and PW2, we do not find any infirmity in the said evidence warranting a different view to be taken other than what is found by the Court below. Further, PW1 had clearly spoken to the fact that deceased Shaji had spoken to him before he was taken in the ambulance and asked him to inform the police, in the event he dies, that he was attacked by Krishnakumar and Sanish. The first contention is that PW1 has not identified the first accused. But it has to be noticed that PW1 was the pillion rider. He had seen the first accused clearly on account of the fact that he is the first one to push them out of the bike and tried to inflict an injury on first accused. PW1 prevented the said attack. Immediately, second accused came and inflicted injuries on Shaji. PW1 was held back by third accused and after inflicting injuries on Shaji, when the second accused turned towards him, he ran away from the scene. According to him, he came back and gave water to Shaji and he even collected a shawl from a nearby house and tied it on the leg of Shaji and the shawl was also recovered by the police which was identified by him as MO15. Therefore, his presence in the scene of crime cannot be disputed. But before Court, when he does not identify the first accused, we have to find out whether there is any other evidence to prove the presence of first accused.
