JUDGMENT : PRADEEP D. WAINGANKAR, J. All these appeals are arising out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.04.2011 passed by the I Addl. Sessions Judge at Mysore in S.C.No.18/2006, whereby all the accused Nos.1 to 7 have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 120-B, 364, 302, 201 r/w Section 149 of IPC and have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine. Crl.A.No.605/2011 is filed by accused Nos.1 and 2, Crl.A.No.543/2011 is filed by accused No.3, Crl.A.No.612/2011 is filed by accused Nos.6 and 7 and Crl.A.No.801/2011 is filed by accused Nos.4 and 5. Since all these appeals are arising out of the same judgment, they are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The prosecution case in brief is stated as under: On 18.09.2005 at about 10.30 p.m., Smt. Mahadevamma (PW.1) the mother of the deceased-Babu alias Balakrishna lodged a written complaint (Ex.P1) before Kuvempunagar Police Station, Mysore, alleging that her 4th son Babu was looking after the Cable Network business of his brother M.C. Balaram (PW.5); at about 10.00 p.m. on the same day, one Manjunath (PW.4) who was working with Balaram informed her that he along with her son deceased-Babu went to Das Wines as deceased had advanced money to Gangadaraiah, the proprietor of Das Wines. While they were in the Bar, at about 9.30 p.m., accused No.1-Ganesh alias Rowdy Ganesh of Vidyaranya-puram along with six to seven other persons came in a Maruthi van, assaulted deceased-Babu and abducted him in a Maruthi van. She requested the police to trace her son who was abducted by accused No.1-Ganesh alias Rowdy Ganesh and six others and to take action against them. On the strength of the complaint (Ex.P1), the police registered a case in Crime No.82/2005 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 365 r/w 149 of IPC against accused No.1-Ganesh alias Rowdy Ganesh and six to seven others. Immediately, the CPI and PSI of Kuvempunagar Police Station after collecting information that the abductors have proceeded towards Srirampura in a Maruthi van, proceeded in the same direction along with their staff during the intervening night of 18/19-09-2005. At about 2.15 a.m., they came across a Golden Colour Maruthi van coming from Manandvadi link road towards Mysore. After seeing the Police Jeep, the Maruthi van took a turn towards Srirampura village. At about 2.15 a.m., they came across a Golden Colour Maruthi van coming from Manandvadi link road towards Mysore. After seeing the Police Jeep, the Maruthi van took a turn towards Srirampura village. Immediately, the police chased the Maruthi van and at the same time, the Investigating Officer asked Garuda van, which was following the Police Jeep to come through the road leading towards left. In the meanwhile, the Maruthi van, which had proceeded further stuck in the middle of the road on account of heap of sand on the road. Immediately, the police staff surrounded the van in which there were seven persons, three of them who were armed with choppers attempted to assault the police. But in the meanwhile, Garuda van also came from the front side and thereby all the seven persons in a Maruthi van were apprehended. On interrogation, they disclosed their names. The police noticed the blood stains on the choppers which were held by accused Nos.1 to 3 (MOs.1 to 3). They also found blood stains on the rubber mat inside the Maruthi van and also on the clothes worn by the accused. A mahazar was drawn at that place in the presence of witnesses as per Ex.P11, whereunder three choppers which were in the possession of accused No.1-Ganesh alias Rowdy Ganesh, Accused No.2-Thontadaryaswamy and accused No.3- Ravi along with golden colour Maruthi van bearing registration No.KA-16-M-1418 and blood stained rubber mat were seized. All the 7 accused persons were taken to Kuvempunagar Police Station for further investigation. During the course of further investigation, PW.30-Investigating Officer recorded the voluntary statements of accused Nos.1 to 3 as per Exs.P39, P40 and P41. Accused Nos.1 to 3 in their voluntary statements have stated that after abducting deceased-Babu alias Balakrishna, accused No.1 relieved him of his gold chain, two gold rings and thereafter they killed him and cut the body into pieces and threw into Kapila river near Hommaragalli. They also volunteered that they would show the place where they had thrown the pieces of dead body, if they are taken to Hommaragalli. On the basis of voluntary statements of accused Nos.1 to 3, the accused led the Investigating Officer and the staff near Kapila river bridge and showed the place where they had thrown the pieces of the dead body of deceased; they saw a trunk of a human body near the bank of the river. On the basis of voluntary statements of accused Nos.1 to 3, the accused led the Investigating Officer and the staff near Kapila river bridge and showed the place where they had thrown the pieces of the dead body of deceased; they saw a trunk of a human body near the bank of the river. With the help of swimmers PW.8-Wazir Pasha and PW.9-Mahadevanaika, the other pieces of human body were searched and they were successful in tracing two hands, a head, a leg apart from the trunk of the human body, pant and key bunch in the pant pocket. PWs.4 and 5 identified the parts of the dead body as that of deceased-Babu. An inquest panchanama was conducted as per Ex.P7 in the presence of witnesses namely PWs.6, 19. The pieces of the dead body were sent for post mortem examination. The right leg could not be traced on that day. It was found floating in the river on 23.09.2005 which was removed from the river and seized under a panchanama. An inquest was drawn in the presence of pancha followed by post mortem examination. The Investigating Officer seized the blood stained clothes of accused Nos.1 to 7 under a mahazar and sent it for Chemical examination to RFSL, Mysore along with other articles seized. He secured FSL report Ex.P25, post mortem reports Exs.P17 and P18 and after completing the other formalities of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against accused Nos.1 to 7 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 365, 302, 201 r/w Section 149 of IPC. The accused having denied the charges levelled against them, the prosecution in order to establish the charges examined PWs.1 to 31, marked Exs.P1 to P81 apart from MOs-1 to 35. On behalf of the defence, Dr. Panduranga Shenoy, Assistant Professor, Forensic Medicine, Vinayaka Medical College, Salem, was examined as DW.1 to speak about the injuries found on the dead body and opinion as to cause of death. Exs.D1 to D12 were marked. The learned Sessions Judge upon hearing the submission made by the public prosecutor and the defence counsel and on appreciation of evidence, by the impugned judgment and order convicted all the accused of the charges levelled against them and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and also imposed sentence of imprisonment for other offences. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, these appeals have cropped up. 3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/accused and learned High Court Government Pleader for the State. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 has argued before us that the Court below has not properly appreciated the evidence on record in its proper perspective, the learned Sessions Judge proceeded with a pre-occupied prejudicial mind as against accused Nos.1 and 2. He would also submit that the motive is not proved by the prosecution. So also, the recovery of dead body at the instance of accused Nos.1 and 2 is not proved. The so called witnesses to recovery panchanama Ex.P11 in respect of recovery of weapons from the possession of accused Nos.1 to 3 namely PW.12 and PW.29 have turned hostile. There was no evidence to show the blood group of the deceased. For all these reasons, the learned counsel sought to set aside the conviction as against accused Nos.1 and 2. 5. Sri. Hashmath Pasha, learned counsel appearing for accused Nos.6 and 7 taking us through the records would submit that no motive is attributed by the prosecution to accused Nos.6 and 7, no weapon has been recovered from accused Nos.6 and 7 nor the dead body was recovered at the instance of accused Nos.6 and 7, that accused Nos.6 and 7 were not at all involved in commission of the crime along with other accused and as such the conviction of accused Nos.6 and 7 is not sustainable in law. Hence, learned counsel sought to set aside their conviction and to acquit them of all the charges levelled against them. 6. The learned High Court Government Pleader while taking us through the entire evidence would submit that the prosecution has established the motive for the commission of the crime, last seen circumstance, recovery of dead body at the instance of accused from a river, recovery of weapons from the possession of accused and thereby all the accused have been rightly convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, there is no merit in the appeals and hence the learned High Court Government Pleader sought for dismissal of the appeals. 7. As aforesaid, the prosecution in all examined 31 witnesses. PW.1-Mahadevamma is the mother of deceased-Babu alias Balakrishna. 7. As aforesaid, the prosecution in all examined 31 witnesses. PW.1-Mahadevamma is the mother of deceased-Babu alias Balakrishna. She has deposed that upon receipt of information from PW.4-Manjunath regarding the abduction of her son Babu by one Ganesh and six to seven others from Das Wines at about 9.30 p.m. on 18.09.2005, she went to Kuvempunagar Police Station and lodged a missing complaint as per Ex.P1. Further, she has deposed having identified MOs-1 to 3, a gold chain, 2 gold rings of her son deceased-Babu recovered from accused No.1- Ganesh alias Rowdy Ganesh. PW.2-K.R. Umashankar went on record to depose that he was working in the Vinayaka Cable Network of Balaram, the brother of the deceased. He has spoken about the motive behind the abduction of deceased on 18.09.2005 at about 9.30 p.m. at Das Wines by the accused and the commission of the murder of the deceased. He has deposed that the Cable Network business of Balaram was being looked after by his brother deceased-Babu; he had about 900 to 1000 connections; while accused No.1-Ganesh alias Rowdy Ganesh was in jail, accused No.2-Thontadar-yaswamy took Balaram to the jail where accused No.1 took a signature of Balaram on an agreement entered in the name of his wife (PW.22), whereunder Balaram was required to pay Rs.13,000/- to accused No.1 as haftha and accordingly Balaram used to pay Rs.13,000 per month to accused No.1-Ganesh alias Rowdy Ganesh. His evidence would further go to show that after release of accused No.1 from the jail, he was demanding to part with 100 houses to which connection was given by Balaram and when Balaram refused and declined to fulfill the demand made by accused No.1, accused No.1 along with other accused abducted deceased-Babu the brother of Balaram and killed him. Further, he has deposed for having recovered the dead body of deceased-Babu from Kapila river at the instance of the accused. PW.3-Harish has deposed that he was working as Cashier in Das Wines. On 18.09.2005, at about 9.30 p.m. deceased-Babu along with PW.4-Manjunath and PW.2-K.R. Umashankar came to the Das Wines and enquired about Gangadaraiah the owner of the Das Wines with him, as deceased had advanced a loan amount of Rs.10,000/- to Gangadaraiah. PW.3-Harish has deposed that he was working as Cashier in Das Wines. On 18.09.2005, at about 9.30 p.m. deceased-Babu along with PW.4-Manjunath and PW.2-K.R. Umashankar came to the Das Wines and enquired about Gangadaraiah the owner of the Das Wines with him, as deceased had advanced a loan amount of Rs.10,000/- to Gangadaraiah. Since Gang-adaraiah was not there in the shop, the deceased consumed liquor and came out of the shop and at that time, he was abducted by accused in Maruthi Van which went towards Srirampura. Further, he has deposed that when a boy who was with the deceased tried to enter Maruthi van when the deceased was abducted, he was pushed by accused No.2 and the van went away towards Srirampura. PW.4-Manjunath has deposed that he was working as cable operator in the cable network of Balaram (PW.5), the elder brother of deceased-Babu. He has reiterated the motive for abduction of the deceased from Das Wines on 18.09.2005 at 9.30 p.m. by accused Nos.1 to 7 and his murder as spoken by PW.2-K.R. Umashankar. PW.5-Balaram, the elder brother of deceased has stated that he was running cable network under the name ' Vinayaka Cable Network- . He has deposed that accused No.1 was demanding 100 houses for which the cable connection was given by PW.5 in lieu of Rs.13,000/- he was paying to accused No.1 as haftha and when he declined to part with 100 houses, he abducted his brother. His evidence would also go to show the recovery of dead body from Kapila river. PW.6-B.G. Santosh is the panch witness to recovery of dead body at the instance of accused Nos.1 to 3 under Ex.P5. He has deposed having conducted inquest over the dead body as per Ex.P7 and also videograph done as to the entire proceedings relating to the recovery of dead body i.e., trunk, head and one leg from Kapila river. PW.7-Madegowda, the resident of Ho-mmaragalli village near Kapila river has spoken that he saw the recovery of dead body from river. PW.8-Wazir Pasha is a swimmer who along with two others at the request of the police searched in the Kapila river and removed head, leg and dead body which were floating. He has also deposed having removed a pant of the deceased containing a key bunch. PW.8-Wazir Pasha is a swimmer who along with two others at the request of the police searched in the Kapila river and removed head, leg and dead body which were floating. He has also deposed having removed a pant of the deceased containing a key bunch. PW.9-Mahadevanaika is also another swimmer whose services were pressed into service by the police for removal of the dead body from the Kapila river. He has given evidence in conformity with the evidence given by PW.8. PW.10' Kumar, a panch witness to Ex.P9, second inquest panchanama of a right leg recovered from Kapila river on 23.09.2005. PW.11-Cheluvaraj is a pancha to the spot panchanama Ex.P3 drawn in front of Das Wines from where the deceased was abducted by accused. PW.12-Chandrashekar is a pancha to Ex.P11, whereunder 3 choppers (MOs-15, 17, 19) were seized from the possession of accused Nos.1 to 3, a Maruthi van (MO-6) was seized in front of house of Chikkathayamma of Srirampura village on 19.09.2005 between 2.40 a.m. to 3.20 a.m. But he has turned hostile to the prosecution case. PW.13-Chikkanna is the owner of Maruthi van bearing registration No.KA-14-1618, wherein the deceased was abducted from Das Wines. He has deposed about the purchase of van under Ex.P12 from Devaraj (PW.14) and again he resold the van to Devaraj on account of financial difficulty. PW.14-Devaraj has deposed that he was the owner of Maruthi van, but he had not given his Maruthi van to any of the accused. In other words, PW.14 has turned hostile. PW.15-Krishnamurthy is a pancha to seizure panchanama Ex.P16 drawn in Kuvempunagar police station on 19.09.2005 in between 4.30 p.m. and 5.00 p.m., whereunder MOs-1 to 3, gold chain, 2 gold rings of the deceased were seized from accused No.1 apart from MO-20 to MO-33, the clothes of accused Nos.1 to 7 stained with blood were seized. PW.16' Dr. K.V. Satish has spoken about the autopsy conducted by him over the dead body of deceased-Babu alias Balakirshna on 19.09.2005 in between 2.30 p.m. to 3.25 p.m. and issued post mortem report as per Ex.P17. He has also spoken that again on 24.09.2005, the right leg of the deceased was sent for post mortem examination. Accordingly, he conducted post mortem examination over the right leg and issued report as per Ex.P18. He has also spoken that again on 24.09.2005, the right leg of the deceased was sent for post mortem examination. Accordingly, he conducted post mortem examination over the right leg and issued report as per Ex.P18. Further, he has deposed that on 08.11.2005, the police sent 3 weapons MOs-15, 17 and 19 for his opinion as to whether the injuries found on the dead body were possible by those weapons and accordingly, he gave his opinion under Ex.P19-letter stating that the injuries were possible by MOs.15, 17 and 19. PW.17-V.Y. Bhojaraju, Assistant Engineer, who has given a report regarding water level in Kapila river where the dead body was found as per Ex.P21. PW.18-Kumara is a pancha in respect of seizure of clothes of accused Nos.1 to 7 in Kuvempunagar police station under Ex.P23. PW.19-Somu H.M. is a panch witness for Ex.P7 inquest panchanama and recovery of dead body from river. PW.20-Nanjundappa B, has spoken about the examination of the articles and for having given Serological Report of all the articles as per Ex.P25 stating that they were stained with ' A- group human blood. PW.21-Prabhakar has deposed that he was working as Executive Engineer of BESCOM, Mysore and at the request of Investigating Officer, he has given a certificate as per Ex.P27 stating that there was electricity supply near Das Wines on 19.09.2005. PW.22-Geetha Ganesh is the wife of accused No.1-Ganesh alias Rowdy Ganesh. She was examined to speak about the motive. But, she has turned hostile. PW.23-Srinivasprasad is the police constable who was at night beat duty on 18.09.2005 at 9.00 p.m. to next morning at 6.00 a.m. in beat No.8. He has deposed that he learnt while he was in the police station. PW.24-Narayanashetty is yet another police constable attached to Kuvempunagar police station. His evidence is that on 18.09.2005, he received complaint from PW.1-Mahad-evamma at about 9.30 p.m. regarding the abduction of her son Babu. Further, he has deposed that he accompanied the CPI and PSI to trace Maruthi Van wherein deceased was abducted and that at about 1.45 a.m. on 19.09.2005 the Maruthi van was traced in Srirampura village when it was stuck in mud. Further, he has deposed that accused Nos.1 to 7 were there in the said van. All of them were brought to police station along with choppers and Maruthi van. Further, he has deposed that accused Nos.1 to 7 were there in the said van. All of them were brought to police station along with choppers and Maruthi van. PW.25-Shivanna the head constable has stated that on 19.09.2005 at about 6.30 a.m., accused Nos.1 to 7 who were in the police station and that accused Nos.1 to 3 led the police inspector and his staff towards Kapila river where the pieces of dead body were recovered. PW.26-Manmohan is the brother-in-law of accused No.1 who was supposed to depose the antecedents of accused No.1 but turned hostile. PW.27-V. Yogesh is the police constable on night duty at 11th beat on 18.09.2005 where the Orchestra was going on. He has deposed that he learnt at about 11.45 p.m., the deceased was abducted. He has also spoken about the Maruthi van traced near Srirampura village wherein the accused were returning after commission of the crime. PW.28-Subbashetty, the police official who videographed the entire proceedings relating to recovery of dead body and weapons at the instance of accused. He has deposed that accused Nos.1 to 7 were brought to police station along with van and that accused Nos.1 to 3 made voluntary statement which led to recovery of dead body from the river. As per the direction of Investigating Officer (PW.30), he took photographs and videograph. PW.29-Srinivas of Srirampura village was examined as pancha to Ex.P11 of the place where Maruthi van was stuck. He was examined to depose that the panchanama was drawn on 19.09.2005 in between 2.20 a.m. to 3.20 a.m. when the accused were taken to custody. But he has turned hostile. PW.30-Shanthamallappa is the police inspector who investigated the case and filed charge-sheet. He has spoken that on 18.09. He was examined to depose that the panchanama was drawn on 19.09.2005 in between 2.20 a.m. to 3.20 a.m. when the accused were taken to custody. But he has turned hostile. PW.30-Shanthamallappa is the police inspector who investigated the case and filed charge-sheet. He has spoken that on 18.09. 2005 at about 10.30 p.m. Mahadevamma (PW.1) came to the police station and lodged a complaint as per Ex.P1, on the basis of which he registered Crime No.82/2005, went in search of abducted person in a Jeep with his staff and another Garuda van with his staff; while they were patrolling in search of a Maruthi van wherein deceased-Babu was abducted, they went towards Manandvadi road, Srirampura, II Stage; at about 2.15 p.m., when they were proceeding on Mysore-Manandvadi road, they saw a Maruthi van coming from Manandvadi ring road towards Mysore; when they were about to stop the Maruthi van, the driver suddenly took right turn to go towards Srirampura village; immediately they chased the Maruthi van; he gave direction to Garuda van to come through the road on the left side; while proceeding further, Maruthi van stuck in a heap of sand on the road and immediately thereafter they apprehended all the seven accused persons who were there in the Maruthi van though accused Nos.1 to 3 attempted to assault them with choppers; all the choppers were blood stained; on examination of Maruthi van No.KA-16-M-1418, they found blood stains on the mat; the choppers, mat and Maruthi van were seized under panchanama Ex.P11 in the presence of panchas Srinivas and Chandrashekar on the spot; thereafter, the accused were arrested and brought to the police station; upon interrogation, PW.30 recorded the voluntary statements of accused Nos.1 to 3 as per Exs.P39, P40 and P41; accused No.1 in his voluntary statement admitted for having relieved the deceased of his gold chain and two gold rings which were produced by accused No.1 (MOs-1 to 3) and seized under panchanama Ex.P16 in the presence of panchas Krishnamurthy and Mallesh; accused Nos.1 to 3 in their voluntary statements have admitted for having killed the deceased and cut him into pieces which were thrown into Kapila river and if they are taken, they would show the spot where the dead body was thrown into the river; thereafter, accused Nos.1 to 3 in one vehicle and the other accused along with the brother of the deceased and others went towards Kapila river as directed by accused Nos.1 to 3 and recovered the trunk of the dead body, head and left leg, green colour pant and a key bunch containing 11 keys in the pocket of the pant. He has further deposed that a spot panchanama Ex.P5 followed by inquest panchanama Ex.P7 were drawn and the dead body was sent for post mortem examination; thereafter, PW.30 seized the pant and shirt of accused No.1 (MOs-20 and 21), accused No.2 (MOs.22 and 23), accused No.3 (MOs-24 and 25), accused No.4 (MOs-26 and 27), accused No.5 (MOs.28 and 29), accused No.6 (MOs.30 and 31) and accused No.7 (MOs.32 and 33) which were all blood stained under a panchanama Ex.P33 in the presence of PW.18-Kumara and CW.29-Guruprasad. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of witnesses, forwarded the accused for medical examination at K.R. Hospital, Mysore; on 23.09.2005, the another leg of the deceased was found floating in the river, the same was removed, an inquest was drawn and forwarded the same for post mortem examination. He sent the blood stained choppers, blood stained clothes of accused and the pant of the deceased to RFSL, Mysore and obtained a report that all the clothes of accused were stained with ' A- Group human blood. He also secured the documents that accused No.4 who was convicted for the offence of murder in S.C.No.7/2003 on the file of Prl. Sessions Judge, Mysore, went on parole from 02.08. 2005 to 31.08.2005 and from 01.09.2005 to 30.09.2005 as per Exs.P58 and P59. He also secured information with regard to 25 criminal cases wherein accused No.1 was involved as per Ex.P60 and after completion of all other formalities filed a chargesheet against all the accused persons. PW.31-N. Rajesh is the Manager of RCL Cable Network. His evidence is that PW.5-Balaram was running cable network under the name ' Vinayaka Cable Network- . He has produced the receipt issued by RCL in favour of Balaram marked as Exs.P64 to P72. 8. On behalf of the defence, one Dr. Panduranga Shenoy, Assistant Professor, Forensic Medicine, Vinayaka Medical College, Salem was examined as DW.1 to speak about his opinion with regard to the injuries found on the dead body of the deceased and the cause of death of deceased. 9. The prosecution has relied upon the following circumstances to prove the charges levelled against the accused: i) Motive; ii) Eye witness account; iii) Last seen theory; iv) Recovery of dead body from the river at the instance of accused; v) Medical evidence; vi) Recovery of weapons; vii) Other evidence. I) Motive: 10. 9. The prosecution has relied upon the following circumstances to prove the charges levelled against the accused: i) Motive; ii) Eye witness account; iii) Last seen theory; iv) Recovery of dead body from the river at the instance of accused; v) Medical evidence; vi) Recovery of weapons; vii) Other evidence. I) Motive: 10. The motive for the commission of the murder of the deceased is spoken by PW.2-K.R.Umashankar, PW.4-Manjunath and PW.5-Balaram, the brother of the deceased. What emerges from the evidence of these three witnesses is that PW.5-Balaram, the elder brother of deceased was running Cable Network under the name ' Vinayaka Cable Network- at Mysore; he had about 900 to 1000 cable connections; the deceased was looking after the cable business of his brother; PWs.2 and 4 were working as cable operators; accused No.1-Ganesh alias Rowdy Ganesh, while in Mysore Jail called PW.5 to Jail through accused No.2 and demanded Rs.13,000/- per month as haftha; accused No.1 made PW.5 to enter into an agreement in that regard in favour of his wife and eversince then, PW.5 was paying accused No.1 at the rate of Rs.13,000/- per month. Further, after release of accused No.1 from jail, he demanded 100 houses to which the cable connection was given by PW.5 instead of Rs.13,000/- per month. The demand was rejected and refused by PW.5 and the deceased and that is why accused No.1 and accused Nos.2 to 7 hatched a conspiracy to do away with the life of deceased. Though these three witnesses were cross-examined to demolish the motive set up by the prosecution, nothing has come out of it so as to disbelieve their evidence. The evidence of all these three witnesses on the aspect of motive is cogent, consistent and reliable and rightly the Trial Court has believed their evidence. Thus, the prosecution by the evidence of PWs.2, 4 and 5 has established the motive for the abduction and commission of murder of deceased by the accused. II) Eye-witness account: 11. The prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PW.2-K.R.Umashankar, PW.3-Harish, a cashier in Das Wines, PW.4-Manjunath to prove the abduction of the deceased by the accused in Maruthi van on 18.09.2005 at about 9.30 p.m. in front of Das Wines. II) Eye-witness account: 11. The prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PW.2-K.R.Umashankar, PW.3-Harish, a cashier in Das Wines, PW.4-Manjunath to prove the abduction of the deceased by the accused in Maruthi van on 18.09.2005 at about 9.30 p.m. in front of Das Wines. The evidence of PWs.2 and 4 is that they were working as cable operators in ' Vinayaka Cable Network- of PW.5 being looked after by the deceased-Babu, the brother of PW.5. Both of them went on record to state that on 18.09.2005, both of them along with deceased-Babu came in Pulsar Motorcycle to Das Wines at about 9.15 p.m.; deceased went inside Das Wines and asked with PW.3-Harish cashier, for Gangadhar, the owner of Das Wines as the deceased had advanced Rs.10,000/- to Gangadhar. Since Gangadhar was to come after some time, deceased consumed alcohol in Das Wines, while PWs.2 and 4 were waiting outside the shop; at that time, all the accused Nos.1 to 7 came in a Maruthi van bearing No.KA-16-M-1418 from Srirampura; through accused No.2 they brought liquor from Das Wines and consumed; at that time, deceased-Babu came out from the shop; accused No.1 enraged by the refusal to part with 100 houses to which cable connection was given by PW.5, assaulted Babu and pushed him into the Maruthi van forcibly; when PW.2 made an attempt to get into the Maruthi van, the accused pushed him out; they made deceased-Babu to sit in between accused Rakesh and Ravi and abducted him in the presence of PWs.2 and 4 and proceeded towards Srirampura in Maruthi van. The evidence of PWs.2 and 4 is further fortified by the evidence of PW.3-Harish the cashier working in Das Wines. PW.3 has spoken in his evidence having seen the abduction of deceased by the accused in Maruthi van in front of Das Wines. Though all these witnesses were cross-examined, the defence could extract nothing from the cross-examination so as to enure to the benefit of the accused. We have carefully considered the evidence of PWs.2, 3 and 4. We are satisfied that their evidence on the aspect of abduction of the deceased by the accused is cogent, consistent and convincing. Their evidence is sufficient to hold that accused Nos.1 to 7 abducted deceased-Babu on 18.09.2005 at 9.30 p.m. in Maruthi Van bearing No.KA-16-M-1418 in front of Das Wines. III) Last seen theory: 12. We are satisfied that their evidence on the aspect of abduction of the deceased by the accused is cogent, consistent and convincing. Their evidence is sufficient to hold that accused Nos.1 to 7 abducted deceased-Babu on 18.09.2005 at 9.30 p.m. in Maruthi Van bearing No.KA-16-M-1418 in front of Das Wines. III) Last seen theory: 12. The prosecution by the evidence of PWs.2, 3 and 4 has proved the abduction of the deceased by accused Nos.1 to 7 in Maruthi van on 18.09.2005 at 9.30 p.m. After abduction, the deceased was not seen alive by anyone else until his dead body was found in Kapila river at a distance of 30 km from the spot, where he was abducted. On the basis of voluntary statements of accused Nos.1 to 3 and at their instance, the dead body of deceased which was cut into pieces was recovered from Kapila river under a panchanama which was identified by PW.2 and PW.5 brother of the deceased. Thus, the dead body of the deceased was found hardly at a distance of 30 km from the place from where he was abducted within a period of 8 to 10 hours. When the accused abducted the deceased on 18.09.2005 at about 9.30 p.m., in a Maruthi van which went towards Srirampura village and when the accused were found returning on the very same Maruthi van from Srirampura village towards Mysore and they were found in possession of choppers which were blood stained and the blood was also found on the mat inside the van and that the dead body was recovered at the instance of the accused based on their voluntary statements hardly at a distance of 30 km within 8 hours of his abduction, a presumption has to be drawn under Section 106 of the Evidence Act that it is the accused who committed the murder of the deceased by cutting him into pieces after abduction. It is for the accused to offer any explanation as to what transpired after the victim had been abducted on 18.09.2005 at 9.30 p.m. as those facts were especially within the knowledge of the accused. The accused having failed to offer explanation, a conclusion has to be drawn that it is the accused who committed his murder after abduction. IV) Recovery of the dead body: 13. The accused having failed to offer explanation, a conclusion has to be drawn that it is the accused who committed his murder after abduction. IV) Recovery of the dead body: 13. The prosecution with the evidence of PW.28- Subbashetty, PW.30-Shanthamallappa, the Investigating Officer, has proved the recovery of the dead body at the instance of the accused. Both these witnesses have deposed that after receipt of complaint from PW.1 regarding the abduction of her son, the Kuvempunagar police registered a crime, collected information that the accused after abducting the deceased proceeded towards Srirampura; the police proceeded towards Srirampura in a Jeep and on way, they came across a golden colour Maruthi van that was returning from Srirampura village side; the van suddenly took a turn and in the process, it stuck on the road on account of spread of sand on the road. All the accused who were in the van were apprehended by the police. They were brought to the police station; the police recorded the voluntary statements of accused Nos.1 to 3 as per Exs.P39, P40, P41, on the basis of which the accused led the police and panchas to Kapila river and pointed out the place where the dead body which was cut into pieces was thrown. They have also spoken about the recovery of trunk of the dead body, head, hand and left leg, pant, key bunch from the pant pocket with the help of swimmers, inquest proceedings conducted over the dead body followed by post mortem examination. PW.30-Shanthamallappa, Investigating Officer has also spoken about the recovery of right leg on 23.09.2005 which was floating in the river. In fact, the entire process and proceedings pertaining to recovery of dead body at the instance of accused were videographed and C.D. prepared apart from taking photographs by PW.28-the police officer. The learned counsel appearing for accused Nos.6 and 7 by pointing out some contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence of these witnesses has submitted that the inquest panc-hanama has been subsequently created, since the original inquest panchanama has been replaced by the prosecution. There appears to be an element of truth in the submission made by the learned counsel. But, by doing so it has not occasioned failure of justice nor it has caused the prejudice to the case of the defence. There appears to be an element of truth in the submission made by the learned counsel. But, by doing so it has not occasioned failure of justice nor it has caused the prejudice to the case of the defence. After all, the basic purpose of holding an inquest is to report regarding the apparent cause of death namely whether it is suicidal, homicidal, accidental or by some machinery. Since the body was cut into five pieces, there cannot be any second opinion that the deceased died homicidal death. Moreover, the doctor who conducted autopsy opined that the injuries found on the dead body were antemortem in nature, death was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of multiple injuries sustained, the time since death as 6 to 18 hours prior to post mortem examination that was conducted on 19.09.2005 between 2.30 p.m. and 3.45 p.m. Since the evidence of PW.16-Dr. K.V. Sathish who conducted post mortem examination over the dead body is as clear as day light, the lapses if any on the part of the Investigating Officer in conducting the inquest proceedings or producing inquest report cannot render the prosecution case doubtful or unworthy of belief. In cases of defective investigation, the Court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence but it would not be right in acquitting an accused person solely on account of the defect and to do so would tentamount playing into the hands of Investigating Officer if the investigation is designedly defective. V) Medical evidence: 14. The prosecution has placed on record the evidence of PW.16-Dr. K.V. Sathish, Assistant Professor working in Mysore Medical College, who conducted the post mortem examination over the dead body of deceased in between 2.30 p.m. to 3.45 p.m. He has deposed that he found the following 19 external injuries on the dead body:- 1) Chop wound seen over right arm region over its mid arm level measuring 14 cms x 11 cms x bone deep. The distal arm and rest is a separated piece that corresponds to the proximal and shows extravasation all over. 2) Stab wound seen over inner aspect of right arm measuring 3 cms x 1 cm x 4 cms x muscle deep situated 4 cms below axillary line margins clean cut, outer edge is sharp, inner edge is blunt. The distal arm and rest is a separated piece that corresponds to the proximal and shows extravasation all over. 2) Stab wound seen over inner aspect of right arm measuring 3 cms x 1 cm x 4 cms x muscle deep situated 4 cms below axillary line margins clean cut, outer edge is sharp, inner edge is blunt. 3) Abrasion 2 in number present over outer aspect of right elbow region, measuring 8 cms x 2 cms and 4 cms x 2.5 cms. 4) Pressure abrasion seen over right forearm region, measuring 6 cms x 1 cm placed 10 cms above right wrist joint. 5) Stab wound seen over outer aspect of left elbow over its lower arm, measuring 6 cms x 3 cms x muscle and bone deep, underneath bone is clean cut, blood extravasated. 6) Contused pressure abrasion seen over inner aspect of left lower arm, left elbow and upper part of left inner forearm, over an area of 17 cms x 12 cms all over the muscle plane. 7) Contusion seen over inner aspect of left lower thigh over its upper knee region over an area of 14 cms x 13 cms x muscle deep. 8) 4 pressure abrasions seen over inner and front of left leg region i) placed 10 cms below knee joint, measuring 8 cms x 0.75 cm. ii) placed 1 cm below previous injury, measuring 7 cms x 0.75 cms. iii) placed 4 cms below previous injury, measuring 7 cms x 0.75 cms. iv) placed 7 cms above medial ankle joint, measuring 3 cms x 0.75 cms. 9) Incised wound seen over back of right side chest measuring 12 cms x 1 cms x subcutaneous tissue deep placed 4 cms below the shoulder level, tailing upwards left side, margins clean cut. 10) Incised wound seen over back of right side chest, measuring 7 cms x 1.25 cms placed 3 cms below injury No.9. 11) Stab incised wound seen over top of right shoulder measuring 4 cms x 3 cms x 2.5 cms muscle deep, margins clean cut, one end is sharp, outer end is blunt. 12) DECAPATATION WOUND ' seen over the neck separated head, completely from the trunk at the level of C5-C6 vertebra, irregularly cut all the structures of the neck, Tracheal ring. 12) DECAPATATION WOUND ' seen over the neck separated head, completely from the trunk at the level of C5-C6 vertebra, irregularly cut all the structures of the neck, Tracheal ring. Esophagus, retracted nerves, vessels all show irregular cut with minimal extravasation seen over the muscles and vessels of neck, the cut wound measures 17 cms x 16 cms and correspond with the separated head. 13) Separation of both legs at the level of knee joint region, shows irregularly chopped wounds underneath bone shows clean cut fractures, the wound measures 18 cms x 12 cms x knee joint deep and 14 cms x 11 cms x knee joint over its right and left respectively. Right leg is missing, left leg wound corresponds to the missing end with minimal extravasation. 14) Left arm separated over its middle, measuring 16 cm x 11 cms x bone deep, irregularly cut, corresponds to the left distal separated segments. 15) Chop wound over the right thigh measuring 15 cms x 3 cms x muscle deep, placed 12 cms below anterior superior Iliac spine. 16) Chop wound right thigh, measuring 20 cms x 8 cms x muscle deep placed 4.5 cms below injury No.15. 17) Lacerated wound seen over inner aspect of left leg, measuring 12 cms x 6 cms x muscle deep, placed 10 cms above medial ankle joint. 18) Chop wound seen over front of chest, measuring 19 cms x 5 cms x muscle deep placed 38 cms above umbilicus. 19) Incised wound seen over right side face, measuring 14 cms x 3 cms x bone deep. Further on dissection, he found the following 4 injuries:- 1) On reflection of the scalp, there is extravasation seen over both sides parital region, measuring 13 x 10 cms and 12 x 10 cms over its right and left respectively. 2) The wall of the lower abdomen below umbilicus shows areas of extravasation and peritoneum contained 500 ml of blood and blood clots. 3) Small and large intestines shows mesentery and its attachments shows areas of regions of extravasation (blunt injuries) 4) Stomach contained partially digested rice, mutton, onion meal about 300 ml, smells strongly of alcohol. He has opined that injury Nos.1 to 11 show strong evidence of extravasation, rest of the injuries shows doubtful agonal injuries prior to death. 3) Small and large intestines shows mesentery and its attachments shows areas of regions of extravasation (blunt injuries) 4) Stomach contained partially digested rice, mutton, onion meal about 300 ml, smells strongly of alcohol. He has opined that injury Nos.1 to 11 show strong evidence of extravasation, rest of the injuries shows doubtful agonal injuries prior to death. He has opined that the death was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of multiple injuries sustained and the death occurred 6 to 18 hours prior to post mortem examination. Though on behalf of defence Dr. Pandu-ranga Shenoy has been examined and he has given different version as to the injuries found on the dead body of the deceased and the opinion as to cause of death, his evidence cannot be preferred to the evidence of PW.16-Dr. K.V. Sathish, Assistant Professor, Mysore Medical College, who conducted autopsy since he had an occasion to see the dead body personally. But, that is not the case so far as Dr. Shenoy is concerned. After all, it is an opinion. The Court is not bound by the opinion given by the experts. Expert- s opinion is not sacroscant. The Court may accept it or may reject it. But here in this case, the facts are such that the body of the deceased was cut into five pieces which is sufficient to hold that the death was homicidal. Be that as it may, the accused have not come out with any other theory as to the cause of death nor they offered any explanation. VI) Recovery of weapons: 15. PW.30-Investigating Officer has deposed that as soon as all the accused were apprehended, accused Nos.1 to 3 attempted to assault the police with the choppers which they were holding, but their attempt has been foiled by the police; the weapons which were blood stained were seized under a panc-hanama in the presence of panchas and sent for RFSL in a sealed condition. Though the panchas have not supported the recovery of weapon at the instance of accused Nos.1 to 3, the evidence of Investigating Officer and other police officials is sufficient to prove the recovery of weapons. We have no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW.30-Investigating Officer and PW.27-Police Constable, moreso for the reason that all the three choppers were stained with blood were recovered from the accused Nos.1 to 3. We have no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW.30-Investigating Officer and PW.27-Police Constable, moreso for the reason that all the three choppers were stained with blood were recovered from the accused Nos.1 to 3. Thus, the prosecution has also proved the recovery of weapons from the possession of accused Nos.1 to 3 used for the commission of the crime. The doctor before whom the said weapons were produced for his opinion has examined and opined that the injuries found on the dead body of the deceased could be caused with the said weapons. VII) Other evidence: 16. It is borne out from the evidence of Investigating Officer that the clothes of accused Nos.1 to 7 marked as MOs. 20 to 33 were seized and sealed under a panchanama Ex.P23 and they were sent to RFSL, Mysore. FSL report marked as Ex.P25 and the evidence of PW.20-B. Nanjundappa, Deputy Director, Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Mysore, reveal that all the clothes of accused Nos.1 to 7, rubber mat found in the Maruthi van, three choppers recovered from accused Nos.1 to 3 were stained with ' A- Group human blood. It is opined in Ex.P25 that the blood group of the blood stains in respect of the pant of the deceased could not be determined since the results of the test were inconclusive. Thus, from Ex.P25 the Serology report, it is obvious that the clothes of all the accused including accused Nos.6 and 7 were stained with ' A- Group human blood. That speaks volume about the presence of all the accused at the time of commission of murder of the deceased. Further, all the three choppers were stained with ' A- Group human blood. 17. From the Serology report coupled with the other evidence placed on record, the only conclusion that can be deduced is that all the seven accused persons in prosecution of the common object abducted the victim in a Maruthi Van towards Kapila river, killed him with deadly weapons, cut him into pieces and threw the dead body into the river so as to cause disappearance of evidence and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 364-A, 302 and 201 of IPC. Thus, on re-appreciation of entire evidence, we are in agreement with the conclusion reached by the Sessions Judge. 18. Thus, on re-appreciation of entire evidence, we are in agreement with the conclusion reached by the Sessions Judge. 18. In the result, we dismiss all the appeals while confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Sessions Judge. Accordingly, Crl.A.Nos.605/2011, 543/2011, 612/2011 and 801/2011 are dismissed. Appeals dismissed.