ORDER : 1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the complainant against the acquittal order dated 27.01.2009 so passed by the Kerala High Court in Crl. Appeal No. 356/2003. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 19.05.1998 at about 2.30 pm, the accused persons which were five in number, having common object of unlawful assembly and armed with deadly weapons, trespassed into the hotel bearing door No. II/57 of Changaroth Panchayath belonging to CW4. While CW1 was taking meals from the hotel, accused Nos. 4 and 5 caught his hands and accused No. 2 gave him beating with his hands and stretched his head. At the same time, accused Nos. 1 and 3 inflicted successive fatal knife blows on chest, abdomen and below the left collar bone of CW1. As per the prosecution story, it appears that there was an altercation between CW1 and the accused in a neighbouring wedding house two days prior to this incident and the present attack was made as a retaliation to that incident and with an intention to eliminate CW1. Thereafter CW1 was taken to the Medical College Hospital for treatment. After getting intimation from the said hospital, the Head Constable (CW20) recorded the statement of CW1 on the basis of which, Crime No.155/1998 was registered by CW21 in the Perambra Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 143, 147, 148, 452, 341, 323, 307 r/w Section 149 of IPC against the accused persons. Thereafter investigation was commenced by Asstt. Sub-Inspector of Police (CW22) and on completion of the investigation, final report was submitted before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Court II, Perambra whereupon C.P. 11/2009 was instituted. 4. The case was committed to the Sessions Court, Kozhikkode wherefrom it was made over to the Asst. Sessions Court, Koyilandi. The trial court convicted the appellants. Aggrieved by the order of conviction passed by the trial court, the accused persons preferred appeal before the Kerala High Court. 5. The High Court after analyzing the evidences held that the evidence of prosecution has to be appreciated in the background of the case put forward by the defence. Sessions Court, Koyilandi. The trial court convicted the appellants. Aggrieved by the order of conviction passed by the trial court, the accused persons preferred appeal before the Kerala High Court. 5. The High Court after analyzing the evidences held that the evidence of prosecution has to be appreciated in the background of the case put forward by the defence. The High Court noted that a case was pending with respect to the injury sustained by accused No.3 and PW1 during the cross examination deposed as follows:- "There was allegation that the accused in the case, Nano was injured by yourself and the 4th witnesses your brother, Bhaskaran poured boiling coconut oil, at this time and place. Accordingly there is a case existing in the court. I do not know whether Nano was injured by burning. Subsequently I have heard about it what I heard was that Nano got bourn injury at this place. Police has not questioned about this. At this time there was boiling coconut oil in the shop. The incident lasted about 10 minutes. Peoples in the surrounding area went to the place running." 6. According to the High Court, the prosecution did not conduct any investigation in respect of the injury sustained by accused No.3 and no explanation was also offered. Furthermore, such facts were completely suppressed by the prosecution before the Court. Therefore, the High Court held that the prosecution case has to be examined more cautiously and meticulously. 7. The High Court also assessed the evidence of PW1, who is the star witness of the prosecution to prove the incident. The High Court highlighted the discrepancies and infirmities as well as contradictions in the evidence of PW1. According to the High Court, he was not able to give a complete and correct account regarding the incident. The PW1 further failed to give details of the incident including the injury inflicted by accused Nos. 1 and 3 on him. The weapon used in the incident was not produced. There was no specific deposition attributing allegations and the role of each of the accused by PW1 and further the High Court noted that PW1 tried to make improvements in his statement being Ext. P1 made before the Police. 1 and 3 on him. The weapon used in the incident was not produced. There was no specific deposition attributing allegations and the role of each of the accused by PW1 and further the High Court noted that PW1 tried to make improvements in his statement being Ext. P1 made before the Police. In these circumstances, the High Court held that PW1 is highly interested witness and further the depositions of PW2 and PW3 would show admittedly that they are highly interested witnesses, who are closely related to PW1. 8. The High Court also expressed its unhappiness for not producing the person, who run the hotel, before the Court and there was also no proper explanation placed before the Court. In these circumstances, the High Court held that the evidence of PW1 is not sufficient and reliable for prosecution to prove the overt act of each of the accused and the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the allegation against the accused, which can attract Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Police could not detect the blood stains on the floor where PW1 was alleged to have sustained injury. In these circumstances, the High Court held that the genesis of the prosecution case itself is in shadow of doubt. The accused are entitled to get the benefit of doubt and hence acquitted the respondents. 9. In our opinion, the High Court, after assessing the facts and after analyzing and appreciating the evidences, has come to the conclusion correctly and there is no room to interfere with the order and or the judgment of the High Court. 10. In view of that, we do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the complainant. The appeal stands dismissed.