JUDGMENT : 1. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows: The deceased Narasimhaiah had two houses in Bodabandenahalli village. One in the village and another in his farm land wherein he had constructed the Ashram. On the date of incident, deceased Narasimhaiah was remained in his farm house to sleep there and his wife Mallakka was sleeping in the house situated in the village. It is further case of the prosecution that on earlier occasion, the deceased had given evidence against the accused in a case that was pending between the accused and one Sripada Hegde. On 28.11.2009 the complainant Mallakka left the farm house at 6.00 p.m. and her husband Narasimhaiah stayed back in the farm house. On the next day at about 8.00 a.m., when the complainant (wife of the deceased) had been to the farm house, her husband was not found there. She made an effort to search her husband at nearby places. In the meantime, there was a spread of news to the effect that a dead body was floating in the lake called Rajanakatte which is located half kilometer away from the farm house of the deceased. The complainant rushed to the said lake and found that the dead body was that of her husband and thereafter, she lodged complaint as per Ex.P.1. On account of previous enmity between the accused and the deceased, the accused committed murder of her husband and thereafter threw the dead body into the lake to destroy the evidence. Based on the complaint lodged by P.W.1 (wife of the deceased), the police registered a case and after completion of the investigation filed a charge sheet against the accused under section 302, 201 of IPC. 2. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge framed and claimed to be tried. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses, marked 12 documents as at Ex.P.1 to P.12 and got marked M.Os. 1 to 7. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, by the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the Trial Court convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. In default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for a further period of two years. He was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for a further period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred. 3. Shri. M. Sharass Chandra, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant vehemently contended that the prosecution has not proved the previous enmity between the deceased and the accused and therefore, the motive for commission of the alleged offences has not been established. Secondly he contended that there were no eyewitnesses to the incident and the prosecution case is rested on the circumstantial evidence of P.W. 14, 12 and 15. Hence, there was no cogent evidence adduced by the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts. Therefore, the trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in a proper perspective and misdirected itself in convicting the accused. There is no material evidence to indicate that the accused had committed the offences alleged against him. Hence, he pleads that the appeal be allowed and the accused be acquitted for the offences alleged against him. 4. On the other hand, Shri. Vijayakumar Majage, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor contends that the motive aspect is spoken to by P.W.1, 2, the wife and son of the deceased and other villagers. The prosecution has established the last seen together theory by adducing evidence of P.Ws.12 and 15 who have specifically stated that they have seen the accused in the company of the deceased at 6.00 p.m. on the previous date. Further he contends that P.W.7 and 9 have categorically stated about the recovery of M.O.1 and 2 at the instance of accused. The motive aspect, last seen theory, recovery of weapon coupled with medical evidence, amply prove that it is the accused who committed murder of the deceased. The trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence on record in proper perspective, rightly convicted the accused for the offences alleged against him and hence, he prays for dismissal of the appeal 5. We heard learned counsel for the appellant and Additional S.P.P. for the respondent-State and examined the records. 6. The trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence on record in proper perspective, rightly convicted the accused for the offences alleged against him and hence, he prays for dismissal of the appeal 5. We heard learned counsel for the appellant and Additional S.P.P. for the respondent-State and examined the records. 6. Upon hearing the learned counsels and in view of the above mentioned rival contentions, the points that arise for consideration are as follows: 1. Whether the prosecution has proved the chain of circumstances leading to prove guilt of the accused? 2. Whether the Trial Court has committed an error in appreciating the evidence and whether it is was justified in convicting the accused-appellant for the offence punishable under Section302 and 201 of IPC? 7. PW.1 is the complainant and wife of the deceased. PW.2 is the brought up son of the deceased. PW.3 is the person who lifts dead body of the deceased from the lake and also witness to spot mahazar Ex.P.2. He turned hostile to the prosecution. PW.4 is also a person who lifts the dead body from the lake along with PW.3. PW. 5 is the panch witness for inquest mahazar Ex.P.4. PW. 6 is the daughter of the deceased who is staying in some other village. PW.7 and 9 are the witnesses for recovery mahazar and spot mahazar Ex.P.5 and Ex.P. 7. PW.8 is the police constable who arrested the accused and produced him before the Investigation Officer. PW.10 is the panch witness for recovery mahazar Ex.P. 8, turned hostile to the prosecution. PW.11 is the doctor who conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. PW.12 and 15 are the persons who were examined to speak about last seen theory. PW. 13 is the engineer who prepared the sketch in respect of scene of occurrence. PW.14 is the witness who was examined to speak about previous enmity between the accused and the deceased, turned hostile to the prosecution. PW.16 is the Assistant Director of the Forensic Science Laboratory, who issued report Ex.P.12 about blood stained soil and M.Os. 3 and 4. PW.17 is the Investigation Officer. 8. PW.1 (Malakka) is the complainant and wife of the deceased. She has deposed that they had two houses, one in the farm land (Ashrama) and another in the village. PW.16 is the Assistant Director of the Forensic Science Laboratory, who issued report Ex.P.12 about blood stained soil and M.Os. 3 and 4. PW.17 is the Investigation Officer. 8. PW.1 (Malakka) is the complainant and wife of the deceased. She has deposed that they had two houses, one in the farm land (Ashrama) and another in the village. They used to tie cattle’s in the Ashrama’s house and used to perform Bhajans in the Ashram. On 28.11.2009 she was with her husband up to 6.00 p.m. Her husband Narasimhaiah, stayed back in the Ashram and she came back to the village. On the next day morning at 8.30 a.m., when she had been to Ashram, her husband was not there, she made an effort to trace her husband by searching in the nearby places. In the meantime the people in the village were talking that a dead body was floating in the lake called Rajanakatte which is located half a kilometer away from Ashram. She rushed to the lake and identified the dead body as that of her husband Narasimhaiah and there was a bleeding injury on the head and eyes of the dead body. Thereafter she went to the police station along with her brought up son Bheemaraj (P.W.2) and lodged complaint against the accused as per Ex.P.1. She further deposed that since her husband had given evidence in favour of Sripad Hegde, (P.W.14) who instituted case against the accused, the accused had developed enmity towards her husband and in the background of such previous enmity, the accused had committed murder of her husband Narasimhaiah assaulting him with spear which was kept in the Ashram and thereafter threw the dead body into the lake to conceal the evidence. Thereafter the police conducted mahazar and sent the dead body for post mortem examination. In her cross-examination she has admitted that her husband used to go near the said lake everyday at 6 O’ clock. She has further admitted that to go to Ashram, one has to pass through the said lake. She did not know what has been written in the complaint by the police but she had affixed her LTM to the same. She has further stated that the accused had confessed before the police that he had committed the murder of the deceased. 9. P.W.2 Bheemaraj has deposed that he is a brought up son of the deceased. She did not know what has been written in the complaint by the police but she had affixed her LTM to the same. She has further stated that the accused had confessed before the police that he had committed the murder of the deceased. 9. P.W.2 Bheemaraj has deposed that he is a brought up son of the deceased. Deceased Narasimhaiah used to stay in the Ashrama’s house located one kilometer away from the village and the accused used to stay in another village i.e., Anchehalli, which is situated two kilometers away from the village. On the date of incident, people in the village were talking that it is the accused who committed the murder of his father. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the accused had destroyed the stone fence put up by Sripada Hegde (P.W. 14) and in that case, his father had given evidence in favour of Sripada Hegde and against the accused. To a suggestion put forth by the defence, he was not able to furnish the specific case number. After seeing the dead body, he took his mother to police station to lodge complaint. Since they had suspicion about the involvement of the accused, they lodged complaint against the accused. PW.3, B.R. Ramesh, who is a person who stated to have lifted the dead body of the deceased from the lake and affixed his signature to spot mahazar Ex.P.2, completely turned hostile to the prosecution. PW.4 (Narasimhamurthy) has deposed that he along with PW.3 lifted the dead body from the lake. He further deposed that the people in the village were talking that it is the accused who committed murder of the deceased. PW.6 Radhamma, is the daughter of the deceased, who participated in the cremation of the dead body after receipt of the information. She has deposed that she came to know that the accused has committed murder of her father on account of previous enmity as regards dispute between the accused and Sripada Hegde. PW.7 (Poojarappa) is a panch witness for spot Mahazar and recovery mahazar Ex.P.5 and 6. He deposed that the police have seized spear (M.O.1) which was lying on field between Ashram and lake and also seized blood stained soil. In the cross-examination he has admitted that there was an eye sight problem for him. PW.7 (Poojarappa) is a panch witness for spot Mahazar and recovery mahazar Ex.P.5 and 6. He deposed that the police have seized spear (M.O.1) which was lying on field between Ashram and lake and also seized blood stained soil. In the cross-examination he has admitted that there was an eye sight problem for him. PW.8 (Umesha) is a police constable who arrested the accused and produced him before the investigation officer. PW.9 (Hanumantharayappa) is the panch witness for recovery mahazar Ex.P.7 under which jerkin worn by the accused was seized at the instance of the accused. PW.10 (Nanjundaiah) is a panch witness for recovery mahazar, Ex.P.8 under which the clothes (M.Os. 5 to 7) alleged to have been worn by the accused were seized. He turned hostile to the prosecution. P.W.11 (Dr. Nagabushan) is the doctor who conducted the postmortem over the dead body of Narasimhaiah and submitted report as at Ex.P.9. He opined that there is a possibility of sustaining such injuries if a person assaulted by M.O.1. However, in the cross-examination, the doctor has admitted that two injuries which were found on the forehead of the deceased could be caused from an instrument used for removal of coconut and that the forth injury found on neck of the deceased could be caused if the deceased came in contact with wire fencing. Further he admitted that injury no.1 could be caused by some other weapon. But all the three injuries could not be caused from M.O.1. P.W.12 (Basavaraj) and (Hanumanthaiah) 15 are the friends of the deceased staying in the same village. They deposed that they had seen the accused at 6.00 p.m. on the previous date, while taking their cattle to their house, they had spoken to the accused on that day. On the next day they came to know that the dead body of Narasimhaiah was floating on lake. Four days after, the police bought the accused to their village wherein they had seen the accused was wearing blood stained jerkin, from that, they came to know that the accused himself had committed the murder of the accused on account of previous enmity because the deceased deposed against the accused in Reddy’s case. P.W.13 (K.C. Jayaramu) is the engineer who has prepared the sketch of scene of occurrence. PW.14 (Sreepadha Hegde) is an important witness to the prosecution case. P.W.13 (K.C. Jayaramu) is the engineer who has prepared the sketch of scene of occurrence. PW.14 (Sreepadha Hegde) is an important witness to the prosecution case. He was examined to speak about the land owned by him adjacent to the land of the accused, destroying the fence by the accused, filing of complaint against the accused, and the deceased giving evidence against the accused. But he has deposed entirely against the prosecution and turned hostile. PW.16 (B. Putta Basavaiah) is the Assistant Director of Forensic Science Laboratory, who has submitted report Ex.P.12, as regards examination of blood stained soil M.O. 3 and 4 but no report is submitted by him as regards blood stains found on M.O. 3 and 4. PW. 17 (T.M. Shivakumar) is the Investigating Officer, who conducted the investigation. 10. It is settled principle that in each and every crime, the prosecution is required to prove the motive. P.Ws. 1 and 2, the wife and son of the deceased Narasimhaiah, the motive for the accused to commit murder of the deceased was that, on earlier occasion, prior to three years before the incident, there was litigation between the accused and P.W.14 (Sripada Hegde), in which the deceased rendered his evidence against the accused. In that background there was enmity between the deceased and accused and the accused had axe to grind against the deceased and in view of such enmity, the accused committed murder of the deceased. The prosecution further strongly placed reliance on the evidence of P.W.14 (Sripada Hegde). No doubt the said witness has deposed that the accused owns land adjacent to his land and three years back he had lodged complaint against the accused for causing damage by destroying the fence put up by him around his land. But in his evidence before the Court he has categorically admitted that he has not given any statement before the police and thereby turned hostile to the prosecution. There are no other witnesses examined to prove the motive. The evidence of PW1 & 2 cannot be solely placed reliance in the absence of supporting material. Therefore, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to establish an important aspect of motive on the part of the accused to commit murder of the deceased. 11. There are no other witnesses examined to prove the motive. The evidence of PW1 & 2 cannot be solely placed reliance in the absence of supporting material. Therefore, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to establish an important aspect of motive on the part of the accused to commit murder of the deceased. 11. In the case on hand, in the absence of any eyewitnesses to the incident, the case of the prosecution entirely rests on the circumstantial evidence. As such, the burden is on the prosecution to establish such circumstances and chain of events, linking the accused in the crime. Hence, this Court is required to consider as to whether the prosecution has established such circumstances and chain of events beyond all reasonable doubts, connecting the accused in the crime. Therefore, it is necessary to examine as to whether the prosecution has proved the other chain of circumstances leading to the death of deceased on account of assault made by the accused. 12. The only chain of circumstance put forth by the prosecution was ‘last seen together theory’. At this stage, it is just and proper to carefully scrutinize the depositions of P.Ws. 12 and 15 who require to depose regarding ‘last seen theory’. P.W.12 has stated in his evidence that at 6.00 pm on 28.11.2009, while he was taking his cattle to his house, he saw the accused moving around in his land. At that time, Hanumanthaiah (P.W.15) was also with him and both of them talked to the deceased and accused. Four days after the incident, police bought the accused in a jeep and at that time, the accused was wearing blood stained pant and jerkin. Noticing the same, they came to know that it is the accused who committed the murder of deceased Narasimhaiah. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that at 6.00 pm on the previous day himself, deceased Narasimhaiah and Hanumanthaiah (P.W.15) were talking together near the lake. Thereafter he went towards his house with his cattle. The deceased Narasimhaiah and Hanumanthaiah went together. When they were talking with each, the accused was in his land. 13. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that at 6.00 pm on the previous day himself, deceased Narasimhaiah and Hanumanthaiah (P.W.15) were talking together near the lake. Thereafter he went towards his house with his cattle. The deceased Narasimhaiah and Hanumanthaiah went together. When they were talking with each, the accused was in his land. 13. Whereas, PW.15 (Hanumanthaiah) has stated in his evidence that at 6.00 pm on the previous day he talked with deceased Narasimhaiah and when he left the place with his cattle, the accused Rudresh was speaking with deceased Narasimhaiah and there were no one with the accused except deceased Narasimhaiah. But this vital fact of accused talking with deceased Narasimahaiah, as spoken to P.W.15 was not spoken to by P.W.12. Further, this witness admits in his cross-examination that the deceased Narasimhaiah was his close friend and they are neighbors in the village. Apart from this, it is relevant to note that P.W.1, who is none other than the wife of the deceased and the complainant in the case has stated that she was in the company of her husband Narasimhaiah in the Ashram up to 6.00 pm and she left the Ashram (house constructed in the land of the deceased) at 6.00 pm and her husband stayed back in the Ashram. If really the deceased, P.W.12 and 15 were sitting together and talking near the lake at 6.00 p.m. on the previous date and at that time accused was also there in his land and spoken to with deceased Narasimhaiah were to be true, P.W.1 who was also with the deceased up to 6.00 pm, before going to her house in the village, should have spoken about the same. But there is no whisper in the evidence of P.W.1, the wife of deceased and the complainant about P.Ws. 12 and 15 being in the company of her husband at 6.00 pm on the previous day. Hence, there are material contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence of P.Ws.1, 12 and 15 about the deceased being in the company of the accused. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove the last seen theory and the other chain of circumstances which unerringly point the finger towards the guilt of the accused. The prosecution has examined several witnesses relating to recovery mahazar Ex.P.7, under which, Jarkin worn by the accused was seized. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove the last seen theory and the other chain of circumstances which unerringly point the finger towards the guilt of the accused. The prosecution has examined several witnesses relating to recovery mahazar Ex.P.7, under which, Jarkin worn by the accused was seized. The same was seized at the instance of the accused as per Ex.P.5 & P.6, on the basis of his voluntary statement recorded by the investigation officer, by securing the presence of PW.7. The weapon spear (M.O.1) which was lying in the open field between Ashram and lake also seized under said mahazar. This weapon MO.1 has been kept in the Ashram to protect themselves from wild animal, but the same was not found in the Ashram. PW.2 being a brought up son of the deceased Narasishmaiah has stated that the deceased had constructed Ashrama in his land which was situated 1 km from the village. The villagers used to perform Bajan during full moon day and on new moon day. As the dead body of Narasimhaiah was floating in Rajankatte lake, but on the suspicious circumstances that it is the accused who roped in the alleged crime that he has committed murder of deceased Narasimahaiah, as there was enmity between him and the deceased. On 28.11.2009, during night, some miscreants either for property matter or for some other reason would caused injuries with a pointed weapon on the eyebrows of left eye, forehead and also on the back part of the head. As a result of that sustaining severe injuries and done to death and causing his death. To conceal the offence committed by the miscreants and also not to create any doubt about the incident, so also to make it not possible to identify the same, his dead body was thrown into Rajanakatte lake in order to screaming of the evidence and legal punishment. But there was enmity between the deceased Narasimhaiah and accused Rudersh of Anchehalli village, as there was a letting a fire to the live stock and for that reason there is a suspicion about accused Rudresh for the death of deceased Narasimhaiah. The dead body having been sent to the Doctor to conduct postmortem examination. As it was the views expressed by the Panchas, the same has been reflected in the inquest mahazar held over the dead body of Narasimhaiah. The dead body having been sent to the Doctor to conduct postmortem examination. As it was the views expressed by the Panchas, the same has been reflected in the inquest mahazar held over the dead body of Narasimhaiah. But the entire case of the prosecution was that death of Narasimhaiah, it is roped against the accused which is on the basis of suspicion and that there was enmity between the accused and the deceased. But the prosecution has not been able to place the reliable evidence in order to prove the guilt against the accused. The same has been seen in the evidence of several witnesses who have been subjected to be examined by the prosecution such as PW.1 who is the author of the complaint as the wife of the deceased. PW.2 being the brought up son of the deceased. PWs. 12 & 15 are examined and they spoken about the last seen theory put forth by the prosecution. But all these evidence as at cursory glance indicate that the prosecution has not put forth the cogent, corroborative and positive evidence to probablizre that it is the accused who has committed the murder of the deceased Narasimhaiah and the prosecution has failed to establish the chain of events and linking circumstances that the accused in committing the murder of the deceased Narasimahaiah. Therefore, in this appeal, on reappreciation of the entire material evidence available on record we are of the considered view that the view that has been taken by the trial Court was not justified in convicting the accused for the charges levelled against him. Though the prosecution examined PWs. 12 & 15 relating to the deceased being in the company of the accused, but the prosecution has failed to prove the last seen theory and also the other chain of circumstances. But the trial Court which unerringly point the finger towards the guilt of the accused that he has committed the murder of the deceased Narasimhaiah. 14. On summarizing the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, it would indicate that the prosecution has failed to establish motive aspect. In the absence of any direct/eyewitnesses to the incident, there should be other strong chain of circumstances which unerringly link the accused in committing murder of the deceased. 14. On summarizing the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, it would indicate that the prosecution has failed to establish motive aspect. In the absence of any direct/eyewitnesses to the incident, there should be other strong chain of circumstances which unerringly link the accused in committing murder of the deceased. But the prosecution has failed to establish such chain of events and circumstances linking the accused in committing murder of the deceased. On reappreciation of the entire material on records this Court is of the considered view that the learned Judge of the Trial Court was not justified in convicting the accused for the offences alleged against him. It is settled principle that when there are two views available, one which is beneficial to the accused is to be extended to him, by giving benefit of doubts. Accordingly we answer both the points No.1 and 2 holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the chain of circumstances leading to prove the motive and guilt of the accused and that the Trial Court was not justified in convicting the accused-appellant for the offences alleged against him. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.12.2011 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court – V, Madhugiri, in S.C.No.96 of 2010, convicting the accused-appellant herein for the offences punishable under Section 302 and 201 IPC is hereby set aside. The accused-appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. The accused shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other cases.