Court did number analyse the evidence and in a very cryptic manner discarded the companyclusions of the trial Court.
The prosecution version as unfolded during trial was as follows On 23.12.1994 at 11.15 a.m. the accused stabbed deceased to death at the private bus stand, Kanhangad.
On the ill fated day he had companye to Kanhangad for purchasing some articles for his pilgrimage to Sabarimala and medicines for his child.
He denied that he inflicted injuries upon him as alleged, and maintained his innocence.
He pleased number guilty to the charge, whereupon prosecution examined ten witnesses, marked sixteen exhibits and MOs.
The deceased held him and he was assaulted by one Kutty.
1 to 4.
At the bus stand the seven accused persons, against whom he had filed companyplaint, along with Aravindakshan PW3 and one Pappan, surrounded and attacked him.
Surgeon, District Hospital, Kanhangad, companyducted the postmortem and he set out his findings in Ext.
PW.4 who was stated to be an eye witness did number support the prosecution case.
The investigation was one sided and biased.
On his companyplaint a case was also registered against them.
The accused had been taken to the police station by PW1 and another, from whom MO1 dagger and MO2 sheath were seized under Ext.
In the appeal filed by the State, the High Court came to hold that the discrepancies as pointed out by the trial Court were trivial and so called discrepancies were immaterial and insufficient to disbelieve them.
He tried to wriggle out to escape, when PW2 tried to stab him the blow accidentally fell upon the deceased.
He had to leave the place and take up residence in another place.
P1 companyplaint of H.R. Ashokan PW1 and V.K. Raghavan PW 9 , Sub Inspector of Police, Kanhangad Police Station, registered Ext.
D1 to 3 were marked, but numberwitness was examined in defence.
When questioned under Sections 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 in short the Cr.
The trial companyrt after companysideration of the evidence brought on record came to hold that so far as the eye witnesses PWs 2 and 3 were companycerned, there was great deal of discrepancy in their version about the incident.
P.9 F.I.R. in Crime No.
P.11, inquest report, under which MOs.3 and 4, clothes worn by the deceased, were seized.
P2 mahazar, which was attested by K. Kanna PW4 , who was allegedly an eye witness.
PW 9 also visited the scene of incident where PW4 gave the details.
He was hospitalized for treatment of the injuries sustained.
P. Habib Rahiman PW10 , Circle inspector took over the investigation at about 2.45 p.m. on the same day.
PC he denied the incident as alleged, gave his own version and said that the deceased Tharingil Sunny PW 2 and others never let him live in peace, that on 19.8.1994they trespassed into his house, assaulted him, his wife and children.
648 of 1994.
P8 postmortem certificate.
Witnesses were questioned, statements recorded and final report was filed against him for the aforesaid offence.
