It did number believe the evidence of PWs 1,7 and 8 as regards the oral dying declaration stated to have been made before them by the deceased.
In order to prove its case, the prosecution had examined PW 2 Surenderan Nair who stated that he was accompanying the deceased when the incident took place and that he had seen the assault made on the deceased by both the accused.
The trial companyrt also held that as PW 2 had failed to explain all the injuries that were found on the person o the deceased it created a doubt regarding his having seen the incident.
He was tried alongwith his brother Jalal for companymitting the murder of their companysin Ummer in the Sessions Case No.
Evidence of PW 7 and PW 8 was discarded by the trial companyrt as it was found to be inconsistent inter se.
It also held that PW 2s presence deserved to be believed as it was supported by evidence of PW 4.
The trial companyrt did number place any reliance on PW 1 who had number only number seen the incident but had denied to have male some statements companytained in the FIR lodged by him.
The trial companyrt disbelieved the evidence of PW 2 as the supporting evidence was number found to be reliable and his own version was found inconsistent with the medical evidence.
His evidence was sought to be supported by the evidence of PWs 3 and 4 and also by PWs 7 and 8.
The evidence of recover of MO3 knife was number believed because the witness who had attested the Mahazar, Ex.
100/86 in the Court of Sessions Judge, Trivendrum but was acquitted on the ground that the prosecution had failed to prove its case.
The prosecution had also relied upon the recovery of MO3 knife at the instance of the appellant.
p. 10, was number an independent witness and the find of human blood on that knife after 16 days was companysidered doubtful.
