JUDGMENT N. ANANDA, J.—The appellant/accused has filed this appeal against the judgment of conviction filed for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. 2. The accused was tried for the following charges: “That you accused on 21.11.2004 at about 1.00 p.m. in the Coffee Estate of C.W. 19 Sri Sanath K.T. situated at Hanagallu Village in Somwarpet Taluk, committed theft of Golden Chain, pair of golden ear rings, pair of bangles and key bunch belonging to deceased Smt. Ramakka, and in committing theft of above said articles you accused voluntari1y caused death of deceased Smt. Ramakka by assaulting her with a katti, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 392 IPC within the cognizance of this Court. Secondly, that you accused on the same date, time and place did commit murder by intentionally causing the death, of deceased Smt. Ramakka by assaulting her with katti, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and within the cognizance of this Court. Lastly, that you accused on the same date, time and place, after committing the offences of murder and robbery punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and imprisonment which may extend to 10 years, did cause certain evidence of the said offences to disappear, by burrying the dead body of deceased Smt. Ramakka in heap of dry leaves, with an intention of screening yourself from legal punishment, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC within the cognizance of this Court.” 3. On behalf of prosecution, P.Ws. I to 22 were examined, documents as per Exs.P1 to P22 and material objects as per M.Os. l to 13 were marked. On behalf of defence, Ex. D1 is marked. 4. The learned trial Judge on appreciation of evidence and on hearing the learned Counsel for parties convicted the accused for the aforestated offences. Therefore, the accused has filed this appeal. 5. We have heard Sri. D. Basavarajappa, learned counsel for accused and Sri. P.M. Nawaz, learned Additional S.P.P. for the State. We have been taken through evidence and the impugned judgment. 6. In brief, the case of prosecution is as follows: P.W. 1-Kum. B. Seetha is the younger sister of deceased Ramakka. P.W. 3-Padrnavathi is the elder sister of deceased Rainakka. The deceased had an elder brother by name Narayana who died on 4.1.2007 during the pendency of trial. The deceased Ramakka was unmarried. 6. In brief, the case of prosecution is as follows: P.W. 1-Kum. B. Seetha is the younger sister of deceased Ramakka. P.W. 3-Padrnavathi is the elder sister of deceased Rainakka. The deceased had an elder brother by name Narayana who died on 4.1.2007 during the pendency of trial. The deceased Ramakka was unmarried. The father of deceased had left acres of coffee plantation in Hanagallu village. P.W. 1-Seetha. was working in a garment factory and she was staying in Bangalore. P.W. 3-Padmavathi was living in the house of her husband in Edavanadu village. Narayana (since deceased) (the elder brother of deceased Ramakka) was married. It appears 7 or 8 years before 2004, his wife had abandoned him. The wife of Narayana and their children were living in the parental house of the wife of Narayana. The deceased Ramakka and Naravana were living in their house in Hanagallu village and their house is at a distance of half a kilometer from their coffee estate. The accused is also from Hanagallu village. The accused and deceased belong to same caste. Now and then, accused used to work in the coffee estate of deceased Ramakka. Narayana (since deceased) was working as a postman in Hanagallu village. P.W. 4-Chandrakala and P.W. 6-Wilson Sequera were the neighbours of deceased Ramakka. 7. It is the case of prosecution that on 21.11.2004, at about 8.00 a.m., deceased Ramakka and the accused left the house of deceased to work in the coffee plantation of deceased, P.W. 4-Chandrakala had come across them when she was bringing water from a bore well. She had learnt from them that they were going to work in the coffee plantation of deceased Ramakka. On that day, at about 4.00 p.m., accused alone returned to his house in Hanagallu village. The deceased was not seen alive thereafter. P.W. 1-Seetha contacted her brother Narayana by making phone call to the phone installed in the house of P.W. 13-Francis Menezes, however, Narayana told P.W. 1 that the deceased had not returned from the coffee estate and they were searching for her. On 22.11.2004, they had searched for the deceased, however, she could not be traced, P.W. 1 left Bangalore and reached Hanagallu on the following day morning. In the meanwhile. P.W. 3-Padmavathi had also come to the house of deceased in Hanagallu village. Thereafter, P.Ws. On 22.11.2004, they had searched for the deceased, however, she could not be traced, P.W. 1 left Bangalore and reached Hanagallu on the following day morning. In the meanwhile. P.W. 3-Padmavathi had also come to the house of deceased in Hanagallu village. Thereafter, P.Ws. 1, 3, 4 and deceased Narayana went in search of the deceased. On the way P.W. 4-Chandrakaiamet the accused and again questioned him about the deceased for which he gave evasive answer. She requested him to join them to search the deceased, he bluntly refused. When they were searching in the coffee plantation, they found plastic shoe and blood stained cloth of the deceased near the fence of ABC coffee plantation. When they proceeded towards ABC coffee plantation, they found the dead body of Ramakka hurried in the heap of dry leaves. They noticed several injuries on the dead body of Ramakka and the death was homicidal in nature. Thereafter, they lodged the first information before Somawarpet police and set. the law into motion. 8. The Investigating officer came to the place where the dead body was found, held Inquest and subjected the dead body for postmortem examination and recorded the statement of witnesses. 9. The accused was arrested on 23.11.2004. The Investigating Officer after arresting the accused seized a pawn broker’s receipt, LIC receipt, a pair of sold gold bangles and key bunch containing 5 keys from the possession of accused. The accused made voluntary statement, which lead to recovery of blood stained chopper from, his house. The accused took them to the shop of P.W. 5-Premram. At the Instance of accused, P.W. 5 handed over the gold chain, pair of gold ear studs and the same were seized by the Investigating officer under mahazar as per Ex. P5. P.W. 1 later identified them as gold ornaments of the deceased. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused for the aforestated offences. 10. The case of prosecution rests upon circumstantial evidence. The circumstance put-forth by the prosecution are as follows: (i) The deceased was last seen alive in the company of accused (ii) Motive (iii) The conduct of accused after the incident (iv) Recovery of ornaments of deceased and recovery of blood stained chopper on the information volunteered by the accused. 11. It is the case of prosecution that the deceased was last seen alive in the company of accused. P.Ws. 11. It is the case of prosecution that the deceased was last seen alive in the company of accused. P.Ws. 1 and 3 have consistently deposed; that the accused was known to their family and they belong to same caste. The accused was often attending work in the coffee estate of the deceased. P.W. 1 has admitted that the accused was running a canteen and poultry farm, however, it was about two years prior to the date of incident. During cross-examination of P.Ws. 1 and 3, a faint attempt has been made by the defence to establish that there was enmity between deceased Ramakka and her brother Narayana. The conduct of Narayana after the deceased was found missing was not consistent with the conduct of an innocent person, therefore, deceased Narayana was the perpetrator of the crime. 12. In our considered opinion, this contention of the accused is not tenable. As could be seen from the evidence on record, Narayana was aged about 57 years at the time of incident. He was also one of the witnesses cited by the prosecution and he died during the trial on 4.1.2007, Though, Narayana had not gone to police station when the first information was lodged by P.W. 1, he had accompanied them to search for the deceased. 13. The learned counsel for accused has also relied on the evidence of P.W. 14-Vishwanatha to contend that Marayana had pledged the ornaments of deceased, therefore, deceased Narayana was responsible for the death of his sister viz., deceased Ramakka. The evidence of P.W. 14 and other witnesses relating to this aspect will be dealt in the later part of the judgment. 14. We find from the evidence of P.W. 1 that after reaching her native place P.W. 1 did not lodge the first information. It is only after finding the dead body buried in the heap of leaves in ABC coffee estate, which is at a distance of 5 feet from the estate of the deceased, P.W. 1 lodged first information suspecting the involvement of accused. We also find from the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 3 that they did not have any grudge against the accused to falsely implicate him. 15. The evidence given by P.W. 11-Dr. Venkatesh about the postmortem examination conducted by him; injuries noticed by him and the cause of death furnished by him has not been controverted. We also find from the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 3 that they did not have any grudge against the accused to falsely implicate him. 15. The evidence given by P.W. 11-Dr. Venkatesh about the postmortem examination conducted by him; injuries noticed by him and the cause of death furnished by him has not been controverted. P.W. 14 has deposed that injuries found on the deceased could have been caused with a chopper. Therefore, we hold that the death, of Ramakka was homicidal in nature and injuries on her person were caused with a chopper. 16. P.W. 4-Chandrakaia was one of the neighbours of the deceased. P.W. 4 has deposed; that on the date of incident at about 8.45 a.m., (during morning) when she was bringing water from a bore well she come across the accused and deceased who were going to work in the coffee plantation of the deceased. On the same day, P.W. 4 had gone towards coffee plantation of the deceased in search of her missing cow. She come across the accused. When P.W. 4 questioned the accused about the deceased, he gave evasive answers and pleaded his ignorance regarding whereabouts of the deceased. P.W. 4 has deposed; that on 22.11.2004, P.W. 4 and other villagers searched for deceased Ramakka but, they could not trace her. On 23.1.1.2004, she has joined the search party and went in search of the deceased towards coffee estate. On the way, she met the accused; again she enquired the accused but, the accused pleaded his ignorance. When P.W. 4 requested the accused to join the search party to trace Ramakka, he refused and he did not join the search party. When they were searching for Ramakka. they found her dead body near the ABC coffee plantation, which was adjacent to the coffee plantation of the deceased. The dead body was buried in a heap of dry leaves. There were cut injuries on the face and head of the deceased. The ornaments of the deceased were found missing. P.Ws. 1 and 3 have deposed; that when they saw the dead body of their sister Ramakka, a gold chain with Lakshmi pendant, a pair of ear studs containing pearls, which the deceased was wearing were found missing, P.W. 1. has mentioned this fact in the first information lodged at 12.30 p.m., on 23.11.2004. P.Ws. 1 and 3 have deposed; that when they saw the dead body of their sister Ramakka, a gold chain with Lakshmi pendant, a pair of ear studs containing pearls, which the deceased was wearing were found missing, P.W. 1. has mentioned this fact in the first information lodged at 12.30 p.m., on 23.11.2004. Thus, we find that the evidence given by P.W. 4 finds substantial corroboration from the evidence of P.W. 1. In. the cross-examination of P.W. 4, there is nothing to indicate that P.W. 4 was enmical to the accused or interested in the success of the case of prosecution. During cross-examination of P.W. 4, it has been suggested to P.W. 4 that the deceased was coming to her tailoring shop to get the clothes stitched, therefore, there was enmity between the accused and P.W. 4. P.W. 4 has denied the suggestion. In our considered opinion, this suggestion is baseless. 17. Thus, we find that P.W. 4 is an independent witness. P.W. 4 was neither inimical to the accused nor interested in the success of the case of prosecution. She was not related to deceased. Therefore, we do not find any reasons to discard the evidence of P.W. 4 that the deceased was last seen alive in the company of accused at 8.00 a.m., on 21.11.2004. On the same clay at 4.00 p.m., the accused was alone returning from the estate of the deceased, when questioned by P.W. 4 regarding deceased Ramakka, the accused gave evasive answers and did not explain as to what had happened to deceased Ramakka who had gone to the coffee estate along with him. The evidence of P.W. 4 that on 23.11.2004, when she again questioned the accused about deceased Ramakka, he gave evasive answers and he also refused to join the search party to search the deceased does not suffer from any discrepancy. Therefore, we hold that the evidence adduced by the prosecution in proof of circumstances of deceased being last seen alive in the company of accused does not suffer from any discrepancy. (ii) Motive and recovery of weapon: 18. It is the case of prosecution that the accused committed murder of the deceased for gain. The prosecution has relied on the circumstance of recovery of gold ornaments and gold chain on the voluntary information given, by the accused. (ii) Motive and recovery of weapon: 18. It is the case of prosecution that the accused committed murder of the deceased for gain. The prosecution has relied on the circumstance of recovery of gold ornaments and gold chain on the voluntary information given, by the accused. The prosecution has also relied on the recovery of blood stained chopper on the voluntary information given by the accused. 19. The investigating officer namely P.W. 21-Girijesh has deposed; that on 23.11.2004 at about 11.30 a.m., the accused was apprehended and produced before him. He arrested the accused. The accused made voluntary statement, the admissible portion is marked as Ex. P16, The investigating officer secured witnesses viz., P.W. 9-Chennappa and P.W. 10-Harish to Somwarpet police station and in the presence of witnesses he seized from the possession of accused a pawn broker receipt issued by Mahalakshmi Jewellers and one LIC receipt; showing payment of LIC premium, one rold gold bangles; a key bunch with 5 keys and 10 currency notes of Rs. 100/- denomination. The investigating officer seized the same under mahazar as per Ex. P8. 20. P.W. 9-Chennappa. who was examined to prove the aforesaid seizure did not support the case of prosecution, so also P.W. 10-Harish. 21. In the circumstances, we have left with the evidence of P.W. 21-Girijesh (CPI and Investigating officer) in proof of seizure of aforestated articles and the voluntary statement of accused recorded by him, P.W. 21 has deposed: that on 24.11.2004. at 7.00 a.m., he secured P.W. 8-Bracton D’souza and P.W. 9-Chennappa to police station. Thereafter, the accused led the investigating officer and the police and witnesses to his house near Chadlu village. The accused entered his house and removed a chopper from beneath a Godrej almera and produced the chopper with bloodstains. The same was seized by the investigating officer under mahazar as per Ex. P7. 22. P.W. 8-Bracton D’souza, P.W. 9-Chennappa and P.W. 10-Harish who were examined to prove the recovery of aforesaid articles on the information volunteered by the accused did not support the case of prosecution. 23. On careful consideration of evidence of the investigating officer, we find that his evidence regarding seizure of rold gold bangles, a key bunch, LIC receipt and a pawn broker receipt as per Ex. P4 and 10 currency notes of Rs. 100/- denomination from the possession of the accused does not suffer from any discrepancy. 24. 23. On careful consideration of evidence of the investigating officer, we find that his evidence regarding seizure of rold gold bangles, a key bunch, LIC receipt and a pawn broker receipt as per Ex. P4 and 10 currency notes of Rs. 100/- denomination from the possession of the accused does not suffer from any discrepancy. 24. The Investigating Officer had taken the accused and the witnesses to the shop of P.W. 5-Premram, P.W. 5 identified the accused. At the instance of the accused he returned a gold chain, a pair of gold ear studs, which belonged to the deceased. 25. P.W. 5 has deposed; that the accused along with P.W. 14-Vishwanatha had come to his shop to pledge the above ornaments and he had given a receipt, as per Ex. P4. The accused pledged a gold chain, a pair of gold ear studs. The accused requested P.W. 5 to give a sum of Rs. 6,000/- and requested him to issue the receipt in the name of Vishwanatha (P.W. 14) and also told that P.W. 14 would redeem the pledge. P.W. 5 has identified his signature and the signature of P.W. 14-Vishwanatha on Ex. P4. The police seized the gold chain and gold ear studs and the same were identified by P.W. 1 as the gold ornaments which belonged to deceased. 26. The learned counsel for accused referring to the evidence of P.W. 14 would submit that as per the evidence of P.W. 14-Vishwanatha, Narayana (elder brother of deceased Ramakka) had brought the gold chain and ear studs and as requested by him, P.W. 14 had pledged the gold ornaments with P.W. 5. 27. We have gone through the evidence of P.W. 14, P.W. 14 has admitted that he had pledged the gold ornaments with P.W. 5 under the receipt as per Ex. P4. P.W. 14 has deposed: that the accused had not given the jewels on the other hand, gold ornaments were given by Narayana (elder brother of deceased). 28. P.W. 14 was declared as a hostile witness for resiling from part of his previous statement recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the submission of learned counsel for accused that the evidence of P.W. 14 is sufficient, to pinpoint guilt of Narayana cannot be accepted. We notice from the records that Narayana died on 4.1.2007. Therefore, he could not be examined before the trial Court. 29. We notice from the records that Narayana died on 4.1.2007. Therefore, he could not be examined before the trial Court. 29. P.W. 14 who was examined on 24.1.2007, while admitting the transaction of pledge of gold ornaments of the deceased in the shop of P.W. 5-Premram, has made unsuccessful attempt to twist the case of prosecution attributing possession of gold ornaments by Narayana. We are not persuaded to accept the submission of learned counsel for accused that evidence of P.W. 14 cannot be discarded for the following reasons: 30. When P.W. S and P.W. 14 were cross-examined with reference to recovery of gold chain and pair of gold ear studs (belonging to deceased Raniakka) which were pledged by P.W. 14-Vishwanatha, it was not suggested to P.W. 5 that deceased Narayana had come along with P.W. 14 to pledge above gold ornaments. On the other hand, the cross-examination of P.W. 14 would reveal that there is total denial of case of prosecution. It has been suggested to P.W. 14 that neither the accused nor P.W. 14 had gone to the shop of P.W. 5 to pledge the gold chain and gold ear studs. We have already stated that after the accused was arrested, the investigating officer searched him and found a pawnbroker receipt as per Ex. P4. P.W. 14 had admitted that the wife of accused is known to him. P.W. 14 has not sated that he knew Narayana and there was acquaintance between P.W. 14 and deceased Narayana. Therefore, the submission of learned counsel and contention of defence that deceased Narayana was a perpetrator of crime cannot be accepted. 31. The evidence of P.W. 21-Girijesh would reveal that on the information volunteered by accused, a bloodstained chopper was recovered from his possession. Though independent witnesses have not-supported the case of prosecution, we find the evidence of Investigation Officer regarding recovery of blood stained chopper does not suffer from any discrepancy. Above all, we find the investigating officer had no motives to falsely implicate the accused. 32. In a decision reported in 2003 Crl.L.J. 2021 (in the case of Karamjit Singh vs. State (Delhi Administration) the Supreme Court has held: “8. Above all, we find the investigating officer had no motives to falsely implicate the accused. 32. In a decision reported in 2003 Crl.L.J. 2021 (in the case of Karamjit Singh vs. State (Delhi Administration) the Supreme Court has held: “8. Shri. Sinha, learned senior counsel for the appellant, has vehemently urged that all the witnesses of recovery examined by the prosecution are police personnel and in absence of any public witness, their testimony alone should not be held sufficient for sustaining the conviction of the appellant. In our opinion the contention raised is too broadly stated and cannot be accepted. The testimony of police personnel should be treated in the same manner as testimony of any other witness and there is no principle of law that without. corroboration by independent witnessed their testimony cannot be relied upon. The presumption that a person acts honestly applies as much in favour of police personnel as of other persons and it is not a proper judicial approach to distrust and suspect them without good grounds. It will all depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no principle of general application can be laid down. ..........” 33. Therefore, we have no reasons to discard the evidence of the investigating officer regarding recovery of gold ornaments of the deceased and also recovery of blood stained chopper on the information volunteered by the accused. The investigating officer has seized the gold ornaments belonging to the deceased under mahazar as per Ex. P4 and also a. key bunch, rold gold bangles belonging to deceased and a pawnbroker receipt from the person of accused when he was arrested. 34. The learned counsel for accused has submitted that the case rests upon circumstantial evidence. The prosecution has not adduced evidence of conclusive nature and tendency. The prosecution must prove each and every link to complete the chain of circumstances and the evidence adduced by the prosecution should be entirely compatible with the guilt of accused and shall exclude the possibility of innocence of accused. 35. The learned counsel for accused would further submit that the conduct of Narayana was not consistent with, the conduct of an innocent person. The learned counsel would submit that P.W. 1 has admitted that Narayana was a drunkard and the deceased was not allowing him to work in the coffee plantation. 36. 35. The learned counsel for accused would further submit that the conduct of Narayana was not consistent with, the conduct of an innocent person. The learned counsel would submit that P.W. 1 has admitted that Narayana was a drunkard and the deceased was not allowing him to work in the coffee plantation. 36. In the discussion made supra, we have narrated that the deceased Narayana was the elder brother of deceased Ramakka. At the time of incident, he was aged about 57 years. His wife and children were living separately eight years prior to date of incident, he was working as a postman. 37. We have the evidence of P.W. 13-Francis Menezes, P.W. 1 had contacted Narayana through the telephone of P.W. 13. P.W. 13 has deposed about the phone call made by P.W. 1 to her elder brother Narayana and also information conveyed by her elder brother Narayana about missing of Ramakka. Therefore, it is not possible to hold that Narayana was the perpetrator of crime. Therefore, he did not lodge he complaint on 21.12.2004 or 22.12.2004. Deceased Narayana was cited one of the prosecution witnesses (CW.7) and he died during pendency of trial on 4.1.2007, therefore, he could not be examined before the trial Court. The evidence on record does not disclose that deceased Narayana was enmical to his own sister Ramakka and he had any motive to commit her murder. It is true that P.W. 1 has admitted that Narayana was in the habit of drinking and he was not being allowed to work in the coffee plantation of deceased Ramakka. However, such admissions are not sufficient to arrive at conclusion that deceased Narayana had committed the murder of his own sister. Thus, to sum up that the prosecution has adduced cogent and convincing evidence to establish the following: (i) The deceased was last seen, alive in the company of accused (ii) The conduct of accused subsequent to the incident was not consistent with the conduct of an innocent person. (iii) On the information volunteered by the accused, gold ornaments of the deceased were recovered within 3 days of the incident. (iv) The investigating officer after arrest of the accused, seized pledged ornaments under niahazar as per Ex. P4 and key bunch and rold gold bangles of the deceased. (iii) On the information volunteered by the accused, gold ornaments of the deceased were recovered within 3 days of the incident. (iv) The investigating officer after arrest of the accused, seized pledged ornaments under niahazar as per Ex. P4 and key bunch and rold gold bangles of the deceased. (v) The investigating officer on the information volunteered by the accused has seized the blood stained chopper from the house of accused. (vi) The accused had given evasive answers when questioned about the deceased at 4.00 p.m., on 21.11.2004. (vii) The accused when he was requested to join the search party to trace the deceased, he did not join the search party. 38. In our opinion, these circumstances would establish that the prosecution has proved guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The learned trial Judge was justified in convicting the accused for the aforestated offences. 39. We do not find any reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.