Judgment :- Manoharan, J. Lekshmanan, father of PWs.1,2 and 5 sustained injuries at about 6.15 p.m. on 18-5-1987 in the lane on the northern side of his house. He succumbed to the injuries in the hospital at 9.30 p.m. on the same day. Six accused persons were charged under Ss.143, 147, 148 and 302 read with S.149 I.P.C. Learned Third Additional Sessions Judge. Ernakulam acquitted the accused of the offences punishable under Ss.143,147 and 148 IPC, but found the first accused guilty of the offence punishable under S.302 IPC, convicted him and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life.. First accused challenges the conviction and sentence in this appeal. 2. Prosecution case can be summarised as follows: At about 6.15 P.M. on 18-5-1987 while Lekshmanan (deceased) and PWs.1 and 2 were in their house. on hearing a commotion in the lane in the north adjacent to the house. Lekshmanan went to the gate to see what was happening. There he was confronted by the accused persons. They were armed with weapons. First accused saying that. he was waiting for him inflicted a stab injury with M.O.1 on his abdomen. Seeing this PW1 who was behind him (Lekshmanan) when approached. second accused threatened him with MO-2. Later he (Lekshmanan) was removed to the General Hospital. Ernakulam by PWs.1, 5 and others where he was attended by PW.19. He gave first aid and directed him to be taken for expert treatment. whereupon Lekshmanan was taken to the Medical Trust Hospital. Ernakulam. Lekshmanan was immediately removed to the operation theatre and while being operated upon by PW-18 and other Doctors. he expired at 9.30 P.M. Thereafter. PW-1 went to the police station and tendered Ext.P1 F.I. statement before PW-23, Sub Inspector of Police who registered Ext.P1 (a) first information report against accused persons under Ss.143,147,148 and 302 read with S.149 IPC. 3. Investigation was taken over by PW-24, Circle Inspector of Police. He held inquest over the dead body at the hospital Ext.P6 is the inquest report. Thereafter. the dead body was sent for postmortem. PW-20 conducted the autopsy. Ext.P-16 is the postmortem certificate. PW-24 went to the scene and prepared Ext.P7 scene mahazar under which he seized MO-9 bloodstained piece of tile from the scene. He filed a report before the Magistrate Court for obtaining custody of accused 1 to 4 where they had surrendered and he questioned them. PW-20 conducted the autopsy. Ext.P-16 is the postmortem certificate. PW-24 went to the scene and prepared Ext.P7 scene mahazar under which he seized MO-9 bloodstained piece of tile from the scene. He filed a report before the Magistrate Court for obtaining custody of accused 1 to 4 where they had surrendered and he questioned them. As per the information received from the first accused MO-1 was seized by PW-24 under Ext.P9. He arrested the other accused. questioned the witnesses and completed the investigation. His successor PW-25 verified the papers and laid the charge before court. 4. On the accused pleading not guilty. prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 25 produced Exts.P1 to P17and M.Os.1 to 9. On the side of the accused Exts. D1 to D3 were marked. 5. When the accused were questioned under S.313 Cr.P.C., they maintained that they are innocent. First accused said he is falsely implicated in this case. PWs.1 to 3 are the occurrence witnesses. PW-1 is the son and PW-2 is the daughter of Lekshmanan (deceased) and PW-3 is their neighbour. PW-5, the other son of Lekshmanan reached the scene only after Lekshmanan sustained injuries. 6. PW-1 said. he is employed in a factory and he reached home at about 5-45 p.m. on the date of occurrence. that he. PW-2 his sister. and his father were in the court yard of their house. that at that time they heard a commotion in the road on the north adjacent to their house. that Lekshmanan (deceased) went to the gate to see what was happening and that as soon as he (deceased) reached the gate. first accused inflicted a stab injury on the abdomen of Lakshmanan (deceased). Then he (first accused) turned the knife and withdrew the same saying that he was wailing for him. When he (PW-1) approached the deceased. second accused threatened him with MO-2. The other accused were also near them armed with weapons. On seeing this when PW-3 and others rushed to the scene the accused persons fled towards east. He said. PW-2 was just behind him. They helped Lekshmanan to the verandah of the house and bandaged the wound on the stomach. He. PW-5 and others took Lekshmanan to the Government Hospital. Ernakulam where he was attended by PW-19. He gave first aid and directed him to be taken for expert treatment. He (Lekshmanan) was removed to Medical Trust Hospital. Ernakulam. PW-2 was just behind him. They helped Lekshmanan to the verandah of the house and bandaged the wound on the stomach. He. PW-5 and others took Lekshmanan to the Government Hospital. Ernakulam where he was attended by PW-19. He gave first aid and directed him to be taken for expert treatment. He (Lekshmanan) was removed to Medical Trust Hospital. Ernakulam. He expired at 9.30 P.M. on the same day while was in the operation theatre. He said. thereafter he went to the police station and tendered Ext.P1 F.I. statement. He identified M O.1 as the weapon with which the first accused stabbed Lekshmanan. 7. PW-2 has also spoken in terms of what PW-1 has sworn. PW-3 said that. the lane runs in between her house and that of Lekshmanan (deceased). According to her. at about 5.45 P.M. on 18-5-1987. while she was stepping out to the lane for fetching water she saw accused persons coming from the north. She said. they were armed with weapons and that on reaching the house of Lekshmanan (deceased) first accused stabbed Lekshmanan on his abdomen stating that he was waiting for him. She stated. at that time the deceased was at the threshold of his house. Later the wound was bandaged. These witnesses also have sworn. after some time PW.5 came and the injured was removed to the hospital. 8. PW.1 has sworn that about three years before the occurrence on the date of festival in the Devi Temple first accused extinguished the sacred lamp and defiled the temple. Lekshmanan (deceased) wanted action to be taken against the first accused and ultimately he was expelled from the Sabha which was administering the temple. and he also said that on the day previous to the occurrence there was a dispute between persons who had licence for fixing stakes for fishing and those who had no licence. Accused persons were involved in the dispute and the deceased supported those who were against the accused. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the evidence of these witnesses can not be accepted as they have not revealed the actual occurrence that took place. He also contended that PWs.1 and 2 being the son and daughter of deceased they are interested. and the presence of PW-1 at that time is doubtful. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the evidence of these witnesses can not be accepted as they have not revealed the actual occurrence that took place. He also contended that PWs.1 and 2 being the son and daughter of deceased they are interested. and the presence of PW-1 at that time is doubtful. He maintained that PWs.1 and 2 actually did not witness the occurrence and that the real occurrence is withheld with an object of defeating the right of private defence of the first accused. 10. There is suggestion to PW-1 in the cross-examination to the effect that the deceased and other clashed with the first accused while he was proceeding through the lane to the house of his father situated on the north of the house of deceased. Of course. the suggestion was denied. 11. Irrespective of the nature of defence the burden of the prosecution to establish the prosecution case will never be shifted. It is not necessary that the accused should plead in his statement under S.313 Cr.P.C. that he acted in exercise of his right of private defence to claim the exception. Accused is free to establish the right of private defence on the basis of the very prosecution evidence. Though the burden is on the accused to establish his case of private defence he can discharge the said burden by preponderance of probabilities. In other words. his burden is not as onerous as that of the prosecution. which has to establish the prosecution case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. Though the accused may not be successful in discharging the burden if he succeeds in creating a reasonable doubt as to the prosecution case he would be entitled to the benefit of doubt. 12. In considering whether PWs.1 to 3 have witnessed the occurrence the main factors that should go in for consideration are. the scene of occurrence and the time of occurrence. As noticed. the scene of occurrence is at the threshold of the house of the deceased and the occurrence was at about 6.15 p.m. on 18-5-1987. PWs. land 2 admittedly resides with the deceased in his (deceased's) house. With due regard to the time of occurrence. the testimony of PWs.1 and 2 that they were present at the scene when the occurrence took place attains enough probative force. Though PW.1 is employed. he said. PWs. land 2 admittedly resides with the deceased in his (deceased's) house. With due regard to the time of occurrence. the testimony of PWs.1 and 2 that they were present at the scene when the occurrence took place attains enough probative force. Though PW.1 is employed. he said. he reached home by 5.45 p.m. Though in the cross examination an attempt was made to shake that part of his evidence. the defence was not successful in showing otherwise. Here also. the time of occurrence being 6.15p.m and since PW-1 was residing along with the deceased. his version that he reached home before the occurrence becomes acceptable. PW.2 is the daughter of the deceased. and there can be no doubt that at the time of occurrence. she was present. As regards PW-2, it was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that since she was in the verandah of the house she could not have witnessed the occurrence. This again cannot affect her evidence in view of Ext.PS plan and Ext.P7 scene mahazar from which it can be seen that a person in the verandah could see the scene of occurrence. Apart from the same. PW-2 said that when the deceased proceeded towards the gate she also followed him and that when he (deceased) stretched to the road to see what was happening; the first accused stabbed him. Thus. she was in close proximity to the scene when the 1st accused inflicted the stab injury to the deceased. 13. In between the house of the deceased and the house of P W-3. there is only a lane and her house is opposite to the house of deceased According to her when she stepped out to the lane to fetch water. she saw the accused rushing towards the scene and therefore. she kept aside the pitcher and stood there. With due regard to the time o occurrence and the location of her house. there is absolutely no improbability in witnessing the occurrence. At that hour. there is nothing unusual in a housewife as pw-3 go in out to fetch water. Thus. it is clear that PWs.1 to 3 are the probable and natural witnesses merely because PWs.1 and 2 are the son and daughter of the deceased that by it self cannot be a reason for rejecting their evidence. At that hour. there is nothing unusual in a housewife as pw-3 go in out to fetch water. Thus. it is clear that PWs.1 to 3 are the probable and natural witnesses merely because PWs.1 and 2 are the son and daughter of the deceased that by it self cannot be a reason for rejecting their evidence. All that is necessary is that their evidence must be subjected to strict scrutiny. As noticed. what is necessary to be considered in the context is. whether the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 is reliable and acceptable. 14. But learned counsel for the appellant contended that the circumstance appearing in the very prosecution evidence would show that PWs.1 to 3 did not see occurrence. He relied on the statement in Ext.P13 as to the history of the injury. In Ext.P it is stated that the patient was assaulted at about 6.00 p.m. by a stranger with a knife. I pointed out that PW-5 said to his having told the doctor as to the history of the injury. Though PW-5 denied to his having stated as is mentioned in Ext.P13, learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that had PWs.1 to 3 witnessed the occurrence PW-5 co not have stated. a stranger was the assailant as he (PW-5) could have learnt from ti as to who was the assailant of his father. Learned counsel for the appellant pointed c PW-2 said that she told PW-5 as to the occurrence when he returned home from his w<< Being so. according to the learned counsel had PWs.1 to 3 witnessed the occurred PW-5 could not have said to PW-18 that the injured was assaulted by a stranger. 15. The statement in Ext.P 13 has to be understood in the light of what P1 said. and the evidence of PW-19 and Ext.P 14. The injured was first removed to the General Hospital; Ernakulam where he was attended by PW-19; he issued Ext.P14 wound certificate. In Ext.P14 it is stated that PW-5 brought the injured and that he (deceased) sustained the injury at the hands of one Sadan (first accused). Being so. and the evidence of PW-19 and Ext.P 14. The injured was first removed to the General Hospital; Ernakulam where he was attended by PW-19; he issued Ext.P14 wound certificate. In Ext.P14 it is stated that PW-5 brought the injured and that he (deceased) sustained the injury at the hands of one Sadan (first accused). Being so. there was no reason for PW-5 to state before PW-18 that the assailant was a stranger when at the earliest point of time he had told PW-19 as soon as the injured was brought to the General Hospital that it was the first accused who stabbed his fat her. The argument of the learned counsel on the basis of Ext.P 13 and the evidence of PW-18 does not appeal to us. At any rate the said statement in Ext.P13 attributed to PW-5 who is not an occurrence witness cannot adversely affect the evidence of PWs.1 to 3. 16. It was then argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the fact that deceased sustained two injuries. and PWs.1 to 3 mentioned the sustaining of only one injury. would indicate that they did not see the occurrence. I1 was also contended by the learned counsel that. M.O.1 could not cause the injury No.2 in Ext.P16 postmortem certificate and since PWs.1 to 3 said that the said injury was caused with M.O.I; that too would show that they did not see the occurrence. According to the learned counsel for the appellant. these two circumstances would show that the prosecution has not placed the whole occurrence. but has placed only a truncated version of occurrence so as to deny the right of private defence to the accused. 17. Now. it is necessary to advert to the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased. PW-19 who saw the injured first when he (deceased) was brought to the General Hospital noted the two injuries as follows: "Penetrating wound of abdomen in lower part in the middle with intestines protruding out. Measurements possible only in theatre under sterile conditions. 2. Incised wound skin deep over middle of right forearm 6 cros. x 03 cros." PW-19 said. since he (deceased) had to be removed for expert treatment. he did not note the measurement of the injury. 18. PW-18. doctor attached to the Medical Trust Hospital. Measurements possible only in theatre under sterile conditions. 2. Incised wound skin deep over middle of right forearm 6 cros. x 03 cros." PW-19 said. since he (deceased) had to be removed for expert treatment. he did not note the measurement of the injury. 18. PW-18. doctor attached to the Medical Trust Hospital. Ernakulam also has stated in his evidence as well as Ext.P13 the two injuries as follows:- "(1) Incised wound in the umbilical region about 1" lateral to the umbilicus. Length of the wound i.e. 2 1z2" on the right loops of small intestine care protruding along with the mesentery. Active bleeding present from mesentery Abdomen in tissue. Rigidity + + Guarding + + (2) Incised wound in the flexor aspect of For earn which is skin deep. Length of this wound is about 21z2" and lies transverse to the axis of the bone about 4" proximal to the wrist". 19. PW-20 conducted the autopsy; Ext.P16 is the postmortem certificate. He noted three injuries of which the first injury is a surgical wound. He has given the measurement of two ante mortem injuries. PWs.1 to 3 speak of injury No.2 in Ext.P16 which corresponds to injury No.1 in Ext.P13 and P14. Injury No.3 in Ext.P 16 is an incised skin deep injury on the right forearm. The injuries noted in Ext.P16 are: "(1) Sutured wound of 20 cm. long vertical on the right side of abdomen. joint lateral to the midline - surgical wound. (2) 3 cm. below and 2 cm. lateral to umbilicus. sutured wound of 6cm. long Horizontal. This wound is penetrating and both ends of the wound were sharp and is directed backwards and the minimum depth of wound is 7 cm. (3) Incised wound of 6 cros. x 0.3 cros. In to skin deep over right forearm middle 1/1" 20. PW-19 answered in the affirmative to a suggestion that injury No.2 in Ext.P14 could be caused by a thorn. In the cross-examination he said. injury No.2 being an incised wound could be caused only by a sharp object. P. W.20 also said injury No.3 in Ext.P16 could be caused by coming into contact with a sharp object. As noticed. the said injury is only skin deep and is located in the middle of the right forearm. With due regard to the location of the injury and the same being only skin deep. P. W.20 also said injury No.3 in Ext.P16 could be caused by coming into contact with a sharp object. As noticed. the said injury is only skin deep and is located in the middle of the right forearm. With due regard to the location of the injury and the same being only skin deep. it is clear. the same could be caused by the tip of M.O.1 itself. The sudden attack look only a very short time. in that shocked agonizing moment if PWs.1 to 3 could not specifically note the tip of M.O.1 grating the skin of the right arm of the victim. that cannot. in our view. be relied on as a ground to disbelieve the evidence of the occurrence witnesses. 21. The learned counsel relied on a statement of PW-20 to the effect that the possibility of injury No.2 being caused with M.O.1 is minimum to disbelieve the evidence of PWs.1 to 3. According to him. both ends of the said wound being sharply cut. the same could not be caused with M.O.I. which is not a double-edged weapon. Learned counsel maintained that. the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 since is in open conflict with the said opinion of the doctor. their evidence cannot be relied on. The very description of injury No.2 in Ext.P16 would show that the same was surgically interfered. The statement of the doctor that both ends of the said injury is sharp has to be taken into account with due regard to the said fact. The argument is built upon the ground that M.O.1 is not a double edged weapon and that one side of the weapon being blunt the same cannot produce an injury which is sharp at both ends. The tip of M.O.1 is sharp at both ends. So when the stab is executed. at the entrance of the stab. the edge of the injury would be sharp at both ends and if there is a deflection of the weapon in executing the injury whereby the cutting edge moves forwards as the knife enters the body the wound will be clean cut at both ends. At page 240 of the Tayler's Principles and Practice of Medical Jurisprudence --Thirteenth Edition. it is stated: "If it is single edged. At page 240 of the Tayler's Principles and Practice of Medical Jurisprudence --Thirteenth Edition. it is stated: "If it is single edged. one end of the wound will be clean cut whereas the other end may be rounded or square Exceptions arise when the stabbed wound is not the result of a single in and out thrust but was inflicted with the cutting edge moving forwards as the knife entered the body. Here there may appear to be two cutting edges-the width of the wound. however. will be greater than the width of the knife". In Ext.P16 the length of the injury is 6 cros. The width of the blade of M.O.1 is 2 cros. This certainly would indicate that cutting edge of M.O.1 moved forwards as the knife entered the body. 22. Apart from the same it is not an invariable rule that single edged weapon cannot produce an injury having both ends sha. ply cut. The decision in George v. State of Kerala (1990 (1) KLT SN Case No. 39. page 35) held that. even when the stab is with a single edged knife both ends of the wound may appear to be sharply cut due to tearing of the skin at the blunt edge.. here. the injury was inflicted on the abdomen. The tip of M.O.1 is sharp at both ends. In such circumstance the injury being sharply cut cannot in any way be a reason to conclude that injury No.2 in Ext.P16 could not be caused with M.0.1. Even otherwise. merely because the medical evidence is not in agreement with the ocular evidence that is no reason to reject the ocular evidence which is otherwise trustworthy and acceptable. II is not as if PW-20 said that. such an injury cannot be caused with a weapon like M.O.I. what he said was. the possibility is minimum. Mere probability stated by a doctor as to the injury if is inconsistent with the ocular evidence that cannot affect the ocular evidence (Maghar Singh v. State of Punjab. 1987 SCC (Crl.) 403). 23. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decision in Devinder v. Ramdutta (1991 SCC (Crl.) 152) in support of his contention that. such inconsistency would cause doubt as to the veracity of the occurrence witnesses and therefore the said benefit should go to the accused. 1987 SCC (Crl.) 403). 23. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decision in Devinder v. Ramdutta (1991 SCC (Crl.) 152) in support of his contention that. such inconsistency would cause doubt as to the veracity of the occurrence witnesses and therefore the said benefit should go to the accused. We have already pointed out that with due regard to the character and nature of the injury. injury No.2 in Ext.P16could be caused with M.O.I. Apart from the same in Devinder's case (1991 SCC (Crl.) 152) whereas weapon used by the accused could produce only punctured wound. the injury sustained by the victim was possible only by a hard and blunt weapon. In such circumstance. it was held that the same would cause doubt as to the testimony of the eyewitnesses. The position here is different. As is held in the decision in Chimanbhai Ukabhai v. State of Gujarat (AIR 1983 SC 484) unless the medical evidence goes so far that it completely rules out all possibilities whatsoever of sustaining the injuries in the manner alleged by the eye witnesses. the testimony of the eyewitnesses cannot be thrown out on the ground of alleged inconsistency between it and the medical evidence. 24. M.O.1 was sci/ed by PW-24 under Ext.P9 as per the information received from the accused. Learned Sessions Judge did not accept the recovery since he felt that the injury could not be caused with M.O.I. Now. we have shown that injury No.2 in Exl.P16 could be caused with M.O.1 that isa circumstance which would corroborate the evidence of PWs.1 to 3. Thus. we are unable to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 since is opposed to the medical evidence the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. 25. PW-20 in his evidence as well as Ext.P16 said. the death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of multiple injuries. The nature and place of injury No.2 in Ext.Pl6is such that it is clear. the intention of the accused was to cause death. 26. On a careful consideration of the evidence of PWs.1 to 3. we find that their evidence is credible and acceptable. Thus. we do not see any infirmity in the finding. conviction and the sentence awarded by the learned Sessions Judge. the judgment does not call for any interference. the intention of the accused was to cause death. 26. On a careful consideration of the evidence of PWs.1 to 3. we find that their evidence is credible and acceptable. Thus. we do not see any infirmity in the finding. conviction and the sentence awarded by the learned Sessions Judge. the judgment does not call for any interference. The conviction and sentence are only to be confirmed. The appeal is liable to be dismissed. We do so. In the result. She appeal fails and the same is dismissed.