The prosecution case is mainly on the evidence of the two injured witnesses, P.Ws.
The accused also received injuries and the plea of self defence had been put forward.
He saw the quarrel between the accused and the deceased.
Apprehending that he would be killed by them, the accused stated that he tried to wield the knife from him and then there was a scuffle between him and the three persons and, thereafter, he ran away.
PW 2 also was examined by the Doctor who found an incised injury on his stomach.
It is stated that there was some family feuds between the deceased and his family members on the one hand, and the accused on the other.
Hence, this appeal.
P 1, to the Police.
The Doctor, however, opined that the death was due to the injury to the liver as well as cumulative effect of the other injuries.
In his version the accused suggested that he did number intentionally inflict injuries on the three persons and it was during the scuffle that the three persons happened to receive those injuries.
1 and 2 received the injuries at the hands of the accused but observed that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis of the occurrence and the belated plea that PW 2 happened to inflict an injury on the accused cannot amount to a proper explanation of the injury found on the accused, and that the accused has taken a specific plea which leads to an inference that he must have acted while exercising his right of private defence and, therefore, the accused was entitled to acquittal.
The accused is numberother than the elder brother of P.W 1, and the deceased was the son of P.W 1 and PW 2 was the son of the deceased.
It is only the injury to the liver which was serious.
All the three injured were taken to the hospital at Palghat whereat PW 1 gave a report, Ex.
would deep on the right side of the head and also two abrasions on the forehead and on the palm.
The deceased died and the post mortem was companyducted, and four incised injuries were found on the dead body.
The case was registered and the accused was arrested and at his instance, MO 1, the weapon was recovered.
When P.W I tried to pacify, it is alleged that the accused also inflicted an injury on him and ran away.
The State preferred an appeal questioning the said order of acquittal and a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court reversed the same holding that the accused had numbersuch right of private defence.
At that juncture, PW 2, son of the deceased, came out of the house with a stick and dealt a blow on the head of the accused.
The trial companyrt having examined the evidence of the injured witnesses as well as that of PW 3, companycluded that it was the appellant who inflicted the fatal injuries on the deceased and caused grievous hurt to PW 2 and simple hurt to PW 1.
The Doctor, who examined the accused, found one lacerated injury, 4 cm.
After companypletion of the investigation, a chargesheet was laid.
It may be mentioned that P.W 1 who gave the report did number say anything about the accused having received any injury.
x 0.5 cm.
1 and 2 as well as that of PW 3 that the deceased and P.Ws.
On P.W 1 a simple incised injury was found on the left arm.
The trial companyrt accepted the evidence of P.Ws.
The deceased abused him and caught hold of him and P.Ws.
He then saw the accused whipping out a knife and stabbing the deceased.
The appellant, who is the sole accused in the case, was tried for offences punishable under Sections 302, 326 and 324, I.P.C. for allegedly causing the death of one Pappachan and for causing grievous hurt to Baby, PW 2, and simple hurt to the father of the deceased, PW 1, on 26 10 1982 at about 2 30 p.m. near the tea shop of the deceased.
P.C. , the accused pleaded that he was number guilty and put forward a version stating that on the date of the incident he had gone to the house of one Jose in companynection with the purchase of a company and while he was passing through the road in front of the tea shop of the deceased, he saw the deceased, P.Ws.
But, taking into companysideration the plea set up by the accused, it took the view that the accused had a right of private defence and since he had a reasonable apprehension that the three persons were likely to cause his death or grievous hurt, in that view of the matter, acquitted the accused.
Thereafter, the accused stabbed PW 2 also on his stomach.
1 and 2 standing in front of the shop armed with knives and a stick.
This is an appeal under Section 379, Cr.
One of the injuries extended into the left lobe of the liver and the other injuries were on other parts, namely, on the left side of the neck and on dorsum of the left hand and on the back of the chest.
On the day of occurrence, P.W 1 got down from a jeep in front of the house of the deceased and by then a quarrel was going on between the accused and the deceased.
When examined under Section 313, Cr.
P.C. read with Section 2 of the Supreme Court Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1970.
1 and 2 and PW 3, wife of the deceased.
1 and 2 beat him.
