Alexander Thomas, J.

1. The appellant is the accused in S.C. No. 1459 of 2011 on the file of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Kollam, in Crime No. 402/2007 of Kadakkal Police Station, for committing offences punishable under Sec.302 I.P.C. By judgment dated 22.03.2014, the 1st Additional Sessions Court, Kollam convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo imprisonment for life and imposed a fine of Rs. 50,000/-, default of which would entail him to suffer rigorous imprisonment upto 6 months. The fine amount was directed to be paid to the wife and children of the deceased.

2. The brief facts leading to the case are as follows: Due to previous enmity towards the victim, Salim Raj, the accused, Rajendran who is his brother-in-law, on 27.09.2009, at about 8:30 PM, while the victim was sitting on his motor cycle, on the northern road margin of Kadakkal-Nilamel public road in front of the shop of P.W-3 Prasad at Azhanthakuzhy inflicted one injury below the left hand muscle and two on the left side of the chest of the victim, with a knife, which subsequently led to his death.

3. The indictment against the accused is that at about 8:30 PM on 27.09.2009, the accused, with the intent to murder the victim/deceased caused bodily injuries with a dangerous weapon, which led to the death of the victim.

4. For the occurrence of the above crime, Ext.P-1 FIS dated 27.09.2009 was lodged by P.W-1, who is the brother of the deceased, and the brother-in-law of the accused, before P.W-16 SI of Police, Kadakkal Police Station. P.W-16 recorded Ext.P-1 FI statement of P.W-1 (first informant) and registered Ext.P-1(a) FIR on the same day.

5. Initially, the investigation was commenced by P.W-16 SI of Police on 27.09.2007 and immediately, the next day P.W-17 Circle Inspector of Police, Kadakkal Police Station, has taken over the investigation on 28.09.2007. P.W-17 CI of Police conducted the inquest of the body of the deceased and prepared Ext.P-7 inquest report, in which P.W-11 is an attesting witness. Column No. 11 of Ext.P-7 inquest report states the apparent cause of the death, as due to the severity of the wound, caused by the knife on the left side of the chest of the deceased. The doctor, who examined the body at Gokulam Medical College, Kollam, has noted that the deceased died as a result of injury no.2. As part of the inquest, P.W-17 removed the clothes of the deceased and seized MO No. 4 (pants), M.O. No. 5 (shirt) and M.O. No. 6 (jetty) from the body of the deceased, etc.

6. P.W-17 investigating officer has arrested the accused on 28.09.2007 at 3:30 p.m., as per Ext.P-13 custody memo, based on the FI statement and P.W-17 proceeded to the scene of occurrence and has recovered MO-1 (knife) and MO-7 (Motor Cycle), as per Ext.P-8 scene mahazar/seizure mahazar. Later, the material objects were produced before the court by Exts.P-17, 17(a) & 17(b) property lists. Material objects were later forwarded to the chemical examiner for examination and report. The chemical examiner has submitted Ext.P18, FSL report, stating that blood was found on MO-1 and the dress and that MOs 1 & 2 contained blood, which is insufficient for detecting the origin and that MOs 3 to 5 contained 'A' group blood. P.W-17 (investigating officer), as part of the investigation, has questioned the witnesses, recorded their statements, collected material evidence and has filed the final report/charge sheet, before the court.

7. On committal, on the basis of the materials on record, the Sessions Court has framed charge against the appellant under Sec. 302 of the IPC on 04.07.2013, to which he pleaded not guilty.

8. During the trial, the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 19 and has marked Exts. P-1 to P-25 documents and M.O. 1 to M.O. 8 (material objects) on the prosecution side. On the basis of the evidence on record, the accused was questioned by the Sessions Court under Sec. 313(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C.

9. The Sessions Court did not deem fit and proper for recording acquittal under Sec. 232 of the Cr.P.C. and the accused was called upon to enter on his defence evidence, which he might have in support thereof. The accused had not adduced any defence evidence.

10. The Sessions Court, on conclusion of the trial and after appreciation of the evidence on record, has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sec.302 of the IPC and has sentenced him to imprisonment for life.

11. P.W-14 doctor, who conducted post mortem on the body of the deceased has issued and certified Ext. P-10 post mortem certificate in which 4 number of injuries were noted. The injuries noted in Ext.P10 post mortem certificate are as follows:

"1. Incised wound 1 x 0.1 x 0.1 cm (skin deep) oblique on right side of forehead, the lower inner end 3 cm to right of the midline and 1 cm above the eyebrow.

2. Incised penetrating wound 6.5 x 2.5 cm oblique on left side of trunk, the lower inner end 15 cm to left of the midline and 23 cm below the collar bone (with a tailing 5.2 x 0.1 x 0.1 cm slightly upwards and to right), through which omentum was found protruding. Cutting through the structures of the 6th intercostal space and left dome of diaphragm, pierced the pericardium and the left border of heart (2.4 x 0.5 cm) to end in the left lower chamber. The greater curvature of stomach near the fundus showed superficial cut, 2 x 0.6 cm, involving its serosal and muscle layer. The abdominal cavity contained thin film of blood. The left chest cavity contained 640 ml of blood with clot. The pericardial cavity contained 140 ml of blood with clot. The wound track was directed upwards and to right for a minimum depth of 4.5 cm. Both ends of the wound were sharply cut.

3. Incised wound 1.5 x 0.5 x 1.4 cm oblique on left side of front of trunk, the upper inner split end 12 cm to left of the midline and 26 cm below the collar bone.

4. Incised wound 2 x 0.5 x 0.2 cm oblique on inner aspect of left arm, the front upper end 6.5 cm below the armpit."

12. P.W-14 doctor, who has issued Ext.P-10 post mortem certificate, has given evidence in the matter, more particularly about the above said injuries found on the body of the deceased and has opined that the victim/deceased died of a penetrating wound sustained from injury no.2.The incident of stabbing, leading to the injury sustained by the deceased, is said to be on 27.09.2007 at about 8.30 pm or so. Ext.P1 First Information Statement was lodged 0n 27.09.2007 at 11 pm, as recorded by PW16 (Sub Inspector of Police of Kadakkal Police Station, Kollam). The recording of Ext.P1 First Information Statement and registration of Ext.P1(a) First Information Report (FIR) have been effected by PW16 (Sub Inspector of Police of Kadakkal Police Station, Kollam). Further, the FIR has been forwarded to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kottarakkara on the same day, i,e. 27.09.2007 at 11.30 pm by despatch. The FIR has been received by the said Court on 28.09.2007 at 10.30 am. The FIR contains the name of the accused. There cannot be any dispute that there has been no delay in the recording of the FIS and the registration of the FIR and that it was forwarded to the jurisdictional Magistrate Court concerned. The motive clearly mentioned in Ext.P1 is due to the prior enmity between the accused on the one hand and the deceased Sri. Salim Raj and his brother, Jayaprakash (First Informant/PW1) on the other hand.

13. PW-1 (Jayaprakash), who is the first informant and the brother of the deceased) has given evidence that Ext.P1 FIS has been given by him on 27.09.2007 at 11 pm and that he is not a direct witness to the incident of stabbing. He has stated that his sister, Usha, is married to the accused and that the above couple were separately residing for about 4 to 5 months prior to the incident, due to serious marital discords. That, he (PW1) and his brother (deceased Salim Raj) had gone to the residence of the accused, where he was staying alone, in order to question as to why he has assaulted PW1's sister (deceased's sister) as well as the parents of PW1, with whom Usha was later residing. At that time, there was serious quarrel between the accused on one hand and the deceased and PW1 on the other hand. That, this had happened about 1 ½ months prior to the incident in the crime. He would further state that, on 27.09.2007 at about 8.45 pm, PW2-Shiju @ Kuttan and CW5 Prajeesh had come to his house in a motor cycle and informed him that Salim Raj has been stabbed and injured by the accused Rajendran and that the injured Salim Raj should be immediately taken to the hospital. Thereupon, all 3 of them had gone on the bike of PW2 in Azhanthakuzhy Junction. On reaching Azhanthakuzhy junction, they could see his brother, Salim Raj, lying down, after sustaining stab injury, in front of the shop of PW3 Prasad. Thereafter, all three of them, along with one Saju, had taken the injured Salim Raj, in a taxi car driven by Shan (PW6), to SM hospital. The doctor at the said hospital had examined the injured and due to the seriousness of the condition, told them to immediately take the injured to Medical College Hospital. In order to ensure that medical treatment is immediately given to the injured, they had taken the injured to Gokulam Medical College Hospital, Venjarammoodu and the Doctor of that Medical College Hospital, after examining the injured, had informed that the injured, Salim Raj, had died. The body was then kept in the mortuary of that hospital and all of them had come back to Azhanthakuzhy junction near Kadakkal. Thereafter, PW-1 has given Ext.P1 FI Statement. Further, he has stated that, in the spot where the injured was found lying down, his bike was lying down in the road. He could also see a tiffin box, a knife and a mobile phone near the said bike etc. In cross examination, PW1 has stated that the taxi car of PW-6 Shan was called by PW2 Shiju. Further that, the accused Rajendran was working as a driver in Kerala State Road Transp0rt Corporation (KSRTC). PW1 has identified the knife (MO-1). In cross examination he has stated that MO1 knife was found lying about 20 meters away from the body of the injured and that it was found lying to the northern side of the body of the injured. The suggestions made by the defense that he was giving the above evidence falsely etc has been denied by him. Further, he has also stated that he and the accused have been in inimical terms as the accused was constantly subjecting Usha and the parents of PW1 to ill treatment and harassment. As per the prosecution case, P.W-2, P.W-3, P.W-4 and P.W-5 are direct witnesses to the incident of crime and a brief overview of their evidence is discussed as hereunder.

14. PW-2 (Shiju @ Kuttan) has stated that he had reached Azhanthakuzhy junction on 27.09.2007 and at that time his friend, CW5 Prajeesh, was also there and that he was talking with Prajeesh, in the road adjacent to the shop of PW5 Arun. Further that, the deceased Salim Raj had come from Kadakkal to the above junction at about 8.20 pm in his bike and stopped his bike in front of the shop of PW3-Prasad and Salim Raj, sitting on his bike, was talking with Prasad. At that time, the accused Rajendran had come from Mission Kunnu side and crossed the road and that he had then seen the accused stabbing on the left side of the chest of the deceased three times. On being stabbed, Salim Raj fell down from his bike towards the side, in front of the shop of PW3-Prasad and thereafter, he rose up and there was a scuffle between the accused Rajendran and the injured Salim Raj and both of them had fallen down. Then, the accused Rajendran got up and when people started coming there, the accused had threatened them and said that he had stabbed Salim Raj and then, nobody had gone near him. Thereupon, accused Rajendran threw the knife on the ground and had gone walking to Kadakkal. Thereafter, he and CW5-Prajeesh had gone to the house of PW1-Jayaprakash, brother of the deceased, on the bike of the latter and informed Jayprakash. Later, all 3 of them, PW2-Prasad, CW5 Prajeesh and PW1 Jayaprakash had gone to Azhanthakuzhy junction on that bike. On the way, he had engaged the taxi of PW6 Shan. On reaching Azhanthakuzhy junction, he had seen Salim Raj, lying down. PW1 then placed the injured Salim Raj in his lap. Thereafter, he, Prajeesh, Jayaprakash and one Saju had taken the injured in the Taxi car of Shan to SM hospital, Kadakkal. After giving first aid from that hospital, the injured was taken in an Ambulance to Gokulam Medical College Hospital, Venjarammoodu. The Doctor at the Medical College hospital had said that Salim Raj has died. The body of the deceased was kept in the mortuary of that hospital and thereafter, information was given to the Police by PW1. Further that, he had witnessed the incident of the crime with the help of the tube light in Azhanthakuzhy junction as well as with the aid of the light coming from the nearby house of one Sumaraj and that he could clearly see the incident. He had further stated that it was using MO1 knife that the accused had stabbed the deceased. He has also identified MO1. Further, he has stated that a bike, knife, a tiffin box and a mobile phone were found lying near the place where the body of the injured was lying. Further, he has given his statement under Section 164 of CrPC, to the Magistrate, as per Ext.P2. Further that, at the time of the incident, PW3 Prasad was found talking with the deceased. One Shobanan (PW4) was also then standing in front of the shop of PW3 Prasad. Further that, he has given his statement before the investigating officer.

15. In cross examination, he has stated that he has given his statement before the Police at about 12 noon on the next day, (28.09.2007). Further that, he discussed the incident with PW1, when they were travelling with the injured to the hospital, on the day in question etc. Further, he had stated that Azhanthakuzhy junction is a junction of three routes and the road towards the east is the one towards Kadakkal and the road which is going towards west is the one to Nilamelkunnu. The road to the south is the Mission kunnu-Chirayil road. He has stated about the other details, regarding the location of the junction. Further, in cross, he had stated that the above referred Sumaraj is working in a Gulf country and every day, the lamp light was kept on in Sumaraj's house.

16. A specific suggestion was put by the defence that he has not given statement to the Police, immediately, on the day of the incident, as he had not seen the incident etc. PW2 has answered that he had seen the incident of stabbing, but, as he was mentally tensed up on seeing the incident, he was not in a position to inform the Police about the incident. Further, he has stated that he is a close relative of PW1 Jayaprakash. He has also stated that they had reached SM Hospital on that day at about 8.45 pm and the doctor in that hospital had given drip to Salim Raj. Later, they had reached Gokulam Medical College at about 9.15 pm on that day, and took the injured to the emergency ward and later, the doctor had informed about the death of the injured etc.

17. PW3 (Sivaprasad) has stated that he is running a provisional shop near Azhanthakuzhy junction and he has given evidence that he knows both the deceased, who is a school teacher, as well as the accused, who is a driver of KSRTC. He has given evidence about his witnessing the incident, of the accused stabbing the deceased on that day at about 8.30 p.m. At that time, he was about to close his shop and had partially closed the shutter of the shop and was standing in front of it. Then, the accused and two of his friends had come to the shop to buy cigarettes. Further that, they had gone from the shop, after buying cigarettes from him. Then, PW4 Shobanan had come there in his car and came out of his car to his shop. At that time, when he was about to go to his house, the deceased Salim Raj had come there from Kadakkal direction and had stopped his bike in front of PW3's shop and asked whether he (PW3) wanted a lift to his house on the bike of Salim Raj. Then, he informed Salim Raj that he would go in Shobanan's car. When Salim Raj was about to go on his bike, the accused Rajendran, who was standing at the side of the road, had come there and stabbed Salim Raj on the left side of his chest. Then both of them had engaged in a scuffle and had fallen down. Then the accused has got up. By that time, he (PW-3) became unconscious. Further that, he had witnessed the stabbing incident with the aid of the light from the street light. He also stated that he knows both the accused and the deceased and they were in inimical terms. He has also identified MO1 knife etc. In cross examination, he has stated that, after the accused and his two friends had purchased cigarettes from his shop, he had seen them going to the opposite side, near the road, where a Fiat car was parked.

18. PW4 (Shobhanan) has also deposed that he knows both the accused, who is the driver of the KSRTC, as well as the deceased, who is a teacher in the school. He has also narrated witnessing the incident of the crime. That, on 27.09.2007, after 8 p.m., he had stopped his ambassador car near to the shop of PW3 Prasad and then had gone to the shop of Prasad and that, at that time PW-3 Prasad was about to close his shop. He had gone there in his car to give a lift back home to PW3 Prasad. At that time, while he was standing outside the shop of PW3 Prasad, who in turn was in the process of closing down his shop, the deceased Salim Raj had come on his bike and stopped in front of the shop of Prasad. Most of the days, the deceased used to take PW3 to the latter's house. On that day, Prasad had told Salim Raj that he will go to his house in the car. When with Salim was about to go on his bike, the accused, had come from the opposite side and stabbed three times on the left side of the chest of Salim Raj, using a knife. The accused was having the knife in his hand. The accused had stabbed the deceased with a knife. Both the deceased and the accused had then fallen down and both of them were engaged in a scuffle, then the accused got up and people had gathered and Prasad, seeing all these, had become unconscious. The shutter of Prasad's shop was half closed and that PW4 had then fully closed the shutter and had taken Prasad in his car. When people had gathered in the scene, the accused had threatened them not to come near him. Then, the accused was holding a knife and he had thrown the knife there and had gone towards Kadakkal direction. That he had seen this incident with the aid of the light from the from the street light. That, he has given his statements to the Police and had later given Ext.P4 statement to the Magistrate.

19. PW5 (Arun) has deposed that he has also witnessed the above incident of the crime, which occurred at about 8.20 p.m. on 27.09.2007. At that time, he was standing in his shop, which is situated almost on the opposite side of the shop of PW3 Prasad. He has stated that he may not be in a position to identify the knife. Ext.P5 seizure mahazar, regarding the seizure of the shirt and lungie of the accused, has been attested by him and Ext.P5 has been marked through him. So also the said lungie and shirt of the accused have been marked as MO2 and MO3, respectively. In cross-examination, he has stated that he has seen the accused stabbing the deceased on the above day, while he was standing in his provision shop. He has also given evidence regarding the various other nearby lime shops. In cross-examination, he further stated that he had seen the accused Rajendran crossing from the Mission kunnu road side and then stabbing the deceased Salim Raj. At that time, about 10 or 12 persons were there. Salim Raj was stabbed by the accused when the former was sitting on his bike. Further, he has stated that the shop of PW3 Prasad is facing towards the road. Further that, he has given statement before the learned Magistrate. In cross-examination he has further deposed that PW2 (Kuttan) and CW5 (Shiju) had gone on a bike to inform the family members of the injured Salim Raj. Further, he has deposed in cross examination, that the accused had stabbed Salim Raj, when the latter was sitting on his bike and the injured had fallen down and thereupon, both the accused and the injured had engaged in a scuffle. Further that, the accused had left the scene before he (PW-5) had gone from there. Further that P.W-2 Kuttan and CW-5 Prajeesh had also gone from there. To the suggestion by the defence that P.W-5 Arun is giving false evidence as he is a member of the then ruling party, etc. he has denied the same, etc.

20. P.W-6 Shan is a taxi driver, in whose car, the injured Salim Raj was taken by his brother, P.W-1 Jayaprakash, P.W-2 Kuttan, CW-5 Prajeesh, etc. P.W-6 has deposed that the body of the injured, which was found lying in front of Prasad's shop at Azhanthakuzhy was brought to his car. He has stated that the injured was then found lying down in front of P.W-3 Prasad's shop at Azhanthakuzhy junction and P.W-1 Jayaprakash, CW-5 Prajeesh and P.W-7 Saju had carried the injured to his car. Further that, he has seen knife and mobile phone there and he could see it with the aid of the street light as well as the light from the nearby house. Further, in cross, he has further stated about the above persons taking the injured Salim Raj in his taxi car to S.M. Hospital and further that, he had not returned back to the scene of the incident. Further that, P.W-2 Kuttan and others had come to his house after 8.30 p.m. to hire his taxi and that they would have reached the nearby S.M.Hospital within about 10 minutes or so. He has further stated in cross that when, initially, he had reached Azhanthakuzhy Junction, he had seen the injured Salim Raj lying down there. He has also stated that on 27.9.2007 at about 8.55 p.m. he had reached Azhanthakuzhy junction and was sitting in the house of one Nizudheen, for watching TV and at that time, he came to know that Salim Raj was lying down injured. At that time, P.W-1 Jayaprakash, P.W-2 Kuttan, CW-5 Prajeesh, etc. had taken the injured and P.W-2 Kuttan's father had come there with a towel. Further that, then, P.W-7 had placed the said towel on the chest of Salim Raj. Further, he had also accompanied the injured to S.M. Hospital. Later, the injured was taken to Gokulam Medical College Hospital, etc.

21. P.W-8 Sadasivan is a retired employee who has retired as Dy. Surveyor. He has stated that he knows the accused, who has married the deceased Salim Raj's sister. He has not directly witnessed the incident. He has deposed that on 27.9.2007 between 8.45 p.m. and 9.00 p.m. when he was sitting in his house, the accused had come there and called out his son. Then, he (P.W-8) opened the front door and then the accused had told him that he had stabbed Salim Raj, who may have surely died by now and that if P.W-8 has any doubt, he may go there and verify. Then P.W-8 told him to move out of his house immediately. Initially, he had doubted as to the correctness of what the accused was telling him. P.W-7 Saju and P.W-8 Sadasivan (Dy. Surveyor) have given evidence that the accused was found wearing pants and shirt. Whereas, as per Ext.P-5 seizure Mahazar, the seized dresses of the accused were lungi and shirt. In cross examination, he denied the suggestion that he is giving false evidence.

22. PW-9-Usha is the wife of the accused Rajendran and the sister of the deceased Salim Raj and PW1 Jayaprakash. She has stated that her deceased brother, Salim Raj, was a teacher and that she learnt that on 27.9.2007, her brother was stabbed and killed by her husband, who is the accused Rajendran. That, about 2 months prior to the incident, due to marital discord, she was forced to stay in her mother's residence and later, in Salim Raj's residence. That, the accused, after getting intoxicated with liquor, used to frequently attack her. Two children have been born to her in the wedlock and her elder son is working in the Army and her daughter is married. She and her husband (the accused) were residing in the house constructed in the property given by her father. Further that, the house of her deceased brother Salim Raj is about 400 metres from her house. That, her brothers-deceased Salim Raj and PW1 Jayaprakash, had questioned the accused regarding his conduct in frequently assaulting her and that Salim Raj and Jayaprakash had then beaten her husband Rajendran and this incident happened about 1 month prior to the above incident of crime.

23. PW10-A.N.Arun has stated that, on the way back in his car along with one Ligesh, when they had reached Azhanthakuzhy Junction, on 27.9.2007 at about 9 P.M., they had stopped the car on the road side and had got out to pass urine. Then, he had seen a bike lying down there, in front of the shops near the road. At that time, he had heard a mobile phone ringing near the bike and when he had taken the mobile, the ringtone had stopped. When he had called back in that number, the person on the other end had asked him whether he is Rajendran. Then, PW10 answered in the nagative. Further that, PW10 had introduced himself to the other person and informed that he had got the abovesaid abandoned mobile phone at Azhanthakuzhy Junction and that, if the other person comes to PW10's shop, the phone can be returned. Then, the other caller had asked him whether any incident had happened there, to which he answered in the negative. Then, after 2 minutes, another call had come in that mobile and the caller had asked him whether "He has died" and PW-10 had cut off the phone. He also saw a knife lying down near the phone. Then, he felt that something was wrong and he and Ligesh had gone back to their residences. Later, when he had come to a Petrol Pump, he had heard an autorickshaw driver asking the employee in the Petrol Outlet, as to whether the person who received injury at Azhanthakuzhy Junction had died and the other person had said that the injured had died in the Hospital. Only then could PW-10 learn that a stabbing incident had occurred in the above scene and something was wrong and put back the phone there. He has given Ext.P-6 statement before the learned Magistrate, etc .

24. PW-11 Lalan is the witness to Ext.P-7 Inquest Report dated 28.9.2007. He has also identified MO4, MO5 & MO6 (which are the seized dresses of the accused). PW-11 is the Attupuram Ward Member of the Kadakkal Grama Panchayath.

25. PW-12 Suresh has identified his signature as attesting witness in the Scene Mahazar, which has been marked through him as Ext.P-8 dated 28.9.2007. He has stated that the Sub Inspector of Police had reached the scene at about 11 A.M. on 28.9.2007 and further that, he had seen a bike covered with a tarpualin. He had also seen a mobile, slipper, 2 bondas (eatable) and a knife there. That, the Cirle Inspector of Police (PW-17) had prepared the scene mahazar, which he has attested as a witness and which has been marked as Ext.P-8.

26. PW13 is a Doctor, who is the Chief Medical Officer of the abovesaid S M Hospital. He has stated that on 27.9.2007, at about 8.56 P.M., he had examined the abovesaid deceased Salim Raj and has issued Wound Certificate, which has been marked through him as Ext.P-9. He has seen the two wounds certified in Ext.P-9, viz, the incised wound on the lateral lower part of leftside of Chest and the wound just below precordium. He had not seen any internal bleeding. He had realized that the condition of the injured Salim Raj was very serious and had referred the parties to the Gokulam Medical College Hospital. In Ext.P-9 Wound Certificate, issued by PW13, it is recorded that the date and hour of examination is 27.9.2007 at 8.56 P.M. and that the injured has been sent to the Gokulam Medical College Hospital as emergency at 9 P.M. In Sl. No. 9, regarding the history & alleged cause of injury, it is recorded that, as stated by the injured's brother Prakash, the injury is caused due to stabbing by the injured's brother-in-law.

27. PW14 was working as the Professor and Head of the Department of Forensic Medicine at the Government Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram, on 28.9.2007. He has given evidence that he has conducted Postmortem on the body of the deceased Salim Raj and that the Postmortem Certificate has been issued by him and the same has been marked as Ext.P-10 dated 28.9.2007. He has given evidence that he has noted the following injuries, which have already been stated in para 11 supra and therefore, there is no necessity to reiterate it. Further, he has stated that the Blood Group of the deceased was determined at Blood Bank, Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram, and was found as ARh+

28. In Ext.P-10 Postmortem Certificate dated 28.9.2007, it is certified that the opinion as to the cause of death is as follows:

"Died of penetrating injury, sustained by Injury No. 2."

29. PW14 has also deposed in evidence that the deceased has died of penetrating wound sustained as per injury No. 2 supra and further that, the injuries noted in Ext.P-10 were caused by a sharp cutting weapon of appropriate dimension. On being shown MO1 knife, he has given evidence that injury Nos. 1 to 4 in Ext.P-10 Postmortem Certificate could be caused by MO1. Further, he has deposed that "as omentum was protruding through a penetrating wound, injury No. 2, that was sealing the wound, so that external bleeding will be less". In Cross Examination, he has stated that he had prepared Ext.P-10 on the day of Postmortem examination itself and had put it typed on 1.10.2007 and had signed and submitted for despatch on 1.10.2007 and that Ext.P-10 was countersigned by K.Srikumari, Professor and Police Surgeon, on 6.10.2007 and further that, other than the 4 antimortem injuries noted in Ext.P-10, there were no other injuries on the body of the deceased. Injury Nos. 2 & 3 supra were on the chest left side. Incised penetrating wound noted as injury No. 2, was oblique in nature. Its sharp end was towards the side of the chest as compared with its inner end and its inner end was 15 cms outer to the left of midline, etc.

30. Further, in Cross Examination, a suggestion was made by the defence that injury No. 2 supra could not have been possibly caused with MO-1 knife, on the body of the deceased, who was sitting on the motor cycle, facing towards left, by the assailant, who was facing the motor cycle, standing closely to the left side of the bike on the southern side etc. PW14 has deposed that it is possible.

31. Again, a question was put to him, as to whether his abovesaid answer is absolutely false and that he has given false deposition before the Court, etc. The same has been politely and vehemently denied by PW14.

32. Further, in Cross Examination, he has stated that the Investigating Officer has questioned him on 29.9.2007 and he has denied the suggestion of the defence that the I.O. had not questioned him on the aforesaid day.

33. To a specific question as to whether he could see blood stains on the knife shown by the I.O., PW14 has stated that he cannot answer said question without referring to the file concerned.

34. PW-15-Rajan has turned hostile. He has given evidence that he is a driver of KSRTC depot and the colleague of accused Rajendran, and they were working together. He has deposed that, he had gone in his car along with Vishnudas on 27.9.2007 at 7 P.M., and had reached Azhanthakuzhy Junction, and parked it in front of Ragam shop. Then, he and Vishnudas had gone to the shop of Prasad to buy cigarette and had seen the accused Rajendran also standing in front of the shop of PW3 (Prasad's shop). Thereafter, he, Vishnudas and the accused had gone to the house of Vishnudas, which is about 2 kms away and had dinner there and had dropped the accused Rajendran, at his residence at about 10 P.M. on that day. He has been confronted with his Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement, given in favour of the prosecution case, which has been marked as Ext.P-21 and proved through PW17 I.O.

35. The contradiction as per Ext.P-21 reads as follows:

"This content is in vernacular language. Kindly email us at info@legitquest.com for this content."

The English translation of the above is roughly as follows:

"At about 7:30 PM, we stopped our car in front of Raagam shop and got out of the vehicle. At that time, Rajendran was standing there. I, Vishnudas and Rajendran went to Prasad's shop, bougt cigarettes and again came back and stood near Raagam shop. I talked to Rajendran for some more time. By 8 PM, I and Vishnu got into my car and went home".

36. On being confronted with the above contradiction, PW15 (Rajan) has denied that he has given any such prior Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement to the Police.

37. PW16 was the Sub Inspector of Police of Kadakkal Police Station, who has given evidence about recording of Ext.P-1 FIS and registration of Ext.P-1 FIR in the instant Crime No. 402/2007 of Kadakkal Police Station. He has also given evidence that he had made arrangements for scene guard in the scene of occurrence and the scene guard duty was performed by Police Constable 4334 and later, the investigation was taken over by PW17 (Circle Inspector of Police).

38. In Cross Examination, he has deposed that it was he who had brought the accused Rajendran to the Police Station on 27.9.2007 at about 12 midnight. Further that, he recorded the First Information Statement, in respect of Ext.P-1 on 27.9.2007 at 11 P.M. and that he had forwarded and despatched Ext.P-1(a) FIR to the jurisdictional court at 11.30 P.M. on 27.9.2007 and that, Ext.P-1(a) FIR was received in the Court on 28.9.2007 at 10.30 A.M. That, in column No. 12 of Ext.P-1(a) FIR, he has stated that it was on account of the enmity that arose out of the acts of the deceased and his brother questioning the accused's conduct in harassing the deceased's sister and his parents, etc. that the accused and the deceased had engaged in an altercation and scuffle and at that time, the accused had taken a knife from his waist and had stabbed on the left side of the chest of the deceased, etc.

39. Further, he has deposed that, when he reached the scene of occurrence on 27.9.2007, he had seen a motorcycle in a fallen down position and also a knife, tiffin box, towel, plastic cover, etc. He had covered the motorcycle with a tarpaulin, as there was possibility of rain on that day. He had got the tarpaulin from a shop near to the Police Station, etc.

40. PW-17 is the investigating officer in the above case. He took charge of the investigation on 28/09/2007. In the course of the investigation PW-17 prepared the following:

• Ext. P7 inquest report, containing MOs 4-6 (shirt, pant, jetty of the deceased).

• Ext. P8 Scene mahazar, where the following items were seized: knife (MO1), bajaj motor bike (MO7), one chappal, towel, spectacles, mobile phone and then the witness added that there was also a tiffin box, a dot pen and in the tiffin box, there were 3 bondas (kerala snacks), which were later destroyed.

• Ext. PW 17 arrest memo and Ext. P14 Inspection memo, wherein the accused was arrested on 28/09/2007 at 3:30 PM and Ext P5 seizure mahazar, containing Mos 2 & 3 shirt and lungi worn by the accused were prepared.

• Ext. P12 name and address report.

• Ext. P13 custody memo of the accused.

• Ext. P16 mahazar of MO7 Motor bike on which the deceased Salim Raj was sitting, at the time of the crime

• Ext. P17 property list, containing list of MOs 1-6 and the nail clippings, Ext. P17(a) Property list of MO7 Kawasaki motor bike and Ext. P17(b) property list of things like chappal, towel, spectacles, pen and lunch box.

41. PW18 is the First Class Judicial Magistrate, Kottarakara, who has recorded the Sec.164 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW5, which has been marked as Ext.P-23 as well as the Sec.164 Cr.P.C. Statement of CW Prajeesh, which has been marked as Ext.P-24.

42. PW19 is the Sub Inspector of Police, who was the subsequent SHO, Kadakkal. He has given evidence about the missing articles mentioned in Ext.P-25 report given on 18.12.2013 regarding Thondi Item No. T-327/2007 mentioned in Ext.P-17 property list.

43. The said missing articles covered by Ext.P-17 property list are:

(1) Chappal

(2) Towel

(3) Spectacle

(4) Dot Pen

(5) Tiffin box

44. He has given evidence that the said Thondi articles were entrusted to the Police Station as per the orders of the Court and the said Thondi articles were kept in safe custody of the Police Station, pursuant to the entrustment given to the Police Station by the Court and that when the Police Station premises were shifted to a new building, the labels were all found missing and the Thondi articles could not be traced out and hence, he was constrained to give Ext.P-25 report to the Court.

45. Both sides have made detailed submissions and we have heard them in extenso and have considered the rival pleas.

46. At the outset, it has to be noted that, in respect of the above incident of crime, which has happened on 27.9.2007 at around 8.30 p.m., Ext.P-1 FIS has been lodged by P.W-1 (first informant/ brother of the deceased) on 27.9.2007 at 11 p.m. and consequently, Ext.P-1(a) FIR has been registered by P.W-16 Sub Inspector of Police, Kadakkal Police Station, which has led to the registration of Crime No. 402 of 2007 of Kadakkal Police Station, Kollam District. It has also come out in evidence that Ext.P-1(a) FIR has been forwarded by the above Police officer, by despatch, to the jurisdictional Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Kottarakkara, on the same day (27.9.2007) and the same has been received by the said court the next day (viz., 28.9.2007) at 10.30 a.m. It has come out in evidence that, immediately, on coming to know about the incident, P.W-1 and others proceeded to the scene of the crime and had taken the injured to the local hospital and from there, they had taken the injured to the Medical College Hospital concerned, where the injured was pronounced dead and the body was placed in the hospital for post-mortem purposes and P.W-1 and others had come back to the Police Station and lodged the FIS, as above. Within a reasonable time limit, the brother of the deceased has taken timely steps to lodge FIS and to get the FIR registered, as above. So, it has to be noted that there has been no delay in that regard.

47. Further, the motive of the murder has also been brought on evidential record. P.W-9 (who is the wife of the accused and the sister of the deceased) as well as P.W-1 (brother of the deceased) and the above Usha (P.W-9), deposed that the accused was constantly treating her Usha with cruelty and harassment and that, two months before the incident, she was forced to live separately from her marital home and was living either in her parental home or in the house of the deceased. Further that, since the accused had attacked and constantly treated his wife as well as her parents with cruelty, the deceased and P.W-1 had questioned the above cruel conduct of the accused and this led to bad blood between them and that P.W-1 and the deceased had beaten the accused, etc. That, the accused was having lingering animosity and enmity against the deceased, in view of these incidents. Further, in the discussion of the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses, it can also be seen that, a few of the prosecution witnesses, who are members of the locality and who know the parties well, have also stated about the prior enmity and extremely spoiled relationship between the accused and the deceased. In other words, evidence has also been adduced by the prosecution to prove the motive for the crime.

48. Now, we would deal with the appreciation of evidence of the key witnesses. It has to be noted that P.W-1 has not directly witnessed the incident of the crime. The incident, which happened on 27.9.2007 at about 8.30 p.m., was conveyed to him by P.W-2 (Kuttan), CW5 (Prajeesh), etc. and that they had then proceeded from his residence to the nearby scene. He has clearly deposed that when he had reached the scene, he had seen the injured, Salim Raj lying down in front of the shop of P.W-3 Prasad, after sustaining stab injury and that he had also seen MO-1 knife lying in the scene. Further, he has given evidence that, he and the above other persons concerned had taken the injured to the nearby hospital, and from there, they were directed to proceed to the Gokulam Medical College Hospital, Venjarammoodu, and had taken the injured to the latter hospital and the doctor there had pronounced the injured dead and that the body was kept for post-mortem in that hospital, etc. He has also deposed about the motive due to the enmity between the accused vis-a-vis the deceased and P.W-1, etc.

49. P.W-2 (Kuttan @ Shiju) has deposed that, while he was speaking with CW-5 Prajeesh, in front of the shop of P.W-5 Arun, near the road side on 27.9.2007 at about 8.30 p.m., the deceased Salim Raj had come there on a bike. That, at that time, the accused had come from Mission Kunnu side and crossed the road and stabbed on the left side of the chest of the deceased 3 times by using a knife. Further that he had seen the deceased sitting on the bike and that as a result of the stab injury, the deceased fell down from the bike to the side of P.W-3 Prasad's shop. That later he had gone along with CW-5 Prajeesh to the house of P.W-1 on a bike, to inform about the incident and then, he (P.W-2), CW-5, P.W-1 and P.W-7 Saju had taken the injured in the taxi car of P.W-6 Shan and had gone to the local S.M.Hospital and from there, had taken the injured in an ambulance to the Gokulam Medical College Hospital, Venjarammoodu, where the said Medical College Hospital authorities confirmed the death. Further P.W-2 has clearly stated that he could see the incident clearly with the aid of the tube light in Azhanthakuzhy Junction, and also with the aid of the light in the nearby Sumaraj's residence. He has also identified MO-1 knife. Further, P.W-2 has also stated in evidence that he could see P.W-3 Sivaprasad talking to the deceased, just before the stabbing incident and at that time, P.W-4 Shobhanan was standing in front of P.W-3 Prasad's shop.

50. In cross examination P.W-2 has stated that the abovesaid Sumaraj is in a gulf country and the light is put on every evening in that house, which is near to the scene of the incident. Further he has also stated that Ragam building is situated on the southern side of the Nilamel-Kadakkal road and that from the western side of Ragam building, near the southern side of the road, there is a line of four shops and P.W-5 Arun's shop is the second shop from the eastern side. Further that, at the time of the incident, P.W-5 Arun was in his shop. Further, in cross examination, he has clearly stated that he could not report about the incident of crime to the Police due to the extreme mental tension in seeing the stabbing incident and that he is a close relative of the family of P.W-1. In that regard, it may also be apposite to note that Ext.P-8 scene mahzar dated 28.9.20o7 is a contemporaneous document and there is specific description of the tube light and location of P.W-3 Prasad's shop, location of P.W-5 Arun's shop, scene of the incident, etc., which also broadly tallies with the evidence mentioned above.

51. Now, we will deal with the evidence of the four direct witnesses involved in this case viz P.W-2 (Kuttan), P.W-3 (Prasad), P.W-4 (Shobhanan) and P.W-5 (Arun). The learned counsel for the appellant accused has urged that there has been a significant divergence in the case set up in Ext.P-1 FIR, compared to the evidence given by direct witnesses, inasmuch as the specific case of the first informant that he could learn from others that, initially there was altercation and scuffle between the accused and the deceased and thereafter only the stabbing incident happened. Whereas, the evidence of the direct witnesses is given a go-bye and those witnesses would state that the accused had straightaway come there and stabbed the deceased three times, etc. Further that, it is the admitted case of the prosecution that P.W-2 was one among the persons who had initially informed P.W-1 about the incident and that later, P.W-1, P.W-2 and the others concerned have travelled together in a vehicle along with the injured to the two hospitals, etc. Further, if P.W-2 had witnessed the incident of crime and the same had happened in the manner as he has now deposed, then, certainly, he would have informed the same to P.W-1 and that the said version would have found a place in the FIR. Further that, P.W-2 has never given any information or report to the Police immediately after the incident and even immediately after the registration of the FIR, even though he was said to have accompanied P.W-1 to the Police Station, etc.

52. The aspect regarding the divergence in the case of the prosecution as stated in the FIR vis-a-vis the evidence of the direct witnesses will be dealt with later. Regarding the other aspects, it has to be noted that the specific case of the prosecution is that P.W-2 (Kuttan) was also one of the direct witnesses in this case and further that, he had informed P.W-1 immediately thereafter and he has travelled along with P.W-1 to the two hospitals and after keeping the body of the deceased for post mortem, they had come back and P.W-2 had also accompanied P.W-1 to the Police Station for lodging the FIS, on the same day, ie., 27.9.2007 at 11 p.m. The specific case projected in Ext.P-1 FIR is that the information conveyed therein is on the basis of the version that could be gathered by P.W-1 (first informant) from others and that indisputably, he is not a direct witness. P.W-2 has stated in his evidence that he has discussed with P.W-1 about the incident, while they were travelling together in the car to the hospital, etc. No effort has been taken by the defence to elicit from P.W-1 as to whether P.W-2 had conveyed to him that he had directly witnessed the incident and if so, as to why he had not disclosed such a case in the FIS. Unless specific challenge in that regard is made by the defence, P.W-1 could not have given his version as to what exactly P.W-2 had told him about the incident and if P.W-2 had told him that he had directly witnessed the incident, as to why P.W-1 has not stated so in the FIS. So also, no effort is made by the defence to elicit from P.W-2 as to whether P.W-2 had specifically told P.W-1 that P.W-2 had directly witnessed the incident, etc. However, the core aspect of the matter is that P.W-2, who is said to be a direct witness, has not immediately given information or reported about the same to the Police, though he had accompanied P.W-1. Hence, we are of the firm view that the evidence of P.W-2 will have to be evaluated in a very guarded manner and for that purpose, we would evaluate the evidence of the other direct witnesses, who are members of the locality and who are in no way relatives of the deceased, etc. After evaluating the evidence of P.Ws 3, 4 and 5, we would guardedly assess the evidence of P.W-2 (Kuttan) and ascertain as to whether the evidence of P.W-2 is broadly corroborated by the evidence of the other direct witnesses, viz., P.Ws 3, 4 and 5.

53. P.W-3 (Prasad) has stated he could see the accused inflicting stab injuries on the deceased on 27.9.2007 at about 8.30 p.m. in front of his shop. Further that, initially, the accused and two others had come near to his shop to buy cigarettes. At that time, P.W-4 Shobhanan had also come to the shop. After buying cigarettes, the accused and his two friends had gone from his shop. Thereafter, the deceased came on a bike from Kadakkal side (east) and he stopped his bike in front P.W-3's shop and asked him whether he wants a lift to go to his residence. Then, P.W-3 said that he would go in the car of P.W-4 Shobhanan. When the deceased was about to start his bike, the accused had come there and stabbed the deceased on the left side of his chest. Further, P.W-3 has clearly stated that he could see the incident with the aid of the street light. Further P.W-3 has also stated that the accused and the deceased were on inimical terms.

54. P.W-4 (Shobhanan) has deposed that he has seen the accused stabbing the deceased in front of P.W-3's shop at Azhanthakuzhy junction on 27.9.2007 at about 8.30 p.m. He would say that, at that time, the deceased Salim Raj had come there in his bike and stopped in front of P.W-3's shop and the deceased asked P.W-3 as to whether he wants a lift to go to his house. P.W-3 Prasad said that he would later came in P.W-4 Shobhanan's car and when the deceased was about to go in his bike, the accused came from the opposite side and stabbed the deceased on the left side of his chest, by using a knife carried by the accused. Further, he has also clearly stated that he could see the stabbing incident with the side of the light from the street light.

55. P.W-5 Arun has stated that he knows the deceased and that he has seen the accused stabbing the deceased in front of P.W-3 Prasad's shop at Azhanthakuzhy junction at about 8.20 p.m. on 27.9.2007. Further, P.W-5 has stated that, at that time, he was in his shop, which is almost opposite to P.W-3's shop.

56. On an assessment of the evidence of P.Ws 3, 4 and 5, it can be seen that P.W-3 Prasad and P.W-5 Arun are having shops in the above locality. The presence of these witnesses is quite natural and does not appear to be, in any manner, artificial. They are members of the immediate locality and living in the neighbourhood. Their evidence would clearly show that the accused and the deceased were lives in the immediate neighbourhood. Moreover, the evidence of P.W-3 Prasad would show that he is in good terms with both. Further the evidence of P.W-3 Prasad would show that the accused and two of his friends had come to his shop at that time to buy cigarettes. It has also come out in evidence that the deceased used to offer lifts to P.W-3, to take him to the latter's nearby residence. So, it can be seen that P.W-3 is generally in good and friendly terms with both the accused and the deceased. That P.Ws 3, 4 and 5 are, in any manner, in goods terms with the accused, etc. or that their presence in the locality at that time is quite natural. That being so, since P.Ws 3, 4 etc. are living in the immediate neighbourhood and they are generally in goods terms with the accused, ordinarily such persons will not falsely implicate an innocent person in a grave crime like murder. The learned counsel for the appellant accused has stated that P.W-3 Prasad had stated in his Ext.P-3 Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. statement before the Magistrate that after buying cigarettes, the accused and his two friends had gone away in their car, etc. and that this aspect is conspicuously absent in the evidence of P.W-3. It has to be noted that the defence has not taken any steps to make out the case of omission or contradiction, by confronting him with his Ext.P-3 prior statement given as per Sec. 164 of the Cr.P.C. That apart, the learned Prosecutor would point out that P.W-15 Rajan, who is a driver and a colleague of the accused in the KSRTC, had given Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement before the Police that he was one among the two persons who had accompanied the accused to buy cigarettes from the shop of P.W-3 and after buying cigarettes, they had gone from the shop and P.W-15 and the other friend had gone in their car and that the accused was standing there. The abovesaid relevant portion of the prior Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W-15/ CW-21 Rajan, who has turned hostile, has been marked as Ext.P-21 and the said contradiction of P.W-15 has been proved through P.W-17 (I.O). Moreover, there is force in the submission of the prosecutor that P.W-3 Prasad has only broadly stated that all of them had gone away towards the car, which was parked away and he may have perceived that all three of them would have gone in that car, etc. That does not in any manner, affect the truthfulness of the evidence given by P.Ws 3, 4 and 5, that they have directly witnessed the stabbing incident, as the accused had later come to the scene and had stabbed the deceased, etc. Moreover, the evidence of P.W-15, who has turned hostile, would clearly show that he is a colleague and close friend of the accused. So, we are of the opinion that the abovesaid version, if any, given by P.W-3 in his Sec. 164 statement is not significant and moreover, the said omission or contradiction, on the part of P.W-3 Prasad, compared to his earlier version in Ext.P-3 Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. statement, was not even confronted to him to elicit his explanation thereto, as per due procedure. Hence, we are of the firm view that the evidence of P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5 are broadly corroborating each other and we would evaluate that their version is on firm grounds and that their evidence is broadly acceptable. We would deal with the evaluation of P.W-15 (hostile witness) a little later.

57. Now a comparative evaluation of the evidence given by P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5 vis-a-vis the evidence given by P.W-2, would also lead to the position that the evidence of P.W-2 is also broadly corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5. Even if the evidence of P.W-2, to the extent that he has directly witnessed the crime incident, is to be eschewed, still, we are of the view that the evidence of P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5 would be broadly acceptable for establishing the prosecution case.

58. Further, there cannot be any quarrel about the evidence of P.W-2 on other aspects, like intimating P.W-1 first informant and accompanying him to the scene of occurrence and then, taking the injured, along with P.W-1, to the hospitals concerned, etc. Moreover, no challenge or suggestion has been made by the defence in cross examination of any of the direct witnesses, that it was not possible for them to see the incident either due to distance or due to lack of light or such other reasons. Though the learned counsel for the appellant has argued about certain omissions and contradictions of the evidence of some of the witnesses, it has to be noted that no effort has been taken by the defence to confront such alleged contradictions of the prior statement given by the witness concerned under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. or under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. and mark the alleged contradiction subject to proof, and later, to confront the same before the IO regarding such contradictions and to prove such marked contradictions in the prior statements under Sec. 161 or 164 of the Cr.P.C. as the case may be. Moreover, such alleged omissions have not been confronted to any such prosecution witnesses. Such accepted due procedure for placing reliance on contradictions and omissions of the evidence of prosecution witnesses vis-a-vis their prior statements has not been adhered to at all by the defence. For all these reasons, we are of the view that the evidence of P.Ws 3, 4 and 5 as well as the evidence of P.W-2, to the extent that it is in consonance with the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 4 are reliable and acceptable for establishing the case of the prosecution.

59. P.W-5 has also identified MO-1 and MO-2, which are the dresses of the accused. P.W-11 has given evidence that he is an attesting witness to Ext.P-7 inquest report. He has also identified MOs 4, 5 and 6, which are the dresses of the deceased. P.W-12 (Suresh) has given evidence that he is an attesting witness to Ext.P-8 scene mahazar. P.W-16 (SI of Police) has given evidence regarding the recording and registration of Ext.P-1 FIS and Ext.P-1(a) FIR. P.W-17 has given detailed evidence about the various steps taken by him in the investigating process and its finalization. Ext.P-11 is the mahazar for nail clipping of the accused. Exts. P-13, P-14 and P-15 are the custody memo, inspection memo and remand application, which have been proved through him. Ext.P-17 series are the property list, etc. P.W-19 is the SHO, Kadakkal Police Station, who has proved Ext.P-25 report dated 18.12.2013, given before the court, regarding the missing of the thondi items mentioned herein above.

60. Moreover, each of the four direct witnesses speak about the presence of some of the other such direct witnesses at the time of the crime incident. For instance P.W-2 Kuttan speaks about the presence of P.W-5 Arun. P.W-2 and P.W-5 respectively speak about the presence of each other at the time of the incident. P.Ws 3 and 4 would also speak about the presence of each other. P.W-2 and P.W-5 also speak about the presence of P.W-3 Prasad in his shop. All these four witnesses broadly speak about the time of the incident as around 8.30 p.m. or so on that day. All of them also speak about the knife used by the accused for stabbing. P.Ws 2, 3 and 4 have identified MO-1 knife. P.Ws 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 speak about the source of light in the scene of occurrence. The direct witnesses stated that they have seen the incident. The first four of them, who are direct witnesses, have stated that they have seen the incident with the aid of the light from the street light. These sources of light are also broadly corroborated by the details in Ext.P-8 scene mahazar. Further Ext.P-9 wound certificate, proved by P.W-13 (Chief Medical Officer of the S.M. Hospital), would also disclose as to who all had brought the injured to the hospital.

61. The learned counsel for the appellant has highlighted about the contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution. One of such contradictions is regarding the length of the knife. The discrepancy regarding the length of the knife is rather insignificant. In Ext.P-8 mahazar it is stated that the length of the blade portion of the knife is 12 cm. and the length of the handle portion of the knife is 11.30 c.m. thus totalling to 23.30 c.m. Whereas the length of the knife as stated in Ext.P-18 FSL report is 22.6 cm. The said discrepancy regarding the length of the knife, is not very significant. Certain other discrepancies are also pointed out, in relation to the versions of the direct witnesses, as to whether the deceased was sitting on the motor bike at the time he suffered the injury, etc. and also regarding the exact spot where the stabbing incident has taken place. All the four direct witnesses have given clear and cogent evidence that the stabbing incident had happened in front of P.W-3 (Prasad's shop). What exactly was the distance from the road margin and as to where the body was found lying and on which side of the bike, etc., are discrepancies which do not affect the core of the prosecution case. Such minor contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses could be quite natural, as they might find it difficult to recollect precise and minor details, as they are giving evidence before the court after about six years of the incident. The evidences of these direct witnesses are broadly cogent, and reliable.

62. P.W-6 (Shan) has given evidence which would show that the said witness is a driver in whose taxi car the injured was taken from the scene of occurrence, by P.W-1 and others to the two hospitals in question. P.W-7 (Saju) has evidence that he has also travelled in the above taxi car of P.W-6, in the process of taking the injured, along with P.W-1, P.W-2 and CW5, from the scene of the incident to the hospitals. The evidence of these witnesses is also credible and reliable and would repose and corroborate the prosecution case, regarding the events which have happened immediately after the crime incident. P.W-13 is the Chief Medical Officer of S.M. Hospital, where the injured was initially taken for emergency treatment and first aid and he has issued Ext.P-9 wound certificate dated 27.9.2007. The details emanating from Ext.P-9 wound certificate have also been stated herein above. P.W-14 is the Professor of Forensic Medicine of the Government Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram, who has conducted the post mortem of the deceased and has issued Ext.P-10 post mortem certificate dated 28.9.2007. He has clearly deposed about the injuries noted in the certificate. The details of the injuries have already been adverted to herein above and the same need not be repeated. P.W-14 has given clear evidence that the deceased died of penetrating wound sustained by injury No. 2 and that the injuries noted in Ext.P-10 have been caused by a sharp cutting weapon of appropriate dimension. On being shown, MO1 knife, P.W-14 has clearly stated in evidence that the injury Nos. 1 to 4, in Ext.P-10 post mortem certificate, could be caused by MO-1. He has also, inter alia stated that the blood group of the deceased, as determined by the blood bank, Government Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram was found to be A Rh+. Thus, it can be seen that, there is clear medical evidence on record, relating to the initial treatment given to the injured/deceased at S.M.Hospital and the further treatment given at the Medical College Hospital and the conduct of post mortem and about the injuries suffered by the deceased. The abovesaid evidence on record clingingly proves the prosecution case regarding the cause of death of the deceased.

63. The essential details of the evidence given by P.W-15 (Rajan), who had turned hostile to the prosecution have been mentioned herein above. It has come out in evidence that, going by his own evidence, he is a close friend of the accused who is also a colleague of the accused, a driver in the KSRTC. On an appraisal of the evidence of P.W-15 it can be seen that there is a grave contradiction in his evidence in the court, vis-a-vis, his prior Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement, as can be seen from Ext.P-21 contradiction proved through P.W-17. After due appreciation of the evidence, we are of the view that the version of P.W-15, given in the court is to help the accused to create an alibi to make it appear as if he (accused) had left the shop of P.W-3 Prasad along with P.W-15 and another common friend, after buying cigarettes from that shop and that they had gone together in the car of P.W-15 and that the accused had dinner in the house of that friend and that the accused had left them only after some time. Whereas, as per Ext.P-21 his earlier version was that, after buying cigarettes, the accused, he and the other friend had walked away from the shop of Prasad and that they had gone nearby to the car of P.W-15, which was parked across the road and thereafter, only P.W-15 and his friend had gone in the car and that the accused was remaining there. Hence, we are of the view that the abovesaid evidence of P.W-15 is not reliable and credible and has been made only to help the accused to create an alibi, etc. Further, it has to be noted that P.W-15 is a close friend and colleague of the accused. We have to make a comparative evaluation of the evidence of P.W-15, vis-a-vis, the evidence of P.Ws 3, 4 and 5, who are all independent witnesses and are not, in any manner, related to the accused and were also generally in good terms with the accused and others, who are members of the locality and whose presence in the scene is quite natural, etc. Hence, we are not in a position to accept the evidence of P.W-15, to the extent it enables the accused to claim an alibi, by overturning and rejecting the cogent and credible evidence of P.Ws 3, 4 and 5. The two contradictions relied on by the defence are Ext.D-1 in relation to the prior Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W-4 (Shobhanan), and Ext.D-2 which is the prior statement of P.W-5 (Arun).

64. After hearing both sides, we are of the view that the abovesaid discrepancies are rather minor and not very significant, which would affect the core of the case.

65. The learned Prosecutor has submitted that the evidence of P.W-8 (Sadasivan) would clearly disclose extra judicial confession of the accused that he had stabbed the deceased on the fateful day and that the said evidence of P.W-8 has not been very seriously challenged by the defence and that it is broadly credible and acceptable, etc. and would also be corroborated by the evidence of the direct witnesses. After hearing both sides, we are not inclined to give much weightage to the evidence of P.W-8. Further, it has to be noted that P.W-8 has stated that he is a close relative of the deceased and further admittedly his Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. statement has not been recorded before the Magistrate. If the prosecution had placed much importance and value to the version of P.W-8, then ordinarily, they would have ensured that the statement of P.W-8 was also recorded in terms of Sec. 164 of the Cr.P.C., before the learned Magistrate, which has not been observed in the instant case. However, there are certain flaws in the investigation. Rule 75 of the Criminal Rules of Practice stipulates that the committal may, if necessary, call up on the Police or the complainant to prepare and file site plan. In the instant case, the site plan prepared by the Village Officer was duly produced along with the final report and the same was omitted to be placed on record in evidence before the Sessions Court.

66. It appears that the site plan was prepared by the Village Officer concerned and the same was also stated to have been produced as a document along with the final report/charge sheet. It is not known as to why the site plan was not brought out in evidence and as to why, the Village Officer, who prepared it was not examined. The site plan would have given better clarity and precision. The Village Officer has been cited as a charge witness in the final report and the site plan prepared by him has also been cited as a document produced along with the final report. It is not known as to why the defence has not taken any interest to bring out the site plan on evidence, when they had the opportunity to adduce defence evidence. Certainly the court should have evinced more interest to ensure that the site plan is also on record.

67. Further the mobile phone found in the location about which P.W-10 has given evidence, has not been produced before the court along with the property list. The investigating officer should have certainly produced the said mobile phone to the court, along with other items covered by the property list. On the other hand, it is stated by P.W-17 (IO) that he had placed the said mobile phone in his safe custody and that later, when the Police Station was shifted to a new premises, the said mobile phone was lost. The defence is right in submitting that the said mobile was a vital material object in this case and especially, as the prosecution case was on the basis of the version of P.W-10. The details of the cell number, the company which has manufactured the mobile, IMEI number of the mobile cell and the phone number and the service provider concerned in relation to the said mobile phone, all should have been noted meticulously and the same should have also been sent along with the other properties while forwarding it to the court. The said mobile phone could have been easily sent for other expert analysis, like FSL, etc. On the other hand, the investigation has been rather careless in not taking meticulous steps in this regard and in casually keeping the mobile phone in the safe custody at the Police Station and the phone was said to have been lost later, due to the shifting of the Police Station, etc. The defence has raised a contention that, if the mobile phone had been properly produced, with all the meticulous details, it could have been proved that it was not the phone of the accused, etc. So also, the investigation agency has been very casual in producing Ext.P-25 report from the mobile service provider, which shows that the phone mentioned therein is that of the accused. Since the details of the mobile phone said to have been taken from the scene of occurrence were not noted and the same has been lost, there is no link for the prosecution to connect that the mobile phone mentioned in Ext.P-19 is that of the accused or was the one found in the scene of occurrence. That apart, Ext.P-19 does not have certification, in terms of Sec. 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. The defence has not objected to the admissibility of Ext.P-19, as it was in their favour as it will show that the version of P.W-10 about the details of incoming and outgoing calls after he had found the phone, are not mentioned in Ext.P-19, etc. It is long thereafter that the prosecution has sought to rely on another additional document said to have been given by the service provider of the mobile company. The plea of the prosecution for accepting the said document, by filing a criminal miscellaneous petition was disallowed by the Sessions Court, on the ground that even the said additional document does not have the statutory certification in terms of Sec. 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. If minimal care had been taken and proper advice of the prosecutor was taken, then the investigating officer could have easily known that the admissibility of such an additional document would require the aforesaid statutory certification and steps in that regard could have been taken. For reasons which are not known to us and presumably due to negligence and lack of due care, the vital steps in that regard regarding the abovesaid mobile phone in question has not been taken by the prosecution. However, for reasons to be given herein after, we are of the view that these omissions and flaws in the investigating process will not affect the core of the prosecution case regarding the culpability of the accused.

68. The defence has also raised a contention that the very genesis of the incident, as reflected in the FIS, has been deviated while developing the prosecution case later. It is stated that the specific case of P.W-1 first informant, in Ext.P-1 FIS, is to the effect that he could learn from others that initially there was an altercation between the accused and the deceased near the shop of P.W-3 Prasad and that this ended in a scuffle and that it is in that process, that the accused had stabbed the deceased and that the said version would indicate that the incident may not be pre-meditated but would have happened in the heat of the altercation, which has taken place between the two, which led to a scuffle and then stabbing etc. Whereas, the evidence of the prosecution, on the basis of the direct witnesses, is to the effect that the accused had went to the scene of occurrence and had then immediately stabbed the deceased three times, etc. as if it was a pre-meditated act. It has to be noted that it is common ground that P.W-1 (first informant) is not a direct witness to the crime incident and he was apprised by others about the stabbing incident and then he proceeded to the site, etc. The specific version in Ext.P-1 FIS is to the effect that he could learn from others that when the two had met in front of the shop of Prasad, there started a wordy altercation and then a scuffle and then the stabbing incident. Whereas, the prosecution case as per the evidence tendered by P.Ws 2, 3, 4 and 5, is to the effect that the accused had walked out to the site and immediately stabbed three times on the left side of the accused and this led to the falling down from the bike and this led to a scuffle between the two, etc. Moreover, as per both the versions, the accused had come to the scene armed with a knife, which was used for stabbing the deceased. Since the first informant is not a direct witness, the abovesaid discrepancy in the first information vis-a-vis the evidence of the direct witnesses, cannot materially affect the core of the prosecution case.

69. It has come out in evidence that MO-1 was having blood stains and Ext.P-18 FSL would also show that MO-1 contained blood stains, though the amount of blood was insufficient for determining the blood group. Further, Ext.P-18 FSL report would show that the blood stains found on MO-2 shirt of the accused was of A Group. So also, evidence of P.W-14 (Professor of Forensic Medicine) would show that the blood group of the deceased is ARh+. It has been held by the Apex Court, in the decisions as in Deep Chand v. State of Haryana (1969) 3 SCC 890, [LQ/SC/1969/431] para 14], that the seizure of weapons, etc. with human blood on them, without any explanation for such blood was a valuable piece of evidence which together with the other circumstances went a long way in lending trustworthiness to the evidence against the accused, etc. The lack of proper explanation by the defence regarding, the presence of the blood, as above would together with the other evidences mentioned above also throw light on the culpability on the accused.

70. In the decision of the Apex Court, in the case in State of Karnataka v. K. Yarappa Reddy (1999) 8 SCC 715, [LQ/SC/1999/963] para 18], the Apex Court found that the High Court, as per the impugned judgment therein, was justified in holding that no credence can be given to the Police version regarding the FI statement and it was held that the station house diary itself was seen manipulated, etc. However, it was held in para 19 thereof that the above finding that the station house diary is not genuine, cannot vitiate or lead to the rejection of other evidence which was found to e credible and acceptable. It was held therein that on finding the other evidence on scrutiny to be credible and acceptable, the court need not be influenced by the machinations demonstrated by the Investigating Officer in conducting investigation or in manipulation of the records and that it can be a guiding principle that, as investigation is not the solitary area for judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial, the conclusion of the court in the case cannot be allowed to depend solely on the probity of investigation. It was held that it is well settled that even if the investigation is illegal or even suspicious, the rest of the evidence must be scrutinized independently of the impact of it or otherwise, criminal trial will plummet to the level of the investigating officers ruling the roost and the Court must have predominance and pre-eminence in criminal trials over the action taken by investigating officers. Criminal justice should not be made the casualty for the wrongs committed by the investigating officers in the case. Thus, it was held that, if the court is convinced that the testimony of a witness to the occurrence is true, then the court is free to act on it, albeit the investigating officer's suspicious role in the case. It was further categorically held in para 26 thereof that criminal courts should not expect a set reaction from any eye witness on seeing an incident, like murder and if five persons witness one incident, there could be five different types of reactions from each of them and it is neither a tutored impact nor a structured reaction which the eye witness can make and it is fallacious to suggest that one particular prosecution witness would have done this or that on seeing the incident and unless the reaction, demonstrated by an eye witness, is so improbable or so inconceivable from any human being pitted in such a situation, it is unfair to dub his reactions as unnatural. In that regard the Apex Court has placed reliance on the decision in Rana Pratap v. State of Haryana, (1983) 3 SCC 327 [LQ/SC/1983/154] : AIR (1983) SC 680 [LQ/SC/1983/154] ], Appabhai v. State of Gujarat (1988) Suppl. SCC 241, etc. It may be pertinent to refer to paras 18, 19, and 26 of the decision of the Apex Court in K. Yarappa Reddy's case supra (1999) 8 SCC 715] [LQ/SC/1999/963] , which read as follows:

"18. We too have scrutinized the aforesaid station house diary and felt that the Division Bench of the High Court is justified in making that observation. As the entries on the particular sheet related to the events on 30-1-1982 we concur with the finding that no credence can be given to the police version that the accused gave first information statement to the police. No doubt it vitiates the testimony of PW 15 (Sub-Inspector). Even otherwise the first information statement given by an accused at the police station, so long as it contains inculpative statements, would stand excluded from evidence.

19. But can the above finding (that the station house diary is not genuine) have any inevitable bearing on the other evidence in this case If the other evidence, on scrutiny, is found credible and acceptable, should the Court be influenced by the machinations demonstrated by the investigating officer in conducting investigation or in preparing the records so unscrupulously It can be a guiding principle that as investigation is not the solitary area for judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial, the conclusion of the court in the case cannot be allowed to depend solely on the probity of investigation. It is well-nigh settled that even if the investigation is illegal or even suspicious the rest of the evidence must be scrutinized independently of the impact of it. Otherwise the criminal trial will plummet to the level of the investigating officers ruling the roost. The court must have predominance and pre-eminence in criminal trials over the action taken by investigating officers. Criminal justice should not be made a casualty for the wrongs committed by the investigating officers in the case. In other words, if the court is convinced that the testimony of a witness to the occurrence is true the court is free to act on it albeit the investigating officer's suspicious role in the case.

xxx xxx

26. Criminal courts should not expect a set reaction from any eyewitness on seeing an incident like murder. If five persons witness one incident there could be five different types of reactions from each of them. It is neither a tutored impact nor a structured reaction which the eyewitness can make. It is fallacious to suggest that PW 11 would have done this or that on seeing the incident. Unless the reaction demonstrated by an eyewitness is so improbable or so inconceivable from any human being pitted in such a situation it is unfair to dub his reactions as unnatural (Rana Pratap v. State of Haryana (1983) 3 SCC 327] [LQ/SC/1983/154] and Appabhai v. State of Gujarat 1988 Supp SCC 241] )."

71. The Apex Court has held in the case in Narayan Singh v. State of M.P. (1985) 4 SCC 26] [LQ/SC/1985/229] that, it is not uncommon for persons when they see a ghastly and dastardly murder being committed in their presence, that they almost lose their sense of balance and remain dumb-founded until they are able to compose themselves. In the facts of that case it was held that an eye witness being a guard of the deceased in that case, must have have been shocked and stunned after seeing the whole incident and, therefore, he may not have been in a position to mention the names of the accused immediately. But after composing himself within 10-15 minutes, he mentioned the names and also gave all the details and hence, it was held that it is erroneous to assume that merely because he did not immediately disclose the names of the accused to the inmate of the family of the deceased when he went to the house and that the defect is fatal to the prosecution case from which an irresistible inference could be drawn that he could never have seen the occurrence. The Apex Court has held in para 6, as follows in Narayan Singh's case supra (1985) 4 SCC 26, [LQ/SC/1985/229] p.28-29]:

"6. The learned Sessions Judge was mainly swayed by the consideration that PW 11, who was the sole eyewitness and had seen the occurrence, did not immediately disclose the names of the accused to the inmates of the family of the deceased when he went to the house. On this ground alone, the Sessions Judge thought that this was a fatal defect in the prosecution case from which an irresistible inference could be drawn that PW 11 could never have seen the occurrence. We have gone through the evidence of PW 11 and we feel that the Sessions Judge was not at all correct. It was not the case that PW 11 never disclosed the details of the incident to the members of the family of the deceased but when he went to the house he immediately did not name the accused and the explanation given by PW 11 was that as he was completely perplexed he could not disclose the details immediately. The evidence of PW 11 shows that within 15 minutes he disclosed the names of the accused and gave full details of the occurrence. The learned Sessions Judge seems to have taken a most unrealistic view of the evidence of PW 11 by ignoring the fact that he (PW 11) being a guard of the deceased must have been shocked and stunned after seeing the whole incident and, therefore, he may not have been in a position to mention the names of the accused immediately but after composing himself within 10-15 minutes he mentioned the names and also gave all the details. The presence of PW 11 at the scene at the time of the attack on the deceased was not challenged before us. Nor could it be challenged, for the suggestion made to PW 11, which he has denied, that he himself had attacked the deceased. PW 11 appears to be a truthful witness as he himself admits that he could not immediately give the names because he was perplexed and it is quite a natural thing particularly in the case of a person coming from the strata of society of which PW 11 was a member. It is not uncommon for persons when they see a ghastly and dastardly murder being committed in their presence that they almost lose their sense of balance and remain dumbfounded until they are able to compose themselves. This is exactly what may have happened to PW 11."

72. Further, it has been held in S.Govindaraju v. State of Karnataka, (2013) 15 SCC 315] [LQ/SC/2013/904] , that it is a well settled legal proposition that, while appreciating the evidence, the court has to take into consideration whether the contradictions/omissions were of such magnitude, so as to materially affect the trial. Minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements in relation to trivial matters, which do not affect the core of the case of the prosecution, must not be made a ground for rejection of evidence in its entirety. The trial court, after going through the entire evidence available, must form an opinion about the credibility of the witnesses, and the appellate court, in the normal course of action, would not be justified in reviewing the same, without providing justifiable reasons for doing so. Where the omission(s) amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt, regarding the truthfulness of a witness and the other witnesses, also make material improvements before the court in order to make the evidence acceptable, it would not be safe to rely upon such evidence. The discrepancies in the evidence of eyewitnesses, if found not to be minor in nature, may be a ground for disbelieving and discrediting their evidence and in such circumstances, the witnesses may not inspire confidence and if their evidence is found to be in conflict and contradiction with other evidence available or with a statement that has already been recorded, then in such a case, it cannot be held that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. It may be relevant to note the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in S.Govindaraju's case supra (2013) 15 SCC 315, [LQ/SC/2013/904] para 23), which reads as follows:

"23. It is well settled legal proposition that while appreciating the evidence, the court has to take into consideration whether the contradictions/omissions were of such magnitude so as to materially affect the trial. Minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements in relation to trivial matters, which do not affect the core of the case of the prosecution, must not be made a ground for rejection of evidence in its entirety. The trial court, after going through the entire evidence available, must form an opinion about the credibility of the witnesses, and the appellate court in the normal course of action, would not be justified in reviewing the same, without providing justifiable reasons for doing so. Where the omission(s) amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt regarding the truthfulness of a witness, and the other witnesses also make material improvements before the court in order to make the evidence acceptable, it would not be safe to rely upon such evidence. The discrepancies in the evidence of eyewitnesses, if found not to be minor in nature, may be a ground for disbelieving and discrediting their evidence. In such circumstances, the witnesses may not inspire confidence and if their evidence is found to be in conflict and contradiction with the other evidence available or with a statement that has already been recorded, then in such a case, it cannot be held that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt."

73. In Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2000) 7 SCC 490] [LQ/SC/2000/1371] it was held that the trial court therein had erred in refusing to believe the testimony of the close relatives of the deceased, while dubbing them as interested witnesses and that they cannot be termed as interested witnesses. If they had seen the occurrence, they would certainly have the interest to bring the offenders of the murder of their breadwinner to book and normally, the kith and kin of the deceased, if they had seen the occurrence would not absolve the real offenders and involve innocent persons for that murder, etc. Further, it was held therein that the Public Prosecutor is not bound to examine all the witnesses, including those who, according to his information, would not support the prosecution case. Although the prosecutor should prefer to examine those witnesses, who are not related to the victim instead of those related to the victim, but when he comes to know that any other among the witnesses would not support the prosecution version, he may drop such a witness from being examined and that the prosecutor has to take a decision in that regard in a fair manner. It may be pertinent to refer to paras 7, 12, 13 and 14 of the decision in Hukam Singh's case supra (2000) 7 SCC 490] [LQ/SC/2000/1371] , which read as follows:

"7. Bhupender Pal (PW 4) and Ram Pyari (PW 5) were the two eyewitnesses examined by the prosecution. The fact that they were present at the scene of occurrence could not be disputed nor has the same been disputed by the accused. They sustained injuries at the hands of the assailants and the doctor who noted such injuries had testified about them in the Court as PW 9. The version spoken of by PW 4 in court is substantially a reiteration of the version which he supplied to the police as early as 8.40 p.m. on the same night. That became the basis for the FIR. The Sessions Court refused to believe the testimony of those witnesses on the erroneous perception that they are "interested witnesses". The only premise for dubbing them as "interested witnesses" is that they were the kith and kin of the deceased. Why should such witnesses be termed as interested witnesses If they had seen the occurrence they would certainly have the interest to bring the offenders of the murder of their breadwinner to book. Normally the kith and kin of the deceased, if they had seen the occurrence would not absolve the real offenders and involve innocent persons in that murder. (Vide Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1953 SC 364 [LQ/SC/1953/60 ;] ">AIR 1953 SC 364 [LQ/SC/1953/60 ;] [LQ/SC/1953/60 ;] ], Guli Chand v. State of Rajasthan (1974) 3 SCC 698] [LQ/SC/1973/379] and Dalbir Kaur v. State of Punjab (1976) 4 SCC 158] [LQ/SC/1976/284] .)

xxx xxx xxx

12. In trials before a Court of Session the prosecution "shall be conducted by a Public Prosecutor". Section 226 of the Code enjoins on him to open up his case by describing the charge brought against the accused. He has to state what evidence he proposes to adduce for proving the guilt of the accused. If he knew at that stage itself that certain persons cited by the investigating agency as witnesses might not support the prosecution case he is at liberty to state before the Court that fact. Alternatively, he can wait further and obtain direct information about the version which any particular witness might speak in court. If that version is not in support of the prosecution case it would be unreasonable to insist on the Public Prosecutor to examine those persons as witnesses for prosecution.

13. When the case reaches the stage envisaged in Section 231 of the Code the Sessions Judge is obliged "to take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution". It is clear from the said section that the Public Prosecutor is expected to produce evidence "in support of the prosecution" and not in derogation of the prosecution case. At the said stage the Public Prosecutor would be in a position to take a decision as to which among the persons cited are to be examined. If there are too many witnesses on the same point the Public Prosecutor is at liberty to choose two or some among them alone so that the time of the Court can be saved from repetitious depositions on the same factual aspects. That principle applies when there are too many witnesses cited, if they all had sustained injuries at the occurrence. The Public Prosecutor in such cases is not obliged to examine all the injured witnesses. If he is satisfied by examining any two or three of them, it is open to him to inform the Court that he does not propose to examine the remaining persons in that category. This will help not only the prosecution in relieving itself of the strain of adducing repetitive evidence on the same point but also help the Court considerably in lessening the workload. Time has come to make every effort possible to lessen the workload, particularly those courts crammed with cases, but without impairing the cause of justice.

14. The situation in a case where the prosecution cited two categories of witnesses to the occurrence, one consisting of persons closely related to the victim and the other consisting of witnesses who have no such relation, the Public Prosecutor's duty to the Court may require him to produce witnesses from the latter category, also subject to his discretion to limit to one or two among them. But if the Public Prosecutor got reliable information that any one among that category would not support the prosecution version he is free to state in court about that fact and skip that witness from being examined as a prosecution witness. It is open to the defence to cite him and examine him as a defence witness. The decision in this regard has to be taken by the Public Prosecutor in a fair manner. He can interview the witness beforehand to enable him to know well in advance the stand which that particular person would be adopting when examined as a witness in court."

74. The Apex Court has held in Gangabhavani v. Rayapati Venkat Reddy, & Ors. (2013) 15 SCC 298, [LQ/SC/2013/988] that the evidence of closely related witnesses is required to be carefully scrutinised and appreciated before any conclusion is made to rest upon it and the evidence cannot be disbelieved merely on the ground that the witnesses are related to each other or to the deceased and natural witnesses may not be labelled as interested witnesses. That, in case the circumstances reveal that a witness was present on the scene of the occurrence and had witnessed the crime, his deposition cannot be discarded merely on the ground of being closely related to the victim/deceased. It may be relevant to note the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in paras 15 to 18 of Gangabhavani's case supra(2013) 15 SCC 298] [LQ/SC/2013/988] , which read as follows:

"Evidence of related/interested witnesses

15. It is a settled legal proposition that the evidence of closely related witnesses is required to be carefully scrutinised and appreciated before any conclusion is made to rest upon it, regarding the convict/accused in a given case. Thus, the evidence cannot be disbelieved merely on the ground that the witnesses are related to each other or to the deceased. In case the evidence has a ring of truth to it, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, it can, and certainly should, be relied upon. (Vide Bhagaloo Lodh v. State of U.P. (2011) 13 SCC 206] [LQ/SC/2011/793] and Dahari v. State of U.P. (2012) 10 SCC 256] [LQ/SC/2012/917] )

16. In State of Rajasthan v. Kalki (1981) 2 SCC 752] [LQ/SC/1981/236] , this Court held:

"7. As mentioned above the High Court has declined to rely on the evidence of PW 1 on two grounds : (1) she was a 'highly interested' witness because she 'is the wife of the deceased'.... For, in the circumstances of the case, she was the only and most natural witness; she was the only person present in the hut with the deceased at the time of the occurrence, and the only person who saw the occurrence. True, it is, she is the wife of the deceased; but she cannot be called an 'interested' witness. She is related to the deceased. 'Related' is not equivalent to 'interested'. A witness may be called 'interested' only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation; in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing an accused person punished. A witness who is a natural one and is the only possible eyewitness in the circumstances of a case cannot be said to be 'interested'. In the instant case PW 1 had no interest in protecting the real culprit, and falsely implicating the respondents."

(emphasis added)

(See also Chakali Maddilety v. State of A.P. (2010) 12 SCC 72]) [LQ/SC/2010/846]

17. In Sachchey Lal Tiwari v. State of U.P. (2004) 11 SCC 410] [LQ/SC/2004/1169] , while dealing with the case this Court held : (SCC pp. 414-15, para 7)

"7. ... Murders are not committed with previous notice to witnesses- soliciting their presence. If murder is committed in a dwelling house, the inmates of the house are natural witnesses. If murder is committed in a street, only passers-by will be witnesses. Their evidence cannot be brushed aside or viewed with suspicion on the ground that they are mere 'chance witnesses'. The expression 'chance witness' is borrowed from countries where every man's home is considered his castle and everyone must have an explanation for his presence elsewhere or in another man's castle. It is quite unsuitable an expression in a country where people are less formal and more casual, at any rate in the matter of explaining their presence."

18. In view of the above, it can safely be held that natural witnesses may not be labelled as interested witnesses. Interested witnesses are those who want to derive some benefit out of the litigation/case. In case the circumstances reveal that a witness was present on the scene of the occurrence and had witnessed the crime, his deposition cannot be discarded merely on the ground of being closely related to the victim/deceased."

75. True that, there is divergence in the case stated in the FIS, regarding the origin of the incident, compared to the evidence brought on record before the court. It has to be borne in mind that the extent of such divergence in the versions, as above, is not substantial, as can be seen from the details of the two versions mentioned herein above. It has to be borne in mind that the version in the FIS is given by the first informant, based on hearsay information he could collect from others as admittedly he has not directly witnessed the crime incident. Whereas, the evidence brought on record before the court is mainly that of the direct witnesses mentioned above. The above discrepancies in the two versions cannot be said to be material and very significant, inasmuch as the FIS version, based on hearsay, is that initially, there was an altercation and then a scuffle and then the stabbing incident. Whereas, the version of the direct witnesses given before the court is that the accused had stabbed the deceased, while he was sitting in a motor bike and then had fallen down from the bike, which led to a scuffle between the two, etc. Hence, we are not prepared to hold that the prosecution case is fatally affected by any such discrepancy. The crucial aspect of the matter is that the evidence of P.W-2 has to be guardedly assessed in view of the aspects herein above. We have done so and have independently assessed the evidence of the other three direct witnesses and it is found that the evidence given by P.W-2 would be broadly in consensus with that given by the other direct witnesses viz., P.Ws 3 to 5.

76. The only direct witness who is a relative of the deceased and the first informant is P.W-2, whose evidence we have taken only after a guarded and measured assessment and after comparative evaluation with the evidence of the other three witnesses. The legal principles for assessing the evidence of the relatives have been explained in detail in the aforesaid Apex Court decisions.

77. We have mentioned quite a few of the flaws of the investigation. The dictum laid down by the Apex Court in K.Yarappa Reddy's case supra (1999) 8 SCC 715] [LQ/SC/1999/963] would be befittingly applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Even after taking into account the flaws in the investigation, we have examined in detail the evidence brought on record by the oral evidence of the other witnesses and the documentary evidence as well as the emanating facts and circumstances of the case. We are of the firm view that, despite the flaws in the investigation mentioned above, the evidence of the witnesses discussed above would clearly show that truthful and credible evidence is brought on record to establish the culpability of the accused. So, merely on account of the flaws in the investigation, we are not persuaded to reject such crucial evidence on record. So also, it is true that there are quite a few discrepancies and slight contradictions in the evidence given by some of the key witnesses. The evaluation of the evidence mentioned herein above would clearly show that such discrepancies are minor and not significant in nature and the same does not affect the core of the veracity of the case of the prosecution. Our conclusions in that regard is well justified going by the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in decisions as in S.Govindaraju's case supra (2013) 15 SCC 315, [LQ/SC/2013/904] para 23]. So also, it is true that production of the site plan would have been highly helpful to have a detailed clarity about the occurrence of the incident. But it has to be borne in mind that the defence has not raised any serious challenge or suggestion in cross examination objecting to the veracity of the version of the direct witnesses on the basis of the alleged distance, lack of visibility, etc. After giving anxious consideration on the entire evidence on record, we are of the view that the non production of the site plan in this case cannot vitiate the trial or cannot lead to the situation of rejection of credible and acceptable evidence brought on record.

78. The upshot of the above discussion is that we do not find any serious grounds to disturb the verdict of conviction and sentence imposed by the Sessions Court on the appellant/accused, as per the impugned judgment, as it has been found that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. In that view of the matter, the aforecaptioned criminal appeal filed by the accused will stand dismissed.