JUDGMENT B.V. PINTO, J.—This appeal is filed challenging the Judgment dated 19.12.2008 passed by the Fast Track Court-I and Additional Sessions Judge, Hassan, convicting the Accused No. 1 for committing the offence under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC and Accused No. 2 for committing the offence under Section 109 read with 302 IPC and sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default to pay fine amount, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months each for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and further sentencing Accused No. 1 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to pay fine amount, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 201 IPC. Accused No. 1 is the husband of Accused No. 2 and they are referred in this judgment according to their ranking before the trial Court. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased Ravindramurthy was a friend of Accused No. 1 and that the deceased through Accused No. 1 became friendly with Accused No. 2 and was in the habit of visiting the house of the Accused; that Accused Nos. 1 and 2 had a daughter by name Kavitha, who had come of age. The Accused No. 1 on some earlier occasion in the year 1995 had seen his wife Accused No. 2 in the company of the deceased in the house of father of Accused No. 2 and on coming to know of their illicit relationship, the Accused No. 1 raised objection for such relationship of the deceased with Accused No. 2. At that time, the deceased had assaulted the Accused No. 1 as a consequence of which Accused No. 1 had filed a complaint before the Police. After investigation the said complaint was charge sheeted against the deceased. However, relationship of the deceased with Accused No. 2 continued. In this connection, it is the case of the prosecution that the Accused No. 1 had gone to the STD booth of the deceased at Rajajinagar and had caused damage to the STD booth in respect of which a complaint was lodged. However, at the intervention of Accused No. 2, compromise was arrived at. It is further case of the prosecution that the deceased was also eyeing at the daughter of the Accused Nos. However, at the intervention of Accused No. 2, compromise was arrived at. It is further case of the prosecution that the deceased was also eyeing at the daughter of the Accused Nos. 1 and 2 who had just come of age, and that when an objection was raised by Accused No. 2 regarding his eyeing on their daughter, deceased had requested Accused No. 2 to give their daughter in marriage to him since the deceased was unmarried till the said date. Because of this incident, it is the case of the prosecution that both Accused Nos. 1 and 2 wanted to do away with life of the deceased. It is the further case of the prosecution that on 15.4.2000 as consequence of the instigation of Accused No. 2, the Accused No. 1 took the deceased in his Tata Sumo vehicle bearing registration No. AP 02/D 2709 from Bangalore to Kukke Subramanya temple and on the way to the said temple, when they reached Sakleshpur the Accused No. 1 has strangulated the deceased by means of a clutch wire purchased by him at Bangalore and killed him and thereafter he had poured petrol on the dead body of the deceased and set him on fire and dumped the dead body near the fence of an estate by the side of Bangalore-Mangalore Highway. 3. P.W. 1-Raju on 16.4.2000 observed a body burning by the side of the fence as he was going on that side and reported the matter to Sakleshpur Rural Police Station, who on arrival observed that a male person has been done to death and thereafter the dead body has been set on fire. Therefore, Sakleshpur Rural Police registered a case in their Crime No. 109/2010 for the offence under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC on the basis of the complaint of P.W. 1-Raju. 4. It is the case of the prosecution that since the deceased did not return, P.W. 5-R. Shanmugam who is the brother of the deceased lodged a missing complaint before the Subramanyanagar Police Station, Bangalore on 21.4.2000 stating that his brother has not come back ever since 16.4.2000 and therefore missing complaint in Crime No. 110/2000 had been registered at Subramanyanagar Police Station for ‘man missing’. 5. 5. It is the further case of the prosecution that on coming to know that a dead body of unknown person was found by the side of Bangalore-Mangalore Highway near the fence, P.W. 5 alongwith his family members went to Sakleshpur Police Station and by that time the Police had already buried the dead body keeping the burnt pieces of the cloths found on the dead body. P.W. 5 identified the dead body as that of his brother through the photo and thereafter a case for offence under Section 302, 201 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC alongwith Section 109 of IPC was registered against the present accused after finding a few photographs of the deceased alongwith the Accused No. 2 and also three cheques issued by Accused Nos. 1 and 2 respectively in favour of the deceased in the drawer of deceased, in the house of P.W. 5. The Police during investigation have arrested the accused, recovered the clutch wire alleged to have been used by the Accused No. 1 to commit murder of the deceased and also recovered the bracelet, neck chain and watch belonging to the deceased at the instance of Accused No. 2. The bracelet and watch being found in the shop of P.W. 31 whereas the other two articles were found in the house of Accused Nos. 1 and 2. The said articles were recovered at the instance of Accused No. 2. The Police have also examined P.W. 34 and P.W. 35 who have spoken regarding the presence of the deceased alongwith Accused No. 1 on the alleged date of the offence on the way to Hassan and ultimately after completion of the investigation, charge sheet came to be filed. 6. The trial Court has framed charges against the accused on the aforesaid facts alleging that the Accused No. 1 has committed murder of the deceased on 16.4.2000 and Accused No. 2 has abetted commission of offence of murder by Accused No. 1. 7. The Accused having pleaded not guilty to the charges leveled against them, prosecution has examined in all 38 witnesses and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P73 and produced M.Os. 1 to 24. 8. The defence of the accused was one of total denial and they have got marked Ex.D1-portion of the statement of P.W. 11. 9. 7. The Accused having pleaded not guilty to the charges leveled against them, prosecution has examined in all 38 witnesses and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P73 and produced M.Os. 1 to 24. 8. The defence of the accused was one of total denial and they have got marked Ex.D1-portion of the statement of P.W. 11. 9. The learned Sessions Judge after appreciating the evidence on record has held that the circumstances leading to the guilt of the accused have been proved beyond reasonable doubt and therefore has held both accused guilty as aforesaid and convicted them. The convicted accused persons have filed this appeal. 10. Heard Sri. C H Jadhav, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri. P M Nawaz, learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution has not established the case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt; that the links which form chain of circumstances leading to the guilt of the accused have not been proved by the prosecution and that the circumstances that have been proved by the prosecution would not lead to the unerring conclusion that it is the accused and accused alone who have committed the murder of the deceased and in particular, he submits that since nobody has seen the deceased being murdered by the Accused No. 1, the circumstances to link the accused with the crime which has been considered by the learned Sessions Judge are not sufficient to convict the appellants. He submits that the following circumstances have been erroneously held to be proved by the learned sessions judge: (a) Motive as spoken by P.W. 5 and P.W. 15. (b) Last seen together circumstance as spoken to by P.W. 34 and P.W. 35. (c) Recovery of plastic bottle-MO No. 17 and clutch wire-MO No. 18 at the instance of Accused No. 1. (d) Recovery of three cheques signed by Accused Nos. 1 and 2 found in the drawer of the deceased. (e) Recovery of gold chain, gold ring, bracelet and titan watch-MO Nos. 7 to 10 respectively at the instance of Accused No. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the accused that none of these circumstances have been independently proved by the prosecution and therefore they cannot form a complete chain of circumstance to link the accused with the crime. 12. 7 to 10 respectively at the instance of Accused No. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the accused that none of these circumstances have been independently proved by the prosecution and therefore they cannot form a complete chain of circumstance to link the accused with the crime. 12. Insofar as motive is concerned, it is submitted by him that the fact that the deceased was in illicit relationship with Accused No. 2 is an admitted fact and that the feud between Accused No. 1 and the deceased was existing right from the year 1995 when for the first time the Accused No. 1 came to know that his wife is in illicit relationship with the deceased. After filing of the complaint and after the incident of breaking the glass of STD booth of the deceased, both the parties have patched up their differences and it is as if the accused No. 1 has reconciled to the fact that the deceased was in friendship with his wife and therefore this could not have been the motive for commission of crime by the Accused No. 1. 13. It is further submitted by him that the immediate motive for committing murder is the desire of the deceased to marry Kavitha, daughter of the accused and the behaviour of the deceased when he came to the house of the accused and that he was trying to molest the daughter of the accused. This fact has been disproved by examining P.W. 15-Kavitha-daughter of the accused who has given a clear go by to the motive part of the case of the prosecution and therefore it is submitted that the prosecution has totally failed to prove the motive for commission of the crime. He has submitted that insofar as the last seen together theory is concerned, cross examination of both P.Ws. 34 and 35 clearly establishes that they could not have really identified the accused or the deceased as the same persons had come to their pan beeda shop and the Bar in late night on the date of the incident. He has submitted that insofar as the last seen together theory is concerned, cross examination of both P.Ws. 34 and 35 clearly establishes that they could not have really identified the accused or the deceased as the same persons had come to their pan beeda shop and the Bar in late night on the date of the incident. He has submitted that no test identification parade has been conducted by the Police to get Accused No. 1 identified as the same person who had come to his shop on the night of the incident and that the deceased had been identified only on the basis of the photographs shown to both P.Ws. 34 and 35. It is the admitted case of the prosecution that P.Ws. 34 and 35 have never seen either the accused or the deceased prior to the date of the incident and therefore identification so established is a very feeble piece of evidence and in view of cross examination of both these witnesses, no Court would accept the evidence of P.Ws. 34 and 35 to establish identity of either the accused or the deceased as same persons who had come to their shop on the night of the incident. 14. It is submitted by learned counsel that in the background of these two circumstances being not proved, the third circumstance of recovery of clutch wire which is said to have been used for commission of offence also will not enure to the benefit of the prosecution because the Serologist report produced by the prosecution itself indicates that blood stains alleged to have been found on the clutch wire were not identified as that of the deceased and therefore this link establishing the connection to the crime with the appellants is also not established and therefore there exists no other material to hold appellants guilty of the offence except recovery of three cheques and the recovery of gold ornaments at the instance of the accused persons. 15. 15. It is submitted by learned counsel that insofar as the cheques are concerned, it is the case of the prosecution itself that the deceased and Accused No. 2 were carrying on financial business and that they were transacting business either by way of cheque or cash and therefore said fact is a normal circumstance which does not add to the case of the prosecution to hold that there was any misunderstanding or dispute in respect of the cheques. It is nobody’s case that the murder has taken place due to the issuance of the cheques or that there was any difference of opinion either on behalf of the Accused Nos. 1 and 2 on the one side and deceased on the other insofar as the financial transaction is concerned. 16. The only circumstance that remains is recovery of gold articles said to have been worn by the deceased at the time of his death and recovered at the instance of the Accused No. 2. He has submitted that recovery alone would not be the only circumstance which would relate to the guilt of the accused insofar as murder is concerned and therefore both accused are entitled for order of acquittal as the prosecution has not established any circumstances unerringly pointing to the commission of murder by the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, he prays that appeal may be allowed. 17. Sri. P M Nawaz, learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that recovery of articles at the instance of Accused No. 2 is a very strong circumstance against the accused and under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, it is for the accused to show as to how they came into possession of the articles belonging to the deceased and coupled with the fact that the prosecution witnesses, namely, P.Ws. 5, 6, 10 and 11 who are family members of the deceased overwhelmingly deposed before the Court that the deceased was friendly with Accused No. 1 and that Accused No. 2 was aggrieved by the fact that the deceased was making unlawful advances towards their daughter and therefore as spoken by P.W. 11-Manohara, accused No. 2 was agitated on this aspect and they were planning to do away with life of the deceased. 18. 18. It is further submitted by him that this motive of Accused No. 1 and that Accused No. 2, though P.W. 15 has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution, has been proved by evidence of other witnesses and prosecution has proved that the Accused No. 2 has abetted and instigated the Accused No. 1 to commit murder of the deceased. He has also submitted that the fact that cheques signed by Accused Nos. 1 and 2 have been found in the house of the deceased also adds to the case of the prosecution that there was financial transaction between the accused and the deceased and therefore he submits that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and hence appeal may be dismissed. 19. The prosecution in this case commenced with P.W. 1-Raju finding the dead body on 16.4.2000 at about 10 am in Sakleshpur Taluk by the side of Bangalore-Mangalore Highway near one Lakshmi Coffee Estate. That dead body was that of a male person and was burning at the time he saw the same. He gave a complaint at the Sakleshpur Rural Police Station. Ex. P1 is the said complaint. The Police have registered the said complaint under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC since the dead body contained marks of violence and of setting fire on the dead body by some external agency. 20. P.W. 2-Dheju is also a witness to Ex.P2 under which the Police have conducted a mahazar and inquest proceedings on the dead body of the deceased. 21. P.W. 3-Manjunath is a witness to Ex.P3 under which burnt shirt of the deceased was seized as per MO No. 1. 22. P.W. 4-H.K. Basappa is yet another witness who has spoken regarding the accused No. 1 pointing out to the scene of occurrence when he was brought under the Police custody. He is also a witness to the seizure of certain bones and also MO Nos. 2 to 6 from the scene of occurrence. 23. P.W. 5-R. Shanmugam is brother of the deceased. He has stated that his brother Ravindramurthy-deceased had stated that on 15.4.2000 in the night he would go to Kukke Subramanya Temple and that he is going alongwith Accused No. 1. He has identified Accused No. 1 as K N Subramanya. 2 to 6 from the scene of occurrence. 23. P.W. 5-R. Shanmugam is brother of the deceased. He has stated that his brother Ravindramurthy-deceased had stated that on 15.4.2000 in the night he would go to Kukke Subramanya Temple and that he is going alongwith Accused No. 1. He has identified Accused No. 1 as K N Subramanya. The said K N Subramanya-Accused No. 1 and the deceased Ravindramurthy were friends for the last ten to twelve years. The deceased had left the house at about 11 pm in the night informing that he would come on the next day. However, he has not come till twenty first of that month and for six days intervening, he searched for the deceased but was not found and hence on 21.4.2000 he had given a complaint to Subramanyanagar Police Station. Thereafter, he went to various Police Stations as to find out whether any report of death is made and they came to know that some unknown dead body has been recovered in Sakleshpur Rural Police Station limits and therefore he went to Sakleshpur Rural Police Station and saw the T-shirt, jeans pant and key chain in the Police Station and also photograph of the dead body of the deceased. He identified the dead body of his brother Ravindramurthy through the photograph and also the T-shirt, jeans pant and key chain as belonging to his brother. Thereafter, again on 10.5.2000 he went to Subramanyanagar Police Station and at that time the accused were in the police station. In the meanwhile, he has found photographs of Accused No. 2 alongwith his brother in his house and he handed over the said photographs to the Inspector Hanumanthappa at Subramanyanagar Police Station. He also came to know that the Police have recovered gold chain, gold ring, bracelet and one titan watch. He identified the same as belonging to his brother. The said articles are MO Nos. 7 to 10. He has identified the gold bracelet with the word V written in English in its link and therefore the said bracelet is identified as that belonging to his brother. 24. P.W. 6-Manikyamma is the mother of the deceased. She has also spoken regarding friendship of her son with the Accused No. 2. 7 to 10. He has identified the gold bracelet with the word V written in English in its link and therefore the said bracelet is identified as that belonging to his brother. 24. P.W. 6-Manikyamma is the mother of the deceased. She has also spoken regarding friendship of her son with the Accused No. 2. It is her case that on the night when her son had last left Bangalore at about 10.30 pm, he came to the house and informed her that Accused No. 1 is waiting to go to Kukke Subramanya Temple and he has brought one vehicle and that he would go alongwith the Accused No. 1 and come back within the next day. However, for the next three days, he did not come and therefore her son had filed complaint of man missing with Subramanyanagar Police Station. P.W. 6 has also narrated the earlier incidents of quarrel between her son and Accused Nos. 1 and 2 regarding the illicit relationship of her son with Accused No. 2 and consequent assault on Accused No. 1 by her son. 25. P.W. 7-Chandru is the signatory to Ex.P26 under which the Police had seized a receipt from the house of Accused No. 2 which Accused No. 2 had taken out from her almirah. He has further identified one ring, one chain, one watch as MO Nos. 7, 8 and 10 which were found in the house of Accused No. 2. 26. P.W. 8-Shivappa is signatory to Ex.P28 under which the Sakleshpur Rural Police had seized the cloth piece and blood stained mud and also the ash from the scene of occurrence alongwith the key bunch found at the scene of occurrence. The Police have also seized certain articles belonging to the deceased including key chain, buckle of the belt, burnt pant piece, mud and blood stained mud as per MO Nos. 10 to 15 respectively from the scene of occurrence. 27. P.W. 9-S.A. Parmesha is another signatory to Ex.P28. 28. P.W. 10-Pushpa is the sister of the deceased. She has stated that on 15.4.2000 at about 9.30 p.m. her brother deceased Ravindramurthy had telephoned to her house and informed that he is going to Kukke Subramanya alongwith A-l in the Tata Sumo belonging to A-1. However, he did not come back even after three days. She has also repeated the evidence given by P.W. 5-Shanmukhappa, who is her brother. However, he did not come back even after three days. She has also repeated the evidence given by P.W. 5-Shanmukhappa, who is her brother. P.W. 10 has further identified the wristwatch, gold chain and gold ring belonging to the deceased in the police station and has given the statement. It is also in the evidence of P.W. 10 that 15 days prior to the incident her brother-the deceased had informed her that A-l has taken lot of money as loan and has given a cheque to him. In the cross-examination, it is elicited that she is not aware as to when exactly A-l and deceased started becoming friendly. However, she states that they had friendship for the past 10-12 years. She had also stated that A-l had quarreled with the deceased in the STD Booth of the deceased. However, she has not personally witnessed the said incident. But she has further added that the said criminal case has been compromised between A-l and the deceased. It is brought to her notice that she has not stated the fact that her brother had gone alongwith A-l to the police station when missing complaint was given to the police. 29. P.W. 11-Manohar is the husband of P.W. 10. He has stated that on 15.4.2000 at about 9.30 P.M. the deceased had telephoned to his wife stating that he is going to Kukke Subramanya alongwith Al in his Tatasumo vehicle. He has further stated that both himself and Shanmugam thereafter had gone to the house of A-2 but the house was locked. He has further deposed as per the version of P.W. 5-Shanmugam regarding searching of the deceased Ravindra Murthy. In the cross-examination he has stated that the fact of deceased going alongwith Al to Kukke Subramanya has not been informed to the police on the first day when they gave a missing complaint of the deceased. 30. P.W. 12-Vishwanath is the resident of Donigal, Sakaleshpura Taluk. He has stated that his house is adjoining Mangalore-Bangalore National Highway and that Highway he has signed the mahazar under which the police have seized one bottle as per MO-17 and one cable wire as per M.0.-18. He has stated that Al was present at the time of recovery of these articles by the police and the accused has pointed out the said articles. He has stated that Al was present at the time of recovery of these articles by the police and the accused has pointed out the said articles. Ex.P31 is the spot mahazar to which himself and one Nayim are signatories. 31. P.W. 13-Balaji is the owner of a spare parts shop in Sheshadripuram in Bangalore. He has stated that Al was brought to his shop on one day by the police six years prior to his deposing before the Court. 15 to 20 days prior to the said date, Al had purchased the clutch wire from his shop and he has identified MO. 18 as the clutch wire purchased by Al from his shop. In the cross-examination he has stated that every day 40 to 50 customers visit his shop and when there is no rush he can identify the face of the customers. Ordinarily, the bill is issued for the purchase of articles but for the clutch wire, which is worth only Rs.3 to Rs.4, no one gives the bill. He has further stated that he cannot say the exact day and the date on which the accused had purchased the clutch wire. It is suggested that he has not sold any clutch wire to the accused. 32. P.W. 14-Krishnamurthy is the manager of a petrol bunk. But he has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. 33. P.W. 15-Kavitha is the daughter of accused Nos. 1 and 2. She has also turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. She has stated that the deceased had neither misbehaved with her at any time nor he had forced her to marry him. She has further stated that she has neither given any statement to the police nor the police have questioner her. She has also stated that during the month of April she was residing in her grand-mother’s house for about one month. 34. P.W. 16-Geetha is the owner of the Tata-sumo bearing No. AP 02 B 2709. She has stated that the said Tata-sumo was sold for Rs.2,70,000/- to Al on 22.1.2000 and she has also signed the documents for transfer of the said Tata-sumo. After the sale of the said Tata-sumo, accused was in possession of the same. She has identified the documents signed by her for the purpose of transfer of the said vehicle. 35. P.W. 17-Venkatesha is a car driver in Hindupur. After the sale of the said Tata-sumo, accused was in possession of the same. She has identified the documents signed by her for the purpose of transfer of the said vehicle. 35. P.W. 17-Venkatesha is a car driver in Hindupur. However, he has not supported the case of the prosecution regarding the sale of Tata-sumo by Smt. Geetha to Al or his wife A2. 36. P.W. 18-Manjunath is the witness for the seizure of three cheques Exs.P5 to P7 produced by P.W. 5-Shanmugam before the Sakaleshpura police on 21.7.2000. Ex.P25 is his signature on the said document. 37. P.W. 19-Dr. Jagannath is the Senior Resident Officer at the K.C. General Hospital, Bangalore. He has examined Accused No. 1 and has given his opinion as per Ex.P52. He has stated that Al was having four marks of cured injuries, but he cannot say the exact age of the said injuries. On the question as to whether the said injuries are possible while pulling the clutch wire, the doctor has stated that it is not possible to give any opinion as to whether such injury is possible while pulling clutch wire. Further he does not even identify A1 who is before the Court as the same person, who has been examined by him since six years had elapsed from the date of examination. 38. P.W. 20-Suresh is the editor of the news paper and has stated that the deceased Ravindramurthy was the Editor of his paper and he was further working as a broker in the Rajajinagar RTO. 39. P.W. 21-Dr. Shyamala Devi was the Medical Officer at Crawford Hospital of Sakaleshpur. On 17.4.2000 she has conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of an unknown person between 3.30 and 4.30 p.m. and has observed that the deceased had sustained burn injuries extensively and further she has also stated that there was a ligature mark found on the neck of the deceased. She has further opined that the ligature mark found on the person is possible by means of the clutch wire MO. 18. But, however in the cross-examination she has stated that it is not possible to give the definite opinion that the death could have been caused by MO.18-clutch wire. She has further stated that MO. 18 was not produced before her during the post-mortem but it was produced before her while deposing in the Court. 40. 18. But, however in the cross-examination she has stated that it is not possible to give the definite opinion that the death could have been caused by MO.18-clutch wire. She has further stated that MO. 18 was not produced before her during the post-mortem but it was produced before her while deposing in the Court. 40. P.W. 22-Smt. Shyamala P. Basoor is the retired Assistant Manager of Central Bank of India who has identified Ex.P55, which is the letter written by the Branch Manager of their bank stating that A1-K.S. Subramanya has closed his S.B. Account on 7.1.1996 and she has further stated that Ex.P56 is the specimen signature in the application. 41. P.W. 23-Jagadish.H. is the Branch Manager of Union Bank of India, Malleshwaram Branch, Bangalore. He has stated that A2 was having an account in their branch as per Ex.P58-the application for opening the account and Ex.P59 the specimen signature of A2. He has further identified the cheques Exs.P6 and P7 as belonging to his branch and issued by A2. 42. P.Ws. 25 to 28 are the police officials who have assisted in the investigation. 43. P.W. 29-Srirangaiah is the ASI who has registered the complaint given by Shanmugam-P.W. 5 on 21.4.2000 stating that the deceased has not come back from 15.4.2000 and that he had gone to Kukkesubramanya. The said complaint is registered as Crime No. 110/00. Ex.P5 is the FIR in respect of the said complaint. 44. P.W. 30-M. Rangaiah was working as the ASI in Sakaleshpura rural police station at the relevant point of time. He has deposed that on 16-4-2000 at about 2.15 pm, he received the complaint of P.W. 1 Raju, stating that a body of an unknown person was found lying in a burnt condition by the side of the Bangalore-Mangalore highway. He has registered the same in Cr No. 109 of 2000 for the offence punishable under Section 302 and 201 IPC. 45. P.W. 31-Jai Chand is the owner of a pawn broker shop at Malleswaram, Bangalore. He has stated that second accused had pledged a gold bracelet [MO-9] in his shop on 26-4-2000 for a sum of Rs.10,000/- as per Ex.P27 receipt issued by him. He has further stated that ten days thereafter second accused was brought by the police to his shop and police asked him to return the bracelet pledged by the second accused. He has stated that second accused had pledged a gold bracelet [MO-9] in his shop on 26-4-2000 for a sum of Rs.10,000/- as per Ex.P27 receipt issued by him. He has further stated that ten days thereafter second accused was brought by the police to his shop and police asked him to return the bracelet pledged by the second accused. He has handed over the bracelet to the police, who conducted a mahazar in this regard as per ExP66 and he has signed the mahazar. He has stated that second accused has also signed in Kannada and has identified her signature. In the cross-examination, this witness has stated that he holds a licence to carry on pawnbroker business and that he is subjecting his books for income tax verification. He has stated that he was not knowing the second accused earlier, but only on the day when she came to pledge MO-9 he had seen her. He has stated that even if a person who is not known to him comes for pledging articles, he would receive the same. He further stated that on 5-5-2000 police came alongwith the accused again to his shop. It was suggested to this witness that the second accused has not pledged any articles with him and that he is deposing falsely at the instance of the accused, which he denied. 46. P.W. 32-Harish has stated that on 5-5-2000 he had been summoned to the Subrahmanya Nagar police station for attesting a mahazar for having seized a Tata-Sumo vehicle bearing registration No AP-02 P-2709. He has signed the mahazar ExP67 on that day. 47. P.W. 33-M. Naga is a retired Dy. SP., who was working as inspector of police at Alur police station during 2000 to 2003. He has stated that he has conducted part of the investigation in this case after receiving FIR from ASI Rangaiah. He has recorded the statement of certain witnesses and conducted inquest proceedings on the body of the deceased. Further he has sent the body for post mortem examination. He has collected certain articles from the scene of occurrence, which are MOs 1 to 3, 11 to 16 and 23 to 24. 48. P.W. 34-Mallikarjuna is a resident of Bangalore, who has stated that during 2000 he was running a beeda-cigarette shop by the side of a petrol bunk on Yeshwanthpur-Tumkur road. He has collected certain articles from the scene of occurrence, which are MOs 1 to 3, 11 to 16 and 23 to 24. 48. P.W. 34-Mallikarjuna is a resident of Bangalore, who has stated that during 2000 he was running a beeda-cigarette shop by the side of a petrol bunk on Yeshwanthpur-Tumkur road. He has seen ExP16, which is a photograph and has stated that the person in the photograph had come alongwith the first accused a few days prior to 9-5-2000 to his shop and purchased pan-parag from his shop. He has further stated that the said accused had come to his shop about 20 days earlier to the said date alongwith the person shown in ExP16. In the cross-examination, he has stated that he had never seen the first accused or the deceased prior to the aforesaid date and he does not know the identity of the said persons. He has deposed that the said persons purchased beeda from him and gave money. He did not speak with them on that day. He has further stated that he does not know on which vehicle those two persons had come, but they had come by walk near his shop. He does also not remember as to the pattern of the dress worn by them nor the physical features of said persons. It is also come in the evidence of this witness that on 9-5-2000 at about 11 am, first accused was brought by the police to his shop and he had identified the first accused as the same person who had come earlier. 49. P.W. 35-Thomas has stated before the Court that he was working as cashier in Harsha dabha restaurant situated on the Bangalore-Tumkur road. He has stated that he has seen the first accused as well as the person found in ExP16 photograph about 20 days prior to 9-5-2000. First accused had come alongwith the person found in the said photograph at 12 midnight and they purchased a McDowell whisky. He has stated that again on 9-5-2000, first accused was brought by the police and he identified before the police that the first accused and another person had come to his wine shop and purchased whisky and went away. First accused had come alongwith the person found in the said photograph at 12 midnight and they purchased a McDowell whisky. He has stated that again on 9-5-2000, first accused was brought by the police and he identified before the police that the first accused and another person had come to his wine shop and purchased whisky and went away. In the cross-examination, he has stated that the dabha is about 2 km away from Nelamangala circle and that people bring whisky or brandy from other places and drink in his restaurant. He further stated that he, however, used to keep 5 to 6 bottles in his dabha and that no bill is given for purchase of whisky from his shop. It is elicited in the cross-examination of this witness that he is not aware as to from which village, those persons had come or on which vehicle they had come on that day. First accused had come inside the dabha and asked for whisky and he gave whisky to first accused and the first accused paid the cost of said liquor. Another person who was alongwith the first accused was simply standing. He is not aware as to whether those persons had earlier taken any drinks and that there were other customers having food in the hotel. 50. P.W. 36-N. Hanumanthaiah is an ACP, who was working as inspector of police in Mahalakshmi Layout police station during the relevant period. He has stated that Cr No. 109 of 2000 was registered in Subrahmanya Nagar police station regarding missing of one Ravindramurthy. He has stated that he took up investigation and thereafter visited the place where the deceased was working as an editor. He came to know that the deceased and the first accused had gone to Kukke Subrahmanya temple and hence he visited the house of the deceased on 3-5-2000. He has recorded the statement of mother and brother of the deceased and also visited the STD booth. He came to know that the deceased and the first accused had gone to Kukke Subrahmanya temple and hence he visited the house of the deceased on 3-5-2000. He has recorded the statement of mother and brother of the deceased and also visited the STD booth. On 5-5-2000 at 9 am when he was to the police station, P.W. 5 Shanmugam came and informed that an unknown person has been done to death near Sakaleshpur and that the particulars of the same were verified in the Sakaleshpur rural police station and they have identified the person found in the photograph as that of his brother and that both accused 1 and 2 have committed the murder of Ravindramurthy. Thereafter, he telephoned to Sakaleshpur rural police station and found the particulars regarding registration of first information report for the offence punishable under Section 302 and 201 IPC in the said police station. Thereafter, a case was registered under said Sections against the accused 1 and 2 for having committed murder of deceased and sent FIR to Court. Thereafter, voluntary statement of first accused as per ExP68 and voluntary statement of second accused as per ExP69 were recorded and on the basis of said statements, he has recovered gold bracelet belonging to the deceased from the shop of one Jai Chand at the instance of second accused. He has further recovered a gold chain, gold ring and one Titan wristwatch and the receipt for having pledged the bracelet from the house of second accused on 5-5-2000. He has also recorded the statement of one Geetha, who is the previous owner of the Tata Sumo vehicle in question and one Venkatesh, driver of said vehicle by visiting Hindupur. He has stated that first accused had led him to the scene of occurrence and the place where he had abandoned the clutch wire [MO 18] and also an empty bottle which was used for committing murder of deceased and setting the body on fire, by taking the petrol in the said bottle. The said articles are MOs 17 and 18 and the mahazar is ExP31, recorded by him. He has also further recovered articles such as ash, sample mud, half-burnt clothes, cement colour seat cover as per ExP41. These materials are marked as MOs 19 to 22. The said articles are MOs 17 and 18 and the mahazar is ExP31, recorded by him. He has also further recovered articles such as ash, sample mud, half-burnt clothes, cement colour seat cover as per ExP41. These materials are marked as MOs 19 to 22. He has further seized photographs of deceased, which were found in the police station at Sakaleshpur rural police station. It is in the evidence of this witness that the accused again led him to the shop of Balaji automobiles from where the first accused allegedly purchased a clutch wire. He also recorded statements of one Krishnamurthy, manager of VSP petrol bunk at Yeshwanthpur from where the accused purchased petrol for setting the deceased on fire, as per ExP32 and 33. He further stated that after conducting investigation, since the incident had occurred within the jurisdiction of Sakaleshpur rural police station, he has transferred materials as well as the documents to the said police station for filing charge sheet. It was suggested to this witness by the defence that he has falsely created documents in order that a charge sheet could be filed. 51. P.W. 37-Udayakumar Shetty has stated that he was present when the police took accused No. 2 to the shop of one Sharavanakumar where the second accused had kept a bracelet under pledge. He has signed ExP66 and identified MO9. 52. P.W. 38-B.V. Suresh circle inspector of police deposed that he has continued the investigation, sent the articles for forensic science laboratory, seized cheques which were produced before him by the police, recorded the statements of witnesses and finally filed charge sheet against the accused. 53. It is found from the evidence of above witnesses that learned sessions judge has found that though there is no eyewitness to the incident, the circumstances mentioned by us in para-11 above, have been proved beyond reasonable doubt and therefore he has held that the accused are guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302, 201 and 109 IPC. 54. On a careful consideration of the materials on record, we see that at the outset, the motive as spoken by P.Ws. 5 and 15 that the deceased was having an illicit relationship with the second accused and that there was enmity between the first accused and the deceased have been proved, but the said fact was known to every one since the year 1995. 5 and 15 that the deceased was having an illicit relationship with the second accused and that there was enmity between the first accused and the deceased have been proved, but the said fact was known to every one since the year 1995. However, the immediate motive on the part of accused 1 and 2 to commit murder of the deceased is to the effect that the deceased was forcing the accused to give their daughter in marriage to him. To bring home this fact, the prosecution has examined P.W. 15 K.S. Kavitha, who is daughter of accused 1 and 2. However, said witness has totally turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and has not supported the case that the deceased was misbehaving with her or that the deceased was asking her parents to give her in marriage to the deceased. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the immediate motive suggested by the prosecution is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. 55. The second motive as per the charge sheet is that the accused had given three cheques totally amounting to Rs 2.60 lakh and in order to see that the deceased be prevented from presenting the said cheques, accused have committed the murder of deceased. Even this motive does not find place either in the first complaint or in the missing complaint of P.W. 5-brother of the deceased. These cheques were marked as ExP5 to 7, which were discovered during the course of investigation and it is not the case of the complainant that due to intention of the accused to see that the cheques are not presented, murder has been committed. Under the circumstance, recovery and marking of ExP5 to 7 will not enure to the benefit of the prosecution to prove that there was motive on the part of the accused to do away with the life of the deceased. 56. The second circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is last seen’ theory, which is sought to be proved through the evidence of P.Ws. 34 and 35. However, both these witnesses have stated that they did not know as to who the persons were and from where the accused 1 and the deceased had come on the day of incident. P.Ws. The second circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is last seen’ theory, which is sought to be proved through the evidence of P.Ws. 34 and 35. However, both these witnesses have stated that they did not know as to who the persons were and from where the accused 1 and the deceased had come on the day of incident. P.Ws. 34 and 35 have never seen the deceased after the incident or any time prior to the incident and all that these witnesses said is that on the basis of the photograph shown to them, they have identified the deceased. Both these witnesses have stated that there are many customers to them during night time and therefore in the absence of any test identification parade conducted for identifying the accused No. 1 as the same person who had come on the particular night, no reliance can be placed on the evidence of P.Ws. 34 and 35 to show that the deceased and the first accused were seen together at or immediately prior to the date of incident. Further they have not noted any identification features or the dress worn by the person who came to their shops in the mid-night. Hence, this circumstance also does not inspire the confidence of this Court to come to a definite conclusion that the deceased and the first accused were last seen together before the death. 57. In so far as the third circumstance of recovery of clutch wire is concerned, though the clutch wire was subjected to FSL examination, the report as per ExP72 says that the blood found on the clutch wire is insufficient to conduct any examination regarding its classification. Hence, this circumstance is also not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt to prove that the said clutch wire was used for the commission of murder of the deceased by the accused. 58. In so far as plastic bottle-MO 17-is concerned, the prosecution has not examined any witness to show that the accused had at any point of time purchased petrol in the intervening night or somewhere near to that day, since P.W. 14 who was supposed to speak about this fact has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. Hence, this circumstance also is not proved by the prosecution to connect the crime to the accused. 59. Hence, this circumstance also is not proved by the prosecution to connect the crime to the accused. 59. As far as recovery of three cheques is concerned, the said cheques were admittedly belonging to accused 1 and 2 and the managers of both the banks where the accused held accounts have deposed that the cheques belong to the accused respectively. However, mere production of these cheques would not lead to an inference that they were instrumental to the circumstances leading to the murder of the deceased by the accused, in the absence of any other documentary or oral evidence to show that the accused owed certain amount of money to the deceased. Further, it is the case of the prosecution that the accused as well as the deceased were engaged in money lending business and therefore this will not automatically lead to a presumption that the accused had taken loan from the deceased and that in order to avoid presentation of the cheques, the accused have planned to murder the deceased. 60. The last circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is the recovery of articles viz., gold chain, gold ring, bracelet and wrist watch at the instance of the accused and also in the possession of the second accused. We find that the evidence in this regard is sufficient to prove that the second accused had pledged a bracelet of the deceased and was in possession of a receipt for having pledged the same and also in possession of three other articles. It is admitted fact that the second accused had illicit connection with the deceased and the deceased was frequenting the house of the accused No. 2 in the absence of accused No. 1. The photographs produced by the prosecution further strengthen this proposition. Hence it is not unnatural that the deceased could have left some of his jewels with the accused No. 2. Hence, this fact of recovery of jewels from the possession of accused No. 2 alone would not lead to an irresistible conclusion that it is the accused who alone caused the murder of deceased. 61. Hence it is not unnatural that the deceased could have left some of his jewels with the accused No. 2. Hence, this fact of recovery of jewels from the possession of accused No. 2 alone would not lead to an irresistible conclusion that it is the accused who alone caused the murder of deceased. 61. On a careful examination and reappreciation of the entire evidence on record, we find that though there is evidence to show that the second accused was in possession of the articles belonging to the deceased, but this will not be sufficient to complete the chain of circumstance leading to the guilt of the accused and several links in the chain of circumstances as propounded by the prosecution are missing and therefore the accused are entitled for the benefit of doubt, as the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt . Hence, we are left with no other alternative but to come to the conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the case against the appellants-accused and therefore they are entitled for an order of acquittal by giving them benefit of doubt. 62. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. Judgment and order dated 19/24-12-2008 passed in SC No. 141 of 2000, on the file of Fast Track Court-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge, Hassan, convicting the first appellant-accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and second appellant-accused No. 2 for the offence punishable under Section 109 IPC is hereby set aside and the accused are acquitted of the offences charged against them. 63. They are in custody. It is, therefore, directed that they shall be set at liberty forthwith, if they are not required in any other case. 64. Registry is directed to communicate the operative portion of this judgment forthwith to the superintendent of jail, central prison, Bangalore where the accused are presently undergoing imprisonment.