T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.

The appellants in the above appeals are accused 1 to 3 in Sessions Case No.353/2003 of the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge (Adhoc-II), Thodupuzha. All the three accused were found guilty under Sections 302, 392 and 201 I.P.C. They have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to remit fine of Rs.10,000/- each under Section 302 I.P.C. They were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 10 years and to remit a fine of Rs.5,000/- by each under Section 392 I.P.C. The accused were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and a fine of Rs.2,000/- by each of them under Section 201 I.P.C. Set off allowed.

2. This is a case where the accused, three in number, are alleged to have murdered one Manikandan and robbed away a car bearing Registration No.KL-7 AF 1010 of which the deceased was the driver. The prosecution case in short is the following:

3. The incident occurred on 29.3.2002. The car which was being driven by the deceased was an Indica car owned by P.W.19. It was operated in association with M/s. Classic Tours and Travels, Ernakulam which is a proprietary concern owned by P.W.7. It was being operated as a tourist taxi at the relevant time. On the date of incident, accused 1 to 3 hired the car for a trip from Ernakulam to Kattappana. On the way, when they reached near a forest area, they inflicted serious stab injuries on Manikantan who was left in the forest area itself and stole the car and took it to Kambam in Tamil Nadu. There are no eye witnesses to the incident and the entire prosecution story is rested upon circumstantial evidence. The learned Sessions Judge found that the prosecution has been able to prove the circumstances amply and the chain of circumstances proved established the guilt of the accused to the hilt and accordingly convicted and sentenced them.

4. Before this court, the counsels for the appellants mainly argued that the prosecution has developed only a false story before the trial court that at any rate, all the chain of circumstances have not been proved to the hilt, that the deceased was also involved in the act of stealing the vehicle and the real culprits are being shielded by the prosecution and the accused are only made scapegoats. Vehement arguments have been raised regarding the whole exercise done by the investigating agency for identification of the accused by conducting the test identification parade and that the accused are, at any rate, entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt.

5. It was also argued that the evidence regarding the recovery of material objects and the weapon used by the accused are also not credit worthy and hence the findings rendered by the trial court relying on the said evidence are also liable to be set aside. Counsel also pointed out that certain aspects required proof by way of scientific evidence, the said best evidence was suppressed by the prosecution and the same is a serious lapse affecting the whole case . It is also pointed out that the crucial witnesses are associates/friends of the deceased and without any independent evidence of other witnesses, the guilt of the accused should not have been presumed.

6. In the light of the above arguments, a detailed discussion of the evidence of the witnesses is necessary. P.W.1 is the person who had given the First Information statement, Ext.P1 to the police in connection with the incident. He was the conductor of a bus bearing Registration No.KL-6A 7907 operated by Prakash Motors, which was being run in the route Thopramkudi-Muvattupuzha. While the bus was proceeding to Thodupuzha at about 5.45 p.m. when it reached a place called Cheribhagam, one person who was crawling on the side of the road, showed signal to stop it and even though the bus passed him, since the conductor saw him signalling, he gave bell to stop the vehicle. On seeing the bus stopping, he alighted the bus and was seated on one of the right side seats. According to P.W.1