JUDGMENT S.P.KUKDAY,J. 1. Both the appellants are convicted by Additional Sessions Judge, Ambejogai; for having committed murder of Sanjay Ganpatappa Kore in furtherance of their common intention. The appellants have filed this appeal questioning legality and propriety of this order of Conviction and sentence, dated 28the December, 2004. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that, on 13th January 2004 at mid night, both the appellants brought deceased Sanjay in drunken condition to the house of his father in auto-rickshaw, Ganpatappa (P.W.2) has eight sons. All of them except Shivhar (P.W.8) who is a bachelor, are living separately at Jalalpur, Taluka Parali-vaijnath; District Beed. There are only four houses between the house of the deceased and his father. The deceased was living there with his wife Meena (P.W.7) and young daughter Shital. He was serving as a driver with Arun Munde and was doing money lending business. As the deceased Sanjay was living separately, his father Ganpatappa told the appellants that they should drop Sanjay at his house. The appellants were reluctant to search the house of the deceased at that hour of the night, therefore, Ganpatappa sent his son Shivhar with them. After appellants and the deceased entered the house, his wife Meena made enquiries with the strangers. Both of them disclosed their names and told her that they are friends of her husband. After waiting for some time, the appellants insisted that they should have meals together and took the deceased with them. 3. On 14th December, 2004 at 7.00 o’ clock in the morning Rickshaw driver Kisan Phad of Kanerwadi went to the house of Police Patil Pralhad Munde (P.W.1) and informed him that dead body of 25 year old man is lying in front of his house. After confirming the information, Police Patil lodged report (Ex.15) with Parali Rural Police Station. On the basis of this report offence punishable under section 302 of the Penal Code was registered against an unknown person. After registration of the offence, Investigating Officer prepared panchanama of the scene of occurrence (Ex.17). There were no blood stains or other articles at the spot. Inquest (Ex.21) was then held on the dead body and it was sent for post mortem to Rural Hospital Parali. Appellants were arrested on the same day. Clothes of the appellant no.1 and appellant no.2 were attached under seizure memo (Ex.19 and 20). 4. There were no blood stains or other articles at the spot. Inquest (Ex.21) was then held on the dead body and it was sent for post mortem to Rural Hospital Parali. Appellants were arrested on the same day. Clothes of the appellant no.1 and appellant no.2 were attached under seizure memo (Ex.19 and 20). 4. Medical Officer Anant Gitte (P.W.16) performed the autopsy at 4.30 p.m. The medical Officer prepared postmortem report (Ex.50) giving details of the external and internal examination and opined that the death is caused on account of neurogenic shock due to testicular injury. 5. As the deceased did not report for duty, his employer Anil Munde made enquiries at his house at 8.00 o’ clock the morning. Meena told him that her husband has not returned. Thereafter, Meena went to the house of her mother in law and informed her that the deceased had not returned since last night. Mother in law conveyed the information to her husband at about 10.00 o’ clock in the morning when he returned home after selling milk. Ganpatappa sent his sons Rajesh (P.W.10) and Suresh, both of whom are rickshaw drivers, for searching the deceased at about 2.00 p.m. The brothers went to Bus Stand and asked Balaji (Appellant no.2) about the deceased. Appellant no.2 told them that he himself, Appellant no.1 Vachista and the deceased had been to Madhuban Dhaba for meals but he had returned early and does not know where the deceased went after the dinner. At that time Sk. Nasir who was nearby, told the brothers of the deceased that one dead body was found lying on the road at his village Kanerwadi and the Police have sent the body to Parali for post mortem. On getting this information the brothers went to the Parali Rural Police Station. They identified photograph of the deceased shown to them by the police officer. Both of them then returned to the house of their father and conveyed the information to him and the wife of the deceased and returned to the police station with their father. From there all of them went to Rural Hospital at Parali. They found that the deceased had sustained injury to his testis. After the postmortem they took the dead body to the house of the deceased and performed the funeral. 6. From there all of them went to Rural Hospital at Parali. They found that the deceased had sustained injury to his testis. After the postmortem they took the dead body to the house of the deceased and performed the funeral. 6. Investigation by PSI Shankar Harale (P.W.18) disclosed that after he was relieved from duty, on some occasions the deceased used to hire bicycle from the shop of Harishchandra Choure (P.W.13) for returning to his house. On the day of occurrence he hired the bicycle. At about 8.30 p.m. he went to the Pan Stall of Keshav Gitte (P.W.14) with the appellant, kept the bicycle at the pan stall and went to liquor shop of Anil Joshi. Attendant at the shop, Kalyan Lokhande (P.w.15) served liquor to them. All of them again went to the liquor shop at 9.30 p.m . and consumed liquor. Thereafter, at about midnight, the appellants cooked mutton at Madhuban Hotel and took dinner with Dyanoba Phad, brother in law of appellant no.2. The deceased was in the auto-rickshaw in drunken condition. He did not join them for dinner. On 18th January 2004 Appellant no.1 made a confessional statement (Ex.38). Knife lying by the side of electric pole near the scene of occurrence produced by appellant no.1 was attached under Seizure memo (Ex.39). On these facts the appellants came to be prosecuted. At the trial the appellants adopted defence of total denial. 7. In support of its case; the prosecution examined in all 18 witnesses. P.W.1 Pralhad Munde is Police Patil of the village. On receipt of the information regarding the dead body lying on the road, he lodged report (Ex.15). Balaji Munde (P.W.3) and Kedar Dhakne (P.W.4) who are witnesses to seizure of blood stained seat cover of Auto-rickshaw No.M.H.23-C-699 (Ex.25); Raghunath Shinde (P.W.9) and Brijmohan Mishra (P.W.11) who are witnesses to the discovery of knife from appellant no.1 (Ex.38 & 39) under section 27 of the Evidence Act have turned hostile. Similarly witnesses examined for proving surrounding circumstances namely, Sk. Nasir (P.W.5), Ramakant Gitte, Manager of Madhuban Hotel; (P.W.6); Mahesh Kamble (P.W.7) waiter of Madhuban Hotel; Harishchandra Choure (P.W.13), owner of cycle shop; Keshav Gitte (P.W.14) owner of Pan Stall; Kalyan Lokhande (P.W.15) servant at the Wine shop have turned hostile. Shrirang Munde (P.W.17) has drawn map of the scene of the occurrence (Ex.56). Nasir (P.W.5), Ramakant Gitte, Manager of Madhuban Hotel; (P.W.6); Mahesh Kamble (P.W.7) waiter of Madhuban Hotel; Harishchandra Choure (P.W.13), owner of cycle shop; Keshav Gitte (P.W.14) owner of Pan Stall; Kalyan Lokhande (P.W.15) servant at the Wine shop have turned hostile. Shrirang Munde (P.W.17) has drawn map of the scene of the occurrence (Ex.56). Spot Panchanama (Ex.17), Inquest (Ex.21); Seizure of clothes of the deceased (Ex.18) and Seizure of clothes of appellants (Ex.19 & 20) are admitted by the defence. 8. Ganpat (P.W.2) father of the deceased stated that on 13th the appellants brought deceased to his house at midnight in auto-rickshaw. Name Pranita was pasted to the wind screen of the vehicle. As he did not know the strangers who brought his son, he made inquiries with them. The appellants disclosed their names and told him that they are friends of his son. He told the appellants to drop Sanjay to his house. As they did not know the address, he sent Shivhar with the appellant to guide them to the house of the deceased. On the next morning as usual he went out for selling milk. On his return at about 10.00 a.m. his wife informed him that Meena had come to tell her that the deceased had again gone out with the appellants for taking meals and had not returned to the house. He then sent his sons Rajesh (P.W.10) and Suresh at about 2.00 p.m. for searching the deceased. On their return Rajesh told him that they met appellant no.2 at the stand. He told them that after taking meals at Madhuban Hotel, he (appellant no.2) left early, leaving the deceased and appellant no.1 at Madhuban Hotel. Nasir was at the rickshaw stand and had given information that one dead body was found at Kanerwadi. Thus, they went to Parali Rural Police Station and came to know from the photographs that it was the dead body of Sanjay. After getting this information all of them then went to Police Station and from there to Parali hospital. At the hospital they found that injuries to his testis had caused death of Sanjay. After the body was released, they performed funeral at Jalalpur. According to him, murder of his son is committed because of the money lending transaction with appellant Balaji. At the hospital they found that injuries to his testis had caused death of Sanjay. After the body was released, they performed funeral at Jalalpur. According to him, murder of his son is committed because of the money lending transaction with appellant Balaji. In the cross-examination it was demonstrated that eye sight of the witness is weak and he can not see properly beyond two feet. The witness admitted that he had no conversation with deceased Sanjay when he was brought to the house at midnight. The witness has stated that he had informed the Police regarding the visit of the appellant to his house at midnight to the Police when he had been to the Police Station to confirm from the photograph that the victim is his son. 9. Shivhar (P.W.8) repeated the story narrated by his father, giving registration number of the auto-rickshaw as MH.23C-699. In his cross-examination Shivhar admitted that on the way he did not talk to his brother and returned to his house after pointing out house of his brother to the appellant. 10. Meena (P.W.7) stated that the appellants brought her husband to the house at midnight and again took him away for taking meals. While leaving the house, her husband told her that he would return early but did not return to the house. On the next morning his employer had come to her house at about 8.00 a.m. as her husband did not report for duty. She told Anil Munde that her husband had not returned since last night. After the visit of Anil Munde, she went to the house of her mother in law and told her that her husband had gone out with the appellants and had not returned. She then narrated how her brother in laws Rajesh and Suresh found that her husband was killed during the earlier night and performance of the funeral. 11. Rajesh (P.W.10) stated that he went to the Jirewadi point at the S.T.stand with Suresh at about 2.30 p.m. They met appellant no.2 and made inquiries with him. Appellant no.2 told them that he had taken meals with appellant no.1 and deceased at Madhuban Hotel but had left early, leaving the deceased with appellant no.1. At that time Nasir another auto-rickshaw driver told them about dead body found at Jirewadi being sent for postmortem. Appellant no.2 told them that he had taken meals with appellant no.1 and deceased at Madhuban Hotel but had left early, leaving the deceased with appellant no.1. At that time Nasir another auto-rickshaw driver told them about dead body found at Jirewadi being sent for postmortem. Thus, they visited Police Station and identified photograph of their brother. From the Police Station they returned to the house of their father and informed members of the family about the murder of Sanjay. Thereafter their father and brothers went to hospital at Parali. They found that deceased had sustained injuries. Injury to his testis had resulted in the death of his brother Sanjay. In the cross-examination Rajesh disclosed that he returned to the house at about 3.30 p.m. from the Police Station and denied the suggestion that he is falsely implicating appellants. 12. Dr.Anant Gite (P.W.16) performed postmortem on the dead body at Rural Hospital Parli. During postmortem he found following external injuries on the dead body:- 1) Incised wound: On scrotum 5 to 6 cm. in length extending anterior aspect of base of penis up to under surface scrotum on left side. bleeding present. Both testis are congested. Odematous and Haemorrhagic and hanging down. 2) Contusion: Size 3x5 c.m. on right thigh anterior medial aspect, redish. 3) Contusion: Over left thigh, size 2x6 c.m. redish, horizontally placed, on upper 1/3rd part of left thigh. 4) Incised wound: Size 2x1 c.m. on lateral aspect of left Gr.toe of left foot, blood stained. 5) Superficial Abrasion : size 5x5 mm. on right leg above right ankle joint, on medial aspect. 6) Multiple superficial abrasion: size 5x5 mm. reddish, blood stains on posterior aspect of right knee joint. 7) Contusion: Size 3x3 c.m. with superficial abrasion 5x5 c.m. on left flank of abdomen. 8) Superficial Abrasion: size 1x0.5 c.m. left lateral aspect of face. Zygomatic region 9) Superficial Abrasion: Size 2x1 c.m. on right gluteal region reddish in colour. 13. The medical officer opined that injuries to the testis caused death of the victim and that this injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. In the cross-examination he admitted suggestion that injuries to the testicles can be caused by fall on the barbed wire. 14. 13. The medical officer opined that injuries to the testis caused death of the victim and that this injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. In the cross-examination he admitted suggestion that injuries to the testicles can be caused by fall on the barbed wire. 14. Investigating Officer PSI Shankar Harale (P.W.18) has given details of the investigation and has referred to the discovery of knife on the basis of the confessional statement of appellant no.1. In his cross-examination, the investigating officer admitted that the discovery is from the open place near the electric pole by the side of the road. Shrirang Munde (P.W.17) is circle officer who has prepared map of the scene of occurrence. 15. On appreciation of the evidence, the Sessions Judge discarded alleged extra judicial confession of appellant no.2 that he had taken meals with appellant no.1 and the deceased at Madhuban Hotel. In view of the fact that the weapon was found at a place accessible to all and that according to the C.A.report no blood was found on the knife as well as clothes of the appellants, the Sessions Judge has not placed reliance on the evidence of discovery of weapon alleged to have been used for the commission of offence. He, however, placed implicit reliance on the uncorroborated evidence of father, brother and wife of the deceased that the appellants were last seen together with the deceased. As the appellants failed to explain how, when and where they parted company with the deceased, the Sessions Judge arrived at the conclusion that the appellants are the perpetrators of the crime. In conformity of this finding the Sessions Judge convicted the appellants of the offence punishable under section 302 r/w 34 of the Penal Code and sentenced them as stated earlier. 16. In support of the appeal, learned counsel Shri Raghuwanshi argues that the theory of last seen together propounded by the prosecution is improbable. Evidence of close relatives of the deceased suffers from inherent infirmities. They did not disclose to the Police that the deceased was last seen by them with the appellants; at the time of their first visit to the police station nor at the hospital. Evidence of close relatives of the deceased suffers from inherent infirmities. They did not disclose to the Police that the deceased was last seen by them with the appellants; at the time of their first visit to the police station nor at the hospital. Conduct of the father and brother Shivhar in not attending the deceased and the conduct of the wife in not preventing the deceased from going out in the state of intoxication is highly unnatural. In this background, in the absence of corroboration, no reliance should have been placed on the testimony of related witnesses. Learned counsel further argued that the last seen together theory can be pressed in service to convict the accused only if the circumstances form a complete chain pointing to the guilt of the accused and are incompatible with his innocence. Learned counsel contends that in the present case the prosecution has dismally failed to established last seen theory. Besides, no other incriminating circumstances are brought on record to lend assurance to the evidence that the appellants were last seen with the deceased prior to his death. 17. Per contra, learned APP Shri P.M.Shinde has taken us through the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Analyzing the evidence of related witnesses; learned APP contends that after considering all the relevant circumstances the Trial Judge has accepted their evidence as truthful. No fault can be found with the appreciation of evidence by the trial court. The evidence of father, brothers and wife of the deceased is cogent, convincing and reliable. No satisfactory explanation is given by the appellants as to when they parted company of the deceased. Thus, if we consider totality of the evidence on record there is no scope for interfering with the conviction of the appellants. 18. Undisputedly the present case is based on the circumstantial evidence, more particularly on the theory of deceased having been last seen together with the appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants has raised twofold objections. The first is in respect of the appreciation of related witnesses and the other is regarding sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence to warrant conviction of the appellants. The principles governing appreciation of the related witnesses are well established. Evidence of the related witness can not be viewed with suspicion merely because of their relationship with the deceased. The first is in respect of the appreciation of related witnesses and the other is regarding sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence to warrant conviction of the appellants. The principles governing appreciation of the related witnesses are well established. Evidence of the related witness can not be viewed with suspicion merely because of their relationship with the deceased. It can not be assumed as a matter of course that a partisan witness would as a rule falsely implicate an innocent person for the commission of offence, though we often notice tendency of such witnesses to exaggerate and embellish their evidence in their anxiety to ensure conviction of the culprit. However, for appreciating evidence of the related witness we must treat them on par with the independent witness and evaluated their evidence by applying usual tests evolved for the appreciation of evidence of prosecution witnesses. If the accused pleads false implication, this allegation must have some foundation. Mere averment that evidence of a witness is tainted in view of his relationship with the accused is not sufficient. In a case where there is some foundation for the assertion of false implication, it is the duty of the court to be on guard and to scrutinize the evidence of partisan witness with due care. It must also be kept in mind that absence of material contradictions or omissions is not a sure guarantee of the evidence of a witness to be truthful. In cases where the witness narrates concocted version of the incident, he normally sticks to his version. It then becomes necessary to determine veracity of the evidence of such a witness on the touchstone of the probabilities. The probability of his presence at the time of the commission of the offence, whether his presence at the scene of occurrence is natural, opportunity available to him for witnessing the incident, the manner of giving evidence, his demeanor in the witness box, whether he has animosity or any other reason to falsely implicate the accused and the intrinsic worth of his version are some of the factors which should be taken into consideration for determining probative value of the evidence of related witnesses. Principles applicable to the assessment of the evidence of related witnesses are adverted to in State of A.P. Vs. Principles applicable to the assessment of the evidence of related witnesses are adverted to in State of A.P. Vs. Rayappa (2006) 4 SCC 512 , in paragraph 6 and 7 of the report: "6) The other reason assigned by the High Court in recording acquittal of the accused is that PW 1 and PW 2 were interested witnesses being relations of deceased and no independent witness was examined by the prosecution. By now it is a well-established principle of law that testimony of a witness otherwise inspiring confident cannot be discarded on the ground that he being a relation of the deceased is an interested witness. A close relative who is a very natural witness cannot be termed as an interested witness. The term ‘interested’ postulates that the person concerned must have some direct interest in seeing the accused person being convicted somehow or the other either because of animosity or some other reasons. 7) On the contrary, it has now almost become a fashion that the public is reluctant to appear and depose before the court especially in criminal case because of varied reasons. Criminal cases are kept dragging for years to come and the witnesses are harassed a lot. They are being threatened, intimidated and the top of all they are subjected to lengthy cross -examination. In such a situation, the only natural witness available to the prosecution would be the relative witness. The relative witness is not necessarily an interested witness. On the other hand, being a close relation to the deceased they will try to prosecute the real culprit by stating the truth. There is no reason as to why a close relative will implicate and depose falsely against somebody and screen the real culprit to escape unpunished. The only requirement is that the testimony of the relative witnesses should be examined cautiously. The High Court has brushed aside the testimony of PW1 and PW2 on the sole ground that they are interested witnesses being relatives of the deceased." 19. Referring to the principles governing cases depending on the circumstantial evidence, learned Counsel for the appellants would argue that the circumstances brought on record are not clinching and insufficient to prove the complicity of the appellants in the commission of the offence. Referring to the principles governing cases depending on the circumstantial evidence, learned Counsel for the appellants would argue that the circumstances brought on record are not clinching and insufficient to prove the complicity of the appellants in the commission of the offence. By now it is well settled that conviction can be founded on circumstantial evidence if the circumstances form a complete chain and unerringly point to the guilt of the accused. The circumstances proved should not only support the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused but should also be incompatible with his innocence. In these cases care has to be taken to ensure that the finding is not based on conjecture or surmises. It should also be borne in mind that inferences drawn from the provided facts are based on sound legal principles. Considering this aspect in Ram Singh Vs. Sonia and others ( AIR 2007 SC 1218 ), the Apex Court observed in para 39 of the report: "39. ........This Court has clearly sounded a note of caution that in a case depending largely upon circumstantial evidence, there is always a danger that conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof. The Court must satisfy itself that various circumstances in the chain or events have been established clearly and such completed chain of events must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused. It has also been indicated that when the important link goes, the chain of circumstances gets snapped and the other circumstances cannot in any manner, establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. It has been held that the Court has to be watchful and avoid the danger of allowing the suspicion to make the place of legal proof, for some times unconsciously it may happen to be a short step between moral certainty and legal proof. It has been indicated by this Court that there is a long mental distance between ‘may be true’ and ‘must be true’ and the same divides conjectures from sure conclusions." 20. The theory of "last seen together" is based on the proximity of place and time of the deceased last seen alive in company of the accused before his death. It has been indicated by this Court that there is a long mental distance between ‘may be true’ and ‘must be true’ and the same divides conjectures from sure conclusions." 20. The theory of "last seen together" is based on the proximity of place and time of the deceased last seen alive in company of the accused before his death. If the circumstances show that there is no possibility of any one else being with the deceased since he was last seen with the accused till the time of his death, it is permissible to draw an inference regarding culpability of the accused in commission of the offence based on the theory of last seen together. In the process of analyzing the evidence and coming to the conclusion regarding complicity of innocence of the accused, it is permissible for the court to draw logical presumptions from the proved facts. This principle is acknowledged in section 114 of the Evidence Act which permits the court to presume existence of a fact which is likely to have happened, having regard to the common course of natural events and human conduct. This theory is an exception to the general rule embodied in section 60 of the Evidence Act that oral evidence should be direct. The theory of last seen together can be legitimately invoked in a case where the possibility of involvement of stranger can be excluded and the facts established; lead to the conclusion that the accused and the accused alone is the author of the crime. In such a case the accused is obliged either to give a plausible explanation regarding his innocence or to own up the responsibility for the commission of the crime. Dealing with this topic in Bodhraj Vs. State of J & K, (2002) 8 SCC 45 , in para 31, Their Lordships explained the principle thus: . "31. The last seen theory comes into play where the time-gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible. It would be difficult in some cases to positively establish that the deceased was last seen with the accused when there is a long gap and possibility of other persons coming in between exists. It would be difficult in some cases to positively establish that the deceased was last seen with the accused when there is a long gap and possibility of other persons coming in between exists. In the absence of any other positive evidence to conclude that the accused and the deceased were last seen together, it would be hazardous to come to a conclusion of guilt in those cases." 21. In the present case the prosecution theory that prior to the incident the appellants had consumed liquor with the deceased and had meals with him at Madhuban Hotel could not be established as Ramakant Gitte (P.W.6) manager of Madhuban Hotel and Mahesh Kamble (P.W.12) waiter of the hotel have turned hostile. Thus, the only conclusion that can be drawn qua the evidence of these witnesses is that the prosecution has failed to prove that the appellants visited Madhuban Hotel with the deceased prior to his death. Rajesh (P.W.10) has stated that appellant no.2 told him that he had left the deceased and appellant no.1 after taking meals. This evidence given by Rajesh has been discarded by learned Sessions Judge on the ground that in the absence of corroboration evidence of Rajesh can not be treated as gospel truth (42 of the judgment). As the entire evidence of Rajesh is suspect, in our opinion, this part of his evidence has been rightly disbelieved by the Trial Court. Similarly, as Kalyan Lokhande (P.W.14) has turned hostile, the prosecution has failed to prove that the appellants and the deceased had taken liquor together prior to the incident. 22. Prosecution further relies on the evidence of discovery of the weapon of offence on the basis of confessional statement of appellant no.1 Vachista. The evidence of discovery assumes importance as it discloses knowledge of the accused regarding the place where the weapon is concealed. In the present case Raghunath Shinde (P.W.9) and Brijmohan Mishra (P.W.11) who are witnesses to discovery have turned hostile. The only evidence on this point is that of Investigating Officer Shankar Harale (P.W.18). It is not in dispute that the offence took place on the night of 13/14th January, 2004 and the discovery from open place near electric pole by the side of the road is shown on 18th January 2004. The only evidence on this point is that of Investigating Officer Shankar Harale (P.W.18). It is not in dispute that the offence took place on the night of 13/14th January, 2004 and the discovery from open place near electric pole by the side of the road is shown on 18th January 2004. Having regard to the time gap, it is difficult to accept the evidence of discovery of weapon from an open place by the side of public road. Apart from this, report of the chemical Analyzer (Ex.33) shows that there was no blood on the knife or the clothes of the appellants. Considering these facts it is hazardous to rely on uncorroborated testimony of the investigating officer. In our considered opinion the evidence of discovery deserves to be excluded from consideration. Balaji Munde (P.W.3) and Kedar Dhakne (P.W.4), panch to the seizure of blood stained seat of auto-rickshaw have also turned hostile. 23. Thus, we are left with the ocular evidence of the related witnesses showing that the deceased was last seen in the company of the appellants. Ganpatappa (P.W.2) and his son Shivhar (P.W.8) state that the deceased was brought to their house in drunken condition by the appellants at midnight of 13th in auto-rickshaw. As the deceased was living separately, his father told them to take the deceased to his house and sent Shivhar with them as they did not know location of the house of the deceased. Evidence of both these witnesses emphasize that the deceased was not in a position to speak. Meena (P.W.7) wife of deceased states that her husband was brought to the house in drunken state by the appellants though she adds that the deceased was not addicted to liquor. The appellants then insisted on having meals with him and took him away. The inherent improbability of this evidence lies in the fact that if the appellants had decided to commit murder of the deceased they would not leave a clue regarding their complicity by taking the deceased to his house. The story narrated by Ganpatappa and Shivhar appears to be highly improbable as the father and brother would not be so indifferent in a situation where their kin is brought to the house in such a condition. The story narrated by Ganpatappa and Shivhar appears to be highly improbable as the father and brother would not be so indifferent in a situation where their kin is brought to the house in such a condition. The fact that though Meena disclosed to her mother in law in the morning at about 8.00 o’ clock that the deceased had not returned to the house, no steps were taken to trace him till 2.00 p.m. though they knew that the deceased had left the house with the appellants appears to be strange. Apart from this, the fact that Rajesh and Suresh were sent in search of the deceased also casts a shadow of doubt on the veracity of their evidence. If they knew for a fact that deceased had been with the appellants, Ganpatappa would not ask his sons to search for the deceased. He would have asked them to make inquiries with the appellants. Rajesh does mention that appellant no.2 met them at Jirewadi rickshaw stand, but he does not mention that they went to the Rickshaw stand for seeking appellants. The fact that Rajesh and Suresh were not sent to make inquiries with the appellants impairs probative value of their evidence that the deceased was brought to his house on the earlier night by the appellants. This inference is further strengthened by the fact that after identification of the deceased from photograph at the Police Station, Rajesh did not inform the police that appellants might be the perpetrators. Apart from this neither Ganpatappa nor Shivhar informed the police at the police station or the hospital that the deceased had left the house with the appellants on the earlier night. In addition, though it is stated by Ganpatappa, Shivhar and Meena that the deceased was dead drunk, no alcohol is found in the stomach of the deceased during the postmortem. If we consider totality of these circumstances, it is apparent that oral evidence of the close relatives of the deceased is not reliable. Learned Sessions Judge has placed implicit reliance on the evidence of these witnesses without properly analyzing their evidence on the specious reasoning that these witnesses had no reason for telling lies. If we consider totality of these circumstances, it is apparent that oral evidence of the close relatives of the deceased is not reliable. Learned Sessions Judge has placed implicit reliance on the evidence of these witnesses without properly analyzing their evidence on the specious reasoning that these witnesses had no reason for telling lies. This is clear from the observations of the learned Judge in para 42 of the Judgment to the effect that "Considering the evidence by the prosecution that the deceased Sanjay was brought to the house of his father and to his house. Thereafter, again he was taken away by the accused with him. There may not be any motive to beat him. The evidence of prosecution that the deceased was dealing money transaction has not been proved. There is no evidence to show that he had dealing either of the accused or with any other person. However, the facts remains that why Ganpatappa, Meena and Shivhar should tell lie." In our considered opinion, this approach is fallacious and can not be approved. On pragmatic assessment of the evidence of these witnesses we have no hesitation to conclude that ocular testimony of the related witnesses in the facts of the presence case does not inspire confidence and is not worthy of belief. In view of the failure of the prosecution to adduce cogent evidence to establish complicity of the appellants in the commission of the offence, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellants is hereby quashed and set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the offence with which they were charged and convicted. Fine, if paid, by the appellants be refunded to them. Since the appellants are in jail, they be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case.