Shaffique, J.

1. The accused in S.C.No.442/2002 of the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Thrissur has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment dated 13/05/2011 by which he was convicted for offence punishable Under Section 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'). He was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2 lakhs, in default of which to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 302 IPC. No separate sentence was passed under Section 201 IPC since he was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302.

2. A girl named Rekha was missing from her house. A man missing complaint was filed before the local Police Station and on investigation it was found that she was murdered and her dead body was hidden in a pit. Prosecution case proceeded on the basis that Rekha had a love affair with the accused. Accused came to know that the parents of the deceased will not support their relationship. On 07/04/2000, he requested Rekha to have sexual intercourse with him while she was returning from a nearby shop. When she refused, he caught hold on her neck, caused throttling, and thereafter caused injuries inside her pelvic region through vagina, which caused her death and thereby committed offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. After committing the crime, he took away her articles and hid the dead body in a pit to destroy the evidence.

3. The investigation was completed by PW27 and a final report was submitted before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Thrissur. The matter was committed to the Sessions Court Thrissur and it was taken on file as S.C No.442/2002. The case was made over to the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Thrissur for trial and disposal. On the charges framed against him, the accused pleaded that he was not guilty. The prosecution examined PWs 1 to 28, marked Exts.P1 to P18(d) and MOs 1 to 19 were the material objects produced before Court. Exts.D1 to D15 were the defence exhibits. After completion of the evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He was found guilty for the offences charged against him and was convicted and sentenced as stated above.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant raised several contentions to expose the fact that the prosecution could not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Primarily it is contended that prosecution evidence was not in terms with the charge that had been framed by the Court. That apart, in a case which rests purely on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution utterly failed to prove any of the circumstances and none of the circumstances emanating from the prosecution case was enough to conclude that the accused had committed the crime. Further, there are several infirmities in the investigation which would, in effect, establish the fact that the prosecution utterly failed to prove the guilt against the accused. It is also contended that the recovery allegedly made under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is not in compliance with the legal requirement. The statement attributed to the accused leading to the recovery must find a place in the deposition of the witness which is lacking in the case. A mere statement made by the Police, that the dead body was recovered at the instance of the accused, cannot be taken into account as a piece of evidence against the accused. Further, the material objects alleged to have been recovered, is not in accordance with the mandate of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, and the evidence is lacking to come to a conclusion regarding the exact information given by the accused while in custody which led to the recovery of articles. It is argued that even if there is a strong suspicion about the accused, that will not be sufficient to hold him guilty of the offences.

5. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the finding of guilt entered into by the Court below. It is contended that even if a mis