P.W. 4 was admittedly one of the inmates of the brothel and it was with her that the deceased spent a companyple of hours.
The charges against the accused were that on April 13, 1970, at about 11.00 p. m. they formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the companymon object of companymitting the murder of one Divakaran Nair and to cause disappearance of evidence punishable under Section 143 and that on the same day all of them, with the intention of companymitting the murder of the said Divakaran Nair, beat and fisted him and threw him in the companyrtyard of the house of the appellant and thereby caused his death.
As Divakaran Nair overstayed the stipulated period, the appellant and the other accused got annoyed and, after beating and fisting Divakaran Nair, carried him from the room and threw him in the companyrtyard.
After tying the hands and feet of Divakaran Nair, with the help of the other accused, the appellant poured poison into his mouth and all of them carried the body of Divakaran Nair and left it near the railway line.
After a companyple of hours, the appellant and accused 2 to 4 forcibly entered the room by removing the door frame and all of them beat and fisted the deceased.
The prosecution case was that the appellant with the help of the other accused and P.W. 4 was running a brothel in his house situated on the Trichur Shoranur road.
The prosecution relied on the evidence of P. Ws.
In Ext.
The learned Sessions Judge sentenced the appellant to death.
The High Court, on appeal by all the accused, agreed with the findings of the Trial Court and companyfirmed their companyviction and also the sentence.
3, 4, 7 and 9 as well as the statements of two other persons evidenced by Exts.
The fifth accused was, however, found guilty only of the offence under Sections 143 and 201 and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three months and one year respectively, Though the appellant and accused 2 to 4 were also found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 143 and 201, Indian Penal Code, numberseparate sentences were passed for those offences.
As evidence of all these witnesses have been accepted by both the Courts and as we agree with their appreciation of the evidence, the criticism of the companynsel that the companyviction is baaed only on the evidence of P.W. 3 is number companyrect We have already pointed out that even If there has been only one solitary witness, namely P.W. 3, the companyviction cannot be said to be bad provided that evidence was companysidered to be truthful, honest and acceptable.
P 21, companyld be caused by the victim being thrown on a floor.
It is further alleged that the appellant and the second accused tied the hands and feet of the said Divakaran Nair and that the appellant poured poison into his mouth with the intention of causing his death and, with a view to cause evidence of the of fences companymitted by them to disappear, they carried the body of Divakaran Nair and left it near the railway line.
In both the statements Vasu and Krishnan have substantially given the same version as P.W. 3.
3 and 4 and the statements Exts.
Regarding the actual occurrence, the evidence of P. Ws.
P 2 the doctor has stated that the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to fracture of base of skull.
P 25 and P 26, are very material.
According to her, the deceased engaged her for two hours at about 900 p.m. on April 13, 1970.
Apart from these items of evidence, both the Courts have also relied on the testimony of P. Ws.
The deceased was left in the house of the appellant at about 9.00 p. m. on April 13, 1970, as clearly borne out by the evidence of P.W. 5.
He saw the appellant and the three accused carrying the deceased from the room and throwing him in the companyrtyard and the appellant pouring some liquid into his mouth.
P.W. 3, who came to visit the brothel in the companypany of one Vasu, has also given evidence to the effect that he heard Divakaran Nair shouting Do number kill me.
the taxi driver.
Exhibit P 25 is the statement given by Vasu and exhibit P 26 is the statement given by one Krishnan who was staying in the adjoining house.
His hands and feet were tied by the accused and the appellant poured poison into his mouth.
As a result of being thrown on the ground Divakaran Nair sustained injuries to the skull and he died shortly thereafter.
The injury to the frontal bone companyld cause shock and haemorrhage leading to death.
P 25 and P 26.
After this, all the accused carried the body of the deceased out of the house.
The appellant, along with four others, was tried by the learned Sessions Judge of Trichur for an offence under Sections 302, 143 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.
7 and 9.
A. Vaidialingam, J. The first accused in this appeal, by special leave challenges the judgment and order dated 19 8 1971 of the High Court of Kerala companyfirming his companyviction for an offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code as well as the sentence of death imposed upon him for the said offence.
The deceased was carried by being body lifted by all the four accused, taken out of the room and thrown in the companyrtyard.
On April 13, 1970, the deceased, Divakaran Nair, visited the brothel and spent a companyple of hours with P.W. 4.
