The first case before us is of Francis alias Po11na11 v. Stale of Kaala, where the facts were : 'I/le murdered man, Pappachan. with some others had attacked Pandoth Joseph, P. W. 3, the brother of the appellant on 28-11-1971, and P. P. George, P.W. 4, the D brother-in-law of the appellant, on 23-12-1971, at about 10 p.m. On each occ"sion, a F, l.R. was lodged and the injured had to be sent to Hospital. In the second incident, George, P. W. 4, the brother-in-law of the appellant, was so badly injured that he had to remain in hospital for 17 days. Close upon the heels of this attack E at abont 10 p.m. on 23-12-1971, upon the brother-in-law of the appellant, came the incident of 24-12-1971 for which the appellant has been charged, convicted for murder, and sentenced to death. It appears that several witnesses spoke of the determined manner in which the appellant had told them that he had made up his min:! lo kill Pappachan. It is evident that the appellant's mntal balance F had bcome seriously disturbed. On 24-12-1971, in the afternoon. the appellant hid himself in a compound waiting for Pappachan to conic along. On seeing the deceased pass along a road on a bicycle at about 3 p.m., the appellant came out of the compound with a chopper in his hand and chased and attacked Pappachan with it so that the deceased fell down after exclaiming : "O my mother ! ". G The appellant then left the scene. The incident took place in broad day-light and was witnessed by passers-by who gave evidence at the trial. The post-mortem report indicated that there were three incised wounds on the head of the deceased in addition to a contuH sion below the left eye and abrasions on the leg and another_. on the left scapular region which was fractured. It was apparent that the appellant intended to kill Pappachan deceased and he made no secret of his intention to do so although, at the trial, he denied knowledge· of the incident.
