JUDGMENT : This appeal is by the de facto complainant under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The appellant is aggrieved by the acquittal of the accused who were accused of the offence of murder in the following circumstances: 2. It transpires that accused no.1 Goudappa Lakkappa Chunappagol had agreed to purchase land bearing survey No.684 of Kanasageri village, Gokak Taluk, Belagavi district, from PW.12 Shidalingappa Dandin for a sum of Rs.1,20,000/-. It is claimed that he had paid an advance of Rs.500/-, but was unable to come up with the entire sale amount and therefore in view of the delay, Dandin is said to have agreed to sell the very land to one Gurunath. However, Gurunath was also not able to come up with the entire sale consideration and ultimately Shidalingappa Dandin is said to have sold the land to one Mayannavar. It was alleged that accused no.1 was not happy with Gurunath in having negotiated the sale notwithstanding the fact that he had already paid the advance amount to the vendor Dandin and as a result of which, he had carried a grudge against him and wanted to commit his murder. This theory of motive is developed on the basis of the evidence of one PW.5, namely Laxman Bhimappa Chunappagol, who was said to be a shepherd and a relative of Gurunath, namely, that on 5.5.2010, he was tending his sheep and was resting in a temple and was half asleep when he heard voices namely, that of accused nos.1 to 4. Though he did not see them, he had identified their voices and had heard them planning to commit the murder of Gurunath. However, he had not revealed the same to any person and it is only in retrospect that he had made a statement of having heard the conspiracy being hatched by accused nos.1 to 4. Secondly, insofar as the commission of murder by the accused itself, was sought to be established by the prosecution by reference to the “last seen theory”. In that, it was claimed that PW.4 and PW.6 had independently seen the accused nos.3 and 4 carrying the deceased between them as a pillion rider on a motor cycle on the fateful day when he is said to have been murdered namely, on 30.4.2010. In that, it was claimed that PW.4 and PW.6 had independently seen the accused nos.3 and 4 carrying the deceased between them as a pillion rider on a motor cycle on the fateful day when he is said to have been murdered namely, on 30.4.2010. The further evidence on which the prosecution has sought to rely is the evidence of PW.7, yet another shepherd who was present along with his sheep in the vicinity of the place of the alleged incident where the deceased was said to have been throttled and killed and thereafter stripped and his clothes having been burnt, the body was said to be put in a gunny bag and thrown into a well. This is said to have been witnessed by PW.7, who has stated that he was tending his sheep, when accused no.3 and 4 came along with the deceased on their motor cycle and accused no.1 and 2 also reached the same spot at the same time and all of them together immobilised the deceased while accused no.1 and 2 held his hands and accused no.3 had throttled him and accused no.4 had held his legs and it is on this basis that the prosecution had charge sheeted the accused after having arrested them. However, initially a complaint was filed by the widow of the deceased claiming that her husband was missing since 30.4.2010. The body is said to have been discovered on 4.5.2010 and it was found that half the body was eaten away by animals and the skull was in a skeletal state and it is the remnants of the body on the basis of which identification of the body of the deceased is said to have been made by his family members. It is on the basis of the statement made by PW.6 on 5.5.2010 of having heard accused nos.1 to 4 hatching conspiracy to commit the murder of Gurunath and thereafter on the basis of the statement of PW.7 to the effect that he had actually witnessed the commission of the murder, that the accused are said to have been arrested and brought to book. It is thereafter that charges were framed to which the accused had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. It is thereafter that charges were framed to which the accused had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. However, on the basis of the evidence of the witnesses and the so-called confession statements of the accused, the trial had gone on and the court below on a careful analysis of the evidence has found that there was no substance in the case of the prosecution as to the motive. In that, if the only motive attributed was that accused no.1 was peeved by the fact that the sale transaction had gone awry on account of the intervention of Gurunath, who had offered to purchase the land notwithstanding the agreement that he had entered into with the vendor was not established, when it is noticed that the land had been ultimately sold to Mayannavar and that there was no sale transaction as claimed even between the vendor and Gurunath, the vendor had again gone to the extent of denying that there was any agreement of sale between accused no.1 and himself. It is in that background that the court below has held that the case has not been made out insofar as the motive is concerned. As regards the ‘last seen theory’, the court has not readily accepted that the evidence of PW.4 and PW.6. PW.4 is said to seen accused no.4 and Gurunath having tea and thereafter PW.4 had taken Gurunath to an arrack shop to have arrack and that he had seen them together and therefore the possibility of accused no.4 having enticed him to the place of accused no.3, who was said to be running an arrack shop and thereafter having been kidnapped has been disbelieved on the footing that there was no arrack shop in the home of accused no.3 and there were several people sitting in the tea stall, where they had tea together and where PW.4 is said to have seen accused no.4 with the deceased and that he could not have remembered the names of several people who were sitting around in the tea shop at that point of time. Further, insofar as the evidence of PW.6 is concerned, the Court below has found that according to this witness, he had got his motor cycle repaired and he was coming along the Suranga Marga on his motor cycle when he saw accused nos.3 and 4 carrying Gurunath between them on their motor cycle and he had tried to hail them, however they had ignored his greeting and had gone away. It is this which the court below has disbelieved and it was found that the possibility of the said witness being on that particular road if he was going towards the direction that he had mentioned was not a possibility. And his claim that he had only come in that direction only to get his motor cycle repaired was also disbelieved as there was no motor cycle repair shop along that way. It is in this fashion that the court below has negated the ‘last seen theory’ sought to be based on the evidence of PWs.4 and 6. Insofar as the commission of murder is concerned, the sole evidence was that of PW.7. He was said to be a shepherd who had seen accused nos.3 and 4 bring Gurunath to the spot, namely, in the vicinity of Suranga Marga and thereafter accused nos.1 and 2 also having come to the same spot in what was sought to be construed as being a planned rendezvous and that Gurunath got off the motor cycle along with accused nos. 3 and 4 and thereafter accused nos.1 and 2 has held him by hand and had thrown him to the ground while accused no.4 held him by his legs and accused no.3 had throttled him to death and that PW.7 had not raised any alarm, but had simply watched the scene and thereafter, he had even seen the deceased being stripped of his clothes and the clothes being burnt and the deceased being stuffed into a gunny bag and being thrown into a well. Inspite of seeing this gruesome incident, the said witness had remained silent and had not informed anybody nor had sought to raise alarm at the time of the incident and it is only many days later namely, nine days after the incident, that he has revealed the same to PW.8, who was a relative of the deceased Gurunath, who in turn has taken PW.7 to the police station and the Police have recorded the statement of this witness. He has stated that the deceased was not showing any sign of resistance and if there was indeed a kidnap, the conduct of the deceased would have been different. Therefore the court has disbelieved the theory that the deceased was kidnapped only to be murdered at the spot where PW.7 is said to have seen the incident. In that fashion, the court below has negated the case of the prosecution. It is that which is questioned in the present appeal. 3. Firstly, as rightly pointed out by the court below, it was necessary for the prosecution to establish a motive on the part of the accused to have committed the murder of the deceased. The motive as suggested has not been established for the reason that even if it can be assumed that accused no.1 had any semblance of a motive, there is no explanation as to how accused no. 2 to 4 could be involved in the commission of such a serious offence. This is not sought to be explained by the prosecution. Secondly, the possibility of such a motive being present also is difficult to accept. The transaction had failed insofar as the alleged agreement of sale entered into between the vendor Shidalingappa Dandin and accused no.1 is concerned. The further allegation that there was a second agreement of sale between Dandin and the deceased also is not established. In fact, there was no such agreement that was proved. To compound this situation, the very land had been sold in favour of one Mayannavar by Dandin and Dandin has not supported the case of the prosecution that there was an agreement of sale either between himself and Dandin or between himself and the deceased Gurunath. In that view of the matter, the existence of any such motive itself is doubtful. In that view of the matter, the existence of any such motive itself is doubtful. Consequently, when there is no motive established for the murder, the mere allegation of the accused having committed the murder of the deceased is not readily acceptable. Particularly, in the present case on hand, the ‘last seen theory’ propounded only to frame accused nos.1 to 4 to establish the fact that the deceased was in fact murdered on the basis of the evidence of PW.7, also does not rest on a firm factual foundation, for the sequence of events are lopsided. It is not the case of the prosecution that PW.7 had witnessed the commission of the murder and had immediately reported the incident to the Police in order that the accused were brought to book. On the other hand, it is firstly stated that the dead body was discovered and the case was registered against unknown persons and the dead body was not identified in that, the lower portion of the body was in tact when it was discovered and therefore it is claimed that the family of the deceased had recognised the lower portion of the body. Even if this fact could accepted as having established the identity of the deceased, the fact remains that the case of the prosecution is sought to be made out against the accused in retrospect, as it were, on the basis of the evidence of PW.5 and PW.7, namely, that PW.5 who has made a statement on a day after the dead body was discovered that he had previously heard accused nos.1 to 4 hatching a conspiracy. In that, he was a shepherd and he was tending his sheep on a day much prior to the date of the murder and when he was resting in a temple, all the accused had come there and had openly discussed the commission of the murder of the deceased. Having heard the conspiracy, he had however not seen the faces of the accused, but had only heard the details of the conspiracy that was planned and it is only after the dead body was discovered that he had come out with the information that he had been privy to the conspiracy being hatched by the prosecution. Having heard the conspiracy, he had however not seen the faces of the accused, but had only heard the details of the conspiracy that was planned and it is only after the dead body was discovered that he had come out with the information that he had been privy to the conspiracy being hatched by the prosecution. This has not been readily accepted by the court below and rightly so, for the reason that PW.5 claims to be a relative of Gurunath and the first reaction of a person who has secretly heard the conspiracy being hatched and whose presence was not noticed by the accused, could safely have brought the information to the Police through Gurunath or his relatives. This would be the natural conduct of a person who has heard such a serious matter being discussed by the accused, which he has not thought it fit. Therefore, the court having disbelieved the evidence of the said witness cannot be faulted. Insofar as PW.7, who is said to be an actual eye witness to the commission of the murder is concerned, his testimony has been disbelieved as being unnatural for the reason that he was not a person related to the family of the deceased and that his conduct was such that he has not responded in the manner that a person would if he was privy to the commission of the murder. To throttle a person to death is not an easy matter and it cannot be done within a minute or two. It would take several minutes to throttle a person to death, The conduct of PW.7 has been seriously criticized by the court below as not being the natural conduct of a witness to such a gruesome incident. Even he had not reacted to the commission of the crime. The least that was expected of was to inform the family of the deceased if he also was familiar with the deceased and his family, of the murder having been committed in the manner it was. The claim that he was terrified that there would be retaliation by the accused and therefore he had kept quiet for several days does not explain his subsequent conduct of having actually revealed the incident which the court has held was unnatural and could not be readily believed. The claim that he was terrified that there would be retaliation by the accused and therefore he had kept quiet for several days does not explain his subsequent conduct of having actually revealed the incident which the court has held was unnatural and could not be readily believed. The witness has also stated that the deceased had nonchallantly demounted from the motor cycle, on which he is stated to have been kidnapped by accused nos.3 and 4. Therefore, the court has again disbelieved that a victim who was kidnapped would without any fear or apprehension dismount from the motor cycle in the manner as stated by PW.7 and that he had put up no resistance and that he has stated that the deceased had called out for help. It is surprising that there is no other person in the vicinity who has responded though it was 11.30a.m., and the murder being committed in the open at such point of time, not in a spontaneous manner, but in a planned fashion, as sought to be suggested by the prosecution, has been discarded. If actually there was a planned conspiracy, that the accused would have ensured that the murder was committed in a place where discovery of the commission of the offence is remote. The very fact that PW.7 was very much present with his goats in the area and notwithstanding his presence, the accused without ascertaining that there was no other person in the vicinity having gone ahead and having committed the murder of the accused itself is unnatural. It is in that manner that the court below has negated the theory of the prosecution. Further, it is noticed that the complainant was the widow of Gurunath. She had not in her complaint stated that she suspected accused nos.1 to 4 for the disappearance of her husband or in the commission of murder. There is no other theory put-forth other than the failed sale transaction as being a motive for the murder. Therefore, the court below having held that there was no motive established nor did the prosecution succeed in establishing the sequence of events as sought to be claimed and the manner in which the murder had been committed, cannot be faulted. There is no substance in this appeal and the appeal stands dismissed.