(1.) THIS Appeal by the State of Kerala and the revision by P. W. 1 in S. C. No. 57 of 1988on the file of the Court of session, Kasargod Division, is directed against the order of acquittal made in that case.
(2.) RESPONDENT-accused stood trial for causing the death of one Madhavan by stabbing him in the chest with M. O. 2 scissors, with the intention of causing his death, at or about 8 p. m. on 10. 5. 1988 at Kuttappunna, the offence punishable under sec. 302, I. P. C.
(3.) THE Court of Session, resolutely rejected the evidence of the eye witnesses, as it were, for reasons which we consider too transparent, to stand scrutiny. Of P. W. 1, the learned Sessions Judge said that he made a bid to suppress material evidence. THE Sessions Judge observed that the witness had not denied that the accused had sustained an injury though he had stated that he had not seen the accused sustaining an injury . He went to reason from this, that the accused had sustained an injury. THE logic of this, is hard to perceive. Words must be read, to gather their natural meaning. THE Sessions Judge was not justified in making a facile assumption, that the witness was not speaking the truth. A witness who speaks under oath, is presumed to speak the truth, unless otherwise shown. THE most important circumstances over looked by the Court below, is that the first information statement made by P. W. 1 within minutes of the occurrence, is in line with his evidence in the court. THE occurrence was around 8 p. m. and the first information statement was recorded at 9 p. m. One cannot make cynical or macabre assumptions, that during that short span, P. W. 1, would have fabricated a false case. He had seen a gruesome event, a man dying before his eyes. It is too much to think that P. W. 1 who had no motive whatsoever, to implicate the accused in an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, would have put frills or embroidery to distort the truth. THE grounds held against P. W. 1 are untenable.