This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 31.3.2011 in S.C.No.166/2008 on the file of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Kollam. The conviction is under Section 302 of IPC. The appellant/accused is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 302 of IPC.

2. The court charge is as follows :

“That you on 2.5.2005 at 8 p.m. at a place on the N.H.47 in front of 'Rajagiri autospares' a shop situated near Polayathodu junction in Vadakkevila village at Kollam you have committed murder by intentionally causing the death of deceased Shameer by stabbing him with a knife and thereby committed offence punishable u/s.302 of IPC and within the cognizance of this Court.”

3. The prosecution altogether examined 29 witnesses. The documents marked are Exts.P1 to P27. The material objects marked are MOs1 to 8. On the side of defence, no witness was examined. But a portion of the C.D. Statement of PW7 was got marked as Ext.D1. Ext.C1 was marked as a court exhibit. After appreciating the evidence, the trial court convicted the accused and sentenced as stated above.

4. When the appeal came up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted before us that here is a case where the prosecution suppressed the earliest version and now presented a case which was shaped afterwards. It is the submission of the learned counsel that in this case, the trial court adopted a curious procedure wherein a witness examined by the prosecution, on a later stage i.e. after examination of other witnesses was recalled and again chief evidence was recorded and thereafter relying upon the same, conviction was entered against the accused. It is the submission that the court erred in recalling the witness as well as relying upon the said evidence. The learned counsel also submitted before us that the suppression of the earliest version can be gathered from the evidence of PW5, who is now relied upon by the court below.

5. It is the submission that there is an admission by PW5 to the effect that when doctor came out from the casualty, doctor enquired about the incident and a slip was given to hand it over to the police. It is categorically admitted by PW5 that he went to the police station and handed over the same to the police station. But the statement taken down by the police at that point of time was suppressed by the prosecution. It is also the submission that when PW5 was earlier examined, the categoric case of PW5 was that there was no eyewitness available at that point of time. The very same person later, became an eyewitness and his evidence was relied upon to convict the accused. It is the submission that it is an erroneous finding, which has to be corrected.

6. It is also submitted that there is an alleged recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The learned counsel pointed out that as per the evidence of PW29, it can be seen that a search was conducted immediately after the incident at the house of the accused. It is the submission that thereafter an alleged Section 27 recovery of the dress, that also from the cloth line (aya) will not inspire confidence and cannot be relied upon. It is the submission that it cannot be expected or believed that when police went for a search, they had not conducted a thorough search. If there was a thorough search, and if such a blood stained dress was not seized, it is an indication that it was not actually therein. Therefore, the so-called recovery should have been discarded.

7. It is also the submission that similar is the case regarding the recovery of the knife from outside the house of PW15. It is the submission that, as per the prosecution version, the recovery was effected from an outer wall of a house, that also from a plastic cover filled with milma packets hanged thereon. It is the submission that the incident was on the night of 2nd Septem