JUDGMENT B.A.Patil, J. - Criminal appeal No.576/2015 has been preferred by the appellant/accused No.1. Criminal Appeal No.100132/2015 has been preferred by the State and Criminal appeal No.100091/2015 has been filed by the complainant challenging the judgment dated 27.03.2015 passed by the VII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, sitting at Chikodi in S.C.No.395/2011, whereunder accused Nos. 2 to 7 have been acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 302, 307, 120(B), 109 and 201 read with Section 149 of the IPC and accused No.1 is also acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 120(B) and 109 of IPC, but however he has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 324 of IPC. Challenging the acquittal, complainant and the State are before this Court and against the order of conviction, appellant/accused No.1 is before this Court. 2. We have heard the learned counsel Sri. A. G. Mulawadamath for appellant/accused No.1, learned Addl. SPP Sri. V. M. Banakar for the State and learned counsel Sri. Santosh B. Malagoudar for the complainant. 3. Since all these appeals are arising out of the same judgment, they have been clubbed together and disposed of by this common judgment. 4. The genesis of the case of the prosecution in brief is that the land of the complainant Shankaragouda Ramagouda Patil and accused no.2 Siddappa are adjacent to each other. In the year 2002, there was some boundary disputes. The elder brother of accused No.2 assaulted the brother of the complainant. In that regard, there was a grudge between them. In that light, in the year 2003, deceased Shashikant Ramagouda Patil and his younger brother Chandrakant Ramagouda Patil committed murder of the elder brother of accused No.2 and one Annappa Kallappa Shankar Kabbur attempted to commit the murder of accused No.5 Gyanu Solankar and caused injury to him. In this regard, a complaint has been registered in Crime No.114/2003. It is further alleged that the deceased Shashikant Patil, Chandrakant Patil and injured Rajesab Gaddekar and 7 other persons murdered Appasab Shivagouda Desai, who helped the witnesses of murder case in Crime No.114/2003. Another case was also registered in Crime No.7/2007 in between the parties and both the cases ended in acquittal. Being aggrieved by the order of acquittal, the accused persons were having grudge and enmity against the deceased and others. Another case was also registered in Crime No.7/2007 in between the parties and both the cases ended in acquittal. Being aggrieved by the order of acquittal, the accused persons were having grudge and enmity against the deceased and others. In that light, they conspired to eliminate the deceased. On 29.06.2011, at about 12.00 pm, accused No.7 Dondibha informed and abetted other accused persons to follow the motorcycle of the deceased, wherein he was proceeding as a pillion rider and the same was riding by PW2 - Rajesab Gaddekar. It is the further case of the prosecution that the deceased and Rajesab left the Bireshwar temple on the motorcycle belonging to PW2. When they came near the garden house of one Shankar Balappa Hugar on Hulagabali- Athani Road, accused Nos. 1 to 7 with their common object being the members of an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons like sickle etc., came on the Scorpio jeep and with an intention to kill the deceased, accused No.1 drove the jeep accompanied with other accused persons in a high speed and dashed against the motorcycle on which the deceased Shashikant and Rajesab were coming. As a result of the said impact, both fell down on the ground. Thereafter all the accused persons dragged the deceased Shashikant on the road and accused No.1 moved the jeep on the deceased and thereby he committed the murder of Shashikant. When Rajesab, Shankaragouda Patil and Ravi Patil tried and requested the accused not to cause any harm to Shashikant, accused No.4 Murusidda threatened their life by showing the sickle and subsequently, accused Nos. 1, 2 and 7, with an intention to destroy the evidence have thrown their mobile phone elsewhere and thereby they have committed the offence. It is further alleged that, immediately Rajesab was shifted to the hospital and CW1 Shankargouda met Basavaraj Appasab Dharigoudar, advocate and it is he who drafted the complaint and on the basis of the complaint a case has been registered in Crime No.219/2011. Thereafter, after investigation, the Investigating Officer laid the charge sheet against accused Nos. 1 to 7. 5. Learned Magistrate took cognizance and after furnishing the copy of the charge sheet material, as the said case is triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court. Sessions Court took the cognizance and secured the presence of the accused. 1 to 7. 5. Learned Magistrate took cognizance and after furnishing the copy of the charge sheet material, as the said case is triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court. Sessions Court took the cognizance and secured the presence of the accused. After hearing the special public prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused, charge was prepared, read over and explained to the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty. They claimed to be tried and as such, trial was fixed. 6. The prosecution in order to prove its case got examined 26 witnesses and got marked 59 documents and they have also got marked 27 material objects. Thereafter statements of the accused were recorded by putting incriminating material as against them. Accused persons got examined five witnesses on their behalf and they also got marked 24 documents. 7. After hearing the arguments, learned Sessions Judge passed the impugned judgment. Challenging the legality and correctness of the order of conviction, accused No.1 is before this Court, whereas the complainant and the State being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal have also preferred the appeals. 8. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/accused No.1 that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court is contrary to law and evidence available on record. It is his further submission that, complaint Ex.P1 was filed at about 3.00 pm, though the alleged incident has taken place at about 12.00 noon and hence there is delay of three hours in filing the complaint. It is his further submission that the said complaint has been drafted by an advocate by name Basavaraj, that itself goes to show that the said complaint has been filed after deliberation and discussion only to include the provisions of Section 302 of IPC. It is his further submission that, though PW1 - the brother of the deceased was present at the time of alleged incident and PW2 has also gone to the hospital for treatment, but neither PW1 nor PW2 have intimated the said incident to the police. It is his further submission that, PW3 was also present at the spot and he informed the said fact to the brother of PW1, who was there in Athani and he has also not filed any complaint. It is his further submission that, PW3 was also present at the spot and he informed the said fact to the brother of PW1, who was there in Athani and he has also not filed any complaint. He submitted that, if all these circumstances are looked together, then there appears to be some fussy in the case of the prosecution. 9. It is his further submission that, why PW1 and PW3 have followed the motorcycle of PW2 is not forthcoming in the case of the prosecution. In that light, the presence of PW1 and PW3 at the place of incident itself is doubtful. It is his further submission that the motive made out by the prosecution appears to be very vague and it is not having any link to the incident. Though the earlier alleged incident had taken place in the year 2002-03, there are no subsequent complaints or enmity existing between the parties. Even if there is any existing enmity, it is not connected or related to the deceased so as to eliminate him. It is not the accused persons who have aggrieved by the said act and there are no reasons for them to cause the death of deceased by accident. It is his further submission that, when PW2 got admitted in the hospital he has clearly deposed that it is a road traffic accident. That itself goes to show that the alleged incident has taken place as narrated and deposed before the Court by accused No.1 DW1. It is his further submission that the alleged incident has taken place accidentally. When accused No.1 was driving the Scorpio vehicle, all of a sudden he saw a shebuffalo crossing the road and in order to avoid the same he took his vehicle towards right side and as there was jali bush, he did not notice motorcycle and accidentally the said Scorpio vehicle hit to the motorcycle on which PW2 and the deceased were coming. It is his further submission that, the break marks which have been got admitted and shown in the photographs and the spot mahazer clearly goes to show that accused No.1/ appellant has tried his best to stop the Scorpio vehicle and in spite of that the alleged incident has taken place. 10. It is his further submission that there is contradiction in the oral evidence and the medical evidence. 10. It is his further submission that there is contradiction in the oral evidence and the medical evidence. He further submitted that the evidence of PW29 - the Investigating Officer itself shows that, immediately after the accident the accused has also informed the police, but they did not register the case because of highhandedness of the complainant and his other family members. It is his further submission that, PWs. 1 to 4 are the relatives of the deceased and their interested testimony cannot be believed. It is his further submission that, at the place of incident more than 90 houses are there along the road side, but none of the independent witnesses have been examined. CW20 is a material witness and though the alleged incident has taken place in front of his house, for the reasons best known to the prosecution, he has not been examined before the Court. In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied upon the decision in the case of Bhagwan Jagannath Markad Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2016) AIR SC 4531 . 11. It is his further submission that the evidence of PW25 - Motor Vehicle Inspector, goes to show that the Scorpio vehicle was in first gear when he examined the said vehicle. That itself shows that the vehicle was not in great speed. It is PW2 who raided the motorcycle with great speed and hit to the Scorpio vehicle and as a result of the same, the alleged incident has taken place. It is his further submission that the trial Court has given a finding that the conspiracy has not been proved. When the conspiracy and abetment has not been proved and other accused persons have been acquitted for the alleged offences, then the same benefit ought to have been given to accused No.1 and appellant/accused No.1 ought to have been acquitted. It is his further submission that the alleged incident is a mere accident without there being any intention. In order to constitute an offence under Section 302 of the IPC, the prosecution has to clearly establish that it is a deliberate and intentional act so as to cause the death of the deceased. Even if the degree of negligence is taken into consideration with reference to the spot panchanama- Ex.P7, that itself shows that accused No.1/appellant was not having any intention and the said act was not deliberate. Even if the degree of negligence is taken into consideration with reference to the spot panchanama- Ex.P7, that itself shows that accused No.1/appellant was not having any intention and the said act was not deliberate. It is his further submission that accused No.1 and other accused persons are not belonging to the same family and there is no common object. There is no preparation or motive. Under these circumstances the trial Court should have only held the appellant/accused No.1 guilty for an offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC and not under Section 302 of IPC. 12. It is his further submission that the call details of the telephones have not been collected and produced before the Court. In the absence of such call details, the contention of the accused ought to have been accepted. It is his further submission that, so many contradictions and discrepancies were found in the ocular and medical evidence. The trial Court has opined at para No.54 of the judgment that their testimony cannot be reliable and creditworthy to believe that the accused persons with their common object committed the said offences. Under these circumstances, the trial Court ought to have given the benefit of doubt to accused and accused No.1 also ought to have been acquitted for the charges leveled against him. He further submitted that, at para 50 of the judgment, it has been observed by the trial Court that, as per the post-mortem report, the injuries mentioned are abrasion, contusion and fracture. In that light, it has been observed that the testimony of PWs. 1 to 3 that accused Nos. 1 to 3 put the body of the deceased in front of the vehicle and accused No.1 drove the vehicle 2-3 times over his body cannot be reliable and creditworthy. If such a finding has been given by the trial Court, then the trial Court ought to have held that it is mere rash and negligent act of accused No.1 and it ought not to have convicted accused No.1 for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. In order to substantiate the said contention, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the decision in the case of Maniram Vs. State of U.P, (1994) Supp2 SCC 289 . 13. It is further submitted that, if the vehicle has ran over the body of the deceased, then there could have been crush injuries. In order to substantiate the said contention, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the decision in the case of Maniram Vs. State of U.P, (1994) Supp2 SCC 289 . 13. It is further submitted that, if the vehicle has ran over the body of the deceased, then there could have been crush injuries. The manner in which the alleged incident has taken place and narrated by the prosecution is seen along with the medical evidence and opinion of the experts, there are so many contradictions in the medical evidence and ocular evidence and the benefit of doubt ought to have been given to the accused by holding that the prosecution has not proved the case as alleged. In order to substantiate the said contention, he has relied upon the decision in the case of Baliraj Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2017) 14 SCC 291 . He further contended that, if the crucial aspects have been taken into consideration, medical evidence did not corroborate with the alleged ocular evidence, then benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused. In support of the said contention, he relied upon the decision in the case of Bhaskarrao & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2018) AIR SC 2222 . 14. It is his further submission that, if the participation of the other accused persons has not been established beyond all reasonable doubt, then it cannot be considered that there is any conspiracy so as to include the other accused persons in the case on hand. In that regard, he relied upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Sujit Gulab Sohatre and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1997) CriLJ 454 . He further submitted that accused No.1 himself has stepped into the witness box as DW1 and explained the manner in which the accident has taken place. Under such circumstances, the trial Court ought to have accepted the said contention and could have acquitted him. It is his further submission that there is no corroboration in the evidence of the prosecution and in the absence of adequate and ample material, the trial Court ought not to have convicted the accused. On these grounds he prayed to allow the appeal and acquit the appellant/accused No.1. 15. It is his further submission that there is no corroboration in the evidence of the prosecution and in the absence of adequate and ample material, the trial Court ought not to have convicted the accused. On these grounds he prayed to allow the appeal and acquit the appellant/accused No.1. 15. He further contended that the trial Court by taking into consideration the evidence and material placed on record has given a finding that there is no conspiracy and even the evidence of PWs. 9 and 11 is not trustworthy and reliable. In that light, the trial Court has rightly acquitted accused Nos. 2 to 7. The appellant/complainant and the State have not made out any good grounds so as to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court. On these grounds he prayed to dismiss the appeals filed by the complainant and the State. 16. Per contra, learned Addl. SPP vehemently argued and contended that the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 and the contents of the complaint - Ex.P1 are corroborating with each other. There is nothing suggested to discard the evidence of these witnesses. It is his further submission that, merely because the witnesses are relatives and interested, their testimony cannot be discarded, but however, the same has to be scrutinized carefully and cautiously. The trial Court by taking into consideration the evidence produced has rightly convicted appellant/accused No.1. It is his further submission that, PWs. 4 and 9 have categorically spoken with regard to the presence of other accused persons and accused Nos. 2 to 4 sitting at a pool and accused Nos. 5 and 6 sitting in the vehicle of accused No.1 and when they have moved together, accused No.7 informed accused No.1 about the presence of deceased in the temple and he also informed when they are leaving the temple. If all these circumstances are looked together, all the accused persons have conspired to eliminate the deceased and in that light the Scorpio vehicle was made to dash against the motorcycle in which the deceased was a pillion. Without properly appreciating and considering the said evidence, the trial Court has wrongly acquitted accused Nos. 2 to 7. If all these circumstances are looked together, all the accused persons have conspired to eliminate the deceased and in that light the Scorpio vehicle was made to dash against the motorcycle in which the deceased was a pillion. Without properly appreciating and considering the said evidence, the trial Court has wrongly acquitted accused Nos. 2 to 7. It is his further submission that the conspiracy is a matter of documents and the call details and other materials show that there were calls from accused No.7 to accused No. 1 and other accused persons and the movements of the deceased has been intimated. Under these circumstances, the trial Court ought to have accepted the evidence. 17. It is his further submission that PWs. 1 to 3 have categorically stated the presence of accused Nos. 2 to 6 and they have also deposed that it is accused No.4 who took the sickle and threatened PW1 and PW2. In that light, if the evidence is looked into, it clearly goes to show that the remaining accused persons have conspired with accused No.1 with an intention to eliminate the deceased and they have executed the said act. In that light, the trial Court ought to have convicted all the accused. It is his further submission that all the accused persons have collectively acted upon and caused injuries and death. It is his further submission that the photographs, which have been marked at Exs.P4 and P6 clearly indicate the tyre marks of the Scorpio vehicle over the body of the deceased. If really the alleged incident has taken place as contended by the accused No.1 in his evidence, then how the tyre marks appeared over the body of the deceased has not been properly explained. In the absence of any such explanation, the only presumption which can be drawn is that, after the accident, the vehicle has been moved and ran over the body of the deceased and in that context, death has been caused. That itself is sufficient to establish the fact that accused persons with an intention to cause the death of the deceased Shashikant has ran over the said Scorpio vehicle over him. It is his further submission that the trial Court without properly appreciating the evidence and material placed on record has wrongly acquitted accused Nos.2 to 7. That itself is sufficient to establish the fact that accused persons with an intention to cause the death of the deceased Shashikant has ran over the said Scorpio vehicle over him. It is his further submission that the trial Court without properly appreciating the evidence and material placed on record has wrongly acquitted accused Nos.2 to 7. On these grounds he prayed to dismiss the appeal filed by accused No.1 and to allow the appeal filed by the State and convict accused Nos. 2 to 7. 18. Learned counsel for the complainant by substantiating the arguments of the learned Addl. SPP further contended that, collectively all the accused persons acted together to meet their common object. It is his further submission that PW2 is an injured witness. If his presence at the place and time of occurrence is not disputed, then the minor discrepancy in the version of prosecution would be justified and the same cannot be rejected. In order to substantiate the said contention, he has relied upon the decision in the case of Ram Avtar Rai and Others Vs. State of U.P, (1985) 2 SCC 61 . It is his further submission that, if there is any dispute with regard to the medical evidence and ocular evidence, then the testimony of eyewitnesses has to be preferred to the medical evidence. In that light, he has relied upon the decision in the case of Prem Vs. Daula and Others, (1997) 9 SCC 754 . He further submitted that, merely because the witnesses are members of the family or friends, their testimony should not be rejected and their testimony should be examined cautiously. In that light, he relied upon the decision in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Jagdeo and Others, (2003) 1 SCC 456 . 19. It is his further submission that, once the Court is satisfied with the evidence of interested witnesses, as a ring of truth, the said evidence can be relied upon without there being any corroboration and on the basis of the said evidence the accused can be convicted. In that light, he relied upon the decision in the case of Jaisy alias Jayaseelan Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, (2012) 1 SCC 529 . It is his further submission that the conduct of accused No.1 also goes to show that it is a deliberate act. In that light, he relied upon the decision in the case of Jaisy alias Jayaseelan Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, (2012) 1 SCC 529 . It is his further submission that the conduct of accused No.1 also goes to show that it is a deliberate act. Immediately after the accident he has not intimated the incident or accident to the jurisdictional police and he has also not made any efforts to shift the injured to the nearest hospital. That itself shows the fact that accused No.1 with an intention to cause the death of the deceased has, in the first instance, made the accident and thereafter he ran over the said vehicle on the deceased and caused his death. 20. It is his further submission that the trial Court without properly appreciating the evidence of conspiracy has wrongly acquitted the accused Nos. 2 to 7, though there is ample material in that light. He submits that the appeal filed by the complainant may be allowed and accused Nos. 2 to 7 may be convicted. He further submitted that there is no merit in the appeal filed by accused No.1 and the same is liable to be dismissed. 21. We have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials including the lower court records. 22. During the course of arguments, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, CDs got marked at Exs. P26 and P27 were played with the help of software technician to get some more clarity about the pictures which have been got marked and thereafter this judgment is delivered. 23. It is the case of the prosecution that, because of earlier animosity between the complainant and accused No.2 with regard to the boundary dispute, some cases have been registered including the murder cases and because of the help given by Appasab Shivagouda Desai, the accused persons in both the cases were got acquitted. In that regard, accused persons developed grudge and animosity against the deceased and others. In that regard, they conspired at the instance of accused No.7 and on 29.06.2011 at about 12.00 pm, accused No.1 drove the Scorpio vehicle and dashed to the motorcycle on which PW2 and the deceased were coming from Bireshwar temple. In that regard, accused persons developed grudge and animosity against the deceased and others. In that regard, they conspired at the instance of accused No.7 and on 29.06.2011 at about 12.00 pm, accused No.1 drove the Scorpio vehicle and dashed to the motorcycle on which PW2 and the deceased were coming from Bireshwar temple. It is further alleged that, after the accident the accused persons brought the deceased Shashikant on the road and accused No.1 drove the Scorpio vehicle on the body of deceased and caused his murder. 24. In order to prove the fact that there was animosity between the accused and the deceased, PWs. 1, 2, 3, 4 and other witnesses have categorically deposed and have narrated the earlier instances which have taken place in between the family of the deceased and accused Nos. 1 to 6. It is well settled proposition of law that, when there are eyewitnesses to the alleged incident, the motive becomes irrelevant and even if there is no motive, if the eyewitnesses support the case of the prosecution by saying that it is the accused persons who have assaulted and caused the death, then the accused persons can be convicted for the alleged offence. But in the instant case, the said fact is not so seriously disputed with regard to the earlier instances are concerned. The only contention taken up by the learned counsel for the accused is that, it is the deceased who is aggrieved by the act of acquittal and not the accused. But as could be seen from the records, a case has been registered in Crime No.114/2003 against the deceased and other accused persons. Therein the deceased and Chandrakant Patil have murdered one Kallappa Kabbur, the brother of accused Nos. 2 and 3. The said case ended in acquittal. Thereafter the deceased Shashikant, PW2 and seven others were accused in Athani Police Station Crime No.7/2007 for the murder of one Appasab Desai and the said case also ended in acquittal. When a case is ended in acquittal, it goes without saying that the accused persons in the instant case may be interested to see that the accused persons in that case be punished and when they got acquitted, they may be grinding an axe against the deceased and others. When a case is ended in acquittal, it goes without saying that the accused persons in the instant case may be interested to see that the accused persons in that case be punished and when they got acquitted, they may be grinding an axe against the deceased and others. In that light, if the entire case is looked into, there appears to be a strong motive for the purpose of commission of the alleged offences. 25. Be that as it may. In the instant case on hand, in order to prove its case the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3. They are the material eyewitnesses to the alleged incident. In their evidence, they have deposed that the deceased was practicing as an advocate in Belagavi and he came to the farm house on 28.06.2011 and on 29.06.2011 at about 10.00 am, PW2 came to meet him on his motorcycle, when they sat and were talking, at about 10.30 am PW3 also came there. After some time the deceased told them that he wanted to go to the Bireshwar temple. At about 11.00 am, the deceased along with PW2 left to the temple on the motorcycle of PW2. They have also further deposed that, it is PW2 who was riding the motorcycle and after 15 minutes the complainant and PW3 also left to go to the same temple. At about 11.50 am, PW2 and the deceased left the temple to go back to the farm house. PW2 was riding the motorcycle and the deceased was the pillion rider. They deposed that, within two minutes the complainant and PW3 also left the place on their motorcycle. Complainant was riding the motorcycle and PW3 was the pillion. They were at a distance of 50 feet from the motorcycle of PW2 and when they came near the house of one Shankar Hugar, a red coloured Scorpio vehicle came on wrong side and dashed to the motorcycle on which the deceased and PW2 were proceeding. As a result of the said impact, both of them fell down and sustained injuries. It is accused No.1 who was driving the Scorpio vehicle and accused Nos.2 to 6 were sitting in the said Scorpio vehicle. As a result of the said impact, both of them fell down and sustained injuries. It is accused No.1 who was driving the Scorpio vehicle and accused Nos.2 to 6 were sitting in the said Scorpio vehicle. Thereafter accused persons got down from the said vehicle and lifted the deceased and brought him under the front wheel of Scorpio vehicle and accused No.1, who was driving the vehicle moved the vehicle and both front and back wheels ran over the body of the deceased and as a result of the same, the deceased died. By that time people gathered on the spot and the accused left the Scorpio vehicle and went away from the place. They have further deposed that, PW2 has suffered head injury because of the impact as he was thrown from the two wheeler and hit to the front glass of Scorpio vehicle. Immediately PWs. 1 and 3 also came there and they have shifted PW2 to the hospital. Thereafter the complainant went to Athani Court and there they met the advocate PW14 and he prepared the complaint - Ex.P1 and complaint has been filed. They have also deposed that, since 2002 there was some dispute between the parties in respect of some landed property. 26. These witnesses were cross-examined at length by the learned counsel for the accused. PW1 in his cross-examination has admitted that the accused persons have registered the case in S.C.No.226/2003 and in that case accused No.5 has given the complaint and the son of accused No.7 was the panch witness. The brother of accused No.5 has deposed as an independent witness in the said case against the complainant. It is further suggested that, accused No.1 alone was there in the Scorpio vehicle and he was driving the said vehicle. But the said suggestion has been denied and he has deposed that, except accused No.7, all other accused persons were there in the vehicle. It is further suggested that, when the said Scorpio vehicle was proceeding near the house of one Shankar Hugar, a shebuffallo came across the road and because of that accused No.1 has turned the vehicle towards right side. The said suggestion has been denied and the witness has volunteered that the accused has deliberately taken the vehicle towards the right side. The said suggestion has been denied and the witness has volunteered that the accused has deliberately taken the vehicle towards the right side. Even it is suggested that the motorcycle was driven with great speed and dashed to the said Scorpio vehicle and at that time, PW2 jumped and dashed to the wind glass of the Scorpio vehicle. The said suggestion has also been denied. 27. By a close scrutiny of the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3, it is seen that they have consistently deposed with regard to the accused No.1 driving the Scorpio vehicle with great speed and dashing to the motorcycle on which the deceased and PW2 were proceeding. If the manner in which the cross-examination has been made is looked into, accused No.1 has not disputed the alleged accident. It is his contention that, as a shebuffalo came across the road and in order to avoid that, he took his Scorpio vehicle to the right side and in that light the alleged incident had taken place and he was not having any intention to cause the death of the deceased. Even in the cross-examination, the presence of PW2 at the place of incident is not disputed and it is also not disputed that, because of the impact he came in contact with the window glass of the Scorpio vehicle and sustained head injury. 28. When the accident in question has been admitted and the presence of PWs. 1 and 3 is also admitted, the only point which boils out for consideration of this Court is that, whether it is only a mere accident as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused No.1 or that the accused persons caused the accident with an intention to take away the life of the deceased and thereafter lifted the body and placed it on the road and thereafter accused No.1 rolled the Scorpio vehicle over his body and caused his death. In that context, we feel it just and proper to look into the evidence of PW26, the doctor, who conducted the autopsy over the body of the deceased and has issued the post-mortem report as per Ex.P40. 29. As could be seen from Ex.P40, the deceased has suffered with the following injuries: i. Abrasion contusion over scalp, left cheek, forehead; ii. Abrasion at back head brownish black in colour; iii. Bleeding seen from nose and both cars; iv. 29. As could be seen from Ex.P40, the deceased has suffered with the following injuries: i. Abrasion contusion over scalp, left cheek, forehead; ii. Abrasion at back head brownish black in colour; iii. Bleeding seen from nose and both cars; iv. Both upper and lower jaw teeth fractured; v. Contused abrasion seen on neck; vi. Abrasion contusion over left shoulder, chest and abdomen, skin brownish black in colour. The size of abrasion is 25 inches in length wide on chest. Narrowed on abdomen on dissection blood seen in tissue spais. vii. contused abrasion below left arm bit and on the left thigh viii. contused abrasion of left arm and forearm ix. Abrasion on right elbow and wrist. x. Frontal bone fractured and rushed pushed inside at lower part of forehead Nasal bone fractured. Right and left Maxillery bone fractured right temporal and left parietal bone fractured base of skull is fractured divided into and two halves. The doctor opined that the cause of death is due to injury to vital organ. If we see the photographs produced and the copies marked at Exs. P4 and P6 closely, they indicate that the blood was oozing from the head in abundant. Ex.P3 - the inquest mahazer indicates that, at the chest portion of the deceased there were tyre marks and scratch injuries and the same is also corroborated by Exs.P4 and P6. Even if the other documents, photographs and CDs are looked into, it is seen that, after the accident the pillion rider had fallen down and the rider of the motorcycle jumped and his head clashed to the wind glass and he also fell down. 30. Accused No.1 was examined as DW1 and in his evidence he has deposed that he alone was proceeding on the Scorpio vehicle bearing No.KA-25/TR 953 in order to bring fertilizer from Athani and as there was no stock he was coming back empty. 30. Accused No.1 was examined as DW1 and in his evidence he has deposed that he alone was proceeding on the Scorpio vehicle bearing No.KA-25/TR 953 in order to bring fertilizer from Athani and as there was no stock he was coming back empty. He deposed that, when he came near the house of one Shankar Hugar, a shebuffalo came across the road and immediately he applied the break and moved the vehicle to the right side and when again taking left, the motorcycle of PW2 came with great speed and dashed to his vehicle and as a result of the same, PW2 jumped from the vehicle and dashed to the window glass of Scorpio vehicle and fell down and the pillion rider Shashikant Patil came in contact with the handle and handle touched to his chest and the iron guard of the Scorpio vehicle came in contact with the head and as a result of the same, he suffered with injuries and fell down. 31. If the evidence of DW1 is seen with the injuries mentioned in Ex.P40 and the photographs which have been produced, nowhere it is deposed that the vehicle ran over the deceased after his falling down. But in Ex.P3 - inquest mahazer, it is specifically mentioned that there were tyre marks on the chest of the deceased and even the photographs produced at Exs. P4 and P6 also show some tyre marks when it is seen with the magnifying glass. It is the accused who has to explain under what circumstances the tyre marks were found over the body of the deceased. If any such explanation is not given, then the only inference which could be drawn is that, after the accident, as contended by the prosecution, the deceased was brought on the road and the Scorpio vehicle has been rolled over on him so as to cause his death. Even the injuries found over the body, especially the head, shows that the vehicle tyres might have come in contact with the head and as a result of the same, the skull is fractured divided into two halves. Even the injuries found over the body, especially the head, shows that the vehicle tyres might have come in contact with the head and as a result of the same, the skull is fractured divided into two halves. Even when the number of injuries and the tyre marks are seen together, it can be safely held that the accused No.1 with an intention to take away the life of the deceased had run over his Scorpio vehicle on him and it is not a mere accident as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused No.1. 32. Be that as it may, if really the accident has taken place, then the accused could have informed about the same to the jurisdictional police as mandated under the Motor Vehicles Act. Though during the course of arguments, learned counsel for accused No.1 submitted that, when the accused No.1 went to the police station to inform the same, the police did not heed to his request and have not registered the case, but when so many cases are pending in between the parties and they are also in contact with the advocates, then he could have taken the assistance of an advocate and he could have filed a case by any other alternate method as provided under the law. 33. In that light, if the entire evidence of the eyewitnesses and other circumstances have been seen together, it indicates that, because of the earlier grudge existing between the deceased and accused No.1, accused No.1 drove his jeep and dashed to the deceased and thereafter 2-3 times he rolled the jeep over the body of the deceased and murdered him. 34. Though during the course of arguments learned counsel for the appellant/accused No.1 contended that all the witnesses are interested and related witnesses and their testimony cannot be trusted and believed, it is trite of law by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the relationship can never be a factor to affect the credibility of the witnesses as it is not possible always to get an independent witness. Even some times many of the villagers will not come forward to give their evidence so as to avoid the animosity which is going to arise subsequently in between the parties. Even some times many of the villagers will not come forward to give their evidence so as to avoid the animosity which is going to arise subsequently in between the parties. In that light, in case of evidence of interested witnesses, a duty is cast upon the Court and it would be prudent to analyse such evidence cautiously and to know whether any false implication has been made. This proposition of law has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sudhakar @ Sudarshan Vs. State, (2018) 5 SCC 435 , wherein at para Nos.15 to 17, it is observed as under: "15. From the abovestated facts, it emerges that the entire prosecution case rests on the evidence of PWs. 1 and 5 who are closely related to the appellant-accused. The accused is none other than the son of PW 5's brother and PW1 is the husband of PW5 and PW6 is the son of PWs 1 and 5. Clearly, the relations between the appellant-accused and PWs 1 and 5 were strained over property issues and they were in inimical terms. Apparently, there was also a civil suit pending between them for partition of properties. 16. It would be appropriate to have a look at the legal position with regard to the evidence of related and interested witnesses. In Sarwan Singh v. State of Panjab, (1976) 4 SCC 369 : 1976 SCC (Cri) 646 , SCC para 10, this Court observed thus: (SCC p.376, para 10) "10. The evidence of an interested witness does not suffer from any infirmity as such, but the courts require as a rule of prudence, not as a rule of law, that the evidence of such witnesses should be scrutinized with a little care. Once that approach is made and the court is satisfied that the evidence of interested witnesses have a ring of truth, such evidence could be relied upon even without corroboration." It is settled law that there cannot be any hard-andfast rule that the evidence of interested witnesses cannot be taken into consideration and they cannot be termed as witnesses. But, the only burden that would be cast upon the courts in those cases is that the courts have to be cautious while evaluating the evidence to exclude the possibility of false implication. But, the only burden that would be cast upon the courts in those cases is that the courts have to be cautious while evaluating the evidence to exclude the possibility of false implication. Relationship can never be a factor to affect the credibility of the witnesses as it is always not possible to get an independent witness. 17. Then, next comes the question "what is the difference between a related witness and an interested witness?". The plea of "interested witness", related witness" has been succinctly explained by this Court that "related" is not equivalent to "interested". The witness may be called "interested" only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing an accused person punished. In this case at hand PWs 1 and 5 were not only related witnesses, but also "interested witnesses" as they had pecuniary interest in getting the accused petitioner punished. (refer State of U.P. v. Kishanpal, (2008) 16 SCC 73 : (2010) 4 SCC (Cri) 182 ). As the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of interested witnesses, it would be prudent in the facts and circumstances of this case to be cautious while analyzing such evidence. It may be noted that other than these witnesses, there are no independent witnesses available to support the case of the prosecution." 35. Keeping in view the ratio laid down in the above said decision, on perusal of the evidence on record, though PWs. 1 to 3 are the brothers of the deceased and relatives, but PW2 is an injured eyewitness and his presence is also not disputed by the accused. If his evidence is carefully looked into along with the evidence of DW1 accused No.1, it indicates that he is a trustworthy and reliable witness and there is no falsity in his evidence. When the accident is admitted and the presence of accused is also admitted, the only question that remains for consideration is whether the accused caused the death of the deceased intentionally. As discussed above, the tyre marks have not been explained by the accused No.1. Under these circumstances, there is no material to discard the evidence of these witnesses and there may not be any false implication of accused No.1 for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. 36. As discussed above, the tyre marks have not been explained by the accused No.1. Under these circumstances, there is no material to discard the evidence of these witnesses and there may not be any false implication of accused No.1 for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. 36. The second aspect urged by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused No.1 is that, there is no conspiracy between the accused persons and the trial Court has rightly appreciated the said evidence and has rightly acquitted accused Nos. 2 to 7. But it is the contention of the learned Addl. SPP as well as the learned counsel for the complainant that the evidence produced clearly goes to show that accused Nos. 2 to 4 were sitting on a pool and accused Nos. 5 and 6 were sitting in the said Scorpio vehicle and accused No.7 informed accused No.1 and abetted to cause the death of the deceased by accident. 37. In order to substantiate the said fact, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PWs.10 and 11. In the evidence of PW10, he has deposed that, on the date of the accident at about 10.30 to 12.00 pm, when he was sitting along with CW17 on the katta of Hanumanta Devara temple, PW2 and the deceased came on the motorcycle at about 11.00 pm. At that time, accused No.7 was standing on Hanumanta Devara temple katta talking on the phone stating to finish the deceased by dashing the Scorpio vehicle to the motorcycle and if he survives to kill him by assaulting with sickle and subsequently at about 12.15 pm he received a phone call from somebody and he was telling that, if the work has been done they may run away. If the accused No.7 was talking in his mobile phone, then what was the necessity for PW10 going there and hearing such a hot message which was passed by accused No.7. If the accused persons have conspired to take away or done away with the life of the deceased by dashing the Scorpio vehicle to the motorcycle and he was knowing PWs. 1, 2 and 3, he could have immediately informed the same and warned about the conspiracy made by the accused persons. For the reasons best known to him, he has not taken any steps to inform the same to anyone of them. 1, 2 and 3, he could have immediately informed the same and warned about the conspiracy made by the accused persons. For the reasons best known to him, he has not taken any steps to inform the same to anyone of them. Even it is very difficult to believe that, when accused No.7 was standing near the temple and he was talking over the phone, PW10 heard their conversation. He has not stated what was the distance between him and accused No.7 and how he came to know that he was talking with accused No.1 and other accused persons. In that light if the evidence of PW10 is looked into, it is hard to believe the said evidence and hold that the accused persons have conspired. 38. Pws. 11 and 3 have also deposed that, when they were proceeding on the motorcycle, accused Nos. 2 to 4 were sitting on a pool and at that time, accused Nos. 1, 5 and 6 came in a Scorpio vehicle. Merely because the accused persons were sitting on a pool, only on the basis of the said evidence, it cannot be inferred that they have conspired with each other. Even as per the case of the prosecution, accused Nos.1, 2 and 7 were making calls to each other prior to the incident and after the accident and even the prosecution has furnished the mobile numbers of accused Nos. 1, 2 and 7. Though it is contended by the learned Special Public Prosecutor that the call details have been produced by the prosecution to substantiate the fact that there was conversation between the accused persons, but as could be seen from the call details produced at Ex.P49, the said call details starts with date 30.06.2011. But actually the alleged incident has taken place on 29.06.2011. As per the case of the prosecution, accused No.7 was informing on 28.06.2011 and 29.06.2011 he was standing near the temple and they were having conversation. If that is the case, then there will be definitely call details for accused No.7 having spoken with accused No.1 and other accused persons. That is the best evidence which is available as against accused Nos. 2 to 7. But for the reason best known to the prosecution, the said evidence has not been produced before the Court. Mere telephone calls between two persons does not create any suspicion. That is the best evidence which is available as against accused Nos. 2 to 7. But for the reason best known to the prosecution, the said evidence has not been produced before the Court. Mere telephone calls between two persons does not create any suspicion. In the absence of material on record, the charge for conspiracy is not sustainable in law. The offence of criminal conspiracy consists meeting of minds of two or more persons agreeing to do or causing to be done an illegal act or an act by illegal means and the performance of act in terms thereof. 39. On perusal of the entire materials placed on record, nowhere the prosecution has brought any material except saying that accused No.7 was standing at Hanumanta Devara temple and speaking over the phone and accused Nos. 2 to 4 were sitting on the pool and accused Nos. 5 and 6 were there in the Scorpio vehicle. It is not going to help the prosecution any more and in that light, the evidence produced is scanty and thin and it is not acceptable so as to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The trial Court after taking into consideration all the materials placed on record has come to a right conclusion and has rightly acquitted accused Nos. 2 to 7 as well as accused No.1 for the conspiracy and other offences. 40. It is well settled proposition of law that, if the accused persons have been acquitted by the trial Court by exercising its discretion, then the Appellate Court must be very slow in interfering with the said order and it can interfere only if the judgment is perverse and illegal. In that light, if the judgment of the trial Court is seen, no such illegality or irregularity has been found. 41. Though the eyewitnesses have deposed with regard to the presence of accused Nos. 2 to 6, the accused persons have led the evidence and have taken a contention that accused Nos. 5 and 6 were not present at the time of accident and they had been to Gokak for repair of tractor and stayed in Ramkrishna lodge and vacated the room on 29.06.2011 at 12.00 pm and they have also got examined DW4, the Manager of the lodge in that regard. 5 and 6 were not present at the time of accident and they had been to Gokak for repair of tractor and stayed in Ramkrishna lodge and vacated the room on 29.06.2011 at 12.00 pm and they have also got examined DW4, the Manager of the lodge in that regard. If the defence and the evidence of PW9 is taken together, in their cross-examination they have stated that. PW9 has not stated before the I.O. regarding he seeing accused Nos. 1 to 6 at Akalkal bridge on the date of incident. In that light, if the evidence is perused, the presence of accused Nos. 2 to 6 cannot be believed and it appears to be unnatural. 42. Be that as it may. If really accused Nos. 2 to 6 were present as contended by the prosecution, no specific overt acts have been attributed to accused Nos. 2 to 4 except saying that accused No.4 threatened PW1 and other witnesses not to help the deceased. In that light, the trial Court has taken a right view and has acquitted accused Nos. 2 to 6. The trial Court has discussed in detail with regard to this aspect and has acquitted them. Hence, we feel it just and proper not to interfere with the said finding given by the trial Court. 43. We have carefully and cautiously perused the judgment of the trial Court and the lower Court records. On analyzing that, we feel that the trial Court after appreciation of all the evidence has rightly acquitted accused Nos. 2 to 7 and also accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 120B and 119 of IPC and rightly convicted accused No.1 under Sections 302, 307 and 324 of IPC. The appeals are devoid of merit. The judgment does not require any interference at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed as devoid of merit.