JUDGMENT : H.B. PRABHAKARA SASTRY, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 12.10.2010 in S.C. No.8/2008 passed by the Fast Track Judge, Arakalagudu, Hassan District (hence forth for brevity referred to as the 'Sessions Court') the appellant has preferred this appeal. 2. In his memorandum of appeal the appellant has taken contention that there was no material evidence to show that the accused and the deceased were last seen together. The material witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution. The trial court appreciating the evidence lead before it and without even considering that the alleged chain of events have not been linked properly without any break has erroneously come to a conclusion that the appellant has committed the alleged guilt. With this the appellant has prayed for allowing his appeal by setting aside the judgment of conviction and order on sentence under appeal and to acquit him of the alleged offence. 3. The respondent is being represented by the Additional State Public Prosecutor. 4. Lower court records were called for and the same are placed before this Court. 5. Heard arguments from both side and perused the materials placed before this Court. 6. The summary of the case of the prosecution is that on 31.10.2007 complainant PW.1 Annajigowda lodged a complaint with the respondent police alleging that on 02.10.2007 his son Santhosha was found missing and a complaint was lodged in that regard. While the family was in his search he heard from the people that a dead body of a boy resembling that of his son Santhosha was found floating near Jodigubbi on Borannagowda Right Bank Canal. The people were also talking that the said dead body was got struck near Halli Mysuru under a cover duct in canal water. He suspected that the present accused/appellant must have enticed his son Santhosha to accompany him on 02.10.2007 in the evening at about 4.00 p.m. and after murdering him must have hidden the dead body of Santhosha. The complainant also alleged in his complaint that the accused was his neighbor. He (complainant) was maintaining and nourishing the cattle, sheep and hen. In that regard there was quarrel between them quite often. The complainant also alleged in his complaint that the accused was his neighbor. He (complainant) was maintaining and nourishing the cattle, sheep and hen. In that regard there was quarrel between them quite often. In that regard the family of the accused who had come newly to that place were also threatening the complainant that they would kill his son and see that the complainant family vacates their house. As such, the accused was suspected. 7. The complainant police after conducting investigation based upon the said complaint claim to have traced the dead body and got it identified as that of Santhosha, son of the complainant and based upon the statements of few witnesses said to have been given before the Investigating Officer and alleged seizure and recovery of certain materials including a button said to be of the shirt worn by the deceased when he was found missing came to a conclusion that it was the present appellant who had taken the deceased with him on the evening of 02.10.2007 on the pretext of getting him a job at Bengaluru and pushed that boy in a canal water. After ensuring his death and following the dead body he pushed the dead body under a cover duct near Halli Mysuru in the same canal and thus tried to destroy the evidence of the offence and thereby has committed offence punishable under Section 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The charges were framed against the accused for the said offences for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 8. In order to prove the guilt against the accused the prosecution got examined 22 witnesses from PWs.1 to 22 and got marked documents at EXs.P1 to P19 and material objects at MO.1 to MO4. Neither any witnesses were examined, nor any documents were marked as exhibits from the accused side. 8. In order to prove the guilt against the accused the prosecution got examined 22 witnesses from PWs.1 to 22 and got marked documents at EXs.P1 to P19 and material objects at MO.1 to MO4. Neither any witnesses were examined, nor any documents were marked as exhibits from the accused side. After hearing both side and perusing the materials placed before it the Sessions Court by its impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 12.10.2010 convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in case of default of payment of fine to undergo an additional imprisonment of two years for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and it also sentenced the accused to undergo five years imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in case of default to undergo an additional imprisonment of one year for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. It is against the said judgment of conviction and order on sentence the accused has preferred this appeal. 9. The appellant at his request was provided the services of a counsel from the legal services authority. In his argument the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the entire case of prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence and admittedly there is no eye witness. Merely because a button of the shirt belonging to the deceased is said to have been noticed by the Investigating Officer in a place he jumped to a conclusion that the deceased was pushed to the canal in the very same spot by the accused. The said conclusion of the Investigating Officer was totally unfounded one and without any basis. He further submitted that regarding the date, time and place of finding of the body there is no consistency either in the oral or documentary evidence. The documents at inquest panchanama, the police record regarding the arrest of the accused, the evidence of PW.17 and PW.22 does not tally with each other, they give different picture on an important aspect in the matter. As such, the entire case of the prosecution is clouded with strong suspicion and the benefit of doubt is necessarily given to the accused before the Court below. 10. As such, the entire case of the prosecution is clouded with strong suspicion and the benefit of doubt is necessarily given to the accused before the Court below. 10. Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor in his argument submitted that even though there is no eye witness to the alleged incident, but the prosecution could able to establish the entire circumstances which leads anybody to hold that the accused was the only person who has committed the alleged murder of the deceased. It was further argued from the prosecution side that the Court below has rightly come to a conclusion that the deceased was found lastly in the company of the accused and thereafter the deceased was found dead. As such, the Court below has rightly held the accused as the culprit. 11. Admittedly, the case of the prosecution is that alleged deceased Santhosha after he found missing on 02.10.2007 was not found alive. It is the case of the prosecution that his dead body was found on 31.10.2007. According to some of the prosecution witness it was on 01.11.2007 in a highly decomposed manner. The face of the dead body was also not visible, so also the sex of the body. However, based upon the alleged dress shown to have been found along with the body the complainant identified the said dead body as that of his son Santhosha. Therefore the burden of proving the identity of the deceased and the nature of his death as a homicidal and its allegation that the said homicidal death of the deceased was caused by none else than the accused/appellant is on the shoulder of the prosecution. In order to prove these aspects the prosecution got examined 22 witnesses. 12. Among them PW.1 (CW.1) is Annaji Gowda, the father of the alleged deceased Santhosha. The said witness in his evidence has stated that the deceased Santhosha is his son and the accused is his neighbor. Both of them have put up their houses in a government land in a place called Ibbadi Kavalubaare. Both the families are not in talking terms. Since the cattles, hen and sheeps belonging to him were going near the house of the accused and creating nuisance frequently quarrel used to take place between them. When Santhosha found missing he was aged 14 years and he was a drop out from the school two years prior to that. Both the families are not in talking terms. Since the cattles, hen and sheeps belonging to him were going near the house of the accused and creating nuisance frequently quarrel used to take place between them. When Santhosha found missing he was aged 14 years and he was a drop out from the school two years prior to that. His son found missing from 02.10.2007 in which regard he had lodged a complaint with the police. Four or five days thereafter through one Tammegowda and Rangegowda he came to know that his son Santhosha had gone along with the accused. When he, joined by others enquired the accused he came to know that the deceased had accompanied the accused till their land and then he returned. The accused stated that one of his relative had died, as such, he had been to Dandipura near Mysuru, but his statement later found to be not true. Even in panchayath that was assembled for the purpose also, the accused contended that he did not know anything about the deceased. About 20 days after he lodging the complaint police summoned him and shown him the accused in their custody. They took him hear a canal at Halli Mysuru. One month after his son was found missing. A dead body was found which was decomposed. Neither the head nor the flesh and bones of the lower limb were found on the dead body. It is based upon the shirt and pant he identified the said body as that of his son. The witness has identified the complaint said to have been lodged by him at EX.P.1. In his further examination in chief on a subsequent day this witness has further stated that one of the button of the shirt worn by his son was replaced with other button. It is based upon that he identified the dead body of his son. He was subjected to a detail cross examination from the accused side wherein he adhered to his original version. 13. PW.2 (CW.2) Rukmini wife of PW.1 and the mother of alleged deceased Santhosha in her examination in chief also supported the case of her husband about the family of the accused not being in good terms with them though they were their neighbors. 13. PW.2 (CW.2) Rukmini wife of PW.1 and the mother of alleged deceased Santhosha in her examination in chief also supported the case of her husband about the family of the accused not being in good terms with them though they were their neighbors. She has also stated that on the alleged day his son did not return from grazing the cattle and their effort in searching him went in futile. It was Tammegowda and Rangegowda who stated that accused had taken their son with him. Subsequently, after a week a complaint was lodged in that regard before the police suspecting the accused. However, one month thereafter the dead body of their son in a decomposed state was found near a duct of Borannagowda canal near Jodigubbi. Based upon the cloth found on the dead body they identified that as that of their son Santhosha. The witness suspected the accused and stated that it was the accused who had murdered her son by pushing him to the water canal. Identifying the button at MO.1 she stated that it was found in that place where the dead body of the deceased was found. She was also subjected to cross examination from the accused side wherein she has not admitted the denial suggestions put to her. However, both PW.1 and PW.2 admitted a suggestion as true that several people make use of the water of the canal, but denied a suggestion that their son died by an accidental fall in the canal. 14. PW.3 (CW.7) Javaregowda after identifying the accused has stated that he was a member in the panchayath that was made to assemble in connection with enquiring the accused about the whereabouts of missing Santhosha in their village. He has stated that the statement made by the accused before the panchayath was not found trustworthy. As such, they decided that a complaint has to be lodged against the accused. Accordingly, a complaint as at EX.P1 was lodged. In his cross examination from the accused side he has given some more details about the panchayath. 15. PW.4 (CW.10) Ravi in his evidence has stated that the scene of offence panchanama and the panchanama of the place where the dead body was found was drawn in his presence as per EXs.P2 and P3 respectively. In his cross examination from the accused side he has given some more details about the panchayath. 15. PW.4 (CW.10) Ravi in his evidence has stated that the scene of offence panchanama and the panchanama of the place where the dead body was found was drawn in his presence as per EXs.P2 and P3 respectively. He has also stated that it was the accused who shown the first place nearÀ Kantaiah's tank stating that it was the place where he pushed Santhosha. Thereafter the police took him near Halli Mysuru on a right bank canal they found dead body of Santhosha. The said dead body was identified by his father (PW.1.). The police also drew an inquest panchanama in the spot as per EX.P4 for which also he has put his signature. 16. PW.5 (CW.11) Ganganna in his evidence has stated that he had heard people talking that wife of CW.1 had illicit relationship with the accused and that the same was seen by the deceased. As such, the deceased was murdered. He was also present when the accused shown the spot of pushing Santhosha to water. In that place a button was also found. He has identified the spot panchanama at EX.P2. He also stated that after about 25 days he came to know that police were removing the body which is of Santhosha from the canal, as such he had been to the said place. The dead body was taken between 6.30 to 7.30 p.m. which was identified by CW.1. A panchanama was drawn as per EX.P3 in the spot for which also he has put his signature. One more panchanama was drawn in the spot seizing the clothes found on the deceased as per EX.P5 for which also he has put his signature. 17. PW.6 (CW.13) Rajegowda in his evidence has stated that he also been to the place where the dead body of the deceased was found. Hearing from the people that the dead body was found near Halli Mysuru he had been there. In that place accused was brought by the police. The dead body was totally decomposed. PW.1 identified the dead body as that of his son Santhosha. The accused admitted the same. He stated that the people were talking that accused had pushed the deceased Santhosha to canal water and caused his death. In that place accused was brought by the police. The dead body was totally decomposed. PW.1 identified the dead body as that of his son Santhosha. The accused admitted the same. He stated that the people were talking that accused had pushed the deceased Santhosha to canal water and caused his death. He was also subjected to cross examination from the accused where he has denied the denial suggestions put to him. 18. PW.7 (CW.20) Rajashekarappa the police constable in his evidence has stated about he submitting the FIR in this case to the Court. 19. PW.8 (CW.5) Venkatesha has spoken about the village people conducting a panchayath wherein the accused was enquired about the whereabouts of the deceased and it was revealed in the panchayath that accused admitted that deceased was with him on the date of his alleged missing. Finding his statement as not trustworthy to believe they decided that a complaint has to be lodged against the accused. Thus, the evidence of this witness was in consonance with the evidence of PW.3. The similar evidence also has come from PW.9 (CW.6) Krishnegowda. Both PW.8 and PW.9 were also cross examined by the accused side. 20. PW.10 (CW.8) Suresha also gave evidence on the similar line, but he has not stated that he was one of the panchas in the panchayath, but has stated that accused was enquired by the village people where he admitted that deceased was with him on that particular day. However, this witness proceeded one step further and stated that at the enquiry of the police the accused admitted that he pushed Santhosha to canal water and caused his murder. He was not cross examined from the accused side. 21. PW.11 (CW.3) Tammegowda in his very brief evidence of few lines has stated that he knows both PW.1 and the accused. About three years prior to his date of evidence one evening at about 4.00 p.m. while he was in his land he saw both the accused and deceased Santhosha coming from the land to the house. He asked Santhosha to tie buffalo. He did that job and left. 25 days thereafter he heard people talking that dead body of Santhosha was found near Halli Mysuru. He has seen the dead body at the time of cremation. He asked Santhosha to tie buffalo. He did that job and left. 25 days thereafter he heard people talking that dead body of Santhosha was found near Halli Mysuru. He has seen the dead body at the time of cremation. In his cross examination he has stated that he has seen the accused and deceased going and has informed the same before the people at panchayati which was held 4 or 5 days thereafter. The denial suggestion made to him was not admitted as true by him. 22. PW.12 (CW.12) Srinivasa has stated that EX.P2 bears his signature. The police had seized a button under the said panchanama on the side of right bank canal. He has also stated that he was a signatory to the panchanama drawn with respect to the place where the dead body of Santhosha was found. He has also stated that he has put his signature to panchanama at EX.P5 where the clothes of the deceased was seized. 23. PW.13 (CW.17) Dr. Thimmaiah has spoken about he conducting post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on the side of Borannagowda canal at Halli Mysuru. He has identified the post mortem report at EX.P6. He has stated that when he conducted post mortem examination the dead body was in a decomposed state. The head was not in the body. The upper limbs on both sides below elbows were also not found. The legs below the knees were also not found. He had sent it for higher examination and received the report as per EX.P7, according to which the age of the deceased was about 14 to 17 years and it was presumed that dead body was of a male person. 24. PW.14 (CW.16) Paramesha an Executive Officer of Taluku Kacheri, Arakalagudu has stated about he issuing revenue records as per EX.P8. 25. PW.15 (CW.17) Krishnegowda has spoken about he drawing a sketch of the scene of offence at the request of the police and submitting the same to them. He has identified the said sketch at EX.P9. 26. PW.16 (CW.18) S N Gaunkar, the Assistant Director of the Forensic Science Laboratory has spoken about he subjecting the articles sent to their laboratory to the scientific examination and submitting his report as per EX.P11. 27. He has identified the said sketch at EX.P9. 26. PW.16 (CW.18) S N Gaunkar, the Assistant Director of the Forensic Science Laboratory has spoken about he subjecting the articles sent to their laboratory to the scientific examination and submitting his report as per EX.P11. 27. PW.17 (CW.21) Krishnegowda, a police constable of the complainant police station has stated that on 31.10.2007 after coming to know that a dead body was found in Halli Mysuru canal his higher officer took him to the said place. He was deputed for watch of the said body. After post mortem report and panchanama in the said place he collected a shirt, pant and a single chappal found on the dead body and produced them in the police station which were seized by drawing a seizure panchanama as per EX.P5. In his cross examination he stated that he came to know about the news of the dead body in the 12 noon on 31.10.2007. The post mortem was conducted on the next day, i.e., on 01.11.2007. 28. PW.18 (CW.9) Muddegowda has stated that by enquiry he came to know that deceased was found lastly in the company of the accused and thereafter he was found missing. The denial suggestion made to him in his cross examination were not admitted as true by him. 29. PW.19 (CW.25) Ramakrishna, the Assistant Executive Engineer has stated that at the request of the complainant police he has prepared a sketch of the Boregowda Canal from 21 to 22 kilometers which he has identified at EX.P13. He has also stated that as per the document furnished by him at EX.P14 there was flow of water at that time. 30. PW.20 (CW.19) has spoken about he carrying the seized articles in this case to Forensic Science Laboratory at Bengaluru. 31. PW.22 (CW.23) B Pramod Kumar in his evidence has stated that while he was police Sub Inspector of complainant police station he took up further investigation in this matter on 18.10.2007 from CW.28. On the same day he visited Ibbadi village and recorded statement of several people. On 31.10.2007 in the night at 10.30 p.m. PW.1 appeared before him and lodged a complaint as per EX.P1 suspecting the death of his missing son Santhosha and suspecting the hands of accused in it. He prepared FIR as per EX.P9 and submitted it to the Court. He handed over further investigation to CW.24. On 31.10.2007 in the night at 10.30 p.m. PW.1 appeared before him and lodged a complaint as per EX.P1 suspecting the death of his missing son Santhosha and suspecting the hands of accused in it. He prepared FIR as per EX.P9 and submitted it to the Court. He handed over further investigation to CW.24. He has also stated that on 01.11.2007 based on the information of the informants he arrested the accused at 7.00 p.m. who was found in his relatives house at Somanathapura. 32. PW.21 (CW.24) M N Shashidhara is the main Investigating Officer in this case in his evidence he has stated that while working as the Circle Inspector of police of Arakalagudu circle he took up further investigation in this case from CW.23. He visited the place of offence and deputed his staff for apprehension of the accused. On 01.10.2007 the accused was produced before him. He recorded his voluntary statement as per EX.P15. He has stated that accused in his voluntary statement stated that he had hidden the dead body of the deceased and would show the said place. Accordingly, summoning the panchas to the police station all of them went near a cover duct on Borannagowda canal. The accused went ahead and shown the dead body. These people brought the dead body from the canal. The dead body was in a decomposed state. PW.1 identified the dead body as that of his son Santhosha. Few photographs were taken in the spot as per EX.P16, conducted post mortem examination and gave the dead body to Government Hospital. He has also stated that accused lead them to another place stating that he would show the place where the deceased was pushed into the water. He drew the panchanama of the said place in the presence of panchas as per EX.P2 and a button of a shirt of the deceased was also found in that place which he seized. He also seized the articles found on the deceased as produced by police constable under a panchanama at EX.P5. He got the sketch of the place of the offence and the sketch of the canal prepared by the concerned engineers and placed them in the case file. He also received the post mortem report, sent the seized button to Forensic Science Laboratory along with other articles. He got the sketch of the place of the offence and the sketch of the canal prepared by the concerned engineers and placed them in the case file. He also received the post mortem report, sent the seized button to Forensic Science Laboratory along with other articles. After completing the investigation came to a conclusion that it was the accused who has committed the death of deceased Santhosha. He filed charge sheet against the accused. The denial suggestions made to him in his cross examination were not admitted as true by him. 33. In the light of the above evidence of the witnesses the first point to be analyzed is about the identity of the dead body as that of Santhosha, son of PW.1. On this point the witnesses who have spoken about is mainly, PW.1 and PW.2, the parents of the deceased and the panchas to the inquest panchanama. 34. PW.1 and PW.2 in their evidence have stated that it is only based upon the cloth and the chappal found on the dead body they identified the same as that of their missing son Santosha. Except the shirt said to have been found on the body and the shirt button these witnesses had no other clue to identify the dead body as that of their son. The inquest panchanama also throws no light on this point. PW.4, PW.5 and PW.12 have stated that inquest panchanama as per EX.P4 was drawn in their presence. Though they have said that the said inquest panchanama was drawn on the body of deceased Santosha, but the evidence of PW.4 and PW.5 regarding the identification of the dead body was only on the alleged disclosure said to have been made by the accused. Therefore, even for the identification of the dead body in the inquest panchanama there was no independent identification or clue to arrive at a conclusion that dead body was that of deceased Santosha. The alleged inquest panchanama which is at EX.P5 was also not in the prescribed format of panchanama, on the contrary it is identified as a seizure mahazar with respect to the article said to be found on the body of the deceased. Those articles were - a jeans pant, a shirt and a chappal (slipper). The alleged inquest panchanama which is at EX.P5 was also not in the prescribed format of panchanama, on the contrary it is identified as a seizure mahazar with respect to the article said to be found on the body of the deceased. Those articles were - a jeans pant, a shirt and a chappal (slipper). Therefore, independent of the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 even merely confining to EX.P5 it cannot be concluded that the dead body was that of deceased Santosha only. 35. The post mortem report though says it was conducted on the body of the deceased Santosha, but the identification was by the police. There is no reason forthcoming as to how come the police identified the said body as that of Santosha except the identification of it by PW.1 and PW.2. Admittedly, the Investigating Officer had not taken the pain of getting a DNA test done and confirming the identity of the deceased with DNA matching. However, in the light of undisputed evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 that the dead body was identified as that of their missing son Santosha, it has to be taken that the dead body found was that of Santosha, the son of PW.1 and PW.2. 36. The next question is regarding the nature of the death and if it is to be proved that the death was homicidal, then whether the accused has committed the said homicidal death of Santosha. The entire prosecution case on this aspect is based upon the last seen theory. According to prosecution it was PW.11 Thammegowda along with one Sri Ranganna had lastly seen the deceased in the company of the accused. As such, it was concluded that it was the accused who had committed the alleged offence of murder of Santosha. In that regard PW.1 in his evidence has stated that about 4 to 5 days after missing of his son he came to know through one Sri Thammegowda, son of Rajegowda and one Sri Ranganna that his son Santosha had gone along with accused. It is also his case that he enquired the accused in that regard who stated that deceased was with him and had come to his land, but later he left the said place. Same was the evidence of PW.2, the mother of the deceased also. It is also his case that he enquired the accused in that regard who stated that deceased was with him and had come to his land, but later he left the said place. Same was the evidence of PW.2, the mother of the deceased also. Since the evidence of these two witnesses is not sufficient to conclude that the deceased was found lastly in the company of the accused, the evidence of said Thammegowda son of Rajegowda who was examined as PW.11 plays an important role on this aspect. As already observed above, this witness in his examination in chief has stated that one afternoon at about 4.00 p.m. while he was in his land accused and deceased Santosha came from the field to his house. He asked Santosha to tie the buffalo which he did and left the place. Barring this he has not stated anything about the accused accompanying the deceased at any other place. Even if the evidence of PW.11 is believed on the said aspect, what he has stated in his examination in chief is that after tying the buffalo Santosha left the place. Therefore, it is not clear that after the said event whether accused took Santosha along with him. 37. The remaining witnesses who could speak about the accused taking the deceased with him are PW.3, PW.8, PW.9 and PW.10. According to them at the instance of PW.1, the father of the deceased, a panchayath was held in their village where the people enquired the accused for which the accused stated that deceased had accompanied him on the date of his alleged missing. Thus they advised PW.1 to lodge a police complaint in that regard. Even if it is taken that the deceased was found lastly in the company of the accused on 02.10.2007, but it cannot be forgotten that according to prosecution the dead body was found only on 31.10.2007 or 01.11.2007 (there is discrepancy in the prosecution case regarding the said date of finding of the dead body). Still there is a gap of not less than 21 days between the date of the deceased found missing and tracing of his dead body. Still there is a gap of not less than 21 days between the date of the deceased found missing and tracing of his dead body. No evidence either oral or documentary has come on the point regarding anybody not seeing the deceased in the intervening period or to the effect that any effort was made in the meantime to find out the whereabouts of the deceased. No evidence has come from any of the prosecution witness to the effect that for the said period the accused was also found missing. 38. On the contrary as per PW.1, PW.2, PW.3, PW.8 and PW.10 within few days which according to PW.8 within three days after the missing of Santosha the villagers have enquired the accused about Santosha who was found missing. Thus from the third or fourth day of the alleged missing of Santosha, the accused has been within the vicinity of the villagers. Therefore, the doubt has remained as it is, as to what happened to the deceased from the fourth day of his missing till he was found dead on 31.10.2007 or 01.11.2007, as the case may be. Therefore, the theory of the prosecution that the deceased was found lastly in the company of the accused cannot be solely relied upon since the same is not free of reasonable doubts. 39. The next point upon which the prosecution tried to establish the nexus between the death of Santosha and accused is based upon a shirt button said to have been found in a place nearby nala. In that regard the case of the prosecution is that the accused after his apprehension has lead the police and panchas to a place near canal stating that it is at that place he pushed the deceased into nala. The police drew a panchanama of the said place as per EX.P2 and also they found a shirt button in that place which was also seized under the said panchanama. The shirt button was marked at MO.4. 40. According to PW.21 the Investigating Officer the accused who was produced before him on 01.11.2007 gave a voluntary statement before him where he is said to have stated that he would show the place where deceased Santosha was pushed by him into the Borannagowda Right Bank Canal. Accordingly, he summoned panchas and followed the accused. 40. According to PW.21 the Investigating Officer the accused who was produced before him on 01.11.2007 gave a voluntary statement before him where he is said to have stated that he would show the place where deceased Santosha was pushed by him into the Borannagowda Right Bank Canal. Accordingly, he summoned panchas and followed the accused. The accused took them to Borannagowda Right Bank Canal on a bridge and shown them the place stating that was the place where the deceased was pushed into canal. The Investigating Officer drew a panchanama as per EX.P2 in the said place. According to PW.21, the Investigating Officer on 01.11.2007 after giving his voluntary statement the accused took him and the panchas first to the place where the dead body of deceased Santosha said to have been concealed by this accused. The said place was a cover duct on the canal near Halli Mysuru. According to PW.21 after recovering the said body at the instance of the accused getting it identified and conducting inquest and also after recording the statement of one Sri Suresh Rajegowda, bin Papegowda and getting the dead body subjected to post mortem examination and giving it to Government hospital of Halli Mysuru requesting them to collect the bones of the dead body and also getting the photographs of the said spot taken, he proceeded along with the accused and panchas to that place which the accused has shown them as the place where he pushed Santosha to canal. 41. On the contrary PW.4 one of the pancha to EX.P2, the spot panchanama in his evidence has specifically sated that on that day accused took them first to that place which he (accused) shown as the place from where he pushed Santosha into water and thereafter he took them to another place near Halli Mysuru where they found the dead body of deceased. According to the said witness under the same panchanama a shirt button which was said to be found in that place was also seized. 42. Contrary to this PW.5 who is said to be another pancha to the very same panchanama has stated that having seen the gathering of the people he went to the place where he noticed the police and the accused. The accused stated that it was the same place in which he pushed Santosha into the water. 42. Contrary to this PW.5 who is said to be another pancha to the very same panchanama has stated that having seen the gathering of the people he went to the place where he noticed the police and the accused. The accused stated that it was the same place in which he pushed Santosha into the water. A shirt button was found in that place. The police seized the said shirt button and drew a panchanama as per EX.P2. He has also identified his signature therein at EX.P2(b). He has further stated that 25 days thereafter he came to know that dead body of Santosha was found near Halli Mysuru Canal and the police are lifting it from the canal. As such, he went to the said place and noticed the police lifting the body of the deceased from the canal and the said body was identified. 43. If this version of PW.5 is believed it falsifies the evidence of both PW.4 as well PW.21. Because he has given totally a different picture of the alleged recovery of the button and panchanama. Therefore regarding the alleged place of incident and at whose instance the said place was identified and also about alleged recovery of shirt button at MO.4 from the said place, the evidence of the prosecution does not inspire any confidence to believe. At this juncture it also cannot be ignored of the evidence of PW.2 the mother of the deceased that she has stated that the shirt button which was shown to her was found at that place where the dead body was found. Therefore her version gives a fourth dimension to the case of prosecution regarding the place of the incident and the seizure of the shirt button. This further makes the case of the prosecution on the point of place of incident and seizure of the shirt button more doubtful. 44. In the light of the above the alleged motive attributed by the prosecution behind the commission of alleged crime goes to the background. According to PW.1, PW.2 and PW.21 the family of the deceased and accused were belonging to two different castes and that PW.1 and PW.2 were nourishing and maintaining sheep, hen and cattle which the accused family was not liking, as such, the accused has committed the alleged offence. According to PW.1, PW.2 and PW.21 the family of the deceased and accused were belonging to two different castes and that PW.1 and PW.2 were nourishing and maintaining sheep, hen and cattle which the accused family was not liking, as such, the accused has committed the alleged offence. However, according to PW.5 who is hearsay on this point, PW.2 i.e., wife of PW.1 and the accused had illicit relationship which the deceased had seen, as such, the deceased was murdered. According to PW.21 the accused has given in his voluntary statement the same statement. Therefore there is no consistency in the alleged motive attributed to the accused in the alleged commission of the crime. Further even the various motive attributed to the accused for the commission of crime also have remained unestablished or not proved. Therefore, even the aspect of motive is also not established by the prosecution. 45. The court below has not appreciated these aspects of the nature of death, the place of offence, the alleged recovery of the shirt button at MO.4 and the motive behind the crime in their proper perspective. Merely because PW.1 and PW.2 have stated that the shirt button was that of their deceased son and PW.4 and PW.5 are said to have stated that the said button was seized in their presence, without analyzing reliability of their statements and discrepancies crept in their evidence, the court below jumped into a conclusion holding that the alleged shirt button was found and seized at the instance of the accused, as such, the accused has pushed the deceased from the said place where the said shirt button was found. The said finding of the Sessions Court is to be called as perverse and without any basis. 46. Before concluding certain discrepancies regarding the investigation on the alleged finding of the dead body is also required to be discussed. According to prosecution as well PW.1 and PW.2 deceased Santosha was found missing on 02.10.2007. According to PW.1 and the Investigating Officer the father of Santosha i.e., PW.1 lodged a complaint regarding missing of his son on 17.10.2007. Admittedly, the complaint at EX.P1 was lodged by father of the Santosha on 31.10.2007 at 10.30 p.m. wherein he has suspected that accused has pushed his son Santosha into Borannagowda Right Bank Canal, murdered him and has hidden the dead body. Admittedly, the complaint at EX.P1 was lodged by father of the Santosha on 31.10.2007 at 10.30 p.m. wherein he has suspected that accused has pushed his son Santosha into Borannagowda Right Bank Canal, murdered him and has hidden the dead body. Thus, as on 31.10.2007 itself complainant was quite sure of alleged nature of death of his son as murder and as to who committed it and also after committing the murder, how the culprit dealt with the dead body. Thus, the complaint was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 47. On the other hand when we read the evidence that has come up before the court in this case certain discrepancies can be found. They are - (i) PW.22 Pramod Kumar, the first Investigating Officer in this case in his evidence has stated that on 31.10.2007 at 10.30 p.m. PW.1 Annajegowda lodged a complaint in his presence and the same was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. In the said complaint it was mentioned that accused has caused the murder of his son and hidden the dead body. (ii) The very same Investigating Officer i.e., PW.22 in his evidence has further stated that he arrested the accused on 01.11.2007 at 7.30 a.m. at Somanathapura. According to PW.17 by that time the dead body of Santosha was already found. (iii) According to PW.21 Shashidhara, the main Investigating Officer in this case, the accused was produced before him on 01.11.2007 at 5.00 a.m. before him and he was arrested on the same day at 4.30 a.m. in his relatives house at Somanathapura. The accused gave voluntary statement stating that he had hidden the dead body and that he would show the place. Accordingly, joined by panchas he followed the accused, who took them to Borannagowda Right Bank Canal cover duct at Halli Mysuru and shown them the dead body and brought it out and also placed it on the bank on the canal, a panchanama was drawn as per EX.P3 between 12.30 p.m. to 1.30 p.m. on the very same day i.e., on 01.11.2007. If PW.22 is believed that accused was arrested on 01.11.2007 at 7.30 p.m., then the evidence of PW.21, the main Investigating Officer that after his arrest accused gave his voluntary statement and lead them to the place where a panchanama as per EX.P3 was drawn at 12.30 p.m. to 1.30 p.m. on the very same day proves to be false. The alleged voluntary statement and alleged panchanama at EX.P3 cannot be earlier to the alleged arrest of the accused which according to PW.22 was at 7.30 p.m. on 01.11.2007. (iv) According to PW.21 the main Investigating Officer, it is only after the accused gave his voluntary statement on 01.11.2007 about he showing the place where the deceased was found to be hidden after his murder, the police in the presence of panchas secured the dead body at the instance of the accused. However, according to PW.17 Krishnegowda, a police constable of the complainant police station on 31.10.2007 itself, after coming to know that a dead body was found in Halli Mysuru canal, his superior had taken him to the place and he was deputed for watching the said dead body (keeping a guard on the dead body) and in that place inquest panchanama was drawn which this witness has identified at EX.P5. In his cross examination he has clearly stated that the information regarding the presence of dead body was received at 12 noon on 31.10.2007. Further, according to him CW.24, his superior officer took him to the said place. Thus, the very same prosecution through PW.17 who is none else than a police staff has not only shown that the dead body was found on 31.10.2007 in the afternoon itself, which was much prior to the lodging of complaint at EX.P1 by PW.1, but also PW.17 was deputed for watch of the said dead body for a day i.e., on 01.11.2007 when an inquest panchanama is said to be drawn on the said dead body. Therefore, the evidence of Investigating Officer proves to be totally false in the light of the evidence of their own departmental official's evidence supported by the document at EX.P5 and the complaint at EX.P1. Therefore, the evidence of Investigating Officer proves to be totally false in the light of the evidence of their own departmental official's evidence supported by the document at EX.P5 and the complaint at EX.P1. (v) Lastly, in the inquest panchanama at EX.P4 in reply to question No.3 as to who saw the dead body first, it is recorded that the dead body was first noticed by the father of the deceased (PW.1) on 01.11.2007 at 9.30 a.m. This is once again contradictory to what PW.17 has stated and what could be inferred from a reading of the complaint at EX.P1 filed by none else than PW.1. Thus, there is lot of discrepancies with respect to the date, time and place of the alleged offence, finding of the dead body and also the arrest of the accused. Thus it is not only the nature of the death, but also the alleged commission of the crime by accused is shrouded with lot of suspicion. The benefit of which has to be naturally given to the accused. However, as already observed above, the Sessions Court without going in depth of the evidence and without appreciating each of the document in the light of the other related documents, has blindly embraced the exhibits independently on their facial value and arrived at a conclusion holding the accused guilty of the alleged offence. As such, the said finding being perverse and erroneous, we find all the reason to interfere in the said judgment which deserves to be set aside and the accused deserves to be acquitted of the alleged offence giving him the benefit of doubt. 48. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following order. ORDER This criminal appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction and order on sentence in S.C. No.08/2008 dated 12.10.2010 passed by the Fast Track Judge at Arakalagudu, Hassan District, is set aside. The accused/appellant Kumara @ Puttabasappa, son of Halappa, aged 32 years, resident of Ibbadi Kavalubaare village, Doddamagge Hobli, Arakalagud taluk, Hassan district, is acquitted of the charges for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Consequently, the accused/appellant is set at liberty. The accused/appellant Kumara @ Puttabasappa, son of Halappa, aged 32 years, resident of Ibbadi Kavalubaare village, Doddamagge Hobli, Arakalagud taluk, Hassan district, is acquitted of the charges for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Consequently, the accused/appellant is set at liberty. The jail authorities are hereby directed to set him at liberty, provided the accused is not required to be detained in custody in any other case/s. The registry to communicate the operative portion of this order to the concerned prison authorities without any delay. Pending IAs stand rejected.