The place of occurrence stated in Exts.P3 and P4 is the house situated on the north of Maruthorvattom temple. But, as per the prosecution case, the incident took place at Kalarickal Aswathi Purayidam. When PW2 was examined, she answered that the place of occurrence stated by her to the Doctor was correct. Thus, there is material contradiction in the place of occurrence shown in Exts.P3 and P4 and the place of occurrence deposed by PW1 and PW2 at the box. Similarly, it has come out in evidence that PW1 and PW2 were known to the accused. However, the names of the accused or even the identity of the accused were not at all disclosed to the Doctor or recorded in Exts.P3 and P4. Similarly, regarding the weapon used by the first accused, there is inconsistency in the evidence of PW1 and PW2 with that of Ext.P1 statement given to the police. The appellate court found that it is highly suspicious and doubtful as to whether PW1 and PW2 have sustained injuries in the manner stated by them. Considering all these evidence, the appellate court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and the benefit of doubt should go to the accused.
