JUDGMENT N. ANANDA, J.—The State has filed this appeal against the acquittal of respondent (hereinafter referred to as ‘accused’) for offences punishable under sections 302 & 201 IPC. 2. We have heard Sri N.S. Sampangiramaiah, learned HCGP for State and Sri E.R. Diwakar, learned Amicus Curiae. We have been taken through evidence and the impugned judgment. 3. In brief, the case of prosecution and inter se relationship of some of the prosecution witnesses and accused may be stated thus: Deceased Somasekhar was the son of P.W. 6-Rathnamma DW1-Papanna is the father of accused and nephew of P.W. 4-Ramaiah. Deceased Somasekhar was the son of the younger sister of DW1. Thus, accused and deceased Somasekhar were related to each other. About 4 years prior to 12.9.2003, deceased Somasekhar had assaulted the elder brother of accused by name Ravi. Therefore, accused had ill-will against deceased Somasekhar. The accused and P.W. 4 are the residents of Kodichikkanahalli, within the jurisdiction of Madivala police station. Deceased Somasekhar was also a resident of Kodichikkanahalli, he was an electrician by occupation. On 12.9.2003 at about 7.80 p.m., deceased along with one Earappa (not examined before the trial Court) left his house and went near orchestra function that was arranged as a part of Ganesha Festival in Kodichikkanahalli. P.W. 7-Ravi and P.W. 8-Vijayakumar were also present near the venue of orchestra. The accused came near the venue of orchestra. There was quarrel between the accused and deceased Somasekhar. Thereafter, deceased Somasekhar went towards an arrack shop and accused followed him. On the same day when orchestra was about to be concluded, P.W. 7 & P.W. 8 were going towards their house. On the way, they saw the accused hitting on the head of deceased Somasekhar with a brick bat. Deceased Somasekhar fell down and accused was carrying deceased Somasekhar on his shoulder. P.W. 7 & P.W. 8 questioned the accused, who told them that he was carrying deceased Somasekhar to his house. On the following day dead body of deceased Somasekhar was found in a vacant site near the building of one Khan situate at Aleem Layout in Kodichikkanahalli. P.W. 6-Rathnamma, the mother of deceased Somasekhar lodged first Information against unknown persons. The Investigating Officer (P.W. 11) visited the place of incident and held inquest, dead body was subjected to post-mortem examination. 4. P.W. 1-Dr. P.W. 6-Rathnamma, the mother of deceased Somasekhar lodged first Information against unknown persons. The Investigating Officer (P.W. 11) visited the place of incident and held inquest, dead body was subjected to post-mortem examination. 4. P.W. 1-Dr. Udayashankar conducted post-mortem examination and found that deceased had sustained as many as 46 stab injuries and 12 lacerations and death was due to shock and haemorrhage, consequent to multiple injuries. Ex.P.1 is the post-mortem examination report. At this juncture, it is necessary to state that evidence of P.W. 1. that deceased had suffered 46 stab injuries and 12 lacerations and his death was due to shock and haemorrhage on a vacant plot near the building of one Khan situate in Aleem Layout in Kodichikkanahalli has not been controverted by the defence. The place of incident has not been controverted by the defence. The accused had also suffered injuries and he was examined by P.W. 12-Dr.Sujathaon 15.9.2003. P.W. 12 on examination of accused found following injuries: 1. A single linear superficial laceration measuring 1 cm x 1/4 cm x 1/4 cm, over middle of hypothener eminence. 2. A single superficial abrasion measuring 1/4 x 1/4 cm over lateral aspect of right ring finger. 5. As directed by the Investigating Officer, P.W. 12 has collected bloodstained nail clippings of right finger and left finger of accused and handed over the same to the Investigation Officer. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of witnesses and sent incriminating articles to Forensic Science Laboratory. On completion of investigation, Investigating Officer filed chargesheet against accused for aforestated offences. 6. On. behalf of prosecution, P.W. 1 to P.W. 12 were examined and documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.15 were marked and M.O.I to M.O.12 were marked. On behalf of accused, the father of accused namely Papanna was examined as DW1. 7. The learned trial Judge on appreciation of evidence and on hearing learned counsel for parties, acquitted the accused by assigning following reasons: I. The prosecution has not adduced satisfactory evidence to prove that accused had motive to commit the murder of deceased Somasekhar. II. The evidence adduced by prosecution through P.W. 7 & P.W. 8 is discrepant and cannot be believed. III. The evidence of Investigating Officer regarding recovery of a pair of hand gloves and a knife on the information volunteered by accused is not credible. IV. The contents of Forensic Science Laboratory Report cannot be believed. II. The evidence adduced by prosecution through P.W. 7 & P.W. 8 is discrepant and cannot be believed. III. The evidence of Investigating Officer regarding recovery of a pair of hand gloves and a knife on the information volunteered by accused is not credible. IV. The contents of Forensic Science Laboratory Report cannot be believed. V. The medical evidence given by P.W. 1 that deceased Somasekhar had suffered as many as 67 injuries and the injuries could not have been caused by a single person would belie evidence adduced by the prosecution. 8. In order to bring home guilt of accused, the prosecution has relied on the following circumstances: I. Motive II. The homicidal death of deceased Sornasekhar in a vacant site near the building of one Khan situate in Aleem Layout in Kodichikkanahalli. III. There was quarrel between accused and deceased Somasekhar on the night of 12.9.2003 near orchestra function arranged as a part of Ganesha festival in Kodichikkanahalli. IV. Deceased Somasekhar was last seen alive in the company of accused. V. The recovery of incriminating articles on the information volunteered by accused. VI. The injuries found on the accused and the failure of accused to offer any explanation as to how he had suffered such injuries. VII. The contents of Forensic Science Laboratory report indicating the bloodstains found on the knife, a pair of handgloves recovered on the information volunteered by accused and bloodstains found on the clothes of accused are of ‘O’ group. VIII. Presence of human blood on nail clippings of accused. 9. P.W. 6-Rathnanmma is the mother of deceased Somasekhar. P.W. 6 has deposed; about 4 years prior to the date of incident, deceased Somasekhar had assaulted Ravi, the elder brother of accused, therefore, accused bore grudge against deceased Somasekhar. 10. The learned amicus curiae for accused referring to the evidence of P.W. 6 would submit that motive attributed to accused is remote. 11. We are not persuaded to accept the submission of learned amicus curiae for accused and the finding recorded by the learned trial Judge for the following reasons: As could be seen from the evidence of P.W. 6, she was a helpless lady, she had lost her husband; she had lost her son (deceased Somasekhar), who was the only breadwinner of her family. P.W. 6 did not have grudge against the accused to falsely implicate him. P.W. 6 did not have grudge against the accused to falsely implicate him. In the first information, P.W. 6 had not suspected the involvement of accused, as lie happened to be her relative. Therefore, we have no reasons to suspect the evidence of P.W. 6. 12. P.W. 7 & P.W. 8 have deposed that on 12.9.2003, near the venue of orchestra, which was arranged as a part of Ganesha Festival in Kodichikkanahalli, accused and deceased Somasekhar were quarrelling. Thus, the evidence of P.W. 7 & P.W. 8 would prove the immediate motive for the incident. 13. The learned amicus curiae for accused would submit that P.W. 7 & P.W. 8 are planted witnesses, therefore, their evidence cannot be relied upon. 14. The question as to whether P.W. 7 & P.W. 8 are planted witnesses and they have given false evidence against accused to falsely implicate him will be considered at later part while dealing with the circumstance that deceased Somasekhar was last seen alive in the company of accused. Therefore, from the evidence of P.W. 6 to P.W. 8, the prosecution has proved the immediate motive, yet the fact remains that proof of motive will not help the prosecution unless the Court finds that the evidence adduced by prosecution in proof of other circumstances is consistent and credible. 15. This fact has not been seriously controverted. The medical evidence of P.W. 1 and contents of post-mortem examination report would reveal that deceased Somasekhar had suffered as many as 67 injuries and most of the injuries were stab injuries. 16. The learned amicus curiae for accused, relying on the evidence of P.W. 1 would justify the finding recorded by the learned trial Judge that injuries found on deceased Somasekhar, which were as many as 67 in numbers could not have been caused by a single person. 17. It is the case of prosecution that deceased Somasekhar had been repeatedly stabbed with a knife. As per the evidence of P.W. 1, incised and stab injuries found on deceased could have been caused with a knife. It is not a case where injuries found on deceased Somasekhar were caused by using different weapons. Therefore, submission of learned amicus curiae for accused that finding recorded by the learned trial Judge that the injuries found on deceased Somasekhar could not have been caused by a single person cannot be accepted. 18. It is not a case where injuries found on deceased Somasekhar were caused by using different weapons. Therefore, submission of learned amicus curiae for accused that finding recorded by the learned trial Judge that the injuries found on deceased Somasekhar could not have been caused by a single person cannot be accepted. 18. We also find from the evidence of P.W. 1 that he has assigned reasons to arrive at such conclusion. The learned trial Judge without considering that opinion given by P.W. 1. was not supported by reasons has accepted the evidence given by P.W. 1 that the injuries found on deceased Somasekhar could not have been caused by a single person. The number of injuries inflicted on deceased Somasekhar would depend upon opportunity available to accused and his propensity to inflict the injuries. Therefore, we hold that death of deceased Somasekhar was homicidal in nature and his murder was committed in a vacant site near the building of one Khan situate in Aleem Layout in Kodichikkanahalli. The probable time at which the murder was committed will be discussed while appreciating the evidence in proof of the circumstance that deceased Somasekhar was last seen alive in the company of accused. 19. In order to prove the circumstances that deceased was last seen alive in the company of accused prosecution has relied on the evidence of P.W. 7 & P.W. 8. It is not in dispute and cannot be disputed that at the relevant time P.W. 7 & P.W. 8 were the residents of Kodichikkanahalli and they knew accused and deceased Somasekhar. 20. It is not in dispute and cannot be disputed that at the relevant time P.W. 7 & P.W. 8 were the residents of Kodichikkanahalli and they knew accused and deceased Somasekhar. 20. P.W. 7-Ravi has deposed; he knew accused and deceased; on 12.9.2003, an orchestra was arranged as a part of Ganesha Festival in Kodichikkanahalli; on 12.9.2003 at about, 7.30 p.m., P.W. 7 & P.W. 8 had gone to the venue of orchestra, at that time, CW11-Anthony and others were present; when P.W. 7 & P.W. 8 were near the venue of orchestra, accused and deceased came there; P.W. 7 & P.W. 8 were acquainted with the accused and deceased; after some time, P.W. 7 saw the deceased and accused quarrelling with each other; after the quarrel, deceased was proceeding towards an arrack shop; on that day at about 11 p.m., when orchestra was concluded, P.W. 7 & P.W. 8 were returning to their houses; on the way they saw accused assaulting the deceased with a brick bat; deceased fell down; accused was carrying deceased on his shoulder; when P.W. 7 & P.W. 8 questioned the accused, accused told them that he was carrying the deceased to his house; accused was carrying deceased towards Aleem Layout in Kodichikkanahalli; P.W. 7 & P.W. 8 returned to their houses; on the following day, during the morning P.W. 7 & P.W. 8 learnt about the death of deceased; dead body was found lying in a vacant site near the building of one Khan situate in Aleem Layout at Kodichikkanahalli; they visited the place and found dead body of Somashekar with multiple injuries. During cross-examination, P.W. 7 has reiterated that when orchestra was going on accused and deceased were quarrelling and they were abusing each other; about 200 people were present when orchestra commenced; when orchestra concluded, there were 150 persons; before P.W. 7 & P.W. 8 reached the venue of orchestra, accused and deceased were there and they were quarrelling with each other after the deceased went to an arrack shop, he did not return back to the venue of orchestra. P.W. 7 has denied suggestion that he had not seen the accused assaulting the deceased at 11 p.m., and he had not seen accused carrying deceased towards Aleem Layout. P.W. 7 has denied the suggestion that no orchestra was arranged in Kodichikkanahalli village and he had not seen the accused and deceased. P.W. 7 has denied suggestion that he had not seen the accused assaulting the deceased at 11 p.m., and he had not seen accused carrying deceased towards Aleem Layout. P.W. 7 has denied the suggestion that no orchestra was arranged in Kodichikkanahalli village and he had not seen the accused and deceased. 21. P.W. 8-Vijayakumar has deposed that: He knew accused and deceased; on 12.9.2003, an orchestra was arranged as a part of Ganesha Festival in Kodichikkanahalli; on 12.9.2003 at about 7.30 p.m., P.W. 7 & P.W. 8 had gone to the venue of orchestra, at that time, CW11-Anthony and others were present; when P.W. 7 & P.W. 8 were near the venue of orchestra accused and deceased were quarrelling with each other; after some time, P.W. 8 saw the deceased proceeding towards an arrack shop; the accused followed the deceased; on that day at about 11 p.m., when orchestra was concluded P.W. 7 & P.W. 8 were returning to their houses; on the way they saw accused assaulting the deceased with a stone; deceased fell down; accused was carrying the deceased on his shoulder when P.W. 7 & P.W. 8 questioned the accused, accused told them that he was carrying the deceased to his house; accused was carrying deceased towards Aleem Layout in Kodichikkanahalli; P.W. 7 & P.W. 8 returned to their houses; on the following day, during the morning P.W. 7 & P.W. 8 learnt about the death of deceased and dead body was found lying in a vacant site near the building of one Khan situate in Afeem Layout in Kodichikkanahalli; they visited the place and found dead body of Somashekar with multiple injuries. During cross-examination, P.W. 8 has reiterated that when orchestra, was going on accused and deceased were quarrelling and abusing each other; about 200 people were present when orchestra commenced; when orchestra concluded, there were 150 persons; before P.W. 7 & P.W. 8 reached the venue of orchestra, accused and deceased were present, and they were quarrelling each other; the deceased did not return back to the venue of orchestra from the arrack shop. P.W. 8 has deposed; at 11 p.m., when P.W. 7 & P.W. 8 were returning to their house, on the way, they saw accused and deceased quarrelling; accused assaulted on the head of deceased with a brick; deceased fell down and accused lifted the deceased and carrying the deceased on his shoulder; when questioned by P.W. 7 & P.W. 8, accused told them that he was carrying the deceased to his house; so saying accused carried the deceased towards Aleem Layout in Kodichikkanahalli; thereafter, P.W. 7 & P.W. 8 returned to their houses; on the following day morning, P.W. 8 learnt about the death of deceased. During cross-examination, P.W. 8 has denied the suggestion that he had not seen accused and deceased either near the venue of orchestra or after the orchestra was concluded and he had not gone to the venue of orchestra. P.W. 8 has denied the suggestion that at 11 p.m., on that day, he had not seen the accused assaulting the deceased and carrying the deceased. 22. We notice from the evidence of P.W. 7 & P.W. 8 that their examination-in-chief and cross-examination was concluded on 22.12.2004. However, on 22.2.2005, after examination of accused under section 313 Cr.P.C; after the defence evidence of DW1 was adduced, learned counsel for accused made an application under section 311 Cr.P.C, on 5.8.2005 to recall P.W. 7 & P.W. 8. The trial Court by order dated 3.9.2005, recalled P.W. 7 & P.W. 8 for further cross-examination by the learned counsel for accused. On 18.9.2005, they were further cross-examined by the learned counsel for accused. During further cross-examination by the learned counsel for accused, P.W. 7 has deposed that he had given evidence on 22.12.2004, as instructed, by one Ravi (brother-in-law of deceased). 23. During further cross-examination by the learned counsel for accused, P.W. 8 has deposed on 22.12.2004, when he had given evidence, the brother-in-law of deceased namely Ravi had attended the Court and P.W. 8 had given evidence as instructed by said Ravi. 24. The learned trial Judge referring to evidence given by P.W. 7 & P.W. 8 on 16.9.2005 has held that on 22.12,2004, P.W. 7 & P.W. 8 had been effectively cross-examined. If P.W. 7 & P.W. 8 had been brought to the Court by said Ravi on 22.1.2.2004, there was no impediment for the accused to cross-examine P.W. 7 & P.W. 8 on that fact. If P.W. 7 & P.W. 8 had been brought to the Court by said Ravi on 22.1.2.2004, there was no impediment for the accused to cross-examine P.W. 7 & P.W. 8 on that fact. Therefore, the answers elicited during further cross-examination of P.W. 7 & P.W. 8 on 1.6.9.2005 cannot be accepted as true evidence. 25. We see from records that after examination of accused under section 313 Cr.P.C, and after defence evidence was adduced, the learned counsel for accused has filed applications under section 311 Cr.P.C on 22.12.2005, 2.2.2005, 5.8.2005 and 12.8.2005. 26. We notice from the evidence of P.W. 7 and P.W. 8 that were recalled only to dilute evidence given by them on 22.12.2004. We notice from records, the accused have misused section 311 Cr.P.C., as if provisions of section 311 Cr.P.C, are meant for recalling the witnesses for further cross-examination either to dilute or distort the evidence already given by the witnesses. 27. In a decision reported in (2008) 15 SCC 652 (in the case of Hanuman Ram vs. State of Rajasthan and others), the Supreme Court has held: “6. .....Once the witness was examined-in-chief and cross-examined fully, such witness should not have been recalled and re-examined to deny the evidence he had already given before the Court, even though that witness had given an inconsistent statement before any other Court or forum subsequently. A witness could be confronted only with a previous statement made by him. At the time of examination of P.W. 2 Mokam Singh on 6-2-1991, there was no such previous statement and the defence counsel did not confront him with any statement alleged to have been made previously. This witness must have given some other version before the Juvenile Court for extraneous reasons and he should not have been given a further opportunity at a later stage to completely efface the evidence already given by him under oath. The Courts have to follow the procedures strictly and cannot allow a witness to escape the legal action for giving false evidence before the Court on mere explanation that he had given it under the pressure of the police or for some other reason. The Courts have to follow the procedures strictly and cannot allow a witness to escape the legal action for giving false evidence before the Court on mere explanation that he had given it under the pressure of the police or for some other reason. Whenever the witness speaks falsehood in the Court and it is proved satisfactorily, the Court, should take a serious action against such witnesses.” In the case on hand, we have carefully gone through the evidence on record that on 16.9.2005, P.W. 7 & P.W. 8 were recalled after their evidence was recorded on 22.12.2004. Accused had won over P.W. 7 & P.W. 8 and made an application for recalling P.W. 7 & P.W. 8 on 5.8.2005. 28. We have gone through the application dated. 5.8.2005, wherein it is stated that during cross-examination of P.W. 7 & P.W. 8 on 22.12.2004. certain important questions relating to alleged incident were not put to witnesses due to inadvertence. The learned trial Judge without adverting to the contents of application and the provisions of section 311 Cr.P.C, had recalled P.W. 7 & P.W. 8. On 16.9.2005, P.W. 7 & P.W. 8 were recalled and subjected to further cross-examination by learned counsel for accused to elicit from P.W. 7 & P.W. 8 that on 22.12.2004, they had given evidence at the instance of Ravi (brother-in-law of deceased). It is obvious that this was not the purpose for which P.W. 7 & P.W. 8. were recalled for further cross-examination. From the conduct of P.W. 7 & P.W. 8 and also from the conduct of accused, we find that persons interested in the accused had won over P.W. 7 & P.W. 3 and had compelled them to disown their evidence given on 22.12.2004. The learned counsel for accused had made an application on 5.8.2005 by making false statement that some important questions were not put to P.W. 7 & P.W. 8 when they were cross-examined on 22.12.2004. After the witnesses were recalled, learned counsel for accused in all fairness should have questioned P.W. 7 & P.W. 8 regarding the alleged incident. Above all, P.W. 7 & P.W. 8 were not child witnesses for being tutored. Therefore, the learned trial Judge was justified in ignoring evidence given by P.W. 7 & P.W. 8 on 16.9.2005. 29. After the witnesses were recalled, learned counsel for accused in all fairness should have questioned P.W. 7 & P.W. 8 regarding the alleged incident. Above all, P.W. 7 & P.W. 8 were not child witnesses for being tutored. Therefore, the learned trial Judge was justified in ignoring evidence given by P.W. 7 & P.W. 8 on 16.9.2005. 29. The learned amicus curiae for accused referring to evidence of P.W. 7 & P.W. 8 and the findings of learned trial Judge, would submit that the conduct of P.W. 7 & P.W. 8 is inconsistent with their evidence. If P.W. 7 & P.W. 8 had seen the accused assaulting the deceased with a brick bat, they should have gone to rescue the deceased; they should have informed the matter to the mother of deceased after learning about murder of the deceased; they should have informed the matter to police after the murder of deceased on 12.9.2003 on 18.9.2003. The Investigating Officer had recorded statements of P.W. 7 & P.W. 8 under section 161 Cr.P.C. 30. In order to appreciate these submissions, we have examined the evidence of P.W. 7 & P.W. 8. From the evidence of P.W. 7 & P.W. 8, we find that they were neither interested in the deceased nor they were inimical to accused. 31. In a decision reported in AIR 1953 SC 864 (in the case of Dalip Singh and others vs. the State of Punjab), the Supreme Court has held: “A witness is normally considered to be independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means that unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely.” 32. We find P.W. 7 & P.W. 8 are independent witnesses. They had nothing to gain by the success of case of prosecution or nothing to lose by the failure of the case of prosecution. P.W. 7 had seen the deceased going towards arrack shop. P.W. 8 had also seen the accused going towards arrack shop when P.W. 7 & P.W. 8 were returning to their houses, they were aware that accused and deceased were drunk and accused was hitting the deceased with a brick bat, therefore P.W. 7 & P.W. 8 might not have ventured to rescue the deceased. As already stated, accused and the deceased were related to each other. As already stated, accused and the deceased were related to each other. In the circumstances, P.W. 7 & P.W. 8 had no reasons to suspect the accused when he was carrying deceased on his shoulder. 33. In the post-mortem examination report, the column relating to contents of stomach would reveal presence of alcohol which lends corroboration to evidence of P.W. 7 & P.W. 8 that they had seen deceased going towards an arrack shop at 7.30 p.m. on 12.9.2003. 34. Now we will advert to the question as to whether there was any deliberate intention on the part of the Investigating Officer to belatedly record the statements of P.W. 7 & P.W. 8 and criticism made against conduct of P.W. 7 & P.W. 8 that they had not informed the incident to the mother of deceased on the following day; P.W. 7 & P.W. 8 on their own had not gone to the police station to lodge first information. We find from records that first information was lodged against an unknown person. The involvement of accused was not suspected when first information was lodged. The deceased and accused were related to each other. In the circumstances, P.W. 7 & P.W. 8 had no reasons to suspect that accused had killed the deceased. Therefore, P.W. 7 & P.W. 8 had not ventured to inform the matter to the mother of deceased. Therefore, this cannot be a ground to discard the evidence of P.W. 7 & P.W. 8. As already stated, P.W. 7 & P.W. 8 are independent witnesses. They were reluctant to lodge first information against the accused. 35. After going through the evidence of the Investigating Officer (P.W. 11), we find that. P.W. 11 was not cross-examined about reasons for delay in recording the statements of P.W. 7 & P.W. 8 under section 161 Cr.P.C. We also notice from records of investigation the involvement of accused was suspected after he was arrested on 15.9.2003. At the first instance, investigation had proceeded against an unknown culprit. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the Investigating Officer did not have deliberate intention to belatedly record the statements of P.W. 7 & P.W. 8 on 18.9.2003 to give a definite shape to the case of prosecution or to plant the witnesses. As already stated P.W. 7 & P.W. 8 are independent witnesses and they had no grudge against the accused. As already stated P.W. 7 & P.W. 8 are independent witnesses and they had no grudge against the accused. In the circumstances, it is not possible to hold that P.W. 7 & P.W. 8 had given false evidence to implicate the accused in a case of murder. Therefore, the submission of learned amicus curiae for accused and finding recorded by the learned trial Judge to discredit the evidence of P.W. 7 & P.W. 8 cannot be accepted. 36. The learned amicus curiae for accused relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court, reported in (2005) SCC (Cri) 842 (in the case of State of U.P. vs. Satish), would submit that while considering the circumstance of last-seen theory, if the time-gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small, the possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible. In the aforesaid decision, the Supreme Court has held: “22. The last-seen theory comes into play where the time-gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen 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. 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. In this case there is positive evidence that the deceased and the accused were seen together by witnesses P.Ws. 3 and 5, in addition to the evidence of P.W. 2.” In the case on hand, the deceased was last seen alive in the company of accused at 11.30 p.m. on 12.9.2003, when accused was carrying the deceased towards a building of one Khan in Aleem Layout in Kodichikkanahalli, thereafter the deceased was not seen alive. On the following day, i.e., on 13.9.2003 morning probably after 7.30 or 8 a.m., some one had noticed dead body of deceased. On the following day, i.e., on 13.9.2003 morning probably after 7.30 or 8 a.m., some one had noticed dead body of deceased. In the circumstances of the case, it is not possible to hold that there was a long time gap between point of time when P.W. 7 & P.WS. had seen the accused carrying the deceased and the point of time when dead body of deceased was noticed. Therefore, we hold that prosecution has adduced cogent and consistent evidence to prove that deceased was last seen alive in the company of accused. 37. From the evidence of P.W. 11, we find, that accused was arrested on 15.9.2008. From the evidence of P.W. 11, we find that accused gave voluntary statement. The relevant and admissible portion of statement of accused is marked as Ex. P. 11. 38. P.W. 9 has deposed about the accused leading the Investigating Officer and other prosecution witnesses to his house and accused removing a knife and a pair of hand gloves from a shelf of room of accused. P.W. 9 has deposed that they were stained with blood and they were seized under mahazar as per Ex.P.8 and he has signed the mahazar as per Ex.P.8(a). P.W. 9 has identified knife as M.O.2 and a pair of hand gloves as M.O. 10 before Court. During cross-examination, P.W. 9 has deposed that on 15.9.2003, police took P.W. 9 and Earappa to the house of accused; accused removed a knife (MO2), a pair of hand gloves (MO-10) from shelf of a room of his house. P.W. 9 has denied suggestion that he has falsely deposed at the instance of P.W. 4, who was inimical to the father of accused. 39. We find from the evidence of P.W. 9 that he is an independent witness, he did not have enmity against the accused nor he was interested in the success of the ease of prosecution. The evidence of P.W. 11 regarding voluntary information given by accused and seizure of incriminating articles does not suffer from any discrepancy. Therefore, we hold that prosecution has proved recovery of a bloodstained knife and a pair of hand gloves from shelf of room of accused in pursuance to voluntary information given by accused. 40. We also find from Forensic Science Laboratory report marked as Ex. Therefore, we hold that prosecution has proved recovery of a bloodstained knife and a pair of hand gloves from shelf of room of accused in pursuance to voluntary information given by accused. 40. We also find from Forensic Science Laboratory report marked as Ex. P.13 and report of Serologist marked as Ex..P.15 that bloodstained clothes of deceased and a pair of hand gloves and a knife were stained with. ‘O’ group blood. Therefore, we hold that prosecution has proved recovery of weapon of offence and a pair of bloodstained hand gloves and bloodstains found on the knife and a pair of hand gloves arid clothes of deceased were of ‘O’ group. 41. The learned amicus curiae for accused, referring to the evidence of Investigating Officer and the findings recorded by the learned trial Judge would submit that the learned trial Judge was justified in holding that when accused had destroyed his bloodstained clothes, there was no need for the accused to keep a pair of hand gloves and a knife to produce them before the Investigating Officer. 42. We are not persuaded to accept this submission and finding recorded by the learned trial Judge for the following reasons: The accused had opportunity to destroy his clothes, however, the manner of destroying clothes is totally different from destroying a knife and a pair of hand gloves. M.O.2 is a steel knife, it is about 11 inches in length. The time required and the manner of disposal of articles necessarily depends upon the nature of articles. A steel knife cannot be destroyed or brought to a different form without melting it. The incident took place on the intervening night of 12/13.9.2003. The accused was arrested at 8.30 a.m. on 15.9.2003. It is probable that accused had no opportunity to melt the knife or destroy knife. Therefore, there are no reasons to suspect evidence of P.W. 9 and P.W. 11 in proof of recovery of a knife pursuant to the voluntary information given by accused. 43. We also find from the evidence of P.W. 12-Dr.Sujatha and the contents of Ex.P.14 Accident Register of Bangalore Medical College that on 15.9.2003 at about 2.30 p.m., Madivala police had brought the accused to Victoria Hospital. On examination of accused, P.W. 12 found the following injuries: 1. A single linear superficial laceration 1 cm x 1/4 cm. x 1/4 cm, over middle of hypothener eminence. 2. On examination of accused, P.W. 12 found the following injuries: 1. A single linear superficial laceration 1 cm x 1/4 cm. x 1/4 cm, over middle of hypothener eminence. 2. A single superficial abrasion measuring 1/4 x 1/4 cm over lateral aspect of right ring linger. 44. P.W. 12 has deposed that as requested by the Investigating Officer, she had collected nail clippings of right finger and left finger of accused and sent them to the Investigating Officer. The Forensic Science Laboratory Report marked as Ex.P. 13 would reveal presence of human blood on the nail clippings of accused. The accused has not explained the circumstance under which he had suffered above injuries and also about presence of bloodstains on his nailclippings. The learned trial Judge without considering this circumstance along with other circumstances has held that mere presence of bloodstains on the nail clippings of accused cannot be a ground to hold that accused had killed the deceased. 45. The accused has examined his father to prove that entire investigation and implication of accused was at the instance of P.W. 4-Ramaiah. 46. As per the evidence of P.W. 4, he was a retired police constable. P.W. 4 has given evidence relating to inquest held on the deceased. During cross-examination, P.W. 4 has admitted that accused and his family members are known to him. P.W. 4 voluntarily retired from service during the year 2002. P.W. 4 has denied suggestion that there was land dispute between the father of accused and P.W. 4 from the beginning. P.W. 4 has denied suggestion that he had offered money to prosecution witnesses to depose against the accused. 47. Amicus Curiae Thus from the evidence of P.W. 4 we find that he was not closely related to accused and the deceased. P.W. 4 did not have grudge or enmity against accused. 48. The accused has examined his father to prove that there was enmity between his father (DW1) and P.W. 4 and also to prove that no orchestra was organised in Kodichikkanahalli on the night of 12.9.2003. During cross-examination, DW1 has admitted that the mother of deceased is his cousin sister. DW1 has admitted that he does not have documents to prove that P.W. 4 had encroached his land and built a house and sold some sites. During cross-examination, DW1 has admitted that the mother of deceased is his cousin sister. DW1 has admitted that he does not have documents to prove that P.W. 4 had encroached his land and built a house and sold some sites. Thus, we find the version of defence that the prosecution and trial of accused was at the instance of P.W. 4 has no basis. In view of the above discussion, we hold the prosecution has proved the following circumstances beyond reasonable doubt: I. From evidence of P.W. 6 to P.W. 8, If is proved that. accused, had immediate motive to commit the murder of deceased. II. The deceased and accused had quarrelled at 7.30 p.m. on 12.9.2003 near the venue of orchestra function arranged as a part of Ganesha Festival in Kodichikkanahalli. III. The deceased was last seen alive In the company of accused at about 11 p.m. on 12.9.2003 when accused was carrying the deceased near the building of one Khan situate in Aleem Layout in Kodichikkanahalli. Thereafter, deceased was not seen alive. IV. On the following day, i.e., on the morning of 13.9.2003 dead body of deceased was found on a vacant site near the building of one Khan situate in Aleem Layout in Kodichikkanahalli. V. After the arrest, accused had given voluntary information leading to recovery of a bloodstained knife and a pair of hand gloves. VI. The clothes of accused, knife and a pair of hand gloves were stained with ‘O’ group blood. VII. The accused had suffered injuries on his face and hands. VIII. The nail clippings of accused were stained with human blood. IX. The accused being a relative of the deceased should have been found near the place of incident or near the house of deceased after the incident. X. The conduct of accused subsequent to the incident is not consistent with the conduct of an innocent person. Therefore, we hold that the prosecution has adduced cogent and consistent evidence in proof of the above circumstances. The proved circumstances are consistent with the guilt of accused and they exclude the innocence of the accused. 49. The defence has contended that the evidence adduced by prosecution that after the incident accused tried to destroy evidence by burning his clothes is false. 50. The proved circumstances are consistent with the guilt of accused and they exclude the innocence of the accused. 49. The defence has contended that the evidence adduced by prosecution that after the incident accused tried to destroy evidence by burning his clothes is false. 50. There is no investigation as to the place where clothes of accused were burnt and the remnants of burnt clothes have not been produced by the prosecution to hold that accused had tried to destroy evidence. Therefore, we cannot hold the accused guilty of an offence punishable under section 201 IPC. 51. In the discussion made supra, we have disagreed with the findings recorded by the learned trial Judge to acquit the accused. The learned trial Judge has committed an error in rejecting the evidence of P.W. 6 on the ground that when the statement of P.W. 6 was recorded at the time of inquest, it was stated that there was no ill-will between accused and the deceased. The learned trial Judge committed an error in reading the statement of P.W. 6 recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C, as per se evidence. The learned trial Judge has ignored the settled principles of law that the purpose of holding inquest is to know the apparent cause of death. The learned trial Judge was not justified in disbelieving the evidence of P.W. 6. P.W. 6 is a helpless woman who had lost her husband. It is not possible to accept that P.W. 6 would not have known reasons for quarrel between the deceased and elder brother of accused namely Ravi. The learned trial Judge referring to the contents of Forensic Science Laboratory Report has held that in the first information there is no reference to the fact that accused and deceased had gone to the place of orchestra and there was quarrel between accused and deceased and accused assaulted the deceased. The learned trial Judge has ignored the ground realities. P.W. 6 is a widow and she had lost her son (deceased Somasekhar) and she was in a shock. We cannot expect that P.W. 6 should have given all the details in the first information. Above all, first information was lodged against an unknown culprit. The learned trial Judge relying on the evidence of P.W. 1 has held that deceased had suffered as many as 67 injuries and they could not have been caused by a single person. We cannot expect that P.W. 6 should have given all the details in the first information. Above all, first information was lodged against an unknown culprit. The learned trial Judge relying on the evidence of P.W. 1 has held that deceased had suffered as many as 67 injuries and they could not have been caused by a single person. We have already held that number of injuries inflicted on the deceased would depend upon opportunity available to accused and propensity of the accused. The learned trial Judge was not justified in ignoring the failure of accused to offer explanation for the injuries found on his person. The learned trial Judge was not justified in rejecting the contents of FSL report. Therefore, we hold that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. 52. In the result, we pass the following: ORDER The appeal is accepted in part. The impugned judgment is modified. The impugned judgment of acquittal of accused under section 302 IPC is set aside. The impugned judgment of acquittal of accused for an offence punishable under section 201 IPC is confirmed. The accused is convicted for an offence punishable under section 302 IPC. On consideration of facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find that the case falls under category of the rarest of rare cases. Therefore, we sentence the accused to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- for an offence punishable under section 302 IPC. The period of detention undergone by accused during trial is given set off as provided under section 428 Cr.P.C. Office is directed to send back records along with a copy of this judgment to the trial Court to enable the learned trial Judge to secure the accused to implement the sentence. We place on record our appreciation the able assistance provided by Sri E.R. Diwakar learned Amicus Curiae and fix his remuneration at Rs. 8,000/-.