deceased and there is no material to discredit their version. However their evidence by itself may not be enough, for two reasons. One is that earlier 3 other accused were charge sheeted, probably on the identification by PW2 to PW4 and secondly, whether PW2 and PW4 could actually see the accused is also doubtful. The question would be whether there is any other evidence to corroborate the version of PW2 and PW4. It is the case of the prosecution that PW17 arrayed the accused in Crime No.156/2006 of Puthenvelikkara Police Station. While questioning him, he got information that the accused was involved in the present crime and accordingly further investigation was sought for. It was thereafter, that PW15 conducted further investigation. PW15 stated that on the basis of statement given by the accused while in custody MO4 was recovered from PW5. Further Ext.P8 report received from PW11 who is the finger print expert would prove that the finger print of accused was available on the material objects taken from the house of deceased. Certain material objects namely, MO2 toy sword and a mirror was taken from the scene of occurrence. According to the prosecution the mirror does not belong to the family members of the deceased but it belonged to the accused. PW11, Government finger print expert stated that he reached the scene of occurrence on 5.5.2005 and he had traced four chance finger prints and one on a sword (MO2) and three on a mirror. The mirror was seized as per Ext.P13 scene mahazar.
