Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1081 (KAR)

G. Kantharaju v. State Of Karnataka

2014-12-12

N.ANANDA, PRADEEP D.WAINGANKAR

body2014
Judgment : 1. The appellant (hereinafter referred as "accused") was tried and convicted for offences punishable under Sections 381, 302, 201 IPC and acquitted of an offence punishable under Section 27 of Arms Act in S.C.No.260/2009 by judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.12.2010 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysore. 2. The prosecution case in brief is as under : The deceased-Gunasagara Hegde was the resident of Mangalore. The accused-G.Kantharaju was working as a Police Constable in Vijayanagar Police Station, Mysore. The deceased was dealing in a real estate. In connection with purchase of house site, accused came in contact with deceased. It is the case of prosecution that accused had advanced Rs.50,000/- to deceased for purchase of house site. The deceased was not able to secure house site for accused nor he refunded the advance amount. The accused was frustrated. The accused developed enemity with deceased to such an extent that accused wanted to eliminate him. As such, accused telephoned deceased and secured his presence at Mysore on the pretext that one Swamiji of Nanjanagud is in need of house site for the purpose of establishment of old age home at Mangalore. Deceased came to Mysore and stayed in Lucia International Hotel on 21.06.2009 at 7.30 a.m. On the same day at 10.00 p.m. accused took deceased on his motorcycle under the guise of taking him to meet Nanjanagud Swamiji. On the way, when they reached near Nerale village, accused shot dead deceased with a pistol. He spilled petrol, burnt the face of dead body to cause disappearance of evidence. On 22.06.2009 at about 7.00 a.m. one M. Nagarajappa saw half burnt dead body of an unknown person in the land of one Beeregowda. He informed one Shivananjaiah (PW.2), who gave first information (Ex.P26) to Kavalande Police Station on 22.06.2009 at 8.30 a.m. PW.48-G. Omkarappa, PSI of Kavalande Police Station registered a case in Crime No.77/2009 for offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 IPC against unknown person and forwarded FIR to jurisdictional Magistrate. He gave information to CPI, Nanjanagud Circle (PW.52) and proceeded to the spot of incident where PW.52 took up further investigation from PW.48. PW.52 conducted spot panchanama (Ex.P2) whereunder he seized spectacle, two spent cartridge cases, live match sticks, blood stained mud and sample mud. He gave information to CPI, Nanjanagud Circle (PW.52) and proceeded to the spot of incident where PW.52 took up further investigation from PW.48. PW.52 conducted spot panchanama (Ex.P2) whereunder he seized spectacle, two spent cartridge cases, live match sticks, blood stained mud and sample mud. He conducted inquest mahazar (Ex.P1), took photographs of dead body and spot where dead body was traced as per Exs.P3 to P25. On 23.06.2009, PW-52-Pramod Kumar, CPI subjected the dead body for post mortem examination in K.R. Hospital Mysore and after post mortem examination he preserved the dead body in cold storage in Mission Hospital, Mysore, where PW.7-Asha (wife of deceased), PW.10-Sadhana Shetty (cousin of deceased) identified dead body as that of deceased-Gunasagara Hegde. During the course of investigation, PW.52 suspected the involvement of accused behind the murder of deceased. On 25.06.2009 PW.52-Pramod Kumar, CPI, Nanjanagud Circle secured call details of accused and deceased as per Exs.P-76 and P-77. He apprehended accused in his residence (Police Quarters), Hebbal, Mysore. Pw52 recorded voluntary statement of accused (Ex.P-79), which led to recovery of incriminating articles from different places. The accused led PW.52 and panchas to Nerale village where he pointed out place from where shoes, purse, bottles belonging to the deceased were seized. The photographs were taken. PW.52 seized a bag containing a pistol (MO-10), 33 live cartridges (MO-11) and a mobile of deceased (MO-22) at the instance of accused which he had kept in the house of one Gayathri (PW.14) under a mahazar Ex.P36 in the presence of panchas. Thereafter accused took PW.52 to arms and ammunition room of Vijayanagar Police Station from where accused had clandestinely taken a pistol and 35 live cartridges. He conducted mahazar of the said room as per Ex.P37 in the presence of panchas. On 28.06.2009, accused led PW.52 and panchas to his residence at Hebbal from where R.C. Book of vehicle bearing registration No.KA-21-J-8403 and two note books were seized. Thereafter accused led them to a vehicle parking place at Police Head Quarters, Hebbal, Mysore from where PW.52 seized a two wheeler bearing registration No.KA-21-J- 4360 used for commission of crime. Accused led PW.52 and panchas to Belony Petrol Bunk near Central Prison, Mysore and pointed out towards PW.32-Girish from whom he had purchased petrol on the night of 21.06.2009. Thereafter accused led them to a vehicle parking place at Police Head Quarters, Hebbal, Mysore from where PW.52 seized a two wheeler bearing registration No.KA-21-J- 4360 used for commission of crime. Accused led PW.52 and panchas to Belony Petrol Bunk near Central Prison, Mysore and pointed out towards PW.32-Girish from whom he had purchased petrol on the night of 21.06.2009. PW.52 received report from PW.50-N.G.Prabhakar, Ballistic Expert regarding pistol and live cartridges, spent cartridges and a bullet sent for examination and report. The Investigating Officer recorded statements of various persons including police officials attached to Vijayanagar Police Station so as to ascertain how accused came in possession of pistol and live cartridges. He recorded statement of employees of Lucia International Hotel (PW.21 to PW.24) where the deceased had stayed on 21.06.2009. He secured order passed by Police Commissioner, Mysore regarding supply of MO-10-pistol and MO-11-live cartridges to Vijayanagar Police Station. After completion of all other formalities of investigation, PW-52 submitted charge sheet against accused for offences punishable under Sections 381, 302, 201 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. 3. In order to prove the charges, prosecution examined as many as 52 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.52, marked Exs.P-1 to P-96 apart from MO.1 to MO.32. On behalf of defence no evidence was led. The defence of the accused is one of total denial. 4. The learned Sessions Judge on appreciation of evidence, convicted accused for offences punishable under Sections 381, 302 and 201 IPC and acquitted him of an offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act. 5. We have heard Sri. C.H. Jadhav, learned Senior counsel for accused and Sri. Vijayakumar Majage, learned Government Pleader for the State. 6. Upon hearing the submissions made by learned counsel for parties and upon consideration of entire material placed on record, the point that arises for our determination is "Whether the prosecution has proved that accused is guilty of offences punishable under Sections 381, 302 & 201 IPC?" 7. The case of prosecution is that death of deceased was homicidal. He died of injuries shot from a pistol. We have gone through evidence of PW.52, who conducted inquest proceeding (Ex.P1), PW.44-Dr. Udayashankar, who conducted post mortem examination and issued post mortem report (Ex.P68). 8. PW.52-Investigating Officer, who conducted inquest proceedings on 22.06.2009 has deposed that he noticed following injuries:- (“Language”) 9. The evidence of PW.44-Dr. He died of injuries shot from a pistol. We have gone through evidence of PW.52, who conducted inquest proceeding (Ex.P1), PW.44-Dr. Udayashankar, who conducted post mortem examination and issued post mortem report (Ex.P68). 8. PW.52-Investigating Officer, who conducted inquest proceedings on 22.06.2009 has deposed that he noticed following injuries:- (“Language”) 9. The evidence of PW.44-Dr. Udayashankar would reveal that on 23.06.2009 between 3.00 p.m. and 4.00 p.m., he conducted post mortem examination on the dead body in the mortuary of Mysore Medical College and issued report as per Ex.P68. He noticed following injuries:- 1) Entry wound of gun shot injury present on right temporal area, placed 2 CMs. above the right ear, measuring 0.5 cms. Diameter being circular in shape. Entry wound was surrounded by blackened area, circular in shape and 2.5 cms. in diameter. 2) Exit wound of gun shot injury seen on the frontal scalp, irregular in shape in an area of 0.5 cms. into 0.5 cms. situated 11 cms. above the route of the nose. Bleeding seen through the cavity of the opening during handling of the head of body. 3) Entry wound of gun shot injury seen over the left temporal region. placed 5 cms. above the left ear, circular in shape & 0.5 cms in diameter. Surrounded by blackened circular area of 2.5 cms in diameter. On dissection of the scalp: Extra vessation of blood seen all over the head. Skull shows circular entry wounds 2 in number situated in temporal regions on right and left sides respectively, 1 cm. in diameter. Exit wound was situated in the frontal region and oval in shape measuring 1.5 cms. x 1 cms in dimension and showing dwelled edges. A bullet was seen in the posterior cranial fossa on the right side with the exit wound over the skull with a gap of 1.5 x 1 cms. area with multiple bone fragments around it. Skull also shows fissure fractures inverted "Y" shape and 2 oblique fissure fractures. Membranes and Brain were lacerate. On dissection of the other parts of the body no internal injury was seen. On examination of the abdomen, it contained brown fluid-100 m.l. with curd like particles and vegetables. Gun shot injuries were ante-mortem. The death had occurred about 24 to 36 hours prior to my examination. 10. Membranes and Brain were lacerate. On dissection of the other parts of the body no internal injury was seen. On examination of the abdomen, it contained brown fluid-100 m.l. with curd like particles and vegetables. Gun shot injuries were ante-mortem. The death had occurred about 24 to 36 hours prior to my examination. 10. In the post-mortem examination report, PW44 has furnished following opinion:- The body was kept in cold storage before conducting P.M. examination. I collected muscle mass from the right thigh, lower jaw, 3 m.l. of blood and bullet which was found in the head and sealed the same and handed over to the police. In my opinion the death had occurred due to comma as a result of gun shot injuries to the head. I have issued P.M. Report as per Ex. P.68 shown to me now and my signature is as per Ex.P.68(a). PW.44-Doctor who conducted post mortem examination has reiterated aforesaid injuries in his evidence. He has opined that death was due to coma consequent to gun shot injuries on the head which were ante-mortem in nature and burn injuries were post-mortem. The defence has not seriously controverted homicidal death of the deceased. In the circumstances, evidence of PW.52-Investigating Officer, PW.44-Doctor who conducted post mortem examination coupled with Ex.P1-inquest report and Ex.P68-post mortem examination report is sufficient to come to the conclusion that deceased died a homicidal death. 11. In order to prove that accused with an intention of committing murder of deceased caused his death by a pistol shot injuries in Nerale village of Nanjanagud Taluk on 21.06.2009 at about 11.00 p.m., the prosecution has relied upon circumstantial evidence since there is no direct evidence. 12. It is well established principle of law that when a case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence such evidence should satisfy the following tests: i) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established. ii) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused and iii) the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no scope from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else. 13. The prosecution has relied on the following circumstances to connect accused to the murder of deceased Gunasagara Hegde:- i) Motive. 13. The prosecution has relied on the following circumstances to connect accused to the murder of deceased Gunasagara Hegde:- i) Motive. ii) The deceased last seen alive in the company of accused. iii) The missing of pistol and 35 live cartridges from Vijayanagar Police Station, Mysore where the accused was working as a Police Constable. iv) The recovery of a pistol and 33 live cartridges and the mobile phone of the deceased at the instance of accused. v) The recovery of dead body of deceased, two spent cartridge cases and other incriminating articles from the place where dead body was traced. vi) The scientific evidence. I) Motive 14. According to prosecution, the motive for the commission of murder is that deceased was a real estate agent. The accused wanted to purchase a site near Mangalore. The accused had advanced a sum of Rs.50,000/- to deceased about five months prior to the incident. Even after repeated demands, deceased failed to secure a site for the accused. The deceased had not repaid advance amount of Rs.50,000/- to accused. Therefore, accused developed grudge against the deceased to such an extent that accused had decided to commit his murder. The accused secured presence of deceased at Mysore. The accused was working as a Police Constable in Vijayanagar Police Station. 15. In order to establish the motive, prosecution mainly relied on evidence of PW.7-Asha (wife of deceased), PW.8-Vandya Hegde (daughter of deceased) PW-10 Sadhana Shetty (cousin sister of deceased), PW.15-Raj Bansi V Rai (sister of deceased) apart from PW.12-Vasanth K and PW.13-Ashok. 16. PW.7-Asha (wife of deceased) has deposed that her husband apart from agriculture was doing real estate business in Mangalore. She has deposed; she does not know the motive behind the murder of her husband. She has denied alleged payment of Rs.50,000/- by accused to deceased to purchase a site. She has been treated as hostile witness. The suggestion made to her by a Public Prosecutor in the cross-examination that she was told by the accused over phone that deceased had taken a sum of Rs.50,000/- from him to secure a site for him at a low cost, but he did not secure a site for him, he asked PW.7 to see that her husband secure a site for him before proceeding to Mysore, has been denied by her. She has also denied the portion of her statement (Ex.P44) recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., wherein she has stated that accused had advanced Rs.50,000/- to her husband in order to purchase a site. 17. PW.8-Vandya Hegde (daughter of deceased) has deposed that her father was dealing in a real estate business and he used to secure sites for others. He was not in the habit of taking advance amount from the prospective purchasers. PW.10 has also deposed that deceased was dealing in a real estate business. 18. PW.15-Raj Bansi V Rai (sister of the deceased) has been treated as a hostile witness. PW15 has denied the suggestion that her husband was working in Vijaya Bank Mysore, that they were residing at Vijayanagar, 3rd Stage, Mysore, during night hours beat police used to sign a book kept outside there compound, sometimes accused used to come for beat and used to sign on the said book, accused had told her that he had given an advance amount of Rs.50,000/- to deceased (her brother) to purchase a site for lesser value, deceased had not secured a site for him even after five months, therefore, something will have to be done to the deceased and accordingly she gave a statement before the police. 19. The other witnesses examined by the prosecution to establish the motive are PW.12-Vasantha K, resident of Puttur in Dakshina Kannada and PW.13-Ashok, resident of Puttur. They were examined by the prosecution to show that at the instance of deceased they shown some sites to accused. But both of them have turned hostile to prosecution case. They have denied having shown any site to accused at the instance of deceased. 20. Thus from the evidence of all the aforesaid witnesses, though the prosecution has been able to establish that deceased was a real estate agent, it has failed to prove that accused had advanced Rs.50,000/- for purchase of site and even after five months deceased could not secure a site for accused nor he repaid the amount of Rs.50,000/-advanced by the accused and thereby accused developed grudge against the deceased which led to the murder of the deceased. The law is well settled when the prosecution has failed to ravel the entire motive, the court has to carefully scrutinize the other evidence before its acceptance. II) The deceased last seen alive in the company of the accused. 21. The law is well settled when the prosecution has failed to ravel the entire motive, the court has to carefully scrutinize the other evidence before its acceptance. II) The deceased last seen alive in the company of the accused. 21. To establish this circumstance, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PW.7, PW.8, PW.19, PW.27. 22. PW.7 has deposed that about three months prior to murder of her husband, one day at about 4.30 p.m. one person stated to be Raju from Vijayanagar Police Station, Mysore contacted her husband through a mobile phone while her husband was in the house. The deceased (her husband) talked to him in her presence and in the presence of her daughter, thereafter, her husband contacted Vijayanagar Police Station, Mysore and made enquiry as to whether a person by name Raju was working in the said Police Station. He was told that no person by name Raju was working in the Police Station. But a person by name Kantharaju was working. Thereafter her husband contacted Raju and asked him as to why he had given false name. He told him that he was from Puttur and he had telephoned in connection with the site to be purchased by him. She has further deposed that her husband told her that he went to Puttur and talked to the said person who telephoned him and on enquiry he came to know that phone number of deceased was given to accused by PW.15-Raj Bansi V. Rai (sister of deceased). PW7 has deposed that said person again contacted her husband and called him to come to Mysore stating that one Swamiji from Nanjanagud wants to purchase a site in Mangalore for establishment of a home for aged persons. Her husband proceeded to Mysore by 9.30 p.m. in a bus on 20.06.2009 and reached Mysore early in the morning at 7.30 a.m. The deceased after reaching Mysore, informed the same to PW7. She has deposed that even in the afternoon at about 3.30 p.m., she contacted her husband through his mobile No.9343364509 and she was told by her husband that Swamiji was not available. She has deposed that even in the afternoon at about 3.30 p.m., she contacted her husband through his mobile No.9343364509 and she was told by her husband that Swamiji was not available. Again she contacted her husband at 7.30 p.m. at that time she was told by her husband that he would be going along with accused to meet Swamiji at 10.00 p.m. Again at 10.00 p.m. when she contacted her husband she was told by her husband that he was in Nanjanagud. She contacted her husband at about 10.30 p.m. she was told by her husband that tyre of motorcycle on which they were proceeding was punctured and after getting it repaired, they would proceed to Nanjanagud. She has deposed that on next day morning, she again tried to contact her husband, but mobile phone of her husband was switched off. She repeatedly tried to contact her husband on number of occasions. The mobile phone of her husband was switched off and there was no response. So she came to Mysore next day and made enquiries in Lucia International Hotel, where her husband had stayed. On enquiry, she came to know that her husband had left Hotel at 7.30 p.m. on 21.06.2009 without vacating the room and even after two days he did not return. On further enquiry, she came to know that dead body of a male person has been kept in the cold storage of Mission Hospital. She visited the cold storage and identified the dead body as that of her husband. In the cross-examination she has deposed that when she made enquiry with her husband when she was informed by her husband that he was at Nanjanagud as the motorcycle tyre was punctured. Her husband did not disclose the name of another person who was with him. But she has admitted that she was told by her husband that they were proceeding to Nanjanagud to meet Swamiji. She has also admitted that when she contacted her husband at about 10.00 p.m. on mobile she was informed that tyre of motorcycle was punctured. 23. PW.8-Vandya Hegde (daughter of the deceased) has deposed that on 20.06.2009 her father went to Mysore at 8.30 p.m. bus stating that Swamiji of Nanjanagud wants to purchase property worth Rs.1 crore and in that connection, he had been called by accused to go to Mysore. 23. PW.8-Vandya Hegde (daughter of the deceased) has deposed that on 20.06.2009 her father went to Mysore at 8.30 p.m. bus stating that Swamiji of Nanjanagud wants to purchase property worth Rs.1 crore and in that connection, he had been called by accused to go to Mysore. On next day, her father informed her that he had reached Mysore and he was staying in Lucia International Hotel, Mysore. She has deposed that even thereafter, her father talked to her mother over telephone. At about 9.30 p.m. her father told her over telephone that he was proceeding to Nanjanagud to meet Swamiji along with accused-Kantharaju. On the same night when her father talked to her mother and informed that tyre of the motorcycle got punctured. That was the last phone call made by her father. Next day when they tried to contact her father over mobile phone, it was switched off. When they could not contact deceased, she telephoned to Lucia International Hotel to enquire regarding the whereabouts of her father. The Hotel Manager/Receptionist told her that her father had left the room on the night of 21.06.2009 and thereafter he did not return. Her mother and her aunt Sadhana Shetty came to Mysore in search of deceased. 24. PW.27-Dr. Basavanna was working as a Medical Officer in Bantwala Taluk. PW27 was a friend of deceased. PW27 has deposed that deceased-Gunasagara Hegde was his neighbour and he and his wife were known to him since 13 years. On 20.06.2009, when PW27 was proceeding to his clinic, deceased contacted him over phone and asked PW27 whether he wants to go to Mysore and he would accompany him to Mysore. PW.27 told the deceased that he has some work, after finishing his work, he would go to Mysore. PW27 has deposed that on 20.06.2009, he left for Mysore from Mangalore and reached Mysore on 21.06.2009 early in the morning. The deceased had contacted him over phone between 10.00 a.m. to 11.00 a.m. on 21.06.2009 from and at that time deceased informed PW.27 that he was staying in Lucia International Hotel Mysore. Again when he was contacted by PW.27, deceased informed him that he would go to Nanjanagud. Thus from the evidence of PW.27 it is evident that deceased had come to Mysore and stayed in Lucia International Hotel. The deceased had told PW27 that he would go to Nanajanagud. 25. Again when he was contacted by PW.27, deceased informed him that he would go to Nanjanagud. Thus from the evidence of PW.27 it is evident that deceased had come to Mysore and stayed in Lucia International Hotel. The deceased had told PW27 that he would go to Nanajanagud. 25. PW.19-Samiulla has deposed that he was running a cycle shop at Badanavalu bus stop at a distance of 100 meters away from his house. He was repairing punctured wheels of cycles and two wheeler tyres from 6.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. After 6.00 p.m., he used to return to his house along with implements used for repairs. PW19 has deposed that on 21.06.2009 at about 11.00 p.m. accused had come to his house. The accused was accompanied by another person. The accused knocked his door and got repaired the punctured tyre of his Hero Honda motorcycle on payment of Rs.50/- and thereafter the accused and another person left that place on that motorcycle. After about 5 days, police came to his shop, made an enquiry and accordingly he gave statement to the police for having repaired the punctured tyre of Hero Honda motorcycle of accused on the night of 21.06.2009. During cross-examination, PW19 has admitted that he had not obtained permission to run his shop as the permission was not required. PW19 has deposed that he was carrying all the implements required for the repair of punctured tyres to his shop on a push cart. PW19 has deposed that police had taken photographs of his shop and his house. The suggestion made to him that in order to help police he has given false evidence has been denied by him. He pleaded ignorance about clothes worn by another person who was with accused, about colour of the cloth and type of cloth worn by person who was with accused. 26. Thus, from the evidence of PW.19-Samiulla, the prosecution has proved that accused on the night of 21.06.2009 along with another person was proceeding towards Nanjanagud on his motorcycle. The tyre of motorcycle was punctured at Badanavalu village at 11.00 p.m., the accused came to the house of PW.19-Samiulla and got repaired punctured tyre of his motorcycle. 27. The prosecution has led the evidence of PW.21-Muneer (the then Manager of Lucia International Hotel), PW.22-Manjunath and PW.23-Jayaram, room boys of Lucia International Hotel and PW.24-Rasheed, Receptionist of Lucia International Hotel. The tyre of motorcycle was punctured at Badanavalu village at 11.00 p.m., the accused came to the house of PW.19-Samiulla and got repaired punctured tyre of his motorcycle. 27. The prosecution has led the evidence of PW.21-Muneer (the then Manager of Lucia International Hotel), PW.22-Manjunath and PW.23-Jayaram, room boys of Lucia International Hotel and PW.24-Rasheed, Receptionist of Lucia International Hotel. PW21 to PW24 have deposed that deceased-Gunasagara Hegde had come to Lucia International Hotel, Mysore and occupied room No.303 at 7.30 a.m. on 21.06.2009. Their evidence would go to show that on the same day at 7.30 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. he handed over key of the room at a reception counter and went out of the hotel. Next day morning, during check out, PW.21-Manager came to know that deceased had not vacated the room though he had handed over the key at reception counter. PW.21-Manager further deposed that on 22.06.2009 at about 10.00 p.m. he received call from PW.8 (daughter of deceased) stating that she wants to talk to her father. At that time, her father was not in the room and accordingly she was informed. PW.22-Manjunath, room boy has deposed that deceased-Gunasagara Hegde occupied Room No.303 on 21.06.2009 and he brought his luggage into room. PW.23-Jayaram another room boy has also deposed that deceased-Gunasagara Hegde occupied Room No.303 on 21.06.2009 and that he supplied soap, towel, coffee and newspaper to him. 28. Apart from the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses, the prosecution has produced Ex.P76 and P78 the call details of the accused (9008822010) and deceased (9343364509). From perusal of Ex.P76 and P78, it is evident that accused was in constant touch with deceased on 20.06.2009 and 21.06.2009. Thus, the prosecution has proved that the accused called the deceased to Mysore on the pretext of taking him to Nanjanagud to meet a Swamiji. The deceased went to Mysore and stayed in Lucia International Hotel on 21.06.2009. On the same day, during night hours at about 10.00 p.m. he was taken by the accused on his motorcycle. On way to Nanjanagud, the motorcycle got punctured at Badanavalu village, the accused approached PW.19 motorcycle repairer and got repaired the tyre of the motorcycle. Thereafter, the accused proceeded further on a motorcycle along with deceased and on the next day, the dead body of deceased was found in Nerale village. On way to Nanjanagud, the motorcycle got punctured at Badanavalu village, the accused approached PW.19 motorcycle repairer and got repaired the tyre of the motorcycle. Thereafter, the accused proceeded further on a motorcycle along with deceased and on the next day, the dead body of deceased was found in Nerale village. Thus, the prosecution has established that the deceased was last seen alive in the company of the accused. III) Missing of pistol and 35 live cartridges from Vijayanagar Police Station, Mysore, where accused was working as a Police Constable. 29. The prosecution has placed reliance on circumstance that few months prior to date of incident, pistol (M.O.10) and 35 live cartridges (M.O.11) were missing from arms and ammunition room of Vijayanagar Police Station, Mysore. There is no dispute that at the time of incident accused was working as a Police Constable (No.1051) in Vijayanagar Police Station, Mysore and was residing at Police Quarters in Hebbal at Mysore. It is the case of prosecution that in order to commit murder of deceased, accused had clandestinely removed a pistol No.16340877 and 35 live cartridges from the arms and ammunition room of Vijayanagar Police Station. In order to prove this circumstance, the prosecution has relied on evidence of PW.43-Suresh K.N., Sub-Inspector of Police, City Arm Reserve Police (CAR), Mysore City, PW.47-Venkatesh, Police Inspector working in Vijayanagar Police Station, PW.49-Arun Nagegowda, who had assumed charge of Police Inspector, Vijayanagar Police Station from 11.06.2009 onwards and the evidence of PW.52-Promod Kumar, Investigating Officer. The prosecution has also placed reliance on Ex.P66-order passed by the Police Commissioner, Mysore regarding the supply of pistol and live cartridges to Vijayanagar Police Station and Ex.P67-receipt for having received the MO-10 and MO-11 by Vijayangar Police Station. 30. PW.43-Suresh K.N. has deposed that from 20.05.2009, he was working as Sub-Inspector of Police in City Arms Reserve Police, Mysore City. On 28.08.2009 PW.52-Promod Kumar, Investigating Officer came to his office and enquired as to which Police Station 9-MM pistol No.16340877 (MO-10) was supplied. He verified the documents and he furnished information that MO-10-pistol was supplied to Vijayanagar Police Station for the use of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. He also furnished information that MO-10 was received by one G.N.Mohan working in Vijayanagar Police Station. Ex.P67 is the receipt by G.N.Mohan having received MO-10 (pistol). He verified the documents and he furnished information that MO-10-pistol was supplied to Vijayanagar Police Station for the use of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. He also furnished information that MO-10 was received by one G.N.Mohan working in Vijayanagar Police Station. Ex.P67 is the receipt by G.N.Mohan having received MO-10 (pistol). He has also deposed that along with MO-10, three other 9-MM pistols were supplied to Vijayanagar Police Station. Ex.P66 is the copy of order passed by Commissioner of Police for supply of pistols including MO-10 to Vijayanagar Police Station. The suggestion made to PW.43 in the cross-examination that he created Ex.P66 the order dated 03.11.2004 issued by Police Commissioner has been denied by him. 31. PW.47-Venkatesh, Police Inspector who was working in Vijayanagar Police Station has deposed that from 2008 to 11.06.2009 he was working as Police Inspector in Vijayanagar Police Station. At that time, accused was working as Police Constable in Vijayanagar Police Station. He has identified pistol No.1634077 (MO-10). PW47 has deposed; pistol (MO-10) was supplied to Vijayangar Police Station in pursuance of order passed by the Police Commissioner. He identified MO-24-the Property Register maintained in Vijayanagar Police Station wherein pistol No.1634077 (M.O.10) finds a place. He has deposed that as per his direction, Head Constable used to entrust pistols and live cartridges to the custody of other police officials working in Vijayanagar Police Station while they were on duty and after completion of duties he used to receive back arms and ammunition and keep the same in arms and ammunition room. He has deposed that in case of emergency, police officials themselves used to take arms and ammunition from the room. He has admitted that he was responsible for custody of the arms and ammunition. He has deposed that when he was enquired by PW.52-Investigating Officer, he told him that MO-10-pistol was given for the use of police constables. He had reported about missing of MO-10-pistol from Vijayanagar Police Station, in that connection a departmental enquiry had been initiated against him and PW.34-Head Constable (H.C.No.201). 32. PW.49-Arun Nagegowda, Inspector who took charge from PW.47-Venkatesh from 11.06.2009, has deposed that though PW.47 gave him the charge of police inspector, he did not give charge of properties and documents. On 14.06.2009, he made an enquiry with PW.34-Ravindranath regarding properties, who inturn told him that in all 12 9-MM pistols and 360 live cartridges were supplied to Vijayanagar Police Station. On 14.06.2009, he made an enquiry with PW.34-Ravindranath regarding properties, who inturn told him that in all 12 9-MM pistols and 360 live cartridges were supplied to Vijayanagar Police Station. But as on the date, only 9 pistols and 320 cartridges were in possession of PW.47-Venkatesh and two pistols and 5 live cartridges were with two Police Sub-Inspectors. He further deposed that on 16.06.2009 he wrote a letter to PW.47-Venkatesh calling upon him to hand over the properties, but PW.47 did not hand over 1 pistol and 35 live cartridges. Thereafter, he came to know that Police Constable working in Vijayanagar Police Station killed one person by gun shot. When he was asked by PW.52 to hand over the property register he produced the same before Investigating Officer (PW.52). Thus from the evidence of PW.49-Arun Nagegowda, it is evident that much before the date of incident, MO-10-pistol and 35 live cartridges were missing from Vijayanagar police Station. The prosecution has relied on the circumstance of recovery of pistol no.1634077, live cartridges and mobile phone on the information volunteered by accused. 33. PW.52-Pramod Kumar, Investigating Officer has deposed that on 25.06.2009 he arrested accused from his residence in Hebbal at Mysore City and recorded voluntary statement of accused as per Ex.P-79. The accused had volunteered information that if he is taken to the house of PW.14-Gayathri, he would produce pistol, live cartridges and a mobile phone. Accordingly, PW.52-Pramod Kumar took the accused to the house of PW.14-Gayathri, where accused produced a bag containing pistol (MO-10), 33 live cartridges (MO-11), mobile phone (MO-22). 34. Thus, from the evidence of all these witnesses, it is proved that M.O.-10-pistol and 35 live cartridges were supplied to Vijayanagar Police Station in pursuance of order passed by the Commissioner of Police. The much before the date of incident M.O.-10-pistol and 35 live cartridges were missing from the Police Station and after the incident, M.O.-10-pistol and out of 35 live cartridges, 33 live cartridges were recovered on the basis of information volunteered by accused at the instance of accused from the house of PW.14-Gayathri. During period when MO-10-pistol and MO-11-35 live cartridges were missing from the Police Station, accused was working as Police Constable in the very same Police Station. The pistol and live cartridges recovered on the information volunteered by accused bear distinctive number and marks of identification. During period when MO-10-pistol and MO-11-35 live cartridges were missing from the Police Station, accused was working as Police Constable in the very same Police Station. The pistol and live cartridges recovered on the information volunteered by accused bear distinctive number and marks of identification. They are not the articles which are easily available to all and sundry. They are the articles supplied and used by the police personnel and the defence personnel. The accused was a police constable working in Vijayanagar Police Station, he had access to the arms and ammunition room. Thus from the evidence of PW-43, PW.47, PW.49 and PW.52 coupled with Exs.P-66 and P-67, the prosecution has proved the circumstance that MO-10-pistol and 35 live cartridges were missing from the Vijayanagar Police Station where accused was working. 35. The learned Senior Counsel for accused would submit that the investigation officer and other police officials had planted pistol and live cartridges in the house of PW14-Gayathri to shift the blame upon the accused and to wriggle out of situation. 36. In order to consider this submission, we have gone through evidence of PW5, PW14, PW26, PW41, PW52 and contents of Ex.P.36. 37. PW.52-Pramod Kumar, Investigating Officer has deposed that during the course of investigation, on 25.06.2009 he arrested accused in his residential quarters in Hebbal at Mysore City. PW52 recorded voluntary statement of accused as per Ex.P-76 wherein, the accused had volunteered that if he is taken to the house of PW.14-Gayathri, he would produce pistol (MO-10), 33 live cartridges (MO-11), mobile phone (MO-22) belonging to the accused. In pursuance of voluntary statement of accused, the investigation officer (PW52) took the accused to the house of PW.14-Gayathri along with one Kavitha, probationary Sub-Inspector (PW.41), PW.5-Gurusiddanaika and PW.26-Chikka Basava. 38. PW.14-Gayathri has deposed that she was residing in house No.37, 19th Cross, 3rd Phase, Vijayanagar Layout, Mysore. She had given a complaint against her husband Gururaj in Vijayanagar Police Station and at that time she had seen accused in Vijayanagar Police Station. She is running tailoring shop, that about 6 months prior, the police along with accused and one Kathyayini had come to her house. Kathyayini asked her to give a bag and at that time she handed over a bag to Kathyayini who inturn handed over the same to accused. She is running tailoring shop, that about 6 months prior, the police along with accused and one Kathyayini had come to her house. Kathyayini asked her to give a bag and at that time she handed over a bag to Kathyayini who inturn handed over the same to accused. The accused removed one pistol (MO-10), live cartridges (MO-11) and a mobile (MO-22) from the said bag, the police took custody of those articles and took photograph as per Ex.P-38. PW.14 further deposed that on 24.06.2009 Kathyayini had given said bag to her and it was not given to her by the accused. PW.14 had distorted the circumstance of recovery. PW14 was treated as a hostile witness. Even during cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor, PW14 has not fully supported the case of prosecution. During cross-examination by the defence counsel, PW14 has admitted that Kathyayini had come to her house on 24.06.2009 in the evening hours, Kathyayini gave a bag stating that she would come next day, third day Kathyayini came to her house, she informed over telephone that everything is ready, thereafter accused along with 4 to 5 police officers came in a jeep, at that time Kathyayini told her to hand over the bag to accused, police took the said bag from accused. 39. From the evidence of PW.14-Gayathri, it is proved that a bag containing pistol (MO-10), 33 live cartridges (MO-11) and mobile phone (MO-22) belonging to accused were found in the said bag. PW.14 has admitted about her acquaintance with accused. PW.14 has not fully supported the case of prosecution regarding recovery of pistol (MO-10), 33 live cartridges (MO-12) and mobile (MO-22) from a bag. PW14 has introduced a new story that one Kathyayini had given the bag to her. It is not in the evidence of PW14 that said Kathyayini was her friend or acquaintance. Therefore, we hold that bag containing MO-10, MO-11 and MO-22 was entrusted to PW.14-Gayathri by the accused and it is at the instance of accused, MO-10, MO-11 and MO12 were recovered from the house of PW.14 under panchanama (Ex.P-36) in the presence of panchas PW.5-Gurusiddanaika and PW.26-Chikka Basavashetty. 40. Therefore, we hold that bag containing MO-10, MO-11 and MO-22 was entrusted to PW.14-Gayathri by the accused and it is at the instance of accused, MO-10, MO-11 and MO12 were recovered from the house of PW.14 under panchanama (Ex.P-36) in the presence of panchas PW.5-Gurusiddanaika and PW.26-Chikka Basavashetty. 40. PW.5-Gurusiddanaika, one of the pancha to recovery panchanama has deposed that accused was taken to the house of PW.14-Gayathri and when she was asked to give a bag given by accused she produced a bag that was given to her by the accused stating that she did not open the bag. PW5 has deposed that accused admitted that said bag was given to her by him and when the bag was opened by the police they found one pistol and 33 live cartridges in a bag MO-10 and MO-11 respectively. PW.5 identified MO-10 same pistol that was found in the bag and MO-11 bag containing 33 live cartridges and he has further deposed that police seized all those articles under a panchanama Ex.P36 and obtained his signature as per Ex.P36(a). PW.5-Gurusiddanaika turned hostile in respect of other panchanama, so far as recovery panchanama Ex.P36 is concerned, by and large he supported the case of prosecution as to the recovery of MO-10, MO-11 and MO-12 at the instance of accused from the house of PW.14-Gayathri. 41. PW.26-Chikka Basavashetty another punch witness to Ex.P36 has deposed that he along with PW.5-Gurusiddanaika and accused were taken to one house at Mysore. In the said house, there was one woman who gave a bag to Police Inspector. In that bag there was one pistol and live cartridges. PW26 has deposed that no panchanama was drawn in the said house. PW26 has deposed that he had not seen MO-22-mobile in that bag and he was not able to identify correctly whether MO-10 was the same pistol or not. PW26 was declared as a hostile witness. During the cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor, PW26 has denied the suggestion that accused had led them to the house of PW.14-Gayathri and asked PW.14 to give a bag handed over by him. He has denied the suggestion that bag containing pistol, 33 live cartridges and mobile phone was seized by the Investigating Officer under panchanama Ex.P36 wherein his signature was obtained. He has denied the suggestion that bag containing pistol, 33 live cartridges and mobile phone was seized by the Investigating Officer under panchanama Ex.P36 wherein his signature was obtained. Thus from the evidence of PW.26-Chikka Basavashetty one thing is clear that he was taken to the house of PW.14 in the presence of accused and PW.14 in turn produced a bag. Though he has not fully supported the case of prosecution, to some extent evidence of PW.26 would lend corroboration to the evidence of PW.41 and PW.52. 42. PW.41-K.Kavitha was the probationary Sub-Inspector of Police working in Mysore District. PW41 had accompanied PW.52-Investigating Officer at the time of recovery of MO-10, MO-11 and MO-22 from the house of PW.14-Gayathri. PW.41 has deposed that from 18.06.2009 to 18.08.2009 she was working in Nanjanagud Police Station. On 25.06.2009 the accused took PW.52, PW.41 and panchas to the house of PW.14-Gayathri at Vijayanagar. After they entered the house of PW.14-Gayathri, accused asked Gayathri to return a bag that was given to PW14 by the accused, PW14 went inside the house and brought a bag. The accused took the bag and handed over the same to PW.52. On opening the bag, they found MO-10-pistol, MO-11-33 live cartridges and MO-22-mobile phone. They were seized under a panchanama Ex.P-36 and she affixed her signature to panchanama Ex.P-36(a). She identified MO-10-pistol, MO-11-33 live cartridges, MO-12-bag and MO-22-mobile phone. PW.41 was working as Probationary Police Inspector. We have no reason to suspect the veracity of her evidence. Though she has been cross-examined by defence counsel, nothing has been elicited to disbelieve her evidence or to doubt the veracity of her evidence. The suggestion made to her that MO-10, MO.11, MO-12 and MO22 were not seized from the possession of PW.14 at the instance of accused has been denied by her. Similarly, she has denied suggestion that at the instance of PW.52-Investigating Officer she had given false evidence. 43. PW.52-Investigating Officer has deposed that on 25.06.2009, he received information that accused was in his house in Hebbal at Mysore City. PW52 arrested the accused and recorded voluntary statement of accused as per Ex.P-79. On the basis of information volunteered by accused he was taken to the house of PW.14-Gayathri along with PW.5- Gurusiddanaika and PW.26-Chikka Basavashetty, two panchas and the probationary Police Inspector PW.41-Kavitha. PW.14-Gayathri was in the house. PW52 arrested the accused and recorded voluntary statement of accused as per Ex.P-79. On the basis of information volunteered by accused he was taken to the house of PW.14-Gayathri along with PW.5- Gurusiddanaika and PW.26-Chikka Basavashetty, two panchas and the probationary Police Inspector PW.41-Kavitha. PW.14-Gayathri was in the house. The accused asked PW.14 to produce a bag which he had given to her and accordingly, PW14 produced bag which she had received from the accused. PW.52-Investigating Officer opened the bag and found pistol, 33 live cartridges and mobile set of Reliance Company belonging to the accused. They were seized under mahazar Ex.P36 to which both panchas affixed their signature Ex.P-36(a) and P-36(b). PW52 has deposed that photographs were taken at the time of seizure of aforesaid articles at the instance of accused. During cross-examination, PW52 has admitted that during the investigation of this crime, PW.41-Kavitha and one Kathyayini were working as Probationary Sub-Inspectors and for experience PW.52 had taken them along with him. He has admitted that panchanama was written by PW.41- Kavitha and not by one Kathyayini Probationary Sub-Inspector. PW52 has denied suggestion that on 24.06.2009 bag containing MO-10-pistol, MO-11-33 live cartridges and MO-22-mobile was given by him to Kathyayini and said Kathyayini had handed over the same to PW.14. PW52 has denied the suggestion that on 25.06.2009, he went to the house of PW.14 and asked her to return the bag that was given to her by Kathyayini. Similarly, he has denied suggestion that he prepared a false panchanama as per Ex.P-36. At this stage, it is relevant to state that PW.14 had acquaintance with the accused when she had been to Vijayanagar Police Station in order to lodge a complaint against her husband. Further, the pistol and live cartridges are not the articles, which one can secure in the normal course. Moreover, pistol (MO-10) and 35 live cartridges were missing from police station where the accused was working. The inference that could be drawn is that accused had clandestinely removed the pistol and live cartridges from Vijayanagar Police Station, shot dead the deceased and thereafter handed over a bag containing pistol, live cartridges and mobile phone to PW.14-Gayathri. PW14-Gayatri has turned hostile to the case of prosecution. The inference that could be drawn is that accused had clandestinely removed the pistol and live cartridges from Vijayanagar Police Station, shot dead the deceased and thereafter handed over a bag containing pistol, live cartridges and mobile phone to PW.14-Gayathri. PW14-Gayatri has turned hostile to the case of prosecution. It is well settled law that evidence of hostile witness cannot be discarded as a whole, any part of evidence of hostile witness which is found credible can be used by the prosecution or defence. 44. Thus, from the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses, the prosecution has proved recovery of pistol (MO-10), 33 live cartridges (MO-11), mobile phone (MO-22) belonging to the accused from the house of PW14 on the information volunteered by accused. IV) The recovery of dead body of deceased, two spent cartridge cases and other incriminating articles from the place where dead body was traced. 45. Yet another circumstance put forth by the prosecution is the recovery of two spent cartridges and a cooling glass of deceased from the land of one Beeregowda in Nerale Village of Nanjanagud Taluk. Ex.P26 is the first information given to Kavalande Police Station by one Shivananjaiah (PW.2) on 22.06.2009. On the strength of Ex.P-26 the first information, PW.48-G.Omkarappa, Sub-Inspector of Police, Kavalande Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.77/2009 for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC against an unknown person. Upon receipt of information, PW.52-Investigating Officer proceeded to Nerale village. He took up further investigation from PW.48-G.Omkarappa. He went to the spot and found a dead body of male person with face burnt. Upon securing panchas, PW.52 conducted a spot panchanama-Ex.P1 whereunder he seized spectacle-(MO-1), two spent cartridges (M.Os. 2 and 3) and a match stick. Thereafter, he conducted inquest panchanama as per Ex.P2 in the presence of panchas, took photographs of scene of occurrence, dead body as per Exs.P-3 to P-25. PW.52 has further deposed that he subjected the dead body to post mortem examination in K.R. Hospital, Mysore, after post mortem examination, he preserved the dead body in cold storage in Mission Hospital at Mysore. PW.7-Asha (wife of deceased) and PW.10-Sadhana Shetty (cousin of deceased) identified the dead body as that of deceased-Gunasagara Hegde. They also identified cooling glass (MO-1) as that of deceased. The evidence of PW.52 finds corroboration from the evidence of PW.2-Shivananjaiah, a pancha to the spot panchanama. 46. PW.7-Asha (wife of deceased) and PW.10-Sadhana Shetty (cousin of deceased) identified the dead body as that of deceased-Gunasagara Hegde. They also identified cooling glass (MO-1) as that of deceased. The evidence of PW.52 finds corroboration from the evidence of PW.2-Shivananjaiah, a pancha to the spot panchanama. 46. PW.2-Shivananjaiah has deposed that upon receipt of the information the police came to the spot where the dead body was lying and seized MO-1-cooling glass, MO-6-match sticks, MO-2 and 3 two spent cartridges under a panchanama Ex.P2 wherein he put his signature as per Ex.P2 (b). 47. Thus the prosecution has proved the recovery of dead body and incriminating articles from the spot where the deceased was murdered. V) The Scientific evidence. 48. The post mortem examination report and evidence of doctor (PW-44), who conducted post mortem examination would reveal that deceased had a entry wound on his right temporal area, placed 2 cms above the right ear. The entry wound was circular in shape, surrounded by blackened area. The diameter of entry wound was 2.5 cms. The deceased had also sustained entry wound over the left temporal region, placed 5 cms above the left ear, circular in shape 0.5 cms in diameter. The entry wound was blackened. He had also sustained firearm shot injury on the frontal scalp irregular in shape in an area of 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm, situated 11 cms above the root of nose. 49. The evidence of PW.44-Dr. Udayashankar, who conducted post mortem examination would reveal that on dissection of dead body he collected bullet which was found in the head, he sealed the same and handed over to the police as required by Investigating Officer. 50. The evidence of PW.50-N.G.Prabhakar, Ballistic Expert would reveal that on 23.07.2009, he received four sealed articles relating to Crime No.77/2009 of Kavalande Police Station through P.C.No.76. The seals of the articles were intact and tallied with sample seals. Upon removal of the seal he found following articles: i. One 9mm caliber Pistol bearing serial number 16340877 of BDL. ii. Thirty three 9mm caliber rimless cartridges. iii. Two rimless 9mm caliber spent cartridge cases. iv. One fired bullet. Upon examination he gave opinion as under: i) The Pistol in Article No.1 bears signs of discharge. But no opinion is possible regarding actual date and time of firing. ii. Thirty three 9mm caliber rimless cartridges. iii. Two rimless 9mm caliber spent cartridge cases. iv. One fired bullet. Upon examination he gave opinion as under: i) The Pistol in Article No.1 bears signs of discharge. But no opinion is possible regarding actual date and time of firing. ii) The Pistol in Article No.1 was in working condition at the time of examination. iii) The effective range of the Pistol in Article No.1 is about thirty yards. iv) The cartridges in Article No.2 were live and the same could be fired through the Pistol in Article No.1. v) The cartridge cases marked as 3(a) & (b) in Article No.3 and the bullet in Article No.4 have been fired through the Pistol in Article No.1. 51. From the evidence of Ballistic Expert, the prosecution has proved that two spent cartridge cases that were found by the side of the dead body were the cases of cartridges fired from MO-10 pistol. The bullet that was found in the dead body was the bullet fired from MO-10-pistol. The scientific evidence which is cogent and clinching would lend substantial corroboration to prosecution case. 52. The learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused of an offence punishable under section 27 of the Arms Act. The State has not filed an appeal against the judgment of acquittal of accused for an offence punishable under section 27 of the Arms Act. 53. After going through the impugned judgment, we find that the learned Sessions Judge has held that the prosecution has failed to prove that accused was not holding a license, therefore, he cannot be held guilty of an offence punishable under section 27 of the Arms Act. In our considered opinion, the reasons assigned by the learned Sessions Judge are untenable. When the prosecution has adduced evidence to prove that accused has misused service pistol, the learned Sessions Judge should have held him guilty of an offence punishable under section 27 of the Arms Act. As already stated, the State has not filed an appeal against judgment of acquittal of accused for an offence punishable under section 27 of the Arms Act. Therefore, we cannot reverse this finding of the learned Sessions Judge, though this finding is erroneous. 54. As already stated, the State has not filed an appeal against judgment of acquittal of accused for an offence punishable under section 27 of the Arms Act. Therefore, we cannot reverse this finding of the learned Sessions Judge, though this finding is erroneous. 54. The prosecution from the above proved circumstances, has established the following:-The deceased was called by accused to Mysore, in response to call deceased went to Mysore on 21.06.2009 in the morning, deceased stayed in Lucia International Hotel, Mysore, on the evening of 21.06.2009 accused and deceased left together on a motorcycle towards Nanjanagud, on way tyre of motorcycle was punctured, accused got the puncture repaired through PW.19-Samiulla. The evidence of PW1 would establish that deceased was in the company of accused at about 10 p.m. on 21.06.2009 near the place where punctured tyre was repaired. The accused was working in Vijayanagar Police Station, Mysore, MO-10-pistol and MO-11-cartridges were supplied to Vijayanagar Police Station. The accused had clandestinely removed MO10-pistol and MO11cartridges from arms and ammunition room of Vijayanagar Police Station, a few months before the date of incident. The deceased died of pistol shot injuries fired from M.O.10 (pistol). The dead body was found in the next day morning at 7 a.m. within 8 hours, not far away from the place where the deceased was last seen alive in the company of the accused. The two spent cartridge cases were lying by the side of dead body, a cooling glass, shoes of deceased, were seized from the place of incident. A bullet that was found in the head of deceased which had been fired from M.O.10 was removed by the doctor who conducted post mortem examination. M.O.10-Pistol and 35 live cartridges were missing from Vijayanagar Police Station, MO-10-pistol and MO-11-33 live cartridges were recovered on the basis of information volunteered by the accused and at the instance of accused. The Ballistic expert (PW.50) who examined MO-10-pistol, 33 live cartridges, a bullet which had been removed from the head of deceased, two spent cartridge cases, has opined that bullet that was found in the head of deceased was fired from MO-10-pistol, two spent cartridge cases were of cartridges fired from MO-10-pistol. The doctor (PW44) who conducted post mortem examination has opined that death was due to firearm shot injuries which were ante-mortem in nature. 55. The doctor (PW44) who conducted post mortem examination has opined that death was due to firearm shot injuries which were ante-mortem in nature. 55. In our considered opinion, these proved circumstances are sufficient to draw a conclusion of guilt of the accused. These proved circumstances are consistent with the hypothesis of guilt of accused. These proved circumstances are of conclusive tendency and they exclude every hypothesis other than the guilt of accused. 56. When each of the circumstances proved on behalf of the prosecution is accepted by the Court for the purpose of recording a finding that it was the accused who committed murder of deceased even in the absence of proof of a motive for commission of murder, the accused can be convicted. It has been repeatedly pointed out by the Apex Court that where the case of prosecution has been proved beyond all reasonable doubts on the basis of materials produced before the Court, the motive looses its importance. The learned Sessions Judge on proper appreciation of evidence has rightly convicted accused for offences punishable under Section 381, 302 and 201 IPC. We do not find any reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment. 57. The appeal is dismissed.