JUDGMENT K. SREEDHAR RAO, J.—Material case of the prosecution disclosed that one Devanira Chengappa is the deceased. P.W. 1-D.M.Subbaiah and P.W. 2-Achappa are the brothers of the deceased. Said Chengappa was living in his Coffee Estate situated at Siddapur. P.Ws. 1 and 2 were residing nearby the estate of the deceased. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are accused Nos. 2 and 3 before the trial Court. Accused No. 1 is absconding. Therefore, the case against him is split up. Respondent No. 3 had joined employment under the deceased as writer-cum-driver about one month prior to the incident and Accused No. 2 had joined as a watchman. One Rajeshwari-P.W. 6 was working as a servant maid-cum-cook under the deceased. 2. On 26.8.2001 in the morning, the deceased and accused No. 3 went to sandy market and returned at about 11.00 a.m. Around 1.30 p.m., accused No. 3 went and informed P.W. 2 that the deceased had accidentally fallen and he is not responding. P.W. 2 informs about this incident to P.W. 1 over telephone. Accused No. 3 also goes to the residence of P.W. 1 by jeep and brings P.W. 1 to the residence of the deceased. They found that the deceased had sustained visible physical injuries on the face and the head. 3. P.W. 1 lodged the complaint with the police at 5.00 p.m. on the same day intimating that his brother Chengappa has been killed by some unknown person for unknown reason and requested police to take action. Police conducted inquest on the dead body on the same day between 7.15 and 9.15 p.m. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that on the day of the incident in the morning deceased and P.W. 3 had gone to sandy market and they returned to the estate at about 11.30 a.m. P.W. 6 had served Horlicks to the deceased. At that time, accused No. 2 came and informed that cows legs are struck with rope and he is unable to untie the knot. Deceased gave a chopper and advised accused No. 2 to cut the knot if he cannot untie the rope. Accused No. 2 took the chopper and went away. After some time deceased went into the estate. 4. The accused No. 2 and accused No. 3 came and enquired P.W. 6 about the whereabouts of the deceased since he was not in the house. Accused No. 2 took the chopper and went away. After some time deceased went into the estate. 4. The accused No. 2 and accused No. 3 came and enquired P.W. 6 about the whereabouts of the deceased since he was not in the house. P.W. 6 states that she does not know as to where the deceased had gone. The accused Nos. l to 3 made efforts to search, they found that deceased had fallen in the estate. They got the deceased to the house and informed P.W. 1 that deceased had fallen. The deceased was motionless. It is thereafter the accused No. 3 informed P.Ws. 2 and 1 and complaint came to be lodged in that context. 5. The investigation further reveals that during the time of the incident, P.W. 5 was passing by and while entering the estate he hears the wailing cries and after some time he finds accused No. 1 to accused No. 3 coming out from the estate and they were in a frightened mood. At that time, accused No. 2 was holding chopper, accused No. 3 was holding sickle and accused No. 1 was holding stick. Similarly, P.W. 10 who is also a nearby resident states that when he was passing nearby the estate, he heard the noise of wailing cries and he finds accused No. 1 to accused No. 3 going from the hind portion of the estate holding weapons. 6. P.W. 3- Dr. Naveen is the Doctor who conducted post-mortem examination. His evidence disclosed that death is due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of the injuries suffered and that the death is homicidal. P.W. 4-Radhakrishna, is the Village Accountant who has issued RTC extract of the deceased. P.W. 7-Abdul Khader a seizure punch witnesses. P.W. 8-Sujay is the son of P.W. 1 and he is a mahazar witness for seizure of clothes of the deceased. P.W. 9-Karumbaiah, is a inquest punch witnesses. P.W. 11-Pavan is the Police Constable who was deputed to trace accused No. 1. P.W. 12-Venkata is the Police Constable who guarded the scene of occurrence. P.W. 13-Prabhakar is the Police Constable who arrested accused No. 2. P.W. 14-Meena Subramani is the daughter and P.W. 15-Bopanna is the son of the deceased, who are not witnesses to the incident. They came to the village after coming to know about the incident. P.W. 12-Venkata is the Police Constable who guarded the scene of occurrence. P.W. 13-Prabhakar is the Police Constable who arrested accused No. 2. P.W. 14-Meena Subramani is the daughter and P.W. 15-Bopanna is the son of the deceased, who are not witnesses to the incident. They came to the village after coming to know about the incident. P.W. 16-Muthumari is WPC who translated the statement of P.W. 6 given in Tamil into Kannada before CPI. P.W. 17-Appaiah is a witness for seizure of cloth of accused No. 3. P.W. 18-Kushalappa, is the Police Constable who carried the FIR. P.W. 19-Suresh N. Govankar is the FSL Officer who examined the blood-stained clothes and weapons. P.W. 20-Subramani is the Police Constable who arrested accused No. 3. P.W. 21-Medappa is neighbour of the deceased P.Ws. 22-Kaverappa testified noticing the dead body of the deceased. P.W. 23-Subramani and P.W. 24-Bopaiah are the sons-in-law of the deceased. P.W. 25-Nimmi Bopaiah is the daughter of the deceased. P.W. 26-Asho Bopanna is the daughter-in-law of the deceased. P.W. 27-Suresh is the Junior Engineer at KPTCL who speaks with regard to supply of electricity in the estate of the deceased at the time of inquest. P.W. 28-Abu is a witness to the mahazar. P.W. 29-Devaiah, is the PS1 who registered the case and sent FIR. P.W. 30-Madaiah is the Investigating Officer who thereafter filed the charge sheet. 7. The accused Nos. 2 and 3 are convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 171 read with 31 IPC. Accused No. 3 is charged under Section 171 IPC on the ground that he used to wear police cap and impersonate himself as police. The charge under said offence is irrelevant and effective charge should be under Section 302 and 201 read with 34 IPC. 8. The prosecution has relied upon the following circumstances to bring home the guilt of the accused: (1) The deceased was in the habit of unnecessarily chiding and scolding accused Nos. 1 to 3. Therefore, they were grousing ill-will against the deceased and caused the death of the deceased, which was said to be the motive for committing the offence. (2) The post-mortem report disclose that the death of the deceased is homicidal. (3) The Last seen circumstance is to the effect that accused Nos. 1 to 3. Therefore, they were grousing ill-will against the deceased and caused the death of the deceased, which was said to be the motive for committing the offence. (2) The post-mortem report disclose that the death of the deceased is homicidal. (3) The Last seen circumstance is to the effect that accused Nos. 1 to 3 were in the estate and they were with the deceased around the time of the incident. In fact, accused Nos. 1 to 3 brought the injured deceased from the spot where he is said to have been fallen in the estate to his residence and informed P.W. 6 about this. Their version disclose that the deceased had accidentally fallen down but the post-mortem report that it is homicidal injuries. (4) On the above circumstance, the prosecution sought to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 201 and 302 read with 34 IPC. The trial Court acquitted the accused holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the State is in appeal against the said judgment of acquittal. 9. Following are the circumstances noticed in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses to confirm acquittal: (1) The evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 and 6 does not disclose anywhere the motive for commission of the offence, the reason that, the deceased was scolding the accused and as such the deceased has incurred worth of the accused. He has not substantiated by any evidence and that P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 6 do not even refer to this aspect in their evidence. (2) Last seen circumstance spoken by P.Ws. 5, 6 and 10 becomes highly doubtful to be believed because P.W. 6 was residing in the quarters very nearby to the residence of the deceased and she was present all through the day when P.Ws. 1 and 2 visited the scene and also when police visited the scene. She does not disclose the last seen circumstance either to P.W. 1 or to P.W. 2. Non-disclosure of this fact is fatal to the case of the prosecution and it is also unnatural, because when P.Ws. 1 and 2 visited the scene it is quite natural that P.W. 6 should have informed the post event incident. She does not disclose the last seen circumstance either to P.W. 1 or to P.W. 2. Non-disclosure of this fact is fatal to the case of the prosecution and it is also unnatural, because when P.Ws. 1 and 2 visited the scene it is quite natural that P.W. 6 should have informed the post event incident. If that is so, P.W. 1 should have necessarily mentioned the same in the complaint; (3) P.W. 5 is an employee of P.W. 1 working in his estate. Evidence of P.W. 6 regarding last seen circumstance becomes highly doubtful because she did not disclose this last seen circumstance to P.W. 1, P.W. 7 or to police. She was very much present in the scene. Her statement was not recorded at the time of inquest. Evidence of P.W. 10 with regard to the last seen circumstance is also highly doubtful to be believed. (4) The prosecution has let in evidence to show that the death is homicidal and should have been caused by sickle produced as per M.O. 2. Post-mortem report disclose that deceased had cut lacerated wounds lateral to the left eye, cut lacerated wound over left perietal area, cut lacerated wound over left occipitoparietal area irregular in shape, black eye present on left side sub-cunjuctival haemorrhage present on the left side. The said injuries were ante-mortem. (5) It is the defence contention that the accused is a man aged about 81 years. He must have lost balance and fallen on the hard and rough pebbles surface and by coming into contact with sharp pebble. No such suggestion is made. Therefore, it should be inferred that by falling on a hard surface with sharp pebble, the deceased must have sustained the injuries. The prosecution has not let in any credible evidence with regard to motive for commission of offence. Last seen circumstance sought to be established by the prosecution is artificial and riddled with infirmities. The theory that the death is homicidal is also not clinchingly established. Therefore, the order of acquittal does not call for interference. Hence the appeal is dismissed.