ORDER V. Suri Appa Rao, J : The State represented by Peenya Police filed this appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 23.12.2005 in S.C.No. 136/2004 on the file of Principal City Civil and Session Judge Bangalore, whereby, the sole accused, who was charged for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC was found not guilty, accordingly he was acquitted under Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. 2. The prosecution ease in brief is as follows; On the intervening night of 5/6.08.2003 at shout 1.25 a.m. PW.1 Satish S.R., heard the mourning of stranger by the side of his car which was parked in the portion of his house. On hearing the same, he telephoned to police control room and informed the police that one stranger had fallen in front of the portico of his house having sustained bleeding injuries. On the basis of the said complaint, the Peenya Police visited the place where the injured was found. Immediately the PSI shifted the injured to the hospital. Despite the treatment, he breathed his last on the early morning of 06.8.2003 On the basis of the complaint, a case in Cr.No.394/2003 of Peenya Police Station came to be registered against the unknown persons initially for the offence under Section 324 of IPC. After receiving the information about the death of the deceased Doddashanaiah and after recording the statement of the wife of the deceased PW.3 Umadevi, the section of law was altered to Section 302 of IPC. The Sub-Inspector of police of Peenya Police Station handed over the investigation to the Inspector of police, who visited the scene of offence and prepared the scene of offence panchanama and also held inquest over the body of the deceased in the presence of PW.8 - Veerahanumaiah and prepared Ex.P9 Inquest panchanama. Thereafter, dead body of the deceased was subjected to post mortem examination. PW.2 Dr. M.G Shivaramu conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and issued ExP.4 post mortem report. PW.3 - the Asst. Engineer visited the scene of offence and prepared sketch of the scene of offence. After completion of the investigation, the Inspector of police filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. 3. The learned trial Judge framed the charges under Section 302 of IPC against the accused. The plea of the accused is one of denial. 4. After completion of the investigation, the Inspector of police filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. 3. The learned trial Judge framed the charges under Section 302 of IPC against the accused. The plea of the accused is one of denial. 4. The prosecution in order to establish the charge for the offence under Section 302 of IPC examined PWs.1 to 21 and relied on Exs.P1 to P.19 and MOs. 1 to 8. During the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, the defence got marked Exs.D1 to D2, portion of the statements of PWs. 11 and 12. 5. After hearing the learned Counsel for the accused and after considering the material on record, the learned Sessions Judge found the accused not guilty for the offence under Section 302 of IPC on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove the last seen theory and the recovery of M.O.2 - knife, on the basis of which, the prosecution relied to connect the accused with the crime. 6. Aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, the State filed this appeal. 7. We have heard Sri. Nawaz, learned Addl. S.P.P. and learned Counsel for the accused. We have been taken through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the impugned judgment. 8. Learned Addl. S.P.P. submitted that PWs.11 and 12 are the eyewitnesses to the incident. In addition to this, the prosecution relied on the following circumstantial evidence to connect the accused with the crime; (i) one motive for the commission of offence (ii) the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused and (iii) recovery of MO2 knife on the basis of the confessional statement of the accused. 9. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the accused/respondent submitted that PWs.11 and 12 are the planted witnesses to connect the accused with the crime. Their statements were recorded about 1½ months after the incident. After recording their statements in Kannada, the statements were not read over to them; they did not understand Kannada. The other witnesses examined by the prosecution were also planted to connect the accused with the crime on the basis of the evidence of PW s.10 and 11, who were made to depose as per the statements recorded by the Investigating Officer involving the accused in the crime. 10. The prosecution examined PW2 - Dr. The other witnesses examined by the prosecution were also planted to connect the accused with the crime on the basis of the evidence of PW s.10 and 11, who were made to depose as per the statements recorded by the Investigating Officer involving the accused in the crime. 10. The prosecution examined PW2 - Dr. M.G. Shivaramu, PW-8 Veerahanumaiah - panch witnesses and PW20 Sunil Kumar, PSI to prove the death of the deceased Doddashanaiah was homicidal. 11. PW.2-Dr.M.G.Shivaramu Associate Professor of Forensic Medicines attached to M.S. Ramaiah Medical College Hospital has stated in his evidence that on 06.08.2003 he conducted post mortem examination on the body of the deceased Doddashanaiah and found the following injuries; 1) Surgically sutured wound meant for drainage tube over the outer side of upper part of right chest. 2) Surgically sutured stab wound over the back of right side of chest in the inter coastal space. 3) Abrasion in front of right knee 4) Abrasion in front of left knee. On Dissection he found the lower lobe of right lung injured underneath injury No.2 showing a stab wound measuring 2.5 cms in length and 3 cms in depth. The right lung was collapsed. He was of the opinion that the death of the deceased was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of stab injuries. 12. PW.8 - Veerahanumamiah who is the panch witness during the inquest has stated in his evidence that on 06.08.2003 at about 9.00 am himself and other panch witnesses were called by the police to M.S. Ramaiah hospital to act as panchas during the inquest panchanama in respect of the dead body of the deceased - Doddashanaiah, which was in the mortuary of the said hospital. Based on the external injury found on the body of the deceased, the police prepared Ex.P9 Inquest panchanama, himself and other panch witness attested the same. 13. PW. 19 - Subbanna, Inspector of Police attached to Peenya Police Station has stated in his evidence that on 06.08.2003 he visited M.S. Ramaiah Hospital and he secured the presence of PW8 and others and in their presence he held inquest over the body of the deceased and prepared ExP.9 - inquest report at the hospital. He also recorded the statement of PWs.4, 8 and 19 and others who are the wife and brothers of the deceased. He also recorded the statement of PWs.4, 8 and 19 and others who are the wife and brothers of the deceased. The inquest report was attested by PW.8 and others. After inquest, he subjected the dead body' for post mortem examination. Thus by the evidence of PWs.2 8 and 19, the prosecution could be able to prove that the death of the deceased was homicidal. 14. The prosecution in order to connect the accused with the crime examined PWs. 11 and 12 who are the eye-witnesses to the offence, PWs.6, 7 and 8 who have last seen the deceased in the company of the accused and PWs. 16. 17 and 21 who were the panch witnesses for the seizure of MO.2 - knife and other material objects. 15. PW.6 - Poovappa has stated in his evidence that himself, the deceased, PW.5 Vasu and CW.5 Padmanabha were residing together, in a rented house at Peenya Dasarahalli. The deceased died on 6.8.2003 while he was taking treatment at M.S. Ramaiah Hospital as he was assaulted on the previous night. He had seen the accused and the deceased moving together on two or three occasions. 16. On 5.8.2003 he returned to his house from duty by about 1.00 p.m. and remained in the house till the evening on that day. At about 6.30 or 7 p.m. on that day the accused and the deceased together came near the house and sat on the Katte in front of the house and talked to each other, for sometimes and then together went away. Thereafter, the deceased did not return to the house. On the next day evening, he came to know that deceased died in the early morning of 6.8.2003 while he was under treatment in the hospital. 17. PW7 - Krishnappa has stated in his evidence that he had seen the accused and the deceased being together on several occasions. They used to consume liquor together. He saw both the accused and the deceased quarrelling with each other under the influence of liquor near the graveyard on the road leading to Nagasandra. It was about 10 p.m. at that time, CW. 11 Umesh was with him. Two days thereafter he came to know that the deceased died. 18. PW9 – Umesha has stated in his evidence, the accused and the deceased used to move together and consume liquor. It was about 10 p.m. at that time, CW. 11 Umesh was with him. Two days thereafter he came to know that the deceased died. 18. PW9 – Umesha has stated in his evidence, the accused and the deceased used to move together and consume liquor. On 5.8.2003 at about 10.00 p.m. while himself, PW. 7 – Krishnappa and Manjunatha were coming towards his house along the Nagasandra – Vijayanagar road he saw the accused and the deceased both going towards Vidyanagar talking to each other. On the next day morning he came to know through CW. 19-Ravish the younger brother of the deceased that the deceased died in the hospital. 19. Prosecution relying on the evidence of the above witnesses contended that the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused. The evidence of PW6 clearly shows that the deceased, accused and PW6 were residing in a rented house and they were attending different works for eking out their livelihood. 20. PW. 5 – Vasu is working in Garment Industry whereas PW. 6 is working as a driver. The deceased was dealing in masala products. PW. 5 also stated in his evidence that himself, deceased – Doddashanaiah and PW. 6 – Padmanabha were all residing together in a rented house at Rajiv Gandhi Nagar. Peenya Dasarahalli. He also stated in his evidence that on 05.08.2003 after returning to the house he had seen the accused and the deceased Doddashanaih talking to each other by sitting on the katte infront of his house on two or three occasions. They used to consume liquor together. At about 7.30 p.m. when he returned to the house the deceased was not present there. He did not return during the night of 05.8.2003. PW.5 was treated hostile by the prosecution and in the cross-examination he stated that the accused Came to his room at about 6.30 p.m. and took the deceased Doddashanaiah along with him. 21. The evidences of PWs.5, 6 and 9 clearly indicate that all of them were staying in one house and attending their respective duties. The accused and the deceased were moving together and they were in the habit of taking liquor together. 22. 21. The evidences of PWs.5, 6 and 9 clearly indicate that all of them were staying in one house and attending their respective duties. The accused and the deceased were moving together and they were in the habit of taking liquor together. 22. Since all of them were staying in one room, it is quite natural for them to go out and come together, therefore, it cannot be said that the accused is responsible for causing the death of the deceased in the absence of any acceptable evidence. The last seen theory relied on by the prosecution also cannot be a ground to connect the accused with the crime in the absence of motive on the part of the accused to commit the murder of the deceased. 23. The prosecution relying on the evidence of PWs.11 and 12 who are said to have been the eyewitnesses to the offence. PW.11 - Asha is none other than the sister of the accused. In the evidence of PW.11 - Asha has stated that she knows the deceased Doddashanaiah also. The accused was staying in her residence for a period of two years prior to the death of the deceased Doddashanaiah. One year hack the accused had visited her house along with the deceased at about 10 or 10.30 p.m, The deceased took meals in her house on that night. The deceased did not take meals saying that he had his meals in a hotel. After taking dinner the deceased, demanded from the accused for repayment of Rs. 1,000/-. Then the accused became angry at the deceased and slapped him saying why he was demanding money from him. On seeing this she asked both the accused and the deceased not to quarrel in her house and told them to go away if they were to quarrel with each other. Then both the accused and the deceased left her house and went towards graveyard, sat on the bridge and started talking to each other loudly. She further stated that they were talking each other by sitting on the bridge up to 12 or 12.30 midnight. By about 12.30 midnight during the said quarrel the accused hit on the back of the deceased with a knife. Then the deceased started running from the place, the accused chased him. She further stated that they were talking each other by sitting on the bridge up to 12 or 12.30 midnight. By about 12.30 midnight during the said quarrel the accused hit on the back of the deceased with a knife. Then the deceased started running from the place, the accused chased him. She further stated that herself and her son Satish - PW.12 together had gone to the said place. After seeing the accused chasing and assaulting the deceased, both of them returned to their house. She also stated in her evidence that about 1½ hours thereafter i.e., in the midnight the accused came to her house with bloodstained shirt and asked her kerosene. When she gave kerosene, he burnt his shirt. Then the accused left her house at about 6.00 a.m. saying that he was going to Puttur to see his children and asked her for Rs. 200/-. She gave the same. Her evidence further shows that on the next day of the incident the police had visited tile scene of offence, she also had gone there. Due to fear she did not inform the police about the accused assaulting the deceased. One month then after the police enquired her about the incident, then she narrated the incident before the police. The police also enquired with her son Satish also, he also narrated before the police about the incident. 24. PW.12 - M.S. Sathish has stated in his evidence that the accused is his maternal uncle. He had seen the accused with the deceased on two or three occasions. Both used to consume liquor. On 05.08.2003 at about 10 or 10.30 p.m. when himself and his mother PW. 11 - Asha were present in their house, the accused and the deceased together came to their house having consumed liquor. At that time, the deceased asked the accused to repay Rs. 1000/- which the accused had taken from the deceased. Then there was quarrel between the accused and the deceased. During the said quarrel, the accused slapped the deceased. His mother advised them not to quarrel in their house and then they left their house and sat on the bridge near the graveyard and started talking to each other upto 12.00 in the midnight. Then there was quarrel between the accused and the deceased. During the said quarrel, the accused slapped the deceased. His mother advised them not to quarrel in their house and then they left their house and sat on the bridge near the graveyard and started talking to each other upto 12.00 in the midnight. He further stated in his evidence that during that time both the accused and the deceased were quarreling with each other loudly and himself and his mother together were seeing the said quarrel. During the said quarrel the deceased was demanding from the accused the loan amount of Rs. 1, 000/- and the accused was telling the deceased that he had no money to give him. During the said quarrel, the accused hit on the back of the deceased with a knife. Then the deceased cried saying 'ayyo' and started running from the said place, the accused chased him. Then himself and his mother returned to their house. 25. He also stated in his evidence that the accused came to their house after 1½ hours after midnight. The shirt worn by him was stained with blood. He burnt his shirt on the back yard of their house by pouring kerosene to it and left the house by about 6.00 a.m. saying that he was going to Puttur and also took Rs. 200/- from his mother. 26. PW12 further stated that on the next day morning police had come to the scene of the offence which was near the burial ground. Due to fear hi; also did not disclose before the police about the said incident. About 15 days thereafter police came to their house and enquired them. At that time they disclosed before the police about the incident and also gave the address of the accused to the police. He also identified M.O.2 - Knife, which the accused was keeping with him. 27. Both PWs- 11 and 12 in their examination-in-chief have categorically stated similar version about the accused and deceased visiting their house and accused taking dinner and after that the deceased demanding accused for repayment of Rs. He also identified M.O.2 - Knife, which the accused was keeping with him. 27. Both PWs- 11 and 12 in their examination-in-chief have categorically stated similar version about the accused and deceased visiting their house and accused taking dinner and after that the deceased demanding accused for repayment of Rs. 1000/- and there was quarrel between them and PW 11 requested them not to quarrel in her house and told them to go out if they were to quarrel with each other and told of them left her house and went towards grayard, sat on the bridge and started talking to each other loudly. But in the cross-examination. PW – 11 has stated that on the date of incident, she had gone to bed by about 10.00 or 10.30 p.m. and on the next day morning about 6.00 a.m. she woke up and she did not disclose before anyone about the incident till she gave her statement before the police about one month after the incident. Both PWs-11 and 12 in their examination-in-chief haw stated that at about 12.30 in the midnight, the accused hit on the back of the deceased with a knife and when deceased starting running from that place, the accused chased him. Both of them also have stated that about 1½ hours after midnight, accused came to their house with blood stained shirt and requested PW.11 to provide kerosene and she gave kerosene and accused burnt the same by pouring kerosene and the accused left their house by about 6.00 a.m. by taking Rs. 200/- from PW 11. In the cross-examination PW – 11 has clearly stated that about 10.30 p.m. on the date of incident, she slept and woke up about 6.00 a.m. on the next day morning. Therefore, the evidence of PW-11 that she witnessed the incident at about 12.00 or 12.30 midnight when the accused hitting the deceased on his back with a knife cannot be believed. Therefore, the evidence of PW-11 that she witnessed the incident at about 12.00 or 12.30 midnight when the accused hitting the deceased on his back with a knife cannot be believed. The evidence of PW-11 that accuser again came to their house after 1½ hours after 12.30 midnight with blood stained clothes also cannot be believed for the reason that she has stated that she woke up on the next day morning at 6.00 a.m, after she slept at 10.30 p.m on the date of the incident PW-12 in the cross-examination has stated that the distance between their house and the graveyard is about 1/2 kilo metre and there are number of homes in between their house and the grayard. He and his mother PW11 watching TV from 10.30 p.m. to 12.00 in the midnight, after the accused and deceased went towards the graveyard, where the alleged incident took place. Therefore, it is highly improbable for PWs-11 to 12 to witness the accused and deceased quarrelling with each other and accused stabbing the deceased on his back with knife. Admittedly, the statements of these witnesses were recorded after 1½ months of the incident i.e., on 23.9.2003. In the evidence, both PWs-11 and 12 have stated that immediately after the incident, they visited the scene of offence and found the dead-body with injuries, but they did not disclose anything about the incident to the police or to anybody, due to fear. Admittedly the accused is closely related to PWs-11 and 12. He is none other the younger brother of PW- 11. According to PW - 11, accused took Rs. 200/- from her on the next day morning at 6.00 a.m. and left the house stating that he would go to his village to see his children. Therefore, the question of PWs-11 and 12 not disclosing anybody about the incident due to fear does not arise and there was no threat for them from anybody particularly from accused not to disclose anything about the incident. The Trial Court alter appreciating the evidence has rightly come to the conclusion that the evidence of PWs 11 and 12 is unreliable and unworthy of acceptance and the prosecution case that PWs 11 and 12 witnessed the incident is not believed in view of the fact that PWs- 11 and 12 were watching TV. The Trial Court alter appreciating the evidence has rightly come to the conclusion that the evidence of PWs 11 and 12 is unreliable and unworthy of acceptance and the prosecution case that PWs 11 and 12 witnessed the incident is not believed in view of the fact that PWs- 11 and 12 were watching TV. after the accused and deceased left their house at about 12.00 p.m. and they woke up on the next day morning. Therefore, the Trial Court was justified in holding that PWs-11 and 12 are not reliable witnesses. 28. The prosecution has relied on the evidence of PWs-9 and 17 to prove that based on the confessional statement of the accused, the police recovered M.O.2 knife and under the Mahazar nearby the premisses of PW-11. PW-19 I.O who is said to have recovered the knife on the basis of confessional statement of the accused has stated in his evidence that he secured the presence of PW - 17 Ramesh and one Sridhar as panchas and the accused led them to a place nearby the graveyard situated at Vidyanagar, T-Dasarahalli and produced M.O.2 knife by taking it from the bushes grown in the said graveyard. But in the evidence PW- 17 who acted as witness for seizure of knife has stated that the police seized M.O.2 near the backyard of house of PW s-11. The prosecution did not choose to examine the other panch witness Sridhar, Thus the evidence of PWs17 and 19 is not consistent and corroborative about the seizure of M.O.2 knife on the basis of confessional statement said to have given by the accused. The Trial Court has rightly dis-believed the evidence of PWs-19 and 17 with regard to seizure of M.O.2 knife also. The evidence of PW- 16 who is also panch witness for Ex-P11 mahazar has stated in his evidence that at 1.00 p.m or 1.30 p.m, when himself and PW-21 Bhadresh Kumar Were called by the police of Peenya police station, at that time the accused was in the custody of the police and on request by the police, they consented to act as panchas. In the cross-examination also, he has clearly stated that the police showed the accused to them and told them that it is the accused, who had committed the murder. In the cross-examination also, he has clearly stated that the police showed the accused to them and told them that it is the accused, who had committed the murder. He has also stated that the accused has not accompanied them in the police jeep when they went to the scene of offence from the police station and the police showed them the place saying that it was there where the murder has taken place. Thus the evidence of PW 16 clearly shows that the accused was apprehended immediately after the incident i.e., on 6.8.2003, According to the prosecution, the accused was arrested. On 24.9.2003 at 3.00, p.m. The evidence of PW- 16 regarding the date of arrest of accused was not challenged during his cross-examination by the prosecution and it was not suggested to him that the accused was not arrested on 6.8.2003. 29. During the course of cross-examination of PW s-19 and 20, it was suggested that on 18.09.2003, the accused visited the police station to enquire above the detention, of PW- 11 Smt. Asha and her husband Satya Narayana, and at that time he was taken into custody. Though PWs-19 and 20 has denied the said suggestion, the evidence of PW – 16 clearly goes to show that accused was very much present in the police station, by the time they visited the police station on 6.8.2003 and the accused was shown to them and they were informed that the accused has committed the murder of the deceased. Therefore the question of accused producing M.O.2 knife based on his confessional statement on 20.4.2003 cannot be believed. The Trial Court after proper appreciation of the entire evidence on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to connect the accused with the crime and that the accused is not found guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. 30. It is repeatedly held that interference by this Court in an appeal against acquittal should be minimal and only where the judgment of the Trial Court is perverse and is not based on the evidence on records the High Court can interfere with the finding of the Trial Court. If the trial Court has taken one of the possible views under the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court would not normally interfere. If the trial Court has taken one of the possible views under the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court would not normally interfere. In the present case, the Trial Court after appreciating the evidence produced by the prosecution has rightly come to the conclusion that the evidence of PWs-11 and 12 is not reliable and unworthy of acceptance. The prosecution has filed to explain properly the delay in recording the statement of PWs 11 and 12, though they were present at the scene of offence and are related to the accused. 31. We appreciate the assistance rendered by the Amicus Curiae appointed by this Court to defend the accused. He shall be paid Honorarium of Rs. 5, 000/-. 32. Thus, the evidence of prosecution witnesses, particularly the evidence of PWs. 11 and 12 does not inspire confidence. The prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 302 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt. Accused is therefore entitled for an order of acquittal. Accordingly, we pass the following order:- The appeal filed the State is dismissed. By the order dated 23.1.2012, this Court remanded the accused to judicial custody. Since by this order, the accused is acquitted of the offence, he shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case.