ORDER : K. Somashekar, J. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor. 2. This appeal is filed by the accused challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Fast Track Court-III, Dharwad, in S.C. No.17 of 2011. 3. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased had taken the land of accused No.1 on lease basis and was cultivating the same. The land of accused No.1 was situated adjacent to the land cultivated by the deceased. Hence, whenever the deceased came to the land of accused No.1, he used to talk with the wife of accused No.1 and on account of which, accused No.1 suspected the deceased of having designs on his wife and had quarrelled with him even prior to the date of the incident. The deceased informed this fact to his brother, who is the complainant, who in turn had advised the deceased not to associate with the accused. That on 13.09.2008, the deceased and his brother went to their land and returned to the house at 3.30 p.m. The deceased, again went to the land. As the deceased did not return even after 6.30 p.m., his mother informed the complainant to go to the land. Accordingly, the complainant along with his friend Vijay Hittalmani, went to the land where they heard cry of the deceased and when they went they saw the accused assaulting the deceased with clubs and when the complainant asked as to why they were assaulting his brother, the accused stated that the deceased wants his wife and they also threatened that if he tried to save the deceased, they would do away with his life. Hence, while he was returning to house, at that time, he met Renavva-wife of accused No.1 and informed that as the deceased was talking with her, the accused got suspicion about the deceased. Thereafter, the complainant brought Eshwarappa and Malleshappa Hosamani from the village and took them near the land and at that time Sangappa Huddar and Basavanneppa Huddar and Madiwalayya Hiremath were taking the deceased to the Kalaghatgi Hospital wherein they were advised to take the deceased to KIMS hospital, Hubli and by the time they reached KIMS hospital by ambulance, it was 10.00 p.m. the deceased had died. That when the deceased was taken to the Kalaghatgi hospital, as Basavanneppa Huddar and Sangappa Huddar have endorsed in the register that the deceased had died on account of the attack by the bullock. Hence, a complaint was lodged against the accused. On the basis of the complaint, a case in Crime No.190 of 2010 was registered by the Kalaghatagi Police for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution, in support of its case, has examined 26 witnesses as PWs.1 to 26 and got marked 31 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-31 along with 13 material objects. The statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded and some portions of statement confronted to the prosecution witnesses were marked as Exs.D-1 to D-3. 4. The learned Sessions Judge, on hearing the learned counsel and considering the evidence and other materials on record, though has convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, while passing the order on sentence, the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the accused under Section 304-II of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months each and further ordered to pay Rs.90,000/-, out of the fine amount, as compensation to the mother of the deceased. Aggrieved by the same, the State as well as the accused were before this Court in Criminal Revision Petition No.2159 of 2012 and Criminal Appeal No.2608 of 2012, respectively. This Court by order dated 29.07.2013 remanded the matter to the learned Sessions Judge to pass sentence in accordance with the judgment of conviction for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code reserving liberty to both the State and the accused to challenge the same. This Court by order dated 29.07.2013 remanded the matter to the learned Sessions Judge to pass sentence in accordance with the judgment of conviction for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code reserving liberty to both the State and the accused to challenge the same. After remand, the learned Sessions Judge heard both the parties on sentence and sentenced the accused to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- each in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years and further ordered that out of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.40,000/- be paid to the mother of the deceased as compensation. It is this which is under challenge in this appeal. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the learned Sessions Judge has committed an error in not appreciating the evidence and the materials available on record in its proper perspective. That the learned Sessions Judge has mainly relied on the evidence of PW-2, who is none other than the brother of the deceased. The evidence of PW-2 is not corroborated by other witnesses. That the panch witnesses have either failed ignorance of the fact or have turned hostile. PW-1 who is alleged to be an eye-witnesses to the incident has turned hostile. That PWs.6 and 13, who are said to have accompanied the deceased to the hospital have turned hostile. As per the complainant, he returned to the village and took Eshwarappa Hosamani and Malleshappa Betageri along with him and came to the hospital. Among them, Malleshappa Betageri, who is examined as PW-7 has also turned hostile. That there are contradictions with respect to the alleged incident as Basavanneppa Huddar and Sangapa Huddar who took the deceased to the hospital have endorsed in the register of the Kalaghatagi hospital that the deceased was attacked by the bullock and therefore the same creates doubt on the complaint allegations. As per the wound certificate Ex.P-5 issued by the doctor PW-4 who had examined the deceased had sustained only 6 injuries whereas as per Ex.P-15-postmortem report, there were 30 injuries found on the body of the deceased. As per the wound certificate Ex.P-5 issued by the doctor PW-4 who had examined the deceased had sustained only 6 injuries whereas as per Ex.P-15-postmortem report, there were 30 injuries found on the body of the deceased. That PW-14-Renawwa, wife of accused No.1, who had informed the complainant, when he was returning to the village on the date of the incident, that accused No.1 had suspicion about the deceased, has also turned hostile and therefore the motive as alleged by the prosecution is also not proved. Hence, on all these grounds he seeks to allow the appeal by setting aside the judgment of the Court below. 6. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, contends that the learned Sessions Judge on the basis of the evidence and the material available on record, has rightly come to the conclusion that the appellants are guilty of the offence levelled against them and hence, seeks to justify the same. 7. On a careful perusal of the evidence, materials available on record as well as the judgment of the Court below, it is evident that PW-3 Chambayya, who is a panch witness to Ex.P-3 Inquest Panchanama and Ex.P-4 spot panchanama, has stated in his evidence that he does not know the contents of the said document. PW-5 Siddappa Karibasannavar, who is a pancha for Ex.P-6 seizure panch-anama i.e. M.Os.9 to 13 has turned hostile and PW-26 Channappa Lamani who is also a pancha to Ex.P-6 along with PW-5 has stated that he does not know the contents of the said document at the time of affixing his signature. PW-10 is another panch witness to Ex.P-9 club seizure panchanama and PW-11 is a pancha to Ex.P-10 cloth japt panchanama of the deceased. The evidence of both these witnesses is not consistent and that the panchanama is not conducted in accordance with law. 8. Reliance is very much placed on the evidence of PW-2. Therefore, on scrutinizing the evidence of PW-2, it is seen that he in the complaint has stated that he, on the say of his mother to find the deceased who had not returned even after 6.30 p.m. to the house, went along with friend Vijay Hittalmani to the land. But PW-1-Vijay Hittalmani as given go by to his evidence by turning hostile. But PW-1-Vijay Hittalmani as given go by to his evidence by turning hostile. According to the complainant, he saw the appellants assaulting the deceased with clubs and when he asked as to why they were assaulting his brother, the accused had threatened him that if he tried to save his brother, they would do away with his life. Hence, he returned to the village and had brought one Eshwarapa and Malleshappa Betageri and took them near the land. This version of the complainant is not believable because as per his say, PW-1 accompanied with him at the first instance and they could have stopped the accused or could have tried to rescue the deceased but instead he returned to the village. Even PW-1 has turned hostile and has not supported the case of the prosecution. Hence, this creates a doubt as to whether PW-2 was present at the spot at the time of the incident and that he indeed witnessed the incident. So far as the fact as to how the alleged incident and infliction of injuries on deceased is concerned, as per the complainant, the incident and those injuries were caused by the assault of the deceased but as per the endorsement in the register by Basavanneppa Huddar and Sangappa Huddar, who took the deceased to the Kalghatgi hospital, the deceased was attacked by the bullock. Hence, this would create a doubt on the complaint allegations. PW-6, 8 and 13, are said to have accompanied the deceased to the hospital. However, PW-8 and PW-13 have turned hostile. PW-7-Malleshappa Betageri, who according to the complainant had accompanied him to the hospital, has also turned hostile. As per wound certificate Ex.P-5 issued by PW-4 the doctor who examined the deceased at the first instance had noticed only 6 injuries whereas as per Ex.P-15 post-mortem report, 30 injuries are found on the body of the deceased and it is not known as to how the rest of the injuries were sustained by the deceased. So far as the motive for the alleged incident is that accused No.1 had suspicion about the deceased because whenever the deceased visited his land he used to talk with the wife of accused No.1 and that the complainant himself has stated in the complaint that Renavva-PW-14, wife of accused No.1, has informed about said fact to him but the said Renavva has turned hostile. Further, she has been examined by PW-18 and according to him there were no seminal stains on Renavva and has issued a certificate to that effect as per Ex.P-20. Hence, in view of the above said reasoning and findings we hold that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and pass the following order: 9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of the Court below is set aside. The appellants-accused are acquitted. The appellants-accused shall be set at liberty forthwith. 10. The operative portion of this Judgment shall be communicated to the concerned Jail authorities for immediate compliance.