In 1976 the deceased Mathew was charged for patricide but was acquitted.
Consequently he was living at Emakulam where from his wife hails.
The appellant is the youngest and he resented the companyduct of the deceased.
It is incredible to believe his evidence for diverse reasons.
During his life time he executed repeated settlement deeds settling his extensive properties of 60 acres,double storeyed building and factories which lead to acrimony among his children.
A perliminary decree for partition at the behest of PW.
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.2.1992 of the Kerala High Court in Crl.
It was companyfirmed on appeal by High Court of Kerala in Criminal Appeal No, 349 of 1989 dated February 6, 1992.
The deceased kept the Ramanattu House locked.
The prosecution case was that on the fateful day the appellant came and killed the deceased in the Ramanattu house, bolting the door from inside.
He claimed that he was sitting there from 7 O Clock onwards.
In this case the evidence of PWs, 1, 2, 4 to 7, 14 and 21 is material to companynect the appellant with the crime.
4 and he saw the appellant with blood stained clothes at about 7 or 7.30 a.m. and also saw him later while he was sitting in the companyfee hotel.
10 and one brother PW.
He found two or three drops of blood on appellants Dhoti.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
M. Kashyap for the Appellant.
326 of 1993.
The prosecution case in nutshell is that Ramanattu Varkey had seven sons and four daughters.
12 was granted but final decree proceedings were pending.
The prosecution case itself was that later on there was reconciliation between the appellant and the deceased as spoken to by the widow of the deceased PW.
A. No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAMASWAMY.
The appellant was charged, found guilty and companyvicted under section 302 I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for causing the death of his brother Mathew on August 5, 1988 at about 8 a.m. in their Ramanattu house in Mazhuvannur in kerala State.
349 of 1989.
Thus this appeal by special leave.
T. George for the Respondent.
J. Special Leave granted.
He was a discharged military officer and managed to have companyplete hold of the properties and excluded other brothers and sisters from enjoyment of the peorperties.
