JUDGMENT N. ANANDA, J.—The appellant/accused has filed this appeal against the judgment of conviction for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. 2. We have heard Sri S. Shankarappa, learned counsel for Sri. Ramesh Babu, learned Counsel for accused and Sri P.M. Nawaz, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor. We have been taken through the evidence and the impugned judgment. 3. In brief, the case of the prosecution is as follows: During August, 1995, P.W. 1, Smt. Sabrina was running a Paying Guest house in a rented house situate at I Cross, P.V. Reddy Layout, Babusab Palya, Bangalore. The deceased Joe Johnson was the father of P.W. 1, P.W. 2, Nikitha is her younger daughter. P.W. 1 along with deceased and her daughters were residing in the second floor of the building situate at III Cross, Babusab Palya, P.V. Reddy Layout. P.W. 9 Shashikala and her husband P.W. 10, H. Siddesh are the landlords of the said building, The building comprises of three floors. The landlord of the building was residing in the second floor. P.W. 1, Smt.Sabrina, her daughters and the deceased were residing in the first floor and the ground floor was in occupation of another tenant. The mother of accused namely Smt. Philomena was working as a cook in the Paying Guesthouse run by P.W. 1. The accused No. 1 was staying with his mother. He was also helping his mother. They were staying in a room of Paying Guesthouse provided by P.W. 1. That on 25.8.2005, P.W. 1 wanted to shift her residence from III Cross to her Paying Guesthouse situate at I Cross, P.V. Reddy Layout. The accused was engaged by P.W. 1 for helping her to shift the household articles. On that day, at about 2.00 p.m., accused had gone to the house of P.W. 1. It appears, there was some altercation. Deceased had taken some objections for the accused visiting his house frequently. The accused got enraged and took a knife from the kitchen and repeatedly stabbed deceased and left the house by locking the door lock. A at about 2.00 or 2.30 p.m. P.W. 1 came to serve food to her lather and found that the door was locked. She knocked the door several times, but there was no response from inside. The accused got enraged and took a knife from the kitchen and repeatedly stabbed deceased and left the house by locking the door lock. A at about 2.00 or 2.30 p.m. P.W. 1 came to serve food to her lather and found that the door was locked. She knocked the door several times, but there was no response from inside. Therefore, she secured the help of one Narayana and others and broke open the door situate on Eastern side and entered the house. P.W. 1 and others saw deceased Joe Johnson lying dead on his cot with multiple stab injuries. The matter was informed to the police who on reaching the incident enquired P.W. 1. P.W. 1 gave a written first information and on the basis of which, a crime was registered against unknown persons. 4. P.W. 11, B.C. Ravindra, an Officer from F.S.L had also visited the house of deceased and noticed bloodstains on the wall above the cot. The examination report of the scene of crime is marked as Ex. P33. Dead body was subjected to postmortem examination. Postmortem examination report reveals that death of Joe Johnson was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of multiple stab injuries. The accused was arrested and on the information volunteered by accused, keys of the residential house of P.W. 1, a knife and blood stained clothes of accused were recovered. The incriminating articles were sent to FSL. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against accused for aforestated offences. 5. The case of the prosecution rests upon circumstantial evidence. The circumstances being: (i) On the date of incident, the accused was engaged by P.W. 1 to shift her resident from III Cross of P.V. Reddy Layout to I Cross, P.V. Reddy Layout. (ii) The accused had visited the house immediately before the incident of murder. (iii) When P.W. 1 came to the house, she noticed that the door was locked. (iv) The keys were recovered on the information volunteered by accused. (v) The accused was also present when the dead body was shifted to the hospital. (vi) On the information volunteered by accused, the Investigating Officer recovered the bloodstained clothes from the room in his occupation and also a knife from the kitchen of the house of P.W. 1. (iv) The keys were recovered on the information volunteered by accused. (v) The accused was also present when the dead body was shifted to the hospital. (vi) On the information volunteered by accused, the Investigating Officer recovered the bloodstained clothes from the room in his occupation and also a knife from the kitchen of the house of P.W. 1. (vii) There was altercation between accused and deceased, when he had gone to the house of P.W. 1, before the incident took place. 6. Before appreciating the evidence of witnesses, it is necessary to state that the witnesses examined by the prosecution including the Investigating Officer did not have any grudge or enmity against accused. P.W. 1, who lodged first information about the incident has not stated in the first information that she has suspected the involvement of accused. In that way, all the material witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution were independent. 7. The evidence of P.W. 1 and the immediate post occurrence witnesses and the medical evidence given by P.W. 15, Dr. B.M. Nagaraj would prove that the death of deceased Joe Johnson was homicidal in nature. He had suffered as many as 15 stab injuries and the death was due to shock and hemorrhage. The place of incident and the time of incident is proved from the evidence of P.W. 1 and other post occurrence witnesses. The accused has not controverted the fact that deceased was done to death at about 2.00 p.m. on 25.8.2005. 8. In fact, during cross-examination of some of the prosecution witnesses, it is elicited that accused was present and also helped the police to shift the dead body from the place of incident to the hospital. It is also not disputed that the mother of accused namely Philomena was working as a cook in the Paying Guesthouse run by P.W. 1. The accused was helping his mother and also P.W. 1 in bringing the provisions and articles required by Paying guests, It is also not disputed that accused and his mother were staying in a room of Paying Guesthouse and it was provided by P.W. 1. It is in this background, we have to consider the evidence adduced in proof of the circumstances put forth by the prosecution. 9. It is in this background, we have to consider the evidence adduced in proof of the circumstances put forth by the prosecution. 9. P.W. 1 has deposed that on the date of incident from morning till afternoon, accused had helped her in shifting the articles from her residence situate in III Cross, P.V. Reddy Layout to the Paying Guest house situate in the I Cross, P.V. Reddy Layout. P.W. 1 has deposed that on the date of incident (25.8.2005) at about 2.00 p.m. she brought the food to her residence at III Cross and she knocked the door. There was no response, though she repeatedly knocked the door. She peeped into the room of his father through a window and found the deceased was lying on the cot with injuries. With the help of P.W. 3, Srinivasa Narayan and others, P.W. 1 broke open the door, which was on the Eastern side of the house and entered the house and found her father dead with stab injuries. In the meanwhile, some one had informed the matter to the police who came to the place of incident. P.W. 1. gave a written complaint and narrated the events that had taken place from the morning of 25.8.2005 till the time of incident. In the first information, P.W. 1 has stated that she had taken the help of accused to shift her residence from III Cross to the Paying Guest situate at I Cross. P.W. 1 had not even suspected the accused in the first information lodged by her. P.W. 1 has categorically stated that the main door of the house was locked. On the same day at about 8.00 p.m. the police showed the keys marked as M.O. 6. P.W. 1 identified the same. P.W. 1 identified the blood stained pyjama of her father as M.O. 3, blood stained blanket marked as M.O. 1 and blood stained sweater marked as M.O. 4. Thus, from the evidence of P.W. 1 we find that she did not have enmity or grudge against the accused. She had deposed about the circumstances, which the mother of accused and accused were employed by her. She has also deposed that she has provided a room for their stay in the paying guesthouse. Therefore, we have no reasons to suspect her evidence. 10. She had deposed about the circumstances, which the mother of accused and accused were employed by her. She has also deposed that she has provided a room for their stay in the paying guesthouse. Therefore, we have no reasons to suspect her evidence. 10. The evidence of P.W. 2- Niketha (daughter of P.W. 1) is more or less similar to the evidence of P.W. 1. However, P.W. 2 has stated that when the accused had entered the house at 1 O’clock to collect the regulator fixed to the cylinder, the deceased had scolded him for visiting the house time and again and also charged him that he had come to commit robbery and he would inform the matter to the police. Thus, the evidence of P.W. 2 proves there was altercation between the accused and deceased at the crucial time. 11. P.W. 3-Srinivas Narayan has deposed that the mother of accused by name Philomena had been employed by P.W. 1 for general upkeeping of the paying guesthouse. The accused used to help his mother for fetching the articles and other things required by paying guests. The accused and his mother were residing in a room of paying guesthouse, which was provided by P.W. 1. 12. P.W. 3 has deposed that on learning about the murder, he came to the place of incident, and saw the dead body of Joe Johnson. P.W. 3 has deposed; that on the same day at about. 8 O’clock, the accused was brought to that house by police. P.Ws. 2, 3 and 10-Siddesh accompanied the police and accused. The accused led them to a vacant site situate at a distance of 500 to 800 meters from the place of incident. After searching in a bush, the accused traced the key and gave it to the police, which was seized by the police under mahazar as per Ex. P3. P.W. 3 has identified the key as MO.6 before the Court. P.W. 3 has deposed; that the accused thereafter led the police and witnesses to a room in the ground floor of paying guesthouse, which was in occupation of the accused and his mother. The accused produced one T-shirt, one trouser and one Vest before the police. Those clothes were partially wet. There were bloodstains on the clothes. The Investigating Officer seized the clothes under mahazar as per Ex. P4. The accused produced one T-shirt, one trouser and one Vest before the police. Those clothes were partially wet. There were bloodstains on the clothes. The Investigating Officer seized the clothes under mahazar as per Ex. P4. He has identified the clothes recovered at the instance of accused as MO’s. 8 to 10. During cross-examination of P.W. 3, it has been elicited that the accused shifted the dead body into an autorickshaw. 13. The learned counsel for accused would submit that PW.3 has admitted that accused shifted the dead body into an autorickshaw, Therefore, the clothes of accused getting bloodstains cannot be ruled out. This submission cannot be accepted for more than one reason. P.W. 3 has denied a suggestion that T-Shirt marked as per MO. 10 was on the person of the accused when he shifted the dead body into the autorickshaw. It appears from the evidence of P.W. 3 that the dead body was shifted around 7.00 p.m. The incident of murder had taken place at about 2.00 p.m. Therefore, the blood had clotted and the possibility of clothes of accused stained with blood in the process of shifting of dead body can safely be ruled out. In addition to this, P.W. 9-Shashikala has deposed that the dead body was wrapped before it was shifted from the place of incident to the hospital. 14. P.W. 4-Sampath Kumar was a tenant in occupation of the ground floor of the building. The second floor of the said building was in occupation-of P.Ws. 9 and 10. P.W. 4 has deposed that in the first floor of the building, P.W. 1 and deceased and two unmarried daughters of P.W. 1 were residing. P.W. 4 has deposed that he returned to the house at 8.30 p.m., on the date of incident. He received information about the murder of Joe Johnson, which had taken place in his house and the police brought the accused. The accused was in police custody. He had seen the accused and he had denied about the recovery of incriminating articles at the instance of accused. P.W. 4 was declared as a hostile witness, therefore, his evidence was not available to the prosecution. 15. P.W. 5-Manivannan who was examined to prove the recovery of incriminating articles has not supported the case of prosecution. Therefore, he was declared as a hostile witness. 16. P.W. 4 was declared as a hostile witness, therefore, his evidence was not available to the prosecution. 15. P.W. 5-Manivannan who was examined to prove the recovery of incriminating articles has not supported the case of prosecution. Therefore, he was declared as a hostile witness. 16. P.W. 8-Gopal, police constable of Hennur P.S. has given evidence relating to despatch of first information report to the jurisdictional Magistrate. P.W. 6 has deposed; that he gave the first information to the jurisdictional Magistrate at 2.00 p.m., on 28.8.2005. 17. P.W. 7-Rajan has deposed; that as instructed by the police, he took the photographs of the deceased from different angles. 18. The evidence of P.W. 8-Gopala Krishnaiah relates to the postmortem examination report and return of articles to P.W. 18. 19. P.W. 9-ShashikaIa and her husband P.W. 10-Siddesh are the landlords of the building, which consists of 3 floors. P.Ws. 9 and 10 have deposed that they were in occupation of second floor of the building. The first floor of the building was in occupation of P.W. 1, deceased and daughters of P.W. 1. They were staying as tenants. The ground floor of building was in occupation of P.W. 4-Sampath Kumar. P.W. 9 has deposed; that on the date of incident, at about 1.15 p.m., P.W. 9 and her husband P.W. 10-Siddesh returned to their house after seeing a movie. When they were climbing the staircase to reach their house, they had come across a person aged about 24-25 years coming down on the staircase. P.W. 9 has deposed; that 10 minutes thereafter, there was commotion. Therefore, P.Ws. 9 and 10 came and learnt that there was murder in the house of P.W. 1. They saw the dead body of Joe Johnson. P.W. 9 was declared as a hostile witness for resiling from her statement and also for refusing to identify the accused before the Court. 20. The evidence of P.W. 10 is more or less similar to the evidence of P.W. 9, however, he has deposed; that when he had been to police station at 7.30 p.m., he saw the accused in the police station. The accused made a statement that he had seen P.Ws. 9 and 10 while coming down on the staircase of the building of P.Ws. 9 and 10. The accused made a statement that he had seen P.Ws. 9 and 10 while coming down on the staircase of the building of P.Ws. 9 and 10. P.W. 10 has deposed; that the accused was helping the police and other workers while shifting the dead body of deceased from the house to auto rickshaw to carry if for postmortem examination. P.W. 10 has deposed; that on the same day, the accused was brought by the police. The accused led the police and the witnesses to the kitchen of the house of P.W. 1 and pointed out a knife. The same was seized by the police. Thereafter, the accused led the police and other witnesses to a vacant site situate at a distance of 200 feet, from his house. The police searched for the key in torchlight. The accused himself traced the key in. a bush and gave it, to the police. P.W. 10 has identified the key and it was the original key of the house, which was under occupation of P.W. 1-Sabrina. Thereafter, the accused took the police and witnesses to a room of paying guesthouse and produced blood stained clothes from the room, which was in occupation of accused and his mother. 21. P.Ws. 9 and 10 have not identified the accused as the person who was getting down from staircase immediately before the incident. Yet, the evidence of P.W. 10 about recovery of key and blood stained clothes of accused and presence of accused when the dead body was shifted in an auto rickshaw from the house to hospital and recovery of incriminating articles on the information volunteered by the accused, would lend substantial corroboration to the evidence of P.W. 3. 22. Apart from these two witnesses, we have also the evidence of P.W. 18-Abdul Rahim, the Investigating officer regarding recovery of key and blood stained clothes and knife on the information volunteered by the accused and the FSL report marked as per Ex. P43 and evidence given by P.W. 19 to prove that the clothes of deceased (M.O. 5) and clothes of accused (MO’s. 8 to 10) were stained with ‘A’ group blood. 23. The Investigating officer has given evidence relating to arrest of the accused and also voluntary statement made by him which led to recovery of incriminating articles. P43 and evidence given by P.W. 19 to prove that the clothes of deceased (M.O. 5) and clothes of accused (MO’s. 8 to 10) were stained with ‘A’ group blood. 23. The Investigating officer has given evidence relating to arrest of the accused and also voluntary statement made by him which led to recovery of incriminating articles. The evidence given by the independent witnesses would lend corroboration to the evidence of Investigating Officer regarding recovery of incriminating articles on the information volunteered by the accused. P.Ws. 1, 9 and 10 have identified MO.8 as Key of the house in which P.W. 1 and her father were residing, where the incident of murder had taken place. 24. The learned counsel for accused would submit that the prosecution has not proved the motive for accused to commit the offence. P.Ws. 9 and 10 have not identified the accused as the person whom they had seen on the staircase of their house before the incident. The accused had helped the police to shift the dead body. Therefore, his conduct is consistent with the conduct of an innocent person. 25. We have discussed the evidence of P.Ws. 9 and 10 that they had seen a young man aged about 24-25 years getting down on the staircase from first floor about 10 minutes prior to the time of incident. Therefore, their evidence is sufficient to prove that they had seen a young person coming down on the staircase from the first floor about 10 minutes prior to the time of incident. 26. P.Ws. 3 and 9 have admitted that the accused was helping the police to shift the dead body. P.W. 9 has categorically staled that the accused was not wearing the T-Shirt (MO10) when he shifted the dead body of deceased from the house to auto rickshaw. The conduct of the accused instead of exculpating him would inculpate him. As per the evidence of P.W. 1, the accused was the only person employed by her to shift her residence from the morning of 25.8.2005. He had visited the house of P.W. 1 for more than two times from the morning till the time of incident. The accused knew that the deceased was the father of P.W. 1. After the incident, the accused had changed his clothes when he had come to shift the dead body. He had visited the house of P.W. 1 for more than two times from the morning till the time of incident. The accused knew that the deceased was the father of P.W. 1. After the incident, the accused had changed his clothes when he had come to shift the dead body. The accused by joining others to shift the dead body has made feeble attempt to show that he was not the perpetrator of crime. In a way, the accused had attempted to mislead the investigation. 27. Thus, we hold that the evidence adduced by the prosecution through the above witnesses would prove the following: (i) The homicidal death of Joe Johnson took place around 2.00 p.m., on. 25.8.2005 in the house of P.W. 1. (ii) The accused had visited the house of P.W. 1. for more than one occasion from the morning of 25.8.2005. (iii) The accused had visited the house of P.W. 1. soon before the incident of assault. (iv) The accused had altercation with the deceased when he had visited the house of P.W. 1. (v) The accused had locked the main door of the house after the incident. (vi) There were bloodstains on the clothes of the accused. (vii) The accused has not explained the circumstances under which the key of the main door of the house of P.W. 1 came to his possession. (viii) The accused has not explained the circumstances under which his clothes were stained with blood. (ix) The conduct of the accused concealing his bloodstained clothes and wearing another pair of clothes to participate in shifting the dead body to mislead the investigation would provide additional link in the chain of circumstances. (x) The clothes of accused and clothes of deceased were stained with ‘A’ group blood. The witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution did not have grudge or enmity against the accused. Therefore, we have no reasons to suspect their evidence. The prosecution has established the circumstances put-forth by adducing cogent and conclusive evidence. The evidence adduced by the prosecution is entirely consistent with the guilt of the accused and excludes the innocence of accused. The learned trial Judge on proper appreciation of evidence has held the accused guilty of an offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. Therefore, we do not find any reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment. 28. The evidence adduced by the prosecution is entirely consistent with the guilt of the accused and excludes the innocence of accused. The learned trial Judge on proper appreciation of evidence has held the accused guilty of an offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. Therefore, we do not find any reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment. 28. In the result we pass the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed.