JUDGMENT : Three accused persons (hereinafter referred to as accused Nos.1 to 3 respectively) were tried by the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi on the charge of committing the murder of one Muttappa Shetteppa Doddamani, resident of Chimmada. 2. The Police machinery was set in motion by the wife of the deceased – P.W.1 by lodging a complaint (Ex.P-1) in Kudachi Police Station. In the complaint, she alleged that accused No.1 – Yallappa S/o. Siddappa Timmapur was their distant relative. Her husband, the deceased Muttappa used to frequently visit the house of accused No.1. About 10 to 12 months prior to the incident, the wife of accused No.1 complained to accused No.1 that the deceased pulled her hand. In this regard, a panchayat was convened. During the panchayat, deceased denied misbehaving with the wife of accused No.1. Hence, both of them were made to swear by the “Bhandara of Prabhuswamigalu”, to assure that such incident had not taken place. On the same day, accused No.1 sent his wife to her parents house. But one week thereafter she committed suicide by consuming poison. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that in order to avenge death of his wife, on 01.07.2011, accused No.1 having come to know that as usual, the deceased had gone to attend the annual worship, called Yallalinganadevara at Mugalkhod Math, he along with accused Nos.2 and 3 followed the deceased on two motor bikes. When the deceased and his brother-in-law Ramesh (P.W.4) were walking towards the bus stand, near the shop of P.W.8, accused No.1 came from behind and assaulted the deceased with a chopper (long) on the back of his head. When the deceased tried to escape, accused No.3 restrained him by keeping the motor bike on his way. Accused No.1 further assaulted on the head of the deceased. The deceased collapsed on the ground. Even thereafter accused No.1 assaulted on the head and the neck of the deceased and thereafter all the three accused persons fled away from the spot. 4. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined 21 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.21 and produced in evidence 32 documents, marked as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-32 and the material objects at M.O.1 to M.O.21. 5. P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased. 4. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined 21 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.21 and produced in evidence 32 documents, marked as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-32 and the material objects at M.O.1 to M.O.21. 5. P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased. She deposed before the Court that on getting information of the incident from her brother namely P.W.4, she rushed to the spot along with their father and other relatives and found the deceased lying in a pool of blood with severe injuries on his head and neck and thereafter proceeded to Kudachi Police Station and lodged the report, as per Ex.P-1. P.W.2 is a panch witness to the inquest mahazar – Ex.P-2. P.W.3 is a panch witness to the spot mahazar – Ex.P-10. P.W.4 Ramesh is an eyewitness to the incident. He has fully supported the case of the prosecution and has narrated the overt acts committed by the accused persons in causing the death of the deceased. He has also deposed about the motive for the commission of the offence and has identified the weapons M.O.1 and M.O.18. Even during his cross-examination, he has stood by the case of the prosecution. 6. P.W.5 and P.W.6 are the panch witnesses to Ex.P-11 - the seizure panchanama, whereunder M.O.11 – Mobile, M.O.12 – jacket, M.O.13 – shirt, M.O.14 – pant of accused No.1 and M.O.15 – mobile of accused No.3 were seized. They are also examined as panch witnesses to Ex.P-12, the seizure mahazar, whereunder M.O.16 and M.O.17, the TVS motor bikes were seized. Both these witnesses have turned hostile to the prosecution case and have asserted that they subscribed their signatures on blank papers. P.W.7 is the panch witness to the seizure mahazar – Ex.P-13, whereunder the chopper (mentioned as long) M.O.18 was seized at the instance of accused No.1. This witness has also been treated as hostile. P.W.8 is the owner of the grocery shop. According to the prosecution, the incident had taken place near the shop of P.W.8. This witness has wholly turned hostile. P.W.9 is another owner of the petty shop, situate near the spot of occurrence. He is also treated as hostile. P.W.10 and P.W.11 are the panch witnesses to the recovery of chopper (long) at the instance of accused No.1 under Ex.P-13. Both these witnesses have failed to support the prosecution case and are treated as hostile. 7. P.W.9 is another owner of the petty shop, situate near the spot of occurrence. He is also treated as hostile. P.W.10 and P.W.11 are the panch witnesses to the recovery of chopper (long) at the instance of accused No.1 under Ex.P-13. Both these witnesses have failed to support the prosecution case and are treated as hostile. 7. P.W.12 is the scribe of the complaint – Ex.P- 1. P.W.13 is the Police Constable who was deputed to watch the spot of occurrence. After the postmortem examination, he produced the clothes of the deceased before the Investigation Officer and identified them as M.O.6 to M.O.10. P.W.14 is the Police Officer who submitted the seized articles to FSL, Belagavi. P.W.15 is the Police Constable who submitted the FIR (Ex.P-20) to the Magistrate at his residence on 02.07.2011 at 07:30 a.m. and submitted his report vide Ex.P-21. P.W.16 is the photographer who took the photographs of the dead body as per Ex.P-3 to Ex.P-6 in the mortuary as well as the photographs during the recovery of the chopper under Ex.P-13. P.W.17 is the Medical Officer of Government Hospital, Madhabhavi, Athani Taluk who conducted the postmortem examination and issued the postmortem report vide Ex.P-23 and also furnished his opinion regarding the weapon M.O.1 and M.O.18 to the effect that the injuries noted in the postmortem report are possible to be caused by assault with the said choppers namely M.O.1 and M.O.18. P.W.18 is an Officer attached to the Forensic Science Laboratory, who issued the FSL report as per Ex.P-26. P.W.19 is the Scientific Officer who issued the FSL report as per Ex.P-27 certifying that the presence of blood was detected on the choppers – M.O.1 and M.O.18, jacket of accused No.1 and the clothes of the deceased and the said blood stains were stained with ‘A’ group. 8. P.W.20 is the PSI of Kudachi Police Station who registered the FIR and conducted substantial investigation. According to P.W.20, he arrested accused Nos.1 to 3 near the abandoned house, situate in the lands of accused No.3 on 02.07.2011 and seized the blood stained jacket of accused No.1 and also the clothes and mobiles of the other accused under a mahazar and thereafter seized the motor bikes which were produced by accused Nos.1 and 3 under the mahazar Ex.P-2. He further deposed that pursuant to the voluntary statement of accused No.1, he recovered the chopper (long) M.O.18, from the canal under the mahazar Ex.P-13. P.W.21 is the CPI of Raibag Circle who continued the investigation and laid the charge sheet against the accused. 9. The above incriminating circumstances were denied by the accused during their examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., and all the three accused persons took up the defence of total denial and did not choose to enter into any specific defence. 10. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence produced by the prosecution and the various authorities relied on by the learned counsels appearing for the parties, by the impugned judgment, the Trial Court convicted accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and acquitted accused Nos.2 and 3 of the said charge. The Trial Court was of the view that the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused No.1 beyond all reasonable doubt. The evidence of P.W.4, the eyewitness examined by the prosecution is duly corroborated by the contents of the complaint – Ex.P-1 as well as the evidence of P.W.1, the wife of the deceased and P.W.12, the scribe of the complaint and further having found that the medical evidence produced by the prosecution lends further corroboration to the ocular testimony of P.W.4 found it proper to convict accused No.1. However, the Trial Court was of the opinion that none of the witnesses examined by prosecution have deposed about the involvement of accused Nos.2 and 3. The prosecution also failed to prove any motive on the part of accused No.2 and accused No.3 and the evidence led in by the prosecution was not sufficient to prove the common intention on their part and accordingly, acquitted accused No.2 and accused No.3 of the charge. 11. Assailing the order of conviction, accused No.1 has preferred the above Criminal Appeal No.100192/2014, whereas, the State has filed Criminal Appeal No.100229/2014, challenging the acquittal of accused Nos.2 and 3. The appeal against accused No.2 was dismissed at the admission stage itself by order dated 11.03.2015. 12. Since common contentions are urged in both these appeals on question of law and facts, we have heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties in both the appeals. 13. The appeal against accused No.2 was dismissed at the admission stage itself by order dated 11.03.2015. 12. Since common contentions are urged in both these appeals on question of law and facts, we have heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties in both the appeals. 13. Leading the arguments, Shri Mohan A. Limbikai, learned counsel appearing for the convict has made the following submissions: (a) The Trial Court has gravely erred in convicting accused No.1. (b) The prosecution has rested its case on the evidence of a solitary witness namely P.W.4. P.W.4 is the brother-in-law of the deceased. He is an interested and partisan witness and therefore his evidence could not have been taken as the basis for the conviction of accused No.1. (c) The Trial Court failed to note the intrinsic contradictions and the inherent improbabilities in the evidence of P.W.4. (d) The presence of P.W.4 at the spot of occurrence is highly doubtful. He did not sustain any injuries during the occurrence. The evidence does not indicate that he made any efforts to save the deceased or to raise alarm. (e) His conduct before and subsequent to the incident leads to doubt his very presence at the spot. (f) P.W.4 did not lodge any complaint before the Police soon after the incident, even though the Police outpost was situated at a distance of 200 metres from the alleged spot of occurrence which leads to suspect his presence near the spot of occurrence. (g) P.W.4 has admitted in the cross-examination that he had reported the matter at the outpost and the concerned police had taken down the information given by him. But the prosecution has deliberately suppressed the earliest information given by P.W.4, giving rise to a strong suspicion about the genesis of the incident. (h) The prosecution has failed to explain the delay in lodging the complaint against the accused. (i) The material on record indicates that the investigation had commenced much prior to the registration of the FIR. Therefore, the Trial Court ought not to have placed reliance on the evidence adduced by the prosecution in recording the conviction against accused No.1. 14. In support of his argument, the learned counsel for accused No.1 has placed reliance on the following judgment: (2013) 3 KCCR 2014 (DB) (H.C. Karigowda @ Srinivasa and others vs. State of Karnataka) 15. Therefore, the Trial Court ought not to have placed reliance on the evidence adduced by the prosecution in recording the conviction against accused No.1. 14. In support of his argument, the learned counsel for accused No.1 has placed reliance on the following judgment: (2013) 3 KCCR 2014 (DB) (H.C. Karigowda @ Srinivasa and others vs. State of Karnataka) 15. The learned counsel appearing for accused No.3 has argued in support of the acquittal of accused No.3 contending that the prosecution has failed to establish the motive against accused No.3 and failed to produce convincing evidence in proof of the common intention so as to rope in accused No.3 in the murder of the deceased. Even P.W.4 who has been examined as eyewitness to the incident has not deposed about the overt acts committed by accused No.3, except stating that he handed over a long (chopper) to accused No.1. But the case of the prosecution is that, the deceased succumbed to the injuries inflicted by accused No.1 and not by accused No.3. There is striking discrepancy in the weapon used for the commission of the offence. The chopper was recovered at the instance of accused No.1 and therefore, the prosecution having failed to produce any evidence connecting accused No.3 to the alleged offence, the Trial Court was justified in acquitting accused No.3, hence he pleads for confirmation of the impugned order insofar as accused No.3 is concerned. 16. The learned Addl. SPP Sri. V.M. Banakar appearing for the State, however, would contend that the material on record is sufficient to convict all the three accused persons. The presence of P.W.4 at the spot of occurrence is beyond pale of doubt. He has specifically identified the accused and has deposed about the overt acts committed by each of them. It is ideal to expect direct evidence in proof of conspiracy or common intention. The circumstances proved in evidence indicate that all the accused persons followed the deceased on their motorcycle. When the chopper used by accused No.1 was broken, accused No.3 handed over another chopper namely M.O.18. The evidence of P.W.4 clearly indicate that the said weapon was also used for assaulting the deceased and the same was recovered at the instance of the accused. This evidence clearly establishes the common intention as well as the complicity of accused Nos.2 and 3. The evidence of P.W.4 clearly indicate that the said weapon was also used for assaulting the deceased and the same was recovered at the instance of the accused. This evidence clearly establishes the common intention as well as the complicity of accused Nos.2 and 3. Further, the evidence of P.W.4 clearly indicates that accused No.3 restrained the deceased thereby facilitating accused No.1 to rain blows on the deceased leading to his death and hence, the Trial Court was not justified in acquitting accused No.3 of the charges. 17. Placing reliance on the decision in the case of Yakub Ismailbhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 2004 SC 4209 , the learned SPP would contend that the evidence of P.W.4 is duly corroborated by the contents of the complaint and the testimony of the Investigating Officer. Delay in lodging the complaint is suitably explained by the prosecution as the complaint could have been filed only after P.W.1 reached the spot from her native place, which was located more than 32 k.m. from the spot and the Police Station was situate at a distance of 30 k.m. from the spot of occurrence. The case of the prosecution cannot be doubted merely because of the delay in lodging the FIR. There is no evidence to show that the said delay is made use of to fabricate a false story or to falsely implicate the accused. Moreover, it is proved that FIR is based on the information given by P.W.4, a direct eye-witness to the incident. If for any reason the Police in the outpost failed to register the case, the said lapse cannot be taken as a circumstance to doubt and disbelieve the evidence of the eyewitnesses namely P.W.4 and thus, he prays for conviction of accused Nos.1 and 3 for the offences charged against him. 18. We have bestowed out careful thought to the submissions made at the bar and have thoroughly examined the entire material on record. 19. Undeniably, the case of the prosecution is rested on the direct testimony of P.W.4 who is examined as the sole eye-witness to the incident. It is now well settled that conviction can be based on the testimony of a single witness, if found reliable. If the Court is satisfied that the witness is truthful, the Court may act upon his evidence without looking for any corroboration. It is now well settled that conviction can be based on the testimony of a single witness, if found reliable. If the Court is satisfied that the witness is truthful, the Court may act upon his evidence without looking for any corroboration. It is not always necessary to insist upon corroboration, unless the nature of the evidence itself calls for it as a matter of prudence. Even then the corroboration could be through surrounding circumstances or even by medical evidence. If the witness himself is found natural or an injured witness or one who promptly lodged the FIR, that itself may reassure the Court regarding the veracity of the solitary witness. 20. Since the entire case of the prosecution is based on the evidence of this crucial witness namely P.W.4, it is necessary at the threshold to recapitulate his evidence. P.W.4 is the elder brother of P.W.1 and the brother-in-law of the deceased. His evidence is recorded in Kannada. The literal translation whereof reads as under: “On 01.07.2011, myself and the deceased Muttappa had gone to Mugalkhodmath for Amavassya. After the “darshan” at 5:40 p.m., we were walking near the grocery shop. At that time, accused No.1 came from behind and assaulted Muttappa with a long (chopper). Muttappa ran away. Accused No.3 restrained him from escaping by keeping his vehicle across. Again accused No.1 came running and assaulted on the neck and head. The deceased collapsed on the ground. The handle of the long (chopper) was broken. Accused No.3 gave him another long (chopper). Accused No.1 caused grievous injuries on the head by assaulting with the said long. He died on the spot. When he was hit first, the deceased ran away screaming. At that time, there were other men and women, but they did not rescue him. I also did not rescue him since I was unarmed. At that time, C.W.7 and C.W.13 came to the spot. When they enquired me, I told them that while returning after darshan, he was murdered. Accused No.3 had brought his TVS motorcycle. Accused No.2 had come on the TVS motorcycle. Accused No.1 has sitting pillion on that vehicle. After the assault, all the accused went away. I informed the matter to my father and elders at about 6.00 pm over phone. My sister and father came to the spot of murder along with CW16 to CW18. Accused No.2 had come on the TVS motorcycle. Accused No.1 has sitting pillion on that vehicle. After the assault, all the accused went away. I informed the matter to my father and elders at about 6.00 pm over phone. My sister and father came to the spot of murder along with CW16 to CW18. I narrated the incident and showed the spot. Regarding the incident, my sister lodged the complaint to the police at 12.00 in the night.” 21. The evidence of P.W.4, though on the first blush appears to be in consonance with the case of the prosecution, but on deeper scrutiny of his evidence, in the light of the circumstances brought out in the course of his cross-examination as well as from the evidence of other witnesses examined by the prosecution, we are of the view that his evidence suffers from inherent, improbabilities and striking contradictions affecting the credibility of his testimony. 22. On a plain reading of the evidence of P.W.4 it can be deciphered that while P.W.4 and the deceased were walking side by side, accused No.1 came from behind and assaulted the deceased on the back of his head. The further evidence of P.W.4 goes to show that while inflicting the second blow, the handle of the chopper was broken and another chopper was handed over to him by accused No.3. His further evidence indicates that even after the deceased collapsed on the ground, accused No.1 indiscriminately assaulted him on his neck and head and thereafter went away taking the chopper in his hand. 23. It is significant to note that the narration given by P.W.4 before the Court, regarding the manner of assault, from the moment the accused came to the spot till they fled away on two motorcycles, is strikingly at variance with the contents of the complaint – Ex.P-1. Undisputedly, this compliant was lodged by P.W.1, the wife of the deceased at 00:15 hours on 02.07.2011 in Kuduchai Police Station based on the information given by P.W.4. According to P.W.1, namely the complainant, on receiving the information of the occurrence from P.W.4, she along with her father and other relatives rushed to the spot and saw the dead body with severe injuries on the head and the neck. 24. According to P.W.1, namely the complainant, on receiving the information of the occurrence from P.W.4, she along with her father and other relatives rushed to the spot and saw the dead body with severe injuries on the head and the neck. 24. P.W.1 has specifically deposed that when she enquired P.W.4 about the incident, P.W.4 informed them that while he and the deceased were walking towards the bus stand, three persons came on two motorcycles. Accused No.1 was sitting on the pillion seat and he assaulted the deceased with the long on his head. When the deceased tried to escape, accused No.3 intercepted him and at that time, accused No.1 got down from the motorcycle and started assaulting on the head of the deceased with the long; the accused fell down on the ground and even thereafter accused No.1 assaulted on the left side of the neck of the deceased 8 to 10 times and thereafter sat on the motorcycle and fled away. 25. A reading of the above complaint indicates that the first blow was inflicted on the head of the deceased by accused No.1 while sitting on the motorcycle, whereas, in his evidence before the Court, P.W.4 has stated that when he and the deceased were walking, accused No.1 came from behind and assaulted the deceased on the back of his head. This statement is contrary to the version found in the complaint Ex.P-1. Further, the complaint is totally silent about the handle of the chopper being broken during the assault and accused No.3 handing over another chopper to accused No.1. Nowhere in the complaint it is stated that the chopper used by accused No.1 was broken during the assault and therefore accused No.3 handed over another chopper to accused No.1. On the other hand, in the complaint, it is stated that the accused No.1 threw away the long (chopper) near the dead body and went away from the spot. This is a material omission which in our opinion, in the circumstances of the case amounts to serious contradiction affecting the very case of the prosecution. 26. On the other hand, in the complaint, it is stated that the accused No.1 threw away the long (chopper) near the dead body and went away from the spot. This is a material omission which in our opinion, in the circumstances of the case amounts to serious contradiction affecting the very case of the prosecution. 26. In this context, if the evidence of P.W.1 is analysed, it is pertinent to note that according to P.W.1 at about 06:00 p.m., she received the information of the occurrence through P.W.4 and immediately she along with her father and other relatives rushed to the spot and found the dead body lying with severe injuries. This witness has nowhere stated in her evidence that when she visited the spot, she found any chopper by the side of the dead body. Though in her evidence, she has deposed that on the next day morning, the Police seized a rubber handle and a blade of the iron chopper from the spot, this evidence is contrary to the version narrated in the complaint wherein it is stated that after assaulting the deceased, the accused threw the chopper near the dead body and went away. According to P.W.4, the first chopper used by accused No.1 was broken during the assault. He has cautiously omitted to state anything about the second chopper. But the evidence of P.W.1 as well as the evidence of the Investigating Officer indicate that only a rubber handle and the blade of the chopper were found at the spot. These discrepancies in our view seriously affect the case of the prosecution and throw serious doubt about the veracity of the testimony of P.W.4. 27. Another circumstance which weakens the case of the prosecution and leads to doubt the veracity of the testimony of P.W.4 is that in the complaint, Ex.P:1 which is stated to have been lodged at 00:15 hours on 02.07.2011, it is specifically stated that only after reaching the spot, P.W.1 came to know the name of the assailants. In this context, if the complaint is read as a whole, P.W.1 has stated therein that at about 06:00 p.m., P.W.4 rang up them and told them that the deceased has been murdered by three assailants who came on two motorcycles. In this context, if the complaint is read as a whole, P.W.1 has stated therein that at about 06:00 p.m., P.W.4 rang up them and told them that the deceased has been murdered by three assailants who came on two motorcycles. This indicates at that time P.W.4 did not disclose the name of the assailants, apparently for the reason that he was not knowing the assailants. This view gets support from the evidence of P.W.20, the PSI of Kudachi Police Station. According to P.W.20, on 01.07.2011 at about 06:00 p.m. itself, he received the information about the murder and immediately he along with his team reached the spot at 07:00 p.m. and found the dead body. P.W.20 has further deposed that by the side of the head, an iron long and a mobile was lying and on enquiry he was told that three persons came on two motorcycles and assaulted the deceased with long and ran away from the spot. This evidence if accepted, would go to show that the names of the accused did not surface even when P.W.20 visited the spot at 07:00 p.m. In this context, if the evidence of P.W.4 is perused, it is relevant to note that according to P.W.4, after the incident, he rang up to his father at about 06:30 p.m. and informed about the incident. According to him, when P.W.1 and his relatives reached the spot, he narrated the incident and showed the spot of occurrence. This evidence implies that P.W.4 was all throughout present at the spot from 05:45 p.m. till the complaint was lodged. If so, when P.W.20 arrived at the spot at 07:00 p.m. and the names of the assailants were already knew to P.W.4, in all probability, P.W.4 would have disclosed the names of the accused and in such event, the information would have been recorded by P.W.20. But the circumstances brought out in the evidence indicate that only after the arrival of P.W.1 and other relatives of the deceased in the mid night i.e., at about 00:45 hours on 02.07.2011 when the complaint was lodged, the accused came to be implicated. This circumstance therefore, creates doubt about the presence of P.W.4 during the occurrence. 28. But the circumstances brought out in the evidence indicate that only after the arrival of P.W.1 and other relatives of the deceased in the mid night i.e., at about 00:45 hours on 02.07.2011 when the complaint was lodged, the accused came to be implicated. This circumstance therefore, creates doubt about the presence of P.W.4 during the occurrence. 28. We do not find anything in the entire evidence of P.W.1 or P.W.4 to suggest that any time prior to the lodging of the complaint, P.W.4 disclosed the name of the accused either to his father or to P.W.1 or to P.W.20 - the Police Inspector who reached the spot within one hour. On the other hand, in the course of the cross-examination, P.W.4 has unequivocally admitted that after the incident, he had gone to the out post to lodge the report. It is elicited in the cross-examination that the Police recorded his statement as per his say and thereafter two Police arrived to the spot. This evidence clearly goes to show that at the earliest instance, P.W.4 has narrated the occurrence to the Police at the outpost and the information divulged by him has been recorded in the out post. But for reasons best known to the prosecution, this information has been suppressed leading to the inevitable conclusion that the genesis of the occurrence itself is suppressed. This is fatal to the case of the prosecution. If in fact P.W.4 was aware of the names of the assailants, in all probability, he might have disclosed their names to the Police. The very fact, prosecution has withheld this vital document, it leads to an adverse inference that the earliest information given by P.W.4 to the Police is contrary to the evidence given before the Court. That appears to be the reason as to why even in the complaint, it is stated that at 06:30 p.m. they were informed by P.W.4 that the deceased was murdered by three assailants who had come to the spot on two motorcycles. These circumstances therefore lead to the inference that only after P.W.1 and other relatives of the deceased reached the spot, after deliberation and discussion, the FIR came to be lodged implicating the accused. 29. These circumstances therefore lead to the inference that only after P.W.1 and other relatives of the deceased reached the spot, after deliberation and discussion, the FIR came to be lodged implicating the accused. 29. No doubt it is true that non-intervention of an eye witness in the course of occurrence, particularly if the accused are armed cannot be a reason to doubt or disbelieve their evidence, but in the instant case, it is relevant to note that even though P.W.4 claims to be walking by the side of the deceased when accused No.1 came from behind and assaulted on the head of the deceased with heavy chopper, not even a drop of blood is seen to have been splashed on the clothes of P.W.4. That apart, he has not chosen to lodge any report to the Police, even though the out post was located at a distance of about 200 metres from the spot of occurrence. In his chief examination, he has cautiously avoided to state that he had gone to the out post. It is only during the course of cross-examination, it is elicited by the defence counsel that he had gone to the outpost. The manner in which he has tried to suppress the vital aspects of the occurrence does not inspire confidence to hold that he is a truthful witness. The passive tenor of his evidence itself speaks for the fact that he is not a truthful and reliable witness. His evidence, even if believed would only show that he had accompanied the deceased to the Muth, but he was not present along with the deceased during the occurrence. Therefore, his evidence has given rise to the contradictions and inconsistencies discussed above. He has suppressed the true facts from the Court. His failure to disclose the names of the accused and the overt acts committed by them to P.W.1 or to P.W.20 at the earliest instance when they reached the spot renders his testimony doubtful and unbelievable. In view of the above, it is not safe to rely on his evidence to base the conviction. Having regard to the circumstances discussed above, his presence at the spot during the occurrence itself is doubtful. 30. Added to the above inconsistencies and contradictions, the evidence relating to the weapons used for the commission of offence is yet another circumstance which weakens the case of the prosecution. Having regard to the circumstances discussed above, his presence at the spot during the occurrence itself is doubtful. 30. Added to the above inconsistencies and contradictions, the evidence relating to the weapons used for the commission of offence is yet another circumstance which weakens the case of the prosecution. There is no clear and cogent evidence with regard to the weapon used for the commission of the offence. According to the prosecution, the broken handle of a chopper and the blade were seized from the spot of occurrence. But as already noted above, in the complaint, it is alleged that accused No.1 threw the chopper at the spot while running away from the spot. Therefore, the Investigating Officer could have recovered the said weapon from the canal as sought to be made out by the prosecution. The prosecution has pressed into the service the recovery of the said long M.O.18 as one of the circumstance connecting accused No.1 to the said offence. The prosecution has also produced the voluntary statement of accused No.1 leading to the recovery of the said M.O.18. This recovery evidence is inconsistent to the case of the prosecution as reflected in the FIR, wherein, at the earliest instance, it was alleged that accused No.1 threw the said chopper at the spot. Therefore, no credence could be given to the recovery evidence relied on by the prosecution. Even if this recovery is believed, according to the prosecution, the said weapon was found in a canal containing three feet of water. Ex.P-13 under which the said weapon M.O.18 was recovered indicates that it was recovered on 03.07.2011 and thereafter it was sent for FSL for chemical examination. The FSL report – Ex.P-27 certifies that the presence of blood was detected on the said chopper – M.O.18. It is difficult to believe that the chopper which was lying in a three feet of water flowing in the canal could retain the blood stains on its blade as projected by the prosecution. Even if this evidence is accepted, in the absence of any evidence to show that accused No.1 had thrown the said blood stained chopper after the commission of the offence in our view even this evidence cannot be held against accused No.1. 31. The medical evidence produced by the prosecution also does not lend corroboration to the testimony of P.W.4. Even if this evidence is accepted, in the absence of any evidence to show that accused No.1 had thrown the said blood stained chopper after the commission of the offence in our view even this evidence cannot be held against accused No.1. 31. The medical evidence produced by the prosecution also does not lend corroboration to the testimony of P.W.4. As already stated above, P.W.4 has reiterated in his evidence that accused No.1 assaulted indiscriminately on the head and neck of the deceased. But the postmortem examination indicates that the deceased had sustained as many as 17 injuries over the head, cheek, chin and over the limbs and other parts of the body. The nature of the injuries found on the dead body are listed in the postmortem examination as under: “1. Incised injury over the head is present of size 3”X1/2”. 2. Incised injury present on head of size 4”X1/2”. 3. Injury present on left cheek of size 3”X1”. 4. Incised injury of size 5”X1” present from lower lip to chin. 5. Injury of size 2”X1/2” present on rt. side chin. 6. Open, deep contusion wound with fracture of the neck. Wound size is 8”X4” deep injury. 7. Deep neck injury with fracture present of size 5”X1”. 8. Rt. side cheek injury of size 2”X1/2”. 9. Rt. hand wrist joint region deep injury present of size 4”X2” along with bone fracture is present. 10. On rt. hand deep injury is present of size 2, ½” X 1, ½”. 11. Near the elbow joint injury of size 1”X6” is present. 12. Deep injury of size 5”X3” on the side of elbow joint region. 13. On the arm region deep injury of size 4”X1” is present. 14. Lt. elbow joint region injury is present of size 3”X1,1/2”. 15. Injury present on rt. hand on index finger is present. 16. Rt. hand middle finger injury is present. 17. Lt. hand index finger injury is present.” Above injuries are ante-mortem caused by sharp and hard object. Duration of injury is 12 to 18 hrs. Injury No.6 and 7 fatal in nature and these are grievous injuries.” 32. The evidence of P.W.4 is totally silent with regard to the injuries found on the elbow and on the limbs of the accused. hand index finger injury is present.” Above injuries are ante-mortem caused by sharp and hard object. Duration of injury is 12 to 18 hrs. Injury No.6 and 7 fatal in nature and these are grievous injuries.” 32. The evidence of P.W.4 is totally silent with regard to the injuries found on the elbow and on the limbs of the accused. The evidence of P.W.4 suggests that the deceased was assaulted only from behind and after he collapsed on the ground, the accused No.1 assaulted him on the back of the head and the neck. If so there is no explanation by the prosecution as to how the deceased could sustain injuries on his face as well as on the lips and other parts of the parts of the body. The injuries found on the body contradicts the ocular testimony of P.W.4 leading to doubt his very presence at the spot during the occurrence. 33. Thus on consideration of all the above facts and circumstances, we are of the firm opinion that the evidence of P.W.4 is unreliable and cannot be taken as the basis to record the conviction of the accused. If the evidence of P.W.4 is excluded from consideration, the prosecution is not left with any other worthwhile evidence in proof of the involvement of the accused in the alleged offence. Though P.W.1 and P.W.4 as well as P.W.12 – the scribe of the complaint have deposed about the incident which is stated to have taken place about 10 to 11 months prior to the occurrence, leading to the suicide of the wife of accused No.1 as a motive for the offence, yet the said evidence even if accepted, will not establish the ingredient of the offences charged against the accused. The prosecution has rested its case solely on the testimony of P.W.4 as eyewitness to the incident. But as already discussed above, his evidence suffers from irreconcilable contradictions and inconsistencies and is not worthy of acceptance. 34. Barring the above evidence, no other material is available on record in proof of the guilt of the accused. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that the conviction recorded by the Trial Court cannot be sustained. 35. But as already discussed above, his evidence suffers from irreconcilable contradictions and inconsistencies and is not worthy of acceptance. 34. Barring the above evidence, no other material is available on record in proof of the guilt of the accused. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that the conviction recorded by the Trial Court cannot be sustained. 35. On reconsideration of the entire evidence on record, we are of the firm view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences charged against them beyond all reasonable doubt. The Trial Court has misdirected itself in convicting the accused No.1 based on the evidence of P.W.4. The Trial Court has failed to consider the apparent contradictions, inconsistencies and improbabilities in the evidence of P.W.4. The findings recorded by the Trial Court that M.Os.1 and 18 were used by accused No.1 to inflict injuries on the deceased leading to his death is contrary to the evidence on record. On over all consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in proper perspective, the findings recorded by the Trial Court are illegal and perverse and are not based on the legal evidence. Therefore, the impugned judgment insofar as convicting the accused No.1 is liable to be set aside and accordingly the conviction of accused No.1 is hereby set aside. Even though the State has challenged the acquittal of accused Nos.2 and 3, acquittal of accused No.2 is already confirmed by this Court by order dated 11.03.2015. Insofar as the involvement of accused No.3 is concerned, for the reasons discussed above, even the appeal against the acquittal of accused No.3 is liable to be dismissed. Hence, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The Criminal Appeal No.100192/2014 filed by accused No.1 is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence insofar as accused No.1 is concerned, is set aside. Accused No.1 Shri Yallappa S/o. Siddappa Timmapur is acquitted of the offence charged against him under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. Accused No.1 shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. ii. Criminal Appeal No.100229/2014 filed by the State is dismissed. The impugned judgment of acquittal insofar as accused No.3 is concerned, is confirmed.