JUDGMENT H. BILLAPPA, J.-These two appeals are directed against the judgment and order, dated 17.03.2010, passed by the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Uttara Kannada, Karwar in S.C. No. 68/2007. 2. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and has sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for a period of two months. The accused is acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 201 of IPC. 3. Aggrieved by the conviction, the appellant-accused has filed Crl.A. No. 2767/2011. The State has filed Crl. A. No. 2518/2011 challenging the acquittal of the accused for the offences punishable under Section 376 and 201 of IPC. 4. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is as follows: That the complainant is the cousin of the deceased. The deceased was studying in first year B.Com. On 17.08.2007, the deceased left the house at about 8.00 a.m. to go to her college. She did not return in the evening. Through the neighbour Vigneshwar Anant Hegde, the complainant and other family members came to know that the deceased got down from the bus at Kalmane cross at about 4.30 p.m. The family members searched for the deceased. She could not be traced. On 18.08.2007, at about 8.30 a.m., at a distance of about half a kilometer from Kalmane cross, umbrella, chappal, books and other articles belonging to the deceased were seen. Thereafter, the body of the deceased was traced in Sampigemane jungle. It was half-naked. Thereafter, the complainant, i.e., P.W.5 lodged the complaint Ex.P7. Based on that, a case in Crime No. 125/2007 of Sirsi Rural Police Station has been registered for the offences punishable under Section 376, 302 and 201 of IPC. 5. After investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 302, 376 and 201 of IPC. 6. At the trial, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 24 and Exs.P1 to P39A and M.O's 1 to 8 have been marked. 7. On behalf of the accused, the accused himself has been examined as D.W.1 and Exs.D1 to D4G have been marked. 8. 6. At the trial, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 24 and Exs.P1 to P39A and M.O's 1 to 8 have been marked. 7. On behalf of the accused, the accused himself has been examined as D.W.1 and Exs.D1 to D4G have been marked. 8. The trial Court on appreciation of the evidence on record has convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and has sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for a period of two months. The accused has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 201 of IPC. Aggrieved by the conviction, the appellant-accused has filed Crl. A. No. 2767/2011. The State has filed Crl. A. No. 2518/2011 challenging the acquittal of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 201 of IPC. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant-accused in Crl. A. No. 2767/2011 contended that the impugned judgment and order cannot be sustained in law. He also submitted that the trial Court has failed to consider the evidence on record in proper perceptive. Further he submitted that the trial Court has erred in placing reliance on the evidence of P.Ws.6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 17 and 18 to convict the accused. He also submitted that the case is based on circumstantial evidence and the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution will not connect the accused with the alleged crime. He also submitted that P.Ws.6, 10 and 17 are chance witnesses. Further he submitted that the extra judicial confession has not been proved. He also submitted that there was a litigation between P.W.11 and the accused and it is unbelievable that the accused made extra judicial confession before P.W.11. Further he submitted that the witnesses belong to the same community and they are interested witnesses. He also submitted that there is no motive for the offence and there is nothing on record to show that the accused and the deceased were seen together at any point of time. Further he submitted that, when the trial Court has acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under Section 376 and 201 of IPC, it was not justified in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Further he submitted that, when the trial Court has acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under Section 376 and 201 of IPC, it was not justified in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. He therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment and order cannot be sustained in law. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1994Crl.J. 2189. 10. As against this, the learned Addl. S.P.P. submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has erred in acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 201 of IPC. He also submitted that the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution clearly establish the guilt of the accused. He also submitted that the P.M. report Ex.P10 indicates recent sexual intercourse and the injuries found on the person of the deceased. Ex.P34 shows the injuries found on the person of the accused. Therefore, it is clear, the accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 201 of IPC. He therefore submitted that the impugned judgment and order insofar as it relates to acquittal of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 201 of IPC is concerned, it cannot be sustained in law. 11. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 12. The point that arise for our consideration is: Whether the impugned judgment and order calls for interference? 13. The death is homicidal is not in dispute. Ex.P10 postmortem report shows that the deceased had sustained as many as 15 injuries. The Doctor P.W. 14 has opined that the death was due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation. Ex.P3 inquest report shows the injuries found on the deceased. It is clear from the evidence P.W. 14 and the contents of exhibits P3 and P10 that the death was homicidal. 14. The case is based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution relies upon the following circumstances: (i) That the deceased got down from the bus at about 4.00 or 4.30 p.m. at Kalmane cross and proceeded towards Kalmane. It is clear from the evidence P.W. 14 and the contents of exhibits P3 and P10 that the death was homicidal. 14. The case is based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution relies upon the following circumstances: (i) That the deceased got down from the bus at about 4.00 or 4.30 p.m. at Kalmane cross and proceeded towards Kalmane. (ii) That the accused was seen by P.Ws.6, 10 and 17 at a distance of about half a kilometer from the Kalmane cross between 3.00 p.m. and 5.30 p.m. (iii) That the accused was seen moving in front of the house of P.Ws.7 and 8 between 6.00 p.m. and 7.00 p.m. (iv) The accused made extra judicial confession before P.W.11 on 03.09.2007 at about 5.00 p.m. in the garden land of P.W. 11. 15. The prosecution relies upon the evidence of P.Ws.6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 17 and 18 to prove the above circumstances. 16. P.W.6 has deposed that he is a vessel vendor. When he was returning to Kalmane cross, at a distance of about half a kilometer before Kalmane cross, he saw the accused sitting in a ditch. The accused came out and told 'hello' to him and went away. At that time, the accused had black colour blanket on his head. It was about 5.00 or 5.30 p.m. in the evening. In his cross-examination, P.W.6 has stated that, Police had called him to the Police Station after about 15 to 20 days after the incident. He had not told anybody about his seeing the accused on that day except to the police when enquired. 17. P.W.10 has deposed that, he had been to Sirsi on his motorbike on 17.08.2007. At about 3.00 or 3.30 p.m., he returned to his village. At that time, he saw the accused near Kalmane cross. He has stated that the accused was wearing lungi, half shirt and a blanket on his head. He has identified M.O.5, the blanket. In his cross-examination, he has stated that, he has not told anybody about his seeing the accused on that day. 18. P.W.17 has deposed that, on 17.08.2007, while he was coming back to Kalmane cross, at 5.30p.m., he saw the accused at a distance of about half a kilometer from Kalmane cross near a honda (pond). The accused had a blanket on his head. 18. P.W.17 has deposed that, on 17.08.2007, while he was coming back to Kalmane cross, at 5.30p.m., he saw the accused at a distance of about half a kilometer from Kalmane cross near a honda (pond). The accused had a blanket on his head. In his cross-examination, P.W. 17 has stated that he told about his seeing the accused after about 10 to 15 days and till then he did not reveal it to anybody. 19. P.W.7-Shashikala is the mother of the deceased. She has deposed that, her daughter was studying in first year B.Com. in M.E.S. College at Sirsi. After attending the college, she used to return home within 5.00 p.m. in the evening. On 17.08.2007, her daughter went to the college at about 7.15 a.m. without taking any food. She did not return. Therefore, she became panic. Till 6.30 or 7.00 p.m. she did not return. Thereafter, the complainant alongwith the neighbours and other people searched for the deceased. At about 9.00 p.m., when she enquired P.W. 15, who is her neighbour, he told that deceased got down from the bus near Kalmane cross at about 4.15 or 4.30 p.m. On the next day morning, her sister Jalajakshi told her that her daughter's dead body was found in the jungle at a distance of about half a kilometer from Kalmane cross. Further she has stated that, on the date of incident, their dog was barking at about 6.00 or 6.30 p.m., she came out and saw the accused moving in front of their house. In her cross-examination, P.W.7 has stated that the accused never went to their field for coolie. They have no dealings with the accused. She made her statement before the police only after about 10 to 12 days from the date of the incident. She has admitted the suggestion that the deceased used to enquire family accounts with the complainant. She has also admitted the suggestion that police have suspected the involvement of the complainant and coolie people. Further she has admitted the suggestion that Dog squad had gone near their house after it was pressed into service. 20. P.W.8-Jaya is the sister of the deceased. She has also admitted the suggestion that police have suspected the involvement of the complainant and coolie people. Further she has admitted the suggestion that Dog squad had gone near their house after it was pressed into service. 20. P.W.8-Jaya is the sister of the deceased. She has deposed that the deceased used to go to the college in the morning within 8.00 a.m. and used to return in the evening at about 5.00 or 5.30 p.m. On the date of the incident, her sister went to the college at about 7.30 in the morning and she did not return. The family members became panic and they searched for the deceased till evening. Thereafter, their neighbour informed them at about 9.30 p.m. that her sister got down from the bus near Kalmane cross at about 4.00 p.m. She has stated that, on the next day at about 8.00 a.m., the dead body of her sister was found in the jungle at a distance of about half a kilometer from Kalmane cross. She has stated that, on the date of incident in the evening at about 7.00 p.m. their dog started barking and she came out and saw the accused moving in front of their house. She has stated that, after 15 to 20 days after the incident, when enquired by the police, she narrated all the facts. In her cross-examination, P.W.8 has stated that the police were suspecting the complainant and also son of a politician. Further she has stated that, she has not told the name of the accused to the police after the incident at any time. 21. P.W.9 is the neighbour of P.Ws7 and 8. He has stated that, on 17.08.2007 at about 4.00 or 4.15 p.m., he had been to Kalmane cross to send his wife and child to her parents house. On that day, he saw the deceased getting down from the bus which was bound to Shigehalli to Kadbal. He told the mother of the deceased that her daughter got down from the bus near Kalmane cross at about 4.00 or 4.15 p.m. On 19.08.2007, police called him to the police station and he told the said fact to the police. In his cross-examination, P.W.9 has stated that the complainant is his neighbour and the complainant has accompanied him to the Court on that day. 22. P.W.18 is the wife of P.W.9. In his cross-examination, P.W.9 has stated that the complainant is his neighbour and the complainant has accompanied him to the Court on that day. 22. P.W.18 is the wife of P.W.9. She has stated that, on 17.08.2007, her husband took her in a motorcycle to send her to her parents house. When they reached Kalmane cross, it was 4.00 or 4.15 p.m. The deceased got down from the bus at about 4.15 or 4.30 p.m. and proceed towards Kalmane. 23. P.W.11 is one Vigneshwar G. Hegde. He has deposed that the accused used to work in his garden. He had engaged accused for coolie work. On 03.09.2007, the accused had come for coolie work. In the evening, at about 5.00 p.m., he had been to his garden land. The accused went to him and started crying before him. The accused told him that, he raped the deceased and murdered her by tying her neck with the dupetta. On hearing this, he was shocked. On the next day, at about 8.00 a.m., he went to Sirsi police station. He came to know that the accused has been arrested on the previous night itself. In his cross-examination, P.W. 11 has denied the suggestion that there was litigation between him and the accused. He stated that he does not have any dealings or friendship with the accused. He has also stated that the accused alone went to his garden on that day for coolie work. Further he has stated that, he has not informed the police regarding the confession made to him on the very same day. Further he has stated that, he is having telephone. He has also stated that he has not informed his family members about the confession made by the accused. 24. From the evidence on record, it is clear, P.Ws9 and 18 have deposed that the deceased got down from the bus at about 4.00 or 4.30 p.m. at Kalmane cross. P.W.6 has deposed that he saw the accused at a distance of about half a kilometer before Kalmane cross.P.W.10 has deposed that, he saw the accused near Kalmane cross while returning from Sirsi at about 3.00 or 3.30 p.m. P.W.17 has deposed that he saw the accused while coming to Kalmane cross at about 5.30 p.m. None of the witnesses, i.e., P.Ws.6, 10 and 17 have revealed their seeing the accused to anybody. P.W.6 has stated that, he was called to the police station after about 15 to 20 days. P.W.10 has stated that, he did not tell anybody having seen the accused on that day. P.W.17 has stated that, he made his statement after about 10 to 15 days. From the evidence of P.Ws.6, 10 and 17, it is clear, their evidence is not reliable. Even assuming that, P.Ws.6, 10 and 17 have seen the accused near Kalmane cross, by itself it cannot be an incriminating cir cum stance. 25. P.W.7, the mother of the deceased and P.W.8 the sister of the deceased have stated that their dog started barking on the date of incident and the accused passed in front of their house at about 6.30 or 7.00 p.m. They have made their statement before the police after about 10 to 12 days. It is not reliable. Even assuming that the accused moved in front of the house of P.Ws7 and 8 at about 6.30 or 7.00 p.m., it cannot be an incriminating cir cum stance. 26. The next circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is extra judicial confession. P.W. 11 has stated that the accused had gone to coolie work on 03.09.2007. At about 5.00 p.m., when he went to his garden land, the accused confessed before him that the accused committed rape and murder of the deceased. It is suggested to P.W. 11 that there is a litigation between him and the accused. He has denied the suggestion. The accused himself has stepped into the witness box and has deposed that there is a litigation between him and P.W. 11. A Panchayat was held and documents was also executed. P.W. 11 has not informed the police or revealed it to his family members. It is difficult to believe that a person who has litigation would venture to go to his opponent and make extra judicial confession. Therefore, the extra judicial confession cannot be accepted being unnatural and unbelievable. 27. The case is based on circumstantial evidence. There is no motive for the offence. There is no evidence on record to show that the accused and the deceased were seen together at any point of time. Therefore, the extra judicial confession cannot be accepted being unnatural and unbelievable. 27. The case is based on circumstantial evidence. There is no motive for the offence. There is no evidence on record to show that the accused and the deceased were seen together at any point of time. The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution namely the deceased got down from the bus at Kalmane cross at about 4.00 or 4.30 p.m. and that the accused was seen near Kalmane cross by P.Ws 6, 10 and 17 and the accused was seen in the evening at about 6.30 or 7.00 p.m. by P.Ws7 and 8 in front of their house will not connect the accused with the alleged crime. The trial Court having acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 201 of IPC was not justified in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution do not establish the guilt of the accused. Therefore, the trial Court was not justified in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and was justified in acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 201 of IPC. The conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC cannot be sustained in law. 28. Accordingly, Crl. A. No. 2767/2011 filed by the accused is allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated 17.03.2010 passed by the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Uttara Kannada, Karwar in S.C. No. 68/2007 convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC is hereby set aside. The accused is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The acquittal of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 201 of IPC is hereby confirmed. The accused shall be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. Crl. A. No. 2518/2011 filed by the State is hereby dismissed. Communicate the operative portion of the judgment to the concerned jail authority.