JUDGMENT : G. Narendar, J. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State. 2. Facts leading to this appeal : The gist of the prosecution version as narrated in column No.17 is that Smt. Chandrakala W/o Halaswamy (CW-2) aged about 38 years, had an illicit relationship with the accused since the last 12 years and in the last 5 to 6 months, the accused found the said Chandrakala cheating on him by moving around with other men and enraged by the said act of cheating and to exact revenge, the accused took the said Chandrakala to the land bearing Sy.No.90 situated in Baluru Village of Shikaripura Taluk on 02.03.2012 and between 05.30 p.m. and 06.30 p.m., he committed the murder by striking on the head of the said Chandrakala with a stone found in the land and upon the deceased losing consciousness and falling to the ground, the accused proceeded to press her neck and thereby asphyxiated her and committed the murder and after committing the murder and with the intention of destroying the evidence, he removed the sim card from her mobile and threw it away and thereafter, took possession of the mobile handset and some of the jewelry found on the body of the dead and handed over the same to the custody of his wife. It is further stated that the land wherein the murder was committed is a eucalyptus grove belonging to the Forest Department. The above allegations having been investigated and having found to have substance, the charge sheet was laid against him. The Trial Court accepting the case has rendered a judgment of conviction and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. 3. The case of the prosecution is that PW1 – Police Constable CPC No.862 had been deputed to the eucalyptus grove to verify the information received by the Investigating Officer regarding commission of a non-cognizable offence i.e., wagering with the use of playing cards. That when he was going about the land, he sensed a foul smell and when he followed the direction of the smell, he discovered the decomposed body of a woman and he also noticed artificial gold and plastic bangles, a watch, a ring on the finger, silver anklets and toe rings. The body was fully clothed and slippers were also found in the place. The body was fully clothed and slippers were also found in the place. That the body was noticed at 04.00 p.m. and in order to ascertain the identity of the dead women, he called the vice-president of the adjoining village panchayat one Surendra Naik (the said Surendra is not examined). The attempt to ascertain the identity having failed, he reported the same to the PSI over phone by 06.15 p.m. That the PSI visited the spot and thereafter a complaint came to be registered at Ex.P-1 and the FIR is marked as Ex.P-2. That the spot mahazar (Ex.P-37) was drawn by 07.15 p.m. with the use of torch light and head lights of the jeep. The spot was photographed (Exs.P-3 and P-4) and the slippers were seized (MO-1). The body was sent to the Government Hospital and inquest (Ex.P-25) was conducted on 11.03.2012 in the presence of the panchas (PW-12, CW-21 and CW-22). The articles handed over by the doctor after Post Mortem (Ex.P-26) have been reported to the Court. That on 12.03.2012, CWs-2, 3 and 4 (i.e., husband, son and daughter) had appeared before the IO (CW-51/PW-19) and identified the articles. They have identified the deceased by the clothing and CW.2/PW.2 has also expressed that he suspected the hand of the accused. Immediately, the IO directed the sub-ordinates to trace out the accused and also the phone number of both the accused and the deceased were collected and requisition for CDR was sent and received. The accused was arrested on 16.03.2012 and on the basis of the voluntary statement, properties have been seized from his residence and the vehicle used has also been seized and the accused has also shown the place where the crime was committed. 4. The body was highly decomposed and the Investigating Officer in order to establish the identity of the deceased, requested the jurisdictional Court to permit conduct of DNA test with the blood samples of the mother of the deceased and her son with the left radius bone retained by the Investigating Officer. The said application came to be allowed on 18.04.2012. 5. Evidence on record: The prosecution has examined PWs-1 to 19, who are CWs-1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 8, 12, 14, 16, 20, 35, 29, 30, 52, 18, 50 and 51 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-47 and brought on record MOs-1 to 24. The said application came to be allowed on 18.04.2012. 5. Evidence on record: The prosecution has examined PWs-1 to 19, who are CWs-1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 8, 12, 14, 16, 20, 35, 29, 30, 52, 18, 50 and 51 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-47 and brought on record MOs-1 to 24. On the part of the defence, Exs.D-1 to D-11 are placed. Ex.D-1 is the portion of the statement of PW-2. Ex.D-2 and D-3 are photographs of Sarojamma (PW-11, Wife of accused). Ex.D-4, 4(a) and 4(b) are the portions of statement of PW-4. Ex.D-5 is the statement of PW-5. Ex.D-6 is another photograph. Ex.D-7 is PF No.32/2012, Ex.D-8 is PF No.34/2012, Ex.D-9 is PF No.35/2012, Ex.D-10 is PF No.36/2012 and Ex.D-11 is PF No.56/2012. 6. Depositions: PW-1 is the constable of the jurisdictional police station, who claims that he was deputed to collect information about gambling that was reportedly taking place in the eucalyptus grove. That he left the police station on 10.03.2012 at 02.30 p.m. and parked his bike at Kaginelli cross and entered the eucalyptus plantation and sensed foul smell and thereafter discovered the dead body covered with eucalyptus dry leaves. That it was 04.00 p.m. when he noticed the body and thereafter, he contacted the vice-president of the Panchayath one Surendra Naik (CW-22 - not examined), who was unable to identify the dead person and is said to have stated that the lady does not belong to his village. That thereafter, he informed the PSI and a complaint came to be registered. The complaint and the FIR are marked as Exs.P-1 and P-2. That mahazar was drawn by 07.00 p.m. by using torch light and the light from the jeep and photographs taken are marked as Exs.P3 and 4 and the slippers found on the spot are seized and marked as MO-1. 7. In the cross-examination, he admits that he was orally informed to verify the information about gaming (non-cognizable offence) and that the same would be noted in the Station House Diary. He further admits that the entire eucalyptus plantation in the vicinity belong to MPM (Mysuru Paper Mills). That the body was lying about 1 km from Baluru Village and at a distance of about 300 to 400 meters from main road. That the mud road near the scene of crime is used for movement of people and vehicles. He further admits that the entire eucalyptus plantation in the vicinity belong to MPM (Mysuru Paper Mills). That the body was lying about 1 km from Baluru Village and at a distance of about 300 to 400 meters from main road. That the mud road near the scene of crime is used for movement of people and vehicles. That as it was summer, there is no movement of forest officials and the eucalyptus leaves on the dead body are fully dried. 8. PW-2 deposes that the deceased is his wife. That CW-3 (not examined) is his son and CW-4 (PW-3) is his daughter. That CW-7 (PW-5) is the younger brother of his wife and CW-8 (PW-8) is the father of the deceased and CW-9 (not examined) is the maternal uncle of the deceased. That his marriage with the deceased was performed in 1992 and that his son and daughter are aged 19 and 16 years respectively. That in 2001-02, he shifted his family to Bengaluru and secured a job as a security personnel in a private company and his wife – the deceased was working in a garment factory. That in 2008-09, the deceased informed him that she is experiencing chest pain on account of doing tailoring work and wanted to shift to Shivamogga. That he refused to comply with the demand upon which the deceased told him whether he accompanies him or not, she would be shifting to Shivamogga. That he took a house on lease at Panchavati Colony, O.T. Road, Shivamogga and shifted his wife and children but he continued his job in Bengaluru. That he used to visit Shivamogga once in a month staying for a day or two. That his son started working in a grocery shop in 2012 after quitting his studies. That his daughter continued her education and was studying SSLC. He further deposed that he knew the accused as he was informed by his children that the accused used to come often to their house at Shivamogga. He was also informed of it by his relatives and later, he learnt that he was visiting the house everyday. That his daughter continued her education and was studying SSLC. He further deposed that he knew the accused as he was informed by his children that the accused used to come often to their house at Shivamogga. He was also informed of it by his relatives and later, he learnt that he was visiting the house everyday. That suspecting the conduct of the accused, he questioned his wife to which she replied that he was known to her and even told him that she needed him and that he got her a site and he would also get a house for her and she would continue her relationship and that he should keep mum. That his wife declared that she is ready to desert him and their children but not the accused and that she was ready to quit the house. That he informed his father-in-law and the maternal uncle of the deceased, CWs – 8 and 9 and heeding to their advice, the deceased did not quit the house. But the advice did not stop her from continuing her illicit relationship. That he feared for the future of his children and bothered by the harm it would cause to his self respect he kept mum. In paragraph No.4, he deposes that he had come to Shivamogga on 02.03.2012 and found his wife was getting ready to go out of the house and when questioned, she informed him that she was going to attend a marriage. That as he was to get a Ration Card, he left the house by 10.00 a.m. and his daughter had already left for School by 09.30 a.m. That his son was still asleep as he usually sleeps late and wakes up late. That when he returned by 12.00 in the noon, the house key was with neighbour one Sangeetha and he collected the same. That his daughter PW-3 returned from School at 05.00 p.m. and as the deceased did not return till 07.00 p.m., they attempted to call her over the mobile number 9591845047 from his mobile number 8123710331. That the mobile number of the accused is 9740559172. That his son returned by 09.00 p.m. from his job but his wife had not returned. That his children also tried to call their mother but found it switched off. That the mobile number of the accused is 9740559172. That his son returned by 09.00 p.m. from his job but his wife had not returned. That his children also tried to call their mother but found it switched off. That as his wife had told him that she was going to relatives place, he enquired with his relatives but it was in vain. That the deceased was in the habit of visiting relatives and staying for a few days. That as the deceased had not returned till 12.03.2012, he had secured his father-in-law (PW-8) and an aunt – Kamalamma and went to Dodpete Police Station and when he was giving a description of his wife’s features, he was informed by the police that the body of a dead female was found within the limits of the respondent police. That Kamalamma, the aunt of the deceased spoke to her brother CW-9 Basavarajappa to make an enquiry with the Shikaripura Police and the said Basavarajappa called back in half an hour and said that he had identified the body of the deceased as Chandrakala on the basis of saree and slippers found in the photographs and the saree was the one he had gifted at the time of performing his house warming ceremony and immediately, he proceeded to Shikaripura Police Station along with his children CWs – 3, 4 and 8 and the said Kamalamma. That he went to the Government Hospital at Shivamogga on the next day where the police showed him the saree, toe rings, nose ring, ear rings, anklets, bangles and rolled gold rings. They also showed him her blouse, petticoat and inner garments and he has identified them as belonging to his wife. That on the next day i.e., 14.03.2012, he lodged a complaint with the police and that he had stated that somebody had killed his wife with a malafide intention and that he also suspected the hand of the accused. That he was again called on 17.03.2012 by the police, who informed him that they had seized a Mangalya Sara, Karimani Sara with lakshmi padaka and a Motorola phone and he identified them as belonging to his wife and he was informed by the police that the accused had committed the murder of his wife and they have seized the above golden jewelry from his house. That police informed him that as his wife (deceased) was moving with another person by avoiding the accused, he had committed the murder. He has further deposed that he got the phone and jewelry released in his favour. The mobile phone is marked as MO-2 and the jewelry i.e., malgalya sara, Karimani sara, jumki, silver anklets, toe rings, golden finger ring, pair of sridevi padaka, golden nose ring are marked as MOs-3 to 10. Watch is marked as MO-11. The saree, blouse and petticoat are marked as MOs - 12 to 14. 9. In the cross-examination, he states that the accused is a distant relative and the accused has always been residing in Shivamogga and he is wedded and has children. That since the date of his marriage till the year 2000, the accused never visited his wife or their house till 2000 and he started visiting only after returning from Bengaluru. That he was working as a Coolie and the deceased was a house wife. That he was earning only Rs.700/- to Rs.800/- per month. That the two children were born and his earnings were sufficient to maintain his family. That he secured a job in Bengaluru as a watchman and was being paid a sum of Rs.3000/- and the deceased also secured a job in a garment factory and their income was sufficient to maintain their family. He admits that the accused had never visited their house at Bengaluru and he became aware of the illicit relationship within a month or two after he shifted his family to Shivamogga in 2009. That he was paying a monthly rent of Rs.1200/- for the house at Shivamogga. That he had seen the accused only on one occasion at Shivamogga. That he was disturbed by the information of his wife being involved in an illicit relationship but he had not decided to divorce her. That within two to three months of he coming to know of the same, he informed his relatives including his father-in-law and maternal uncle CW-9. In paragraph No.15, he admits that there were frequent quarrels between him and his wife and more particularly, he admits he had shifted to Shivamogga in April, 2011 itself and was employed as daily wage labourer at Chatnalli. That he does not know where the site purchased by the accused for his wife, was. In paragraph No.15, he admits that there were frequent quarrels between him and his wife and more particularly, he admits he had shifted to Shivamogga in April, 2011 itself and was employed as daily wage labourer at Chatnalli. That he does not know where the site purchased by the accused for his wife, was. That he tolerated the infidelity fearing for the welfare of his children. That CW-8/PW-8 his father-in-law is a resident of Doopadahalli Village, Shikaripura. That CW-9 was aware about the illicit relationship of deceased and accused. CW-6 Ravindra (not examined) has wedded a girl from Doopadahalli and known to his father-in-law (PW-8). CW- 5/PW-4 also hails from Doopadahalli and is a relative of his father-in-law. In paragraph No.18, he admits that he has told the police that he has not informed anybody about the illicit relationship. In paragraph No.19, he admits that he had not informed the police about his missing wife between 02.03.2012 and 12.03.2012. That he had informed PW-8 and Parvathamma about the deceased going missing. That he further states that he had given a complaint in writing to the police on 12.03.2012. That the written complaint was given to Doddapete Police Station. He further states that he did not suspect the hand of the accused neither has he stated so to the police either on the said date or the following date. He has further deposed that MO-3 and MO-4 i.e., gold chain and gold chain with black beads, were made during the stay at Shikaripura and before they shifted to Bengaluru. He further admits that there is nothing to show that it was got by him or his father-in-law. He further volunteers that there is a photograph of the deceased featuring her wearing the same during her lifetime. He further admits that there is no document to show the purchase of MO-2 mobile and further denies the suggestion that the mobile did not belong to the deceased. He was confronted with the Ex.D-2 photograph picturing the wife of the accused and it is suggested that a gold chain similar to MO-3 is found around the neck of the wife of the accused (PW-11) and he also admits the objections filed by PW-11 objecting to the release of MO-3 and the ear rings in her favour. He was confronted with the Ex.D-2 photograph picturing the wife of the accused and it is suggested that a gold chain similar to MO-3 is found around the neck of the wife of the accused (PW-11) and he also admits the objections filed by PW-11 objecting to the release of MO-3 and the ear rings in her favour. In paragraph No.25, it is suggested that he is behind the death of his wife on account of the extra-marital relationship his wife had with the accused and other persons. 10. PW-3/CW-4 is the daughter of PW-2 and the deceased. She states that all of them have shifted to Bengaluru after the death of her mother. That they were residing in Bengaluru till 2007 and later shifted to Shivamogga. She would reiterate the statement of PW-2 that he was visiting them for a day or two and continued residing in Bengaluru. She would reiterate her brother working in a grocery shop. She would depose that she knows the accused as he was visiting their house almost everyday. That they had informed their father as the actions of her mother and accused raised a doubt. That her father questioned her mother. That there used to be quarrels between her parents on this count and that later she came to know that her mother had illicit relationship with the accused. That her father came and settled down in Shivamogga in 2012. That on 12.03.2012, she came to know the death of her mother. That she had seen her mother on 02.03.2012 before leaving to school at which time, her parents and her brother were available at home. That she came back at 05.30 p.m. and her father (PW-2) informed her that her mother had gone to attend a marriage and her brother returned at 09.00 p.m. but her mother did not return. That she, her father and brother attempted to call her mother. That on 12.03.2012, her brother came to School and asked her to accompany him and she came and learnt that her father had attempted to lodge a complaint and he was advised by the local police to go to Shikaripura. She reiterates the identification of MOs – 1, 6 to 8, 10 and 11 and identify her mother by Exs.3 and 4. She reiterates the identification of MOs – 1, 6 to 8, 10 and 11 and identify her mother by Exs.3 and 4. MOs- 15 to 18 i.e., rolled gold ear ring, rolled gold bangles and two plastic bangles were marked through her. She would depose in line with the deposition of PW-2 with regard to identification of the saree, blouse, petticoat and inner wear of her mother (MOs – 12 to 14) and inner wear are marked as MOs 19 and 20. That she had informed PW- 8 her grandfather about the illicit relationship. In the cross-examination, she would admit that the accused never visited their house in Bengaluru. That her parents never quarreled at Bengaluru. That in about 15 days, after they settled in Shivamogga, the accused started visiting them. In paragraph No.10, she would depose that there were frequent quarrels between her parents (PW-2 and deceased) on account of the relationship with the accused. She would admit that her father had indeed returned to Shivamogga in 2011 itself. That her mother (deceased) was abusing her father but her father kept quiet. That the accused used to visit the house even after her father had settled down in Shivamogga. 11. PW-4/CW-5, is a chance witness. He has deposed that he along with CW-6 had gone to the Petrol Bunk near Kiran Talkies, Shikaripura to fill petrol to CW-6’s bike. That the accused and the deceased arrived at the said Petrol Bunk and that the deceased upon seeing him, laughed and bowed her head in shyness. That after filling petrol, the accused and deceased went away and he does not know where they went. That he told CW-6 that there were big issues, on account of the movement of the deceased with the accused and despite the same, she had not quit the relationship. That he did not inform the father and brother of the deceased i.e., PWs – 8 and 5, about his chance meeting. That CW-6 came to drop him at his native village and when they were standing near the Hucharaya Swamy Temple at about 09.00 p.m., they saw the accused returning alone on the road coming from Honnali to Shikaripura. That after 8 to 10 days, he came to know that Chandrakala was murdered and her body was found in Kaginelli eucalyptus plantation. That after 8 to 10 days, he came to know that Chandrakala was murdered and her body was found in Kaginelli eucalyptus plantation. He would depose that he had met CW-7 the younger brother of the deceased, after about 8 to 10 days after his chance meeting with the deceased and that he had also informed him about the same. That he had also informed the police of all this and identified the bike. 12. In the cross-examination, he admits that he hails from the native place of the deceased Chandrakala and that he is employed as a tractor driver. That his house is hardly 200 feet away from the house of PW-8 (father of the deceased). That he was aware about the relationship between accused and deceased about 5 to 6 months prior to the incident. That CW-6 is a resident of Shikaripura town and he was taken to Shikaripura on the said date by CW-6. He would state that they watched accused filling petrol to his bike and at that time, he and Ravindra were standing near Kiran Talkies, which is about 400 to 500 feet away from petrol station. He would further admit that on the contrary he has told the police that he and Ravindra were at the petrol bunk and he met up with the accused and deceased at the petrol bunk. In paragraph No.7, contrary to his deposition in paragraph No.2, he would admit that he and CW-6 Ravindra were in Shikaripura till 09.00 p.m. He is confronted with this contradictory statement, which is marked as Ex.D4. That it was dark at 09.00 p.m. near Hucharaya Swamy Temple. In paragraph No.9, he would state that he was aware that there was a dead body in the plantation even before he informed Jayanna about witnessing the deceased and the accused in the petrol bunk. He was further confronted with the portion of the statement, which is marked as Ex.D4(a). That he informed Jayanna over phone about 8 to 10 days after meeting the accused and deceased in the petrol bunk. That PW-7 was at Bengaluru. He would assert that he had not told to police about meeting PW-7 in Shikaripura upon which he is confronted with the portion of the statement which is marked as Ex.D4(b). He admits that he can only describe the dress the deceased was wearing. That PW-7 was at Bengaluru. He would assert that he had not told to police about meeting PW-7 in Shikaripura upon which he is confronted with the portion of the statement which is marked as Ex.D4(b). He admits that he can only describe the dress the deceased was wearing. He admits that he has not informed PW-8 Manjunath (father of deceased) or the mother of the deceased about the tracing of a dead body in the plantation despite he residing near by. 13. PW-5/CW-7 is the younger brother of the deceased. He deposes CW-9 Basavarajappa is his maternal uncle. He states that he has seen the accused that he has never seen the accused visiting his house but came to know through PW-2 and 4 and CW-3 that accused was visiting his sisters house and they had an illicit relationship. In paragraph No.4, he deposes that he was informed of the chance meeting at petrol bunk by CW-6. 14. In the cross-examination, he denies that there was no illicit relationship between his sister and accused. That PW-4 informed him about the chance meeting on 02.03.2012 over phone and CW-6 Ravindra informed him when he met them at Shikaripura on 14.03.2012. That he was informed about the demise of Chandrakala by PW-4 on the morning of 13.03.2012. He admits that he came to know about his sister going missing only on 12.03.2012 and the same was intimated to him by PW-2 on 12.03.2012. That he informed his father PW-8 about the illicit relationship between the deceased and accused on 13.03.2012. That he did not meet PW-4 at Shikaripura. He denies having told the police that he met both CW6 and PW4 at Shikaripura upon which he is confronted with a portion of statement recorded and the same is marked as Ex.D-5. It is suggested that CW-6 and PW-4 are planted only to strengthen the case of the accused as being friends they have willingly agreed to help him in the case. 15. PW-6 states that the accused belongs to his village Nagabanda and has been residing in Shivamogga since his childhood and the mother of the accused is residing in the native village Nagabanda. He further deposes that he had not met the accused on 02.03.2012 or at any time prior to the same and that he met him only when the police brought him to the village. He further deposes that he had not met the accused on 02.03.2012 or at any time prior to the same and that he met him only when the police brought him to the village. At this stage, he was declared hostile. He has been subjected to cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor and despite a searching cross-examination, he has denied having met the accused on 02.03.2012 or the accused having confessed to him about the murder. 16. PW-7, another resident of Nagabanda has also deposed on the lines of PW-6 and he has also been treated as hostile. 17. PW-8 is the father of the deceased. He has deposed that he knows that the accused belongs to Nagavanda Village but is residing in Shivamogga. That his son-in-law (PW-2) informed him about the visits by the accused and they conducted panchayath and advised the accused and the accused did not pay heed and even their advice to their daughter was in vain. That on 02.03.2012, his son-in-law PW-2 and grand children CWs-3 and 4 had called him on the phone and enquired as to whether the deceased had come to his house and informed him that she had not returned home. He further deposes that when they could not trace Chandrakala for a week, then he, PW-2 and Kamalamma went to police station at Shivamogga on 12.03.2012 and when they were preparing the complaint, Shikaripura Police had informed Shivamogga Police of recovery of the dead body of a woman. That they visited Shikaripura but could not see the body as it was disposed of a week ago. He would also speak of the photographs, clothes and other articles i.e., Exs. P-3, P-4, MOs - 1, 12 and 13. He would further depose that he came to know from the police that the accused had committed the murder of his daughter. At this stage, he was treated as hostile and cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. In paragraph No.5, he would depose that his son-in-law and his grand daughter PWs-2 and 3 had told the police that the deceased was also wearing a golden mangalya sara of 40 grams weight and another gold chain of 10 grams weight and a golden jumki (ear rings and bendole) of 6 grams weight and a golden lakshmi pendant in the karimani chain. 18. 18. In the cross-examination by the accused, he would admit that the accused is not a relative but known to them. That he was aware about the illicit relationship since the last 6-7 years and that the deceased was doing tailoring work in Bengaluru. That panchayath had been held a year prior to the death of the deceased. That even the accused was called for the panchayath. In paragraph No.8, he would submit that he had met PW-4 and CW-6 and they had informed him that they had seen the deceased in the company of a stranger and had not named the accused and they did not suspect the hand of the accused till 12.03.2012. 19. PW-9/CW-12 and CW-13 are panchas to the seizure mahazar at the police station at Ex.P-9 dated 16.03.2012 under which the mobile phone and sim belonging to the accused have been seized. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that the deceased Chandrakala and father hail from their village and they came to know about the murder of Chandrakala on 16.03.2012 only. 20. PW-10/CW-14 is a witness to the seizure mahazar carried out on 17.03.2012 at Ex.P-10. He has deposed that he was called and he saw the accused in the police station and was informed by the police that they wanted to give golden jewelry and needed his signature. He has further deposed that the police took him to the plantation at Kaginelli and took him to a particular spot and the accused showed a stone at the place and told them that the said stone was used for assault by the deceased and police have seized the stone. The said portion has been objected to as amounting to a confession in the presence of the police. That police drew up the mahazar and took his signature. The same is at Ex.P10 and P-10(a) and the photographs taken during the mahazar as Exs.P-11 and P12. That from there, they proceeded to the house at Gurupura at Shivamogga and the accused pointed out the bike in front of his house. The accused went inside the house and showed the jewelry which was kept in a trunk. That the accused open the trunk and handed over mangalya chain, two thali, jumki bendole, karimani sara an done pendant. That the accused had given the phone MO-2 and has signed the mahazar. The accused went inside the house and showed the jewelry which was kept in a trunk. That the accused open the trunk and handed over mangalya chain, two thali, jumki bendole, karimani sara an done pendant. That the accused had given the phone MO-2 and has signed the mahazar. In the cross-examination, he admits he was taken to the police station by CW-9, the maternal uncle of the deceased. He admits that till he went to the police station on 17.03.2012, he did not know that Chandrakala was murdered. He further deposes that he went to the police station at 03.30 p.m. and saw the accused in hand-cuffs. That CW-9 had accompanied him and one pundalik and the police. He admits that there are many stones like MO-22 in the plantation. That as soon as the accused reached the spot, he picked up MO-22 and gave it to the police. That MO-22 was lying at a distance of 8 to 10 meters away from the place of murder. In paragraph No.6, he changes the version and states that he had been to the police station at 08.00 a.m. but reiterates that the accused handed over the phone and jewelry from the trunk. And all the while the accused was hand-cuffed. That the house of the accused is situated in a residential area and surrounded by many house. That the wife of the accused i.e., PW-11 was present at the house but did not participate in the seizure. In paragraph No.8, he would admit that the police were in possession of MO-3 when they left the police station to the house of the accused. Immediately, he changes his version and denies the same and states that police brought it back from the house of the accused. In paragraph 9, he admits that it is true to suggest that MO-3 is found around the neck of PW-11, the wife of the accused in the photograph marked as Ex.D-6. In the reexamination, he would depose that accused handed over MO-3 to the police. In further cross, it is suggested that the mahazar was drawn in the police station. 21. The wife of the accused is examined as PW-11 and after treating her as hostile, she is subjected to cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor. In the reexamination, he would depose that accused handed over MO-3 to the police. In further cross, it is suggested that the mahazar was drawn in the police station. 21. The wife of the accused is examined as PW-11 and after treating her as hostile, she is subjected to cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor. In the cross-examination, it is suggested that the accused had confessed to her that he had murdered the deceased by administering poison and by mixing it in the Pepsi and he had brought the jewelry and handed over to her and threatened her that if she disclosed, he would die. In the cross-examination on behalf of the accused, she has stated that MO-3 belongs to her. That it was made about 5-6 years ago for her. That she is wearing the same in Ex.D-6 photograph. That the photograph was taken 5 to 6 years ago. That she had objected to the release of MOs-3 and 5 to PW-2. 22. PW-12 is the inquest witness, which is at Ex.P- 25(a). PW-13 is the Doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased. She deposes about the receipt of requisition is on 11.03.2012 and the completion of the autopsy is by 02.15 p.m. and she details the articles and clothing available on the body of the deceased. She further deposes that there were maggots on the body and has recorded adipocerous changes over the front chest and pelvic region. That the internal organs were congested, decoloured and softened showing signs of decomposition. In paragraph No.3, she deposes that she conducted a layer wise dissection of the neck which showed a brownish discoloration on the right side of the neck and opines ‘it may be an ante-mortem sign. It indicate palmar strangulation of the said woman’. Based on the post mortem changes, the time since death was approximately fixed at between 08-10 days. In paragraph No.4, she deposes that she has given a final opinion after receipt of chemical analysis report ruling out any poisonous material in the body and further deposes, ‘the accurate cause of death could not be ascertain but the death due to strangulation cannot be ruled out.’ The Post Mortem Report is marked as Ex.P-26 and chemical examination report is marked Exs.P-27 and P-28. In paragraph No.5, she deposes that the CPI, Shikaripura, had addressed a letter on 14.05.2012 and received on 22.05.2012, in which he had sought two clarifications. That the stone sealed in white cloth had been forwarded and that it was a kaadujathi kallu weighing 3035 grams and reiterated that palmar strangulation cannot be ruled out and that if a person is assaulted with the said stone, there was a possibility of the person becoming unconscious. 23. In the cross-examination, she has deposed that discoloration happens depending upon the climatic condition in which the dead body is found and discoloration would be fast in humid conditions and when the body was brought to her for autopsy, it was the beginning of summer and has opined, ‘In my opinion, it would be partly shading an therefore the decomposition might have started in 3 to 5 days.’ In paragraph No.8, she deposes that neck muscles have decomposed and further states, ‘I am not sure whether there was any injury on the head of the deceased as the same could not be made out due to decomposition’. In paragraph No.9, she admits that if MO-22 is used with force, it would cause a fissure fracture and further states, ‘I have only doubted the manner of death by strangulation’. In paragraph No.10, it is deposed as under:- ‘I have found the hyoid bone in the neck of the deceased. It was not damaged. The contusion that I say on the dead body was on the right side of the neck. It is true to suggest that therefore, it was not complete.’ 24. PW-14/CW-29 is an appraiser. He has deposed that he was called to examine and value certain jewelry on 11.03.2012 and he has examined MOs-6, 8 to 10. In paragraph No.2, he states that the person, who is alleged to have committed the murder, is said to have taken him and the police to his house at Shivamogga. That the daughter was present but his wife had gone elsewhere. The house was locked and some male person came and opened the lock. That CPI - Suresh Kumar entered the house first and then was followed by the accused and then police and CPI examined and searched the house. That he did not see tracing of anything in the house other than mobile and he came out while taking photographs. The house was locked and some male person came and opened the lock. That CPI - Suresh Kumar entered the house first and then was followed by the accused and then police and CPI examined and searched the house. That he did not see tracing of anything in the house other than mobile and he came out while taking photographs. He has deposed that he has not seen MOs - 6 and 8 to 10 at the house. That he had not signed any document at the house. That when he was about to get into the jeep, the police took his signature. That there was a bottle of alcohol under the seat of the bike. He is treated as hostile and cross-examined by the PP. In the cross-examination, he again reiterates that except for the daughter, there was nobody else in the house and after some time, a lady came crying. In the cross-examination, he admits had been to the police station to value the jewelry in 3 to 4 cases. He admits that he had seen MOs-4 and 5 at the police station. That he entered 2 to 3 minutes after the CPI entered the house and when he entered, he found MO - 3 – Mangalya Chain in the hand of the CPI. Then he proceeds to alter and improve his version by stating that MO-3 was found half an hour after entering the house. That a lady came to the house at 12.30 p.m. That they waited for one hour for somebody to bring the key to the house. That police did not question the person from where he got the key. 25. PW-15 is mahazar witness in the police station. PW-16 is the Doctor, who has conducted the DNA profiling. PW-17 is the pancha to the spot mahazar at Ex.P-27. 26. PW-18 is the PSI, who received the information from PW-1 and visited the spot and arrested the accused on 16.03.2012 from his house. In the cross examination, he admits that there are interpolations in Ex.P-38. That the computerized date is shown as 15th but the same has been changed by hand. He denies that the accused was detained much earlier to 15.03.2012. 27. PW-19 is the CPI of Shikaripura Circle. That he took up the investigation from PW-18 on 10.03.2012. In the cross examination, he admits that there are interpolations in Ex.P-38. That the computerized date is shown as 15th but the same has been changed by hand. He denies that the accused was detained much earlier to 15.03.2012. 27. PW-19 is the CPI of Shikaripura Circle. That he took up the investigation from PW-18 on 10.03.2012. That he went to the place of incident and secured the panchas Rama Naik and Satish Naik and recorded the spot mahazar at Ex.P-37. He identifies MO-1 and speaks about Ex.P-3 and P-4 the photographs of the spot. He speaks about the inquest on 11.03.2012 at Ex.P-25 (in the presence of PWs - 20 to 22). He deposes that the body was putrefied when he sent it to SHIMS, Shivamogga. That he has recorded statements of CWs-23 to 25. CWs-21, 22, 23, and 24 have not been examined. He speaks about CW-44 (not examined) producing the ornaments found on the body of the deceased. He further speaks about summoning PW-14 on the same day to examine and value the jewelry i.e., on 11.03.2012. In paragraph No.3, he deposes that CWs 2 to 4 i.e., PWs 2 and 3 (CW-3 not examined) appeared and identified the slippers and jewelry. That on 14.03.2012, PW- 2 reported that he had identified the cloth of the deceased and suspected the hand of the accused. That on 15.03.2012, he had recorded the statement of CWs 5 to 7, i.e., PW - 4 and 5, CW-6 not examined. That on the same day, he collected the mobile number of the deceased and accused and collected call details. The covering letter and CDR are marked as Exs.P41 and 42. It details the calls between the two numbers. He deposes that the accused was arrested on 16.03.2012 and voluntary statement was recorded and the admissible portion is marked as Ex.P-43. He deposes that he secured panchas CWs 12 and 13 on 17.03.2021 and seized the mobile (MO-21). He speaks about the spot mahazar and CWs - 14 and 15 acting as mahazar witness. He speaks about the seizure of stone MO- 22. He speaks about the poison and liquor bottles from the motor cycle, which was seized. He speaks about forwarding the left radious bone on 17.04.2012 for DNA examination. He speaks about the receipt opinion from the Doctor, who conducted autopsy on 28.05.2012, which is marked as Ex.P-29. 28. He speaks about the seizure of stone MO- 22. He speaks about the poison and liquor bottles from the motor cycle, which was seized. He speaks about forwarding the left radious bone on 17.04.2012 for DNA examination. He speaks about the receipt opinion from the Doctor, who conducted autopsy on 28.05.2012, which is marked as Ex.P-29. 28. In the cross-examination, he admits that they had no suspicion till he was named by PW-2 and his children. In Paragraph No.14, he admits that the phone number alleged to be that of the deceased is actually standing in the name of one Mallika and that he could not trace the said Mallika. That he has not collected the name, address and photograph of the subscriber from the Airtel Company. He denies the suggestion that the number does not belong to the deceased. He also admits that there is interpolation in Ex.P-38 and whitener has been used to change certain statement. In paragraph No.17, he states that the house of the accused was not locked when they reached the house. That his wife was present inside the house. He denies the suggestion the mangalya sara was forcibly taken from the wife of the accused. That he has not done any exercise to establish the identity of mangalya chain alleged to belong to the deceased. He denies that PW40 2 had told him that he had left his job in April, 2011 and started residing at Shivamogga. 29. Ex.P-1 is the report by PW-1 reporting the discovery of the body. Ex.P-2 is the FIR registered at 07.00 p.m. Ex.P-5 is the spot mahazar drawn by the Junior Engineer, PWD and is dated 10.04.2012. The statements of PWs - 6 and 7 dated 18.03.2012 are marked as Exs.P-7 and P-8. Ex.P-9 is the seizure mahazar dated 16.03.2012. Ex.P- 10 is the seizure mahazar at the alleged crime spot and is dated 17.03.2012. Ex.P-13 is the seizure mahazar drawn in the house of the accused. In Ex.P-13, it is recorded that the wife of the accused handed over the jewelry and the phone. Ex.P-24 dated 17.03.2012 is the statement of PW-11, wife of the accused. Ex.P-24 is apparently typed on a computer and the last paragraph reads as if she had handed over the jewelry at their house to the custody of the police, which is not inline with the deposition of the panchas. Ex.P-24 dated 17.03.2012 is the statement of PW-11, wife of the accused. Ex.P-24 is apparently typed on a computer and the last paragraph reads as if she had handed over the jewelry at their house to the custody of the police, which is not inline with the deposition of the panchas. Ex.P-25 is the inquest panchanama. In Column No.7, the date is noted as 11.03.2012. Column No.10 records the name of one Kanthanayak S/o Shekar Nayak watcher in the Forest Department. It is recorded that the description of the deceased was circulated in the surrounding areas. The statement of one B. Lachanaika is also recorded. The observations in Column No.11 are interesting. In Column No.12, it is recorded that the body is completely decomposed and maggots are found. The same reads as under:- IMAGE 30. That Column No.16 states that the body was cremated on 11.03.2012. In Column No.17, it is recorded that somebody for some reason committed a crime and killed the unknown female and with the intention of destroying the evidence. In Column No.27, which seeks details of any evidence of commission of crime in the spot. It is recorded, it is to be found after investigation. Ex.P-26 is the Post Mortem Report and it reads as under:- IMAGE Condition of subject: stout, emaciated, decomposed etc IMAGE Wounds: Position, Size, Character. IMAGE Bruises: Position, Size, Nature IMAGE Mark of ligature on Neck, dislocation Etc., Clothes and articles: 1. Green coloured net sari with golden embroidery. 2. Green under skirt. 3. Pink brassiere. 4. Pink underwear. 5. Green colored net sari material blouse with lining. Decomposed dead body is that of a female measuring 150cms in length, aged approximately 30years to 40 years. Body is infested with maggots and shows adipocerous changes over the front of chest, abdomen and pelvic region. IMAGE SKULL AND VERTEBRAL COLUMN IMAGE/ Skull and vertebrae IMAGE/ Membranes IMAGE/ Brain and Spinal Cord Scalp: Described. Skull: Intact. Discolored and softened Grayish white discolored and softened. P.S :- Spinal cord need not be examined if no injury/disease is found. III. IMAGE/THORAX IMAGE Walls & Ribs IMAGE /Pleura IMAGE Larynx & Trachea IMAGE Lungs Pericardium Heart Blood Vessels Right Left Wall :Described. Ribs: Intact Discolored and contains 50ml of reddish brown fluid. Discolored. Lungs are Discolored and softened. C/s: Exudes Minimal bloody fluid. Discolored and softened. P.S :- Spinal cord need not be examined if no injury/disease is found. III. IMAGE/THORAX IMAGE Walls & Ribs IMAGE /Pleura IMAGE Larynx & Trachea IMAGE Lungs Pericardium Heart Blood Vessels Right Left Wall :Described. Ribs: Intact Discolored and contains 50ml of reddish brown fluid. Discolored. Lungs are Discolored and softened. C/s: Exudes Minimal bloody fluid. Discolored and softened. IMAGE/More detailed Description of Disease or Injury Specimens Collected and sent to Forensic Science laboratory for Examination; I. Stomach and its contents, Portion of small intestine with preservative. II. Pieces of liver, half of each kidney with preservative. III. Preservative used – saturated solution of Sodium chloride. Layer by layer dissection of the neck shows brownish discolouration on the right side of the neck. This finding could be that of an antemortem contusion indicating? Palmar strangulation (Throttling) Based on postmortem changes, time since death could be ascertained as 8-10 days prior to autopsy. IMAGE/Opinion as to the cause of Death. Cause of death is kept reserved pending chemical analysis reports. IMAGE/Place: Shivamogga. IMAGE/Date: 11/03/2012 IMAGE/Signature Specimens Collected and sent to Forensic Science laboratory for Examination: Skull with mandible are sent for superimposition. Left radius bone is sent for DNA fingerprinting. No/SIMS/FMT/AUTOPSY/FO/170/12 dated 04-06-12. Post Mortem report No.: 162/12 dated 11-03-2012. RFSL(Da)/471/2012 dated 19-05-12. RFSL(Da)/471/2012 dated 24-05-12. RFSL Opinion: - Specimen number 2 shows the presence of ‘Ethyl alcohol and Organophosphorus insecticide and Organophosphorus insecticide in exhibit No.1. Specimen numbers 3,4,5,6,7,8,9 and 10 does not show the presence of ‘Ethyl alcohol and Organophosphorus’ insecticide. Seminal stains was not detected on item Nos. 1,2,3,4 and 5. FINAL OPINION:- After perusal of Post mortem Report and Chemical Analysis Report As the chemical Analysis report for the viscera sent to RFSL, Davanagere is negative for any poisons, accurate cause of death cannot be ascertained. However, death due to Strangulation cannot be ruled out. Place :- Shivamogga Date:- 08-06-2012.” 31. Ex.P-27 is the report dated 19.05.2012 of the RFSL, Davanagere and it rules out the presence of poison. Ex.P-28 is the report dated 24.05.2012 of RFSL, Davnagere, which rules out the presence of any seminal stains either in the saree or the under skirt, bra or underwear or blouse. Ex.P-29 is the clarification by PW-13 the Doctor, who conducted the autopsy and it is opined that palmer strangulation cannot be ruled out. Ex.P-28 is the report dated 24.05.2012 of RFSL, Davnagere, which rules out the presence of any seminal stains either in the saree or the under skirt, bra or underwear or blouse. Ex.P-29 is the clarification by PW-13 the Doctor, who conducted the autopsy and it is opined that palmer strangulation cannot be ruled out. Ex.P-30 is the mahazar, Ex.P-31 is the DNA report and Ex.P-37 is the spot mahazar dated 10.03.2012. It is interesting to note Ex.P-2 and 37 speak of a commission of offences under Section 302 and 201 of IPC even without there being any material to indicate a homicidal death. Ex.P-38 is the report regarding arrest of the accused from his house. Ex.P-39 is the rough sketch, Ex.P-40 is the report of WPC Manjula handing over the article found on the body of the decease dated 11.03.2012. Ex.P-41 is the covering letter addressed by the SP, Shivmogga to the I.O. enclosing the CDRs. Ex.P-43 is the voluntary statement of the accused dated 16.03.2012. Ex.D-1 is the statement of PW-2 dated 14.03.2012, Ex.D-4 is the statement of PW-4 dated 15.03.2012, Ex.D-5 is the statement of PW-5 dated 15.03.2012 and Ex.D-10 is the PF report sent to the Magistrate dated 17.03.2012. Ex.D-9 is the PF report sent to the Magistrate dated 17.03.2012. Ex.D-11 is again the PF report sent to the Magistrate dated 17.04.2012. That the 313 statement under Cr.P.C. of the accused has been recorded on 03.04.2013 and the accused apart from stating that the police took MO-3 from his wife and have filed a case against him, has denied the incriminating material put against him. 32. On behalf of the defence, certain portions in the statement of PW-2 have been marked as Ex.D-1, certain portions of the statement of PW-4 have been marked as Ex.D-4, D-4(a) and D-4(b), portions of the statement of PW-6 have been marked as Ex.D-5. The photograph in which the wife of the accused is pictured wherein one mangalya sara similar to MO-3 is marked as Ex.D-6(a) and the original P.F’s are marked as Exs.D-7 to D-11. The voluntary statement of the accused whereby he has offered to show the place of crime and the place where he has secreted the MO-3, MO-4, MO-5 and MO-2 is marked as Ex.P-43. 33. The voluntary statement of the accused whereby he has offered to show the place of crime and the place where he has secreted the MO-3, MO-4, MO-5 and MO-2 is marked as Ex.P-43. 33. CHARGE:- On the basis of the aforesaid material, the Trial Court has framed the following charges:- “CHARGE I, H.M. Nanjundaswamy, B.Com., LL.B., Addl. Sessions Judge and Spl. Judge, Shivamogga, do hereby charge your accused B.R.Manjunath @ Manjappa Ngavanda, s/o Rudrappa, A/a 39 yrs., Carpenter, r/o Ngavanda, Hirekerur tq., Haveri dist., at present r/p H.No.75, Indira Extension, Gurupura, Shimoga as follows ; That on 2.3.2012 in between 5.30 p.m., and 6.30 p.m., at Eucalyptus plantation in Sy.No.90 at Ballur village, Shikaripura tq., you accused assaulted Smt.Chandrakala w/o CW-2 Halaswamy with a stone due to old bitterness, as you had illicit relationship with her, as a result, she had lost conscious thereafter, you pressed her neck, and she died due to asphyxiation and thereby you committed murder of said Chandrakala and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 302 of IPC and within the cognizance of this Court. Secondly, on the above said date, time and place, you accused after committing the said offence, thrown the SIM from the mobile of deceased, and took all the gold jewelery on dead body to cause evidence of the said offence to disappear with an intention of screening from legal punishment and thereby committed an offence u/s 201 of IPC., and within the cognizance of this Court. And I hereby direct that you be tried of the said charge by this Court. Dated: 18.1.2013 Sd/- Addl. Sessions Judge, Shivammogga.” 34. The Trial Court thereafter framed the following points for consideration in the course of rendering the judgment in question. “9. The following points for consideration arose; (1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that on 02.03.2012 in between 5.30 p.m., and 6.30 p.m., in Sy.No.90 at Balur village, Shikaripura tq., the accused assaulted deceased Chandrakala with stone, made her unconscious and thereafter throttled her by which she died of asphyxia and thereby accused had committed offence punishable u/s 302 IPC? (2) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that on the above said date, time and place, the accused after committing murder of deceased Chandrakala, thrown the SIM of Mobile belonging to the deceased and took away the gold jewelry on the dead body and caused disappearance of evidence with an intention to screen the punishment and thereby committed offence u/s 201 of IPC? (3) What order?” 35. Findings: While discussing point No.1, the Trial Court in paragraph Nos.50 and 51 has discussed the medical evidence wherein, the Doctor has stated that the exact cause of death could not be ascertained. Proceeding further in paragraph No.52, the Trial Court has observed as under to conclude that the death is a homicidal death. “52. In this case it is pertinent to note that the deceased was missing and her body was recovered in an Eucalyptus plantation near Balur within the jurisdiction of Shikaripura Rural police station. The PW- 2 Halswamy is the husband, PW-3 Pooja and CW-3 Megharaja are daughter and son of the deceased, who are all residents of Shivamogga along with deceased Chandrakasla. The body of the deceased was found in a suspicious circumstances in the plantation of Balur away in Shikaripura taluk in a decomposed condition. So these aspects proved by the prosecution. So the missing of deceased, finding the dead body away from Shivamogga in Shikaipura taluk in plantation of Balur in a decomposed state, throw light that it is a homicidal death of the deceased.” 36. It is this finding which triggered the alarm bells for us to delve deeper into the medical aspect of the matter and the medical evidence tendered and available on record. 37. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. 38. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that it is a case concocted by the Police and the innocent appellant has been framed in the case. He would contend that the evidence regarding motive is nil. That neither has any witness spoken about the same nor is any other corroborative material placed on record by the prosecution. 38. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that it is a case concocted by the Police and the innocent appellant has been framed in the case. He would contend that the evidence regarding motive is nil. That neither has any witness spoken about the same nor is any other corroborative material placed on record by the prosecution. He would contend that as per the evidence on record i.e., examination-in-chief and cross-examination of PW-2, PW-3 and if read in conjunction with PW-8, the father of the deceased, it gives a clear motive for PW-2, PW-3 and CW-3 to hatch a conspiracy to eliminate the deceased. It is contended that the witnesses have consistently spoken about the quarrel between PW-2 and the deceased on account of the alleged extra-marital affair she maintained with the accused. He would further point-out the statement of PW-2, the husband of the deceased wherein it is stated that the deceased was ready to give up the family for the sake of the accused. He would contend that if these pieces of evidence are appreciated, then the motive alleged against the accused falls to the ground and are being unbelievable. The allegation is that the deceased was moving about with others and the accused on noticing the same, got enraged and plotted to do away with her. He would invite the attention of the Court to the entire materials, evidence, oral and documentary on record to contend that none of the witnesses have spoken about the deceased having a relationship with any others except accused and this single fact by itself belies the prosecution version. He would further contend that if the evidence of PW-2 is appreciated that the accused had already got her a site and had promised to build a house for her, then there was no reason for the deceased to part way with the accused. He would submit these pieces of evidence has been given a go-by and has not been appreciated in its proper perspective. He would contend that if the same was true, it was sufficient reason for the deceased not to move away from the accused and hence, on the above, he would condemn the alleged theory of the death being an act of revenge. 39. In support of his contention, he would invite the attention of the Court to Ex.P-42 being the CDR extract. 39. In support of his contention, he would invite the attention of the Court to Ex.P-42 being the CDR extract. He would submit that though Police have obtained the CDR of the accused, they have deliberately omitted to obtain the CDR of the deceased and he would also draw the attention of the Court to the admission by the Investigating Officer that the subscriber of the said sim number is a different person by name called Mallika and that though aware, he has not obtained the records pertaining to the said subscriber from the service provider. Elaborating further, he would contend that the Trial Court erred in wishing away the delay in lodging the complaint. He would submit that the conduct of the complainant and his children is unnatural. He would invite the attention of the Court to the deposition of PW-2 and point-out that in one breath, he would state that the wife had informed him that she is going to attend a relative’s marriage and thereafter, in the same breath, he would state that she had gone to a relative’s house. He would also point out the absence as to the details of the persons with whom they enquired about the deceased and also the absence of any particulars of the relatives with whom the deceased had spent time earlier. He would also point-out the blatant lie stated by PWs – 2 and 3, the father and daughter, who in the examination-inchief, have stated that the complainant – PW-2 arrived at Shivamogga on the morning of 02.03.2012 whereas in the cross-examination, it has been successfully elicited that PW- 2 was residing in Shivamogga since 2011. He would submit that the Court failed to appreciate this crucial admission. He would further submit that the witnesses have been arranged after obtaining the call records. He would submit that even as per the call records, call from the other number had emanated from Nagavanda, the native village of the accused. He would further contend that the omission to produce the call records or the Certificate is deliberate. 40. Nextly, he would contend that there is absolutely no material to demonstrate that the gold jewelry belonged to the deceased. The entire evidence would clearly show that they are not persons with means. He would further contend that the omission to produce the call records or the Certificate is deliberate. 40. Nextly, he would contend that there is absolutely no material to demonstrate that the gold jewelry belonged to the deceased. The entire evidence would clearly show that they are not persons with means. Even as on the date of evidence, it has been admitted by PW-2 that he was working as a daily wage labourer and the son CW-3 had to discontinue his studies on account of financial constraints. 41. Nextly, he would contend that the presence of PW-4 is highly unbelievable and the fact that CW-6 Ravindra, who is said to have been the cause for PW-4 being in Shikaripura not being examined, creates a doubt regarding the credit worthiness of PW-4’s version. 42. Learned counsel would vehemently argue that the Court erred in rendering a finding of homicidal death in the absence of any credible evidence. He would submit that the medical evidence does not point to the homicidal death and he would contend that every unnatural death cannot be termed as a homicidal death. He would also point-out the attempt of the Police Officer to create an alternate theory of assault with the help of MO-22. He would contend that if the said stone was used, even with a reasonable force, it would crack the skull open. But the evidence does not reflect any such fracture or crack and hence, the attempt of the Investigating Officer to introduce MO-22 as an object used as a weapon has to be condemned. With regard to the ornaments seized, MO-3 - golden chain, he would submit that even as per the evidence available on record, neither the complainant, the deceased nor her parents or siblings were persons of any means. He would submit that the deceased was unemployed. Her husband PW-2, the complainant was working as a daily wage labourer and the father was again not a person of means and that her brother was working as a lorry driver. He would submit that the Trial Court erred in ignoring Ex.D-6 photograph, wherein PW-11, the wife of accused is featured wearing gold mangalya sara. He would submit that on the contrary, the accused was having a progressive business of carpentry and was a man of means. He would submit that the Trial Court erred in ignoring Ex.D-6 photograph, wherein PW-11, the wife of accused is featured wearing gold mangalya sara. He would submit that on the contrary, the accused was having a progressive business of carpentry and was a man of means. He would also contend that the evidence of PW-4 is an interested witness and it is acknowledged by the said witness himself in the course of cross-examination wherein, he admits that he lives hardly 200 feet away from the residence of PW-8 and the learned counsel for the appellant would pray that the judgment and order of sentence of the Trial Court be set-aside, the appeal be allowed and the appellant be acquitted of the charges. 43. Per contra, learned HCGP would vehemently oppose the prayer and would contend that the judgment of the trial Court is supported by cogent reasoning and does not call for any interference and prays for dismissal of the appeal. 44. APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE Apparently, this is a case where the prosecution has attempted to prove the guilt of the accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence as admittedly, there is no ocular witness to the commission of the crime. PW-13 is admittedly the Doctor, who conducted the Autopsy on the body of the deceased Chandrakala and authored Ex.P-26, the Post-Mortem Report. In paragraph No.3, she has deposed regarding brownish discolouration on the right side of the neck. Proceeding further, she has stated, ‘it may be ante mortem sign’. Neither the deposition nor Ex.P-26, Post Mortem Report, speak of a ‘contusion or a ligature’ mark on the neck. She has fairly submitted that the FSL with regard to the aspect of any poisonous substance having been administered to the deceased, has been answered in the negative. In paragraph No.4, it is deposed, ‘the accurate cause of death could not be ascertain. But the death due to strangulation could not be ruled out’. In paragraph No.5, she speaks about the opinion rendered with regard to MO 22 (rough stone) rendering a person unconscious if assaulted by it. In paragraph No.8 of the cross-examination, she admits decomposition of the body and further admits as under:- ‘neck muscles had decomposed. But the death due to strangulation could not be ruled out’. In paragraph No.5, she speaks about the opinion rendered with regard to MO 22 (rough stone) rendering a person unconscious if assaulted by it. In paragraph No.8 of the cross-examination, she admits decomposition of the body and further admits as under:- ‘neck muscles had decomposed. I am not sure whether there was any injury on the head of the deceased as the same could not be made out due to decomposition.’ In paragraph No.9, she has opined that, ‘if a person it’s (hits) the another with MO-22 with force I predict there should be fissure fracture’. By the said affirmative opinion, she has virtually ruled out the alternate theory projected by the prosecution that the deceased was assaulted with a stone. Proceeding further, she has deposed, ‘I have only doubted the manner of death by strangulation’. Thereby implying that it is a doubt entertained by her and not a finding supported by facts discovered by her. In paragraph No.10, it is deposed that, ‘I have found hyoid bone in the neck of the deceased. It was not damaged.’ 45. We have closely examined Ex.P-25, the Inquest Report. In Column No.7, it is stated that they have observed a hole, the size equivalent to 1/4th of a shirt button but on examination does not disclose any such external injury. The body was admittedly lying in the plantation hence, the tiny hole could have been caused by the pecking of any carnivorous bird like the crow. Be that as it may, the failure to note it in the PM Report if read in conjunction with the deposition of PW-13, leaves no doubt that the said aspect is not of very great significance to determine the fact as to whether the death is homicidal or not. While examining Ex.P-25, more particularly, Column No.1 of the PM Report, it was noted that the body is fully decomposed and is infested with maggots and shows ‘adipocerous changes’. We have addressed ourselves to the said aspect. We have referred to Chapter XI titled as ‘Death and changes after death’ from the Book - Principles of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology by Dr. Rajesh Bardale. At page 179 of the book, Adipocere is discussed under different headings like features, mechanism, requirements, factors, medico legal importance. We have addressed ourselves to the said aspect. We have referred to Chapter XI titled as ‘Death and changes after death’ from the Book - Principles of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology by Dr. Rajesh Bardale. At page 179 of the book, Adipocere is discussed under different headings like features, mechanism, requirements, factors, medico legal importance. The same is extracted below for the sake of convenience:- “Definition : Adipocere is modified form of decomposition characterized by formation of soft and waxy material in the dead body. Features (Figs. 11.74 to 11.78) Adipocere, when fresh, is peculiar, hard, moist, whitish, and translucent. It is inflammable and burns with a faint-yellow flame. Adipocere floats in water and dissolves in alcohol and ether. Adipocere has rancid smell. Some authorities describe the smell being “earthy, cheesy, and ammoniacal”. Adipocere, once formed, appears stable for considerable period. Gram-positive bacteria are able to degrade the adipocere. After some years, adipocere becomes brittle, cracked, and chalky. Adipocere is usually first seen in the subcutaneous fat of the cheeks, the breasts, the abdomen, and then other organs and tissues. It usually takes about 3 weeks for adipocere to develop completely, however, in India, Dr Coull Mackenzie found it occurring within 3-15 days in bodies submerged in Hooghly river or buried in damp soil of lower Bengal. Dr Modi had also observed adipocere formation in 7-35 days. The present author noted complete adipocere formation in 3-5 days in bodies submerged in Krishna river. Adipocere preserved the features; therefore, identity of the deceased can be made out. Similarly it preserves wounds, if present over body thus help in elucidating cause of death. According to Evans (1962), some diseases could be recognized on microscopic examination of adipocere tissue in a few instances. Mechanism (Fig. 11.79) Unsaturated fatty acids of body are converted into saturated fatty acids by the process of hydrolysis and hydrogenation. In adipocere, there is hydrogenation of unsaturated body fat into peculiar, hard, yellowish-white, and waxy saturated fatty acids. The process of adipocere formation begins in neutral fat (i.e., adipose) and is intiated by intrinsic lipases, which degrades the triglycerides into fatty acids. The fatty acids are hydrolyzed and hydrogenated into hydroxyl-fatty acids. Thus adipocere consists mainly of saturated fatty acids such as hydroxypalmitic, oleic, hydroxystearic acid. The process is facilitated by degrading anaerobic bactera such as Clostridium welchii. The Clostridium welchii secrets toxin containing lecithinase, proteases, and phospholipases. The fatty acids are hydrolyzed and hydrogenated into hydroxyl-fatty acids. Thus adipocere consists mainly of saturated fatty acids such as hydroxypalmitic, oleic, hydroxystearic acid. The process is facilitated by degrading anaerobic bactera such as Clostridium welchii. The Clostridium welchii secrets toxin containing lecithinase, proteases, and phospholipases. The bacterial action creates ammoniarich waste that contributes to forming an alkaline environment. At the time of death, body contains about half percent fatty acids, but as adipocere formation begins the body fat rose to 20% within a month and over 70% in 3 months. Initially the water required for the process is obtained from the body tissue (intrinsic water). Requirements Following are the requirements for formation of adipocere. Moist or aquatic environment Warm temperature Intrinsic bacterial enzymatic action Adipose tissue Factors The formation of adipocere depends on multiple factors such as: Fat in body (fat cells) Hydrolysis Firmer fat (unsaturated fatty acid) Hydrogenation Saturated fatty acids Adipocere Fig. 11.79: Mechanism of adipocere formation. Atmospheric condition: It is said that for formation of adipocere, the intermediate ambient conditions (just right conditions or Goldilocks phenomenon) are required. In other words, tissue will desiccate (mummified) if the conditions are too dry whereas if the conditions are too wet, the body may macerate or possibly liquefy. Temperature: When ambient temperature is too low or too high, no adipocere formation occurs, as the bacteria required for accelerating the process would not be proliferate at such temperature. Therefore, it is estimated that the optimum growth of adipocere occurs at an ambient temperature of 21-45°C. Moisture: Moisture or water is necessary for the process of adipocere formation. Initially body fluid is used for initiating the process, but for completion of the adipocere, presence of moisture or water is necessary in the environment. Air movement: Retards the process because the air movements evaporate the body fluid and decrease the body temperature thus retarding the chemical process. Place and media of disposal: More frequently occur in body submerged in water or buried in damp place. If buried, deep burial shows marked adipocere formation than shallow grave. Humid climate favors adipocere formation Soil: In burial environment, the pH of soil, temperature, moisture, and the oxygen content within the grave affects adipocere formation. Clothing: Presence of clothing over the body appears to accelerate adipocere formation since it retains water. If buried, deep burial shows marked adipocere formation than shallow grave. Humid climate favors adipocere formation Soil: In burial environment, the pH of soil, temperature, moisture, and the oxygen content within the grave affects adipocere formation. Clothing: Presence of clothing over the body appears to accelerate adipocere formation since it retains water. Coffin: If the body is buried within coffin, the coffin will retard the rate of adipocere formation. Water: Adipocere forms well in warm water than cold water. Medicolegal Importance Sign of death Time since death can be estimated Identification of the body can be possible as features are reasonably preserved Injuries can be make out thus helping in forming a cause of death Place of disposal can be known.” 46. We have closely examined the material under the heading ‘requirement and factors’. Two of the requirements amongst others are, a moist or aquatic environment and warm temperature. This is complimented by the description of temperature and moisture for formation of adipocere and place and media of disposal. The relevance of these factors is detailed under the heading ‘medico legal importance’ (supra). It is detailed that it aids the doctor conducting the autopsy to ascertain sign of death, time since death and injuries can be made out, thus helping in forming an opinion regarding cause of death and importantly place of disposal can also be known/identified. 47. If the findings relating to adipocere in PM Report are appreciated in the background of the requirements for formation of adipocere in the body and the medico legal importance, then it raises a doubt with regard to the place of commission or the place as to where the body was found. The author clearly denotes the advantages available to the doctor conducting the Post Mortem under the head of medico legal importance. From a reading of the contents under the headings, requirements and factors, it is apparent that moisture is a mandatory component for formation of adipocere. The evidence on record, even as per PW-1 the constable who first noticed the body and PW-19, the Investigating Officer nor the spot mahazar panchas, nowhere state that the body was found in damp conditions. On the other hand, PW-13 has clearly stated that it was the onset of summer and the evidence on record reveals that the body was found covered and surrounded with dry leaves. On the other hand, PW-13 has clearly stated that it was the onset of summer and the evidence on record reveals that the body was found covered and surrounded with dry leaves. If this be the evidence, it clearly leads to a doubt as to whether the offence was committed, assuming one has been committed, at the place where the body was found or as to whether the body was transported from elsewhere to the place of its discovery. Another aspect which compounds and adds grist to the confusion is the version of PW-1. He has deposed that he went to the place to investigate the information regarding gambling taking place in the said area and in the process, he discovered the body. Admittedly, gambling is a non-cognizable offence. Neither the complaint registered in this regard nor the receipt of information has been recorded in the Station House Diary. In the cross-examination of PW-1, this has been pointedly put to him. Though he states that it has been recorded in the Station House Diary, the same has not been placed before the Court. 48. Nextly, we have examined the medical evidence regarding the alleged palmer strangulation (throttling). In the Post Mortem Report, it is recorded that layer by layer dissection of the neck shows brownish discolouration on the right side of the neck and that the same could be an ante mortem contusion. The opinion is not definitive. In this regard, we have yet again revisited the aforesaid Book and more particularly, Chapter XIV, which deals with mechanical injury, in which the author has dealt with the aspect of contusion at page No.215. The synonym of contusion is described as bruise and contusion is defined as ‘a contusion is an extra vasation or collection of blood due to rupture of blood vessels caused by application of mechanical force of blunt nature without loss of continuity of tissues.’ The Chapter further details ten types of contusions. One of the headings relates to age of contusion (commencing from page No.218). The contents of table 14.3 pertaining to age of contusion is extracted below for the sake of convenience:- Table 14.3: Age of contusion. One of the headings relates to age of contusion (commencing from page No.218). The contents of table 14.3 pertaining to age of contusion is extracted below for the sake of convenience:- Table 14.3: Age of contusion. Age Changes Caused by Fresh Red Fresh extravasation of blood 1-3 days Bluish Deoxyhemoglobin 4 days Bluish black to brown Hemosiderin pigment 5-6 days Greenish Hematoidin pigments 7-12 days Yellow Bilirubin pigments 2 weeks Complete disappearance of contusion -- 49. A reading of the above table, indicates that the colour of the contusion changes to brown after four days and after the fifth or on the sixth day, it changes to greenish and after the seventh day, it turns yellow. The time since death on the date of performing autopsy has been recorded as 8 to 10 days. The other evidence on record is also suggestive of the same. The complainant states that the deceased went missing from 02.03.2012 and the body was found on 10.03.2012 and the autopsy was conducted on 11.03.2012. Thus, the body was found after eight days after the deceased disappeared and autopsy was conducted on the ninth day i.e., 11.03.2012. If that be so, then the colour of the contusion could not have been brownish in colour. Even as per the evidence of PW-13, the body was fully decomposed and full of maggots. Despite the same, there is no reference to any histo pathological test of the neck skin. A histo pathological investigation would have revealed as to whether the same is a contusion or not. The above discussion undoubtedly casts a cloud on the medical evidence on record. Apparently, in the instant case, no external injury has been noticed during the Post Mortem. Even the Inquest Report speaks of a hole on the forehead which is one quarter the size of a shirt button. It does not state whether it is skin deep or bone deep. As per the version of the prosecution, the body was found after eight days of the victim disappearing and it was lying in a plantation. The possibility of any carnivorous bird having pecked the forehead cannot be ruled out. The size of the hole is too tiny to lend any credence to the theory of it being caused by MO-22, a stone which weighs in excess of 3 kgs. The possibility of any carnivorous bird having pecked the forehead cannot be ruled out. The size of the hole is too tiny to lend any credence to the theory of it being caused by MO-22, a stone which weighs in excess of 3 kgs. Further, as rightly observed by PW-13, the Doctor, any assault with the stone would have caused a fissure fracture. Admittedly, no fracture of the skull is discovered and no injury attributable to any dangerous weapon is also found. If that be so, then the only alleged cause of death sponsored by the prosecution and accepted by the Court is throttling. We yet again revisit Dr. Rajesh Bardale’s Book. Chapter XX deals with Asphyxia at page No.351, the differences between hanging and strangulation has been detailed in table 20.4, which read as under:- Table 20.4: Differences between hanging and strangulation. Features Hanging Strangulation Manner Usually suicidal Usually homicidal Saliva Dribbling from mouth over chin or chest No such dribbling Ligature mark Oblique, non-continuous, usually above the level of thyroid cartilage Horizontal, continuous, usually at or below the level of thyroid cartilage Tissue underneath mark Dry, pale, hard, and glistening Bruised Neck muscle Injury to neck muscle rare Injury to neck muscle common Neck Stretched and elongated Not so Larynx and trachea Injury/fracture rare Injury/fracture more common Bleeding From nose, mouth, From nose, mouth 50. In page No.352, strangulation is defined as under:- “Strangulation is a form of violent asphyxial death caused by constricting the neck by means of ligature or by any other means without suspending the body. In strangulation, the constriction force is other than the weight of victim’s body (that is to say the force is exogenous. (Fig.20.41) There is application of external force, such as compression of neck by hands, by rope, by belt, by stick, etc.” 51. Types of strangulation is detailed in page No.352 as under:- “A. Strangulation deaths are classified on the basis of means used to constrict the neck and are of following types. 1. Ligature strangulation. 2. Manual strangulation or throttling 3. Mugging 4 Bansdola 5. Garroting 6. Palmar strangulation B. Depending on manner of death, strangulation is classified as: 1. Homicidal strangulation. 2. Acidental strangulation.” 52. Serial No.2 refers to manual strangulation and throttling and Serial No.6 refers to palmar strangulation indicating thereby there are two different methods of strangulation resulting in violent asphyxial death. 2. Manual strangulation or throttling 3. Mugging 4 Bansdola 5. Garroting 6. Palmar strangulation B. Depending on manner of death, strangulation is classified as: 1. Homicidal strangulation. 2. Acidental strangulation.” 52. Serial No.2 refers to manual strangulation and throttling and Serial No.6 refers to palmar strangulation indicating thereby there are two different methods of strangulation resulting in violent asphyxial death. At page No.355, throttling (manual strangulation) is defined as under:- “It is violent asphyxial death produced by compression of neck manually, i.e., by using human hands. The neck is compressed by using hands. Either one hand or both hands may be used to throttle a person.” 53. The commentary based on findings in page No.355 also details the tell-tale signs that appear in the case of throttling. The same are detailed in pages No.355, 356 and 357. One of the findings is the fracture of hyoid bone is common in manual strangulation. The palmar strangulation is described at page No.358 and is reproduced herein below:- “In this type, palm of one hand is placed horizontally across the mouth and nostrils and then reinforced the pressure by placing the other hand on the top of first hand at right angle to the other. Here, the heel of palm of upper hand presses the front of neck.” 54. The book mandates the use of bare hands on the neck of the victim in a case of throttling i.e., compressing the neck with one or two hands. In the case of palmar strangulation, it is stated that asphyxia is caused by placing a single palm across the mouth and nostrils of the victim and reinforcing it by placing the other hand on the top of the first hand. Thus, the manner of the commission of the two methods of strangulation is apparently different. PW- 13, the doctor has not been able to categorically state as to whether it is throttling or palmar strangulation and fairly admits that the exact cause of death cannot be ascertained and that she has only stated that it cannot be ruled out. In our opinion, such quixotical answers is not expected of experts. PW- 13, the doctor has not been able to categorically state as to whether it is throttling or palmar strangulation and fairly admits that the exact cause of death cannot be ascertained and that she has only stated that it cannot be ruled out. In our opinion, such quixotical answers is not expected of experts. The duty of an expert is to find and state facts, which corroborate the commission of an act by the accused and they are required to remain true to the oath administered to them in the Court and not to the Hippocrates oath administered to them as a Doctor. They are required to assist the Court by detailing facts and should desist from expressing quixotic, hypothetical, intuitive opinions. Such an approach is the requirement of law, more so, in the cases of instant nature. 55. The autopsy findings if appreciated in the background of the material collated by the author, it nowhere supports the opinion expressed by PW-13. That throttling or palmar strangulation cannot be ruled out. The charge is that the accused has throttled the victim to death. If it was a case of throttling, it would have taken atleast a minute or little lesser time for the victim to collapse or the life to ebb away and in that time, the victim would have definitely struggled resulting in marks on the ground. In the case on hand, neither the spot mahazar not the witnesses depose to having noticed any struggle marks on the ground. This is one other factor why this Court doubts the version of PW-1 and PW-19 that the place where the body was found is the place where the crime was committed. It is not the case that the place of crime has been disturbed by a man or an animal. 56. If the above discussion and the evidences of PW- 13 and Exs.P-25 and 26 are appreciated in conjunction, it leaves us with no option but to conclude that the finding of homicidal death by the Trial Court is absolutely baseless, more so, in the background of the fact that there is no ocular evidence to the alleged act. The mere fact that the body was found in an unusual circumstance or in an unusual place cannot be foundational to render a finding of homicidal death. 57. The mere fact that the body was found in an unusual circumstance or in an unusual place cannot be foundational to render a finding of homicidal death. 57. Section 1 Chapter XI of the above Book classifies death under two heads i.e., natural and unnatural and unnatural death is further described as occurring in three ways i.e., accident, suicide and homicide (page No.156). Thus, mere occasioning of death is not suffice for the Trial Court to draw a presumption that it is homicidal death. Unless and until, the death is a homicidal death, the charge under Section 302 of IPC, cannot be sustained. In that view, if the prosecution is unable to demonstrate the case of homicidal death on the basis of medical evidence and there being no other evidence pointing to the same, it should have automatically led to the acquittal of the accused. To state the least, the findings in paragraph Nos.50, 51 and 52, is vitiated by perversity. The mere fact that the body was discovered in an unusual place cannot be the basis to draw a presumption of homicidal death. In our considered opinion, the Trial Court, having acknowledged the doubt expressed by the Expert/Doctor regarding the actual cause of death and the doctor having not categorically certified the cause of death nor having placed any material in support of the doubt expressed by her and the prosecution also not having placed any material, the Trial Court should have been very slow in concluding to the contra. Even more shocking is the observation in paragraph No.53, wherein the Court has stated that, in its opinion, it is a case of murder. Whether it is a murder or not is a fact to be proved by the prosecution. In the absence of such proof, it is not open to the Court to draw such conclusion on the basis of conjunctures, inferences, etc. We say so in view of the enormity of the consequences following such a finding. 58. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the finding of homicidal death rendered by the Trial Court is vitiated by perversity and the appreciation of evidence is contrary to law established in this regard. The Trial Court erred in placing reliance on Ex.P-25 and erred even further that the hole was quarter inch in size. The Trial Court erred in placing reliance on Ex.P-25 and erred even further that the hole was quarter inch in size. The description is that the hole was the size of one quarter of the size of shirt button. There is no description in the Inquest as to whether it has penetrated the skull or not and this is further compounded by the lack of such finding in Ex.P-26 the PM Report. The finding in paragraph Nos.53 and 54, are clearly negated by the findings in Column No.2 of the PM Report, which states that the skull is intact. This clearly negates the finding rendered by the Trial Court. The findings being baseless and are accordingly set-aside. We are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to place any material to demonstrate its case. 59. That apart from the above finding negating the finding of homicidal death we are also alarmed by the approach adopted by the trial Court. Despite several links missing in the chain of circumstances and the apparent lapses in the investigation, which in hind-sight, appears to be deliberate, the Trial Court erred in holding that the prosecution had proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt. 60. Firstly, PW-1 though he says there is a record of the entry about the receipt of information of gambling in the grove in the Station House Diary the same is not produced. Secondly the husband of the deceased in his deposition states that the key to the house was handed over to him at 12 noon by his neighbour one Sangeetha was not been examined. The statement if viewed in the background of his earlier statement that his wife was at home and his son was sleeping when he left. If that be the evidence then it was imperative that the said Sangeetha ought to have been examined as she would have been the last person to see the deceased alive while leaving home. She could have thrown light whether the deceased left alone or in the company of anybody or whether she was wearing all the jewels etc., In the event the key was handed over by the son then the son was the person who would have last seen the deceased at home. 61. Nextly is the omission to examine CW-9 Basavarajappa. The role of Basavarajappa in arranging the panchas is acknowledged by the panchas themselves. 61. Nextly is the omission to examine CW-9 Basavarajappa. The role of Basavarajappa in arranging the panchas is acknowledged by the panchas themselves. The role of Basavarajappa in interacting with the Shikaripura police is acknowledged by PW-s.2, 3, 4, 6 and 8 and PW-14. Further it is this witness, CW.9, who is said to have first confirmed the death of the victim, to PWs-2 and 8. 62. Nextly, the failure to examine CW-6 Ravindra is critical. The last seen theory is sought to be canvassed through PW-4 one Shivalingappa. In his entire deposition PW-4 refers to the presence of CW-6 along with. It is the case of PW-4 that he is the resident of Dhoopadahalli about 20-30 kms away and he was picked up by CW-6, the said Raveendra on his motorbike and that he spent the entire day till about 9 p.m. in the night with the said Raveendra and that he traveled from his native Dhoopadahalli to Shikaripura with the said CW-6 Raveendra’s motorcycle and that he saw the accused and the deceased together in the petrol bunk while CW-6 Raveendra was also filling petrol for his bike. Despite the said total reliance by PW-4 the prosecution has conspicuously omitted to examine CW-6 though he has been listed as a witness. The omission to have him examined before the court is rather surprising. The evidence of PW-4 has been strongly relied upon by the court to uphold the last seen theory. In turn the circumstances upon which the evidence of PW-4 is founded is that of CW-6 having been brought him to Shikaripura on his bike. A detailed perusal of the evidence does not reveal as to whether the said Raveendra possesses a motorcycle/vehicle or not. Neither is the number of the motor vehicle furnished by CW-6 or even by PW-4. There is also no other corroborative material placed by the prosecution to demonstrate the presence of PW-4 in Shikaripura. The presence of PW-4 is doubted as he has stated that he was brought to Shikaripura by CW-6. The failure to examine CW-6 if viewed in the background of PWs-7 and 8 turning hostile certainly raises a serious doubt on the veracity of the stand taken by PW-4. The presence of PW-4 is doubted as he has stated that he was brought to Shikaripura by CW-6. The failure to examine CW-6 if viewed in the background of PWs-7 and 8 turning hostile certainly raises a serious doubt on the veracity of the stand taken by PW-4. In fact in the examination in chief he would state that he saw both the deceased and the accused in the petrol bunk, but in the course of cross examination he would state that he and Raveendra/CW-6 were standing near Kiran Talkies when they saw the accused filling petrol to his motorcycle. That apart he has also been confronted with his statement before the police wherein he has stated to having met PW-5 and having narrated the incident which is denied in the examination in chief. The said portion is marked as Ex-D4. The absence of CW-6 is crucial as the entire statement of PW-4 is woven round the presence of CW-6 and he being in Shikaripura on account of CW-6. 63. That apart the trial court seriously erred in accepting the version of the PW-2 that the jewelry belongs to his wife more particularly MO-3. Despite EX.P-6 and 6(a) being photographs of the wife of the accused taken about five years wherein she is pictured along with MO-3. The trial Court has taken the statement of PW-2 at face value that he had purchased it while they were residing at Shikaripura which relates back to the period between 1992 to 2000. In the cross examination PW-2 has admitted that he was earning Rs.700/- to Rs.800/- per month and that his wife(deceased) was unemployed and his earnings were barely sufficient to meet the needs of the family. If that be so, no explanation is forthcoming as to how he or the deceased were able to purchase jewelry worth atleast a couple of lakhs of rupees. If that be so, no explanation is forthcoming as to how he or the deceased were able to purchase jewelry worth atleast a couple of lakhs of rupees. On the other hand the accused is shown as a man of means owning a house, a motorcycle and other necessities compared to the same, even as per PW-2 the husband of the deceased, they were paying a meager sum of Rs.1,200/- by way of rent even in 2008-09 and that the deceased was not working when she was returned back to Shivamogga and that it is also his evidence that his earnings as watchman and the earnings of his wife on account of her employment with a garment factory were just enough to meet their needs in Bengaluru. There being no evidence regarding either the deceased or PW-2 having accumulated any savings the trial court could not have blindly accepted the uncorroborated version of PW-2. The manner in which the evidence has been appreciated by the trial court is not mildly shocking. The Courts ought to bear in mind that they are dealing with the right to life and liberty of a citizen which is a precocious right enshrined and guaranteed by the Constitution of Indian in Article 21 and being a fundamental right assured to the citizen it cannot be trifiled with. The manner and method of appreciation of the evidence, as has been done in the instant case is a cause for concern. The evidence of PW-4 not being trustworthy the trial Court should have granted the benefit of doubt to the accused. The evidence of PW-4 is full of omissions, contradictions and improvement, we consider it not trustworthy. 64. Conclusion: In the result, we pass the following order:- (i) The criminal appeal is allowed. (ii) The judgment and order dated 04/08.02.2016 passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge at Shivamogga in Sessions Case No.95/2012 convicting and sentencing the appellant is set aside. (iii) The appellant is directed to be set at liberty if he is not required in any other case.