JUDGMENT : The State has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 01.02.2016 passed in S.C. No. No. 42/2011 by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 302, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC. 2. Heard Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, learned HCGP appearing for the appellant – State and Sri. B.S. Prasad, learned counsel for respondents – accused Nos. 1 to 3. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 25.10.2010 around 09.55 pm in Hookadu Paisary situated at Kaggodlu village accused Nos. 1 to 3 have conspired to kill Nachappa, brother of accused No. 1 since there was land dispute between accused Nos. 1 and 2 and Nachappa. In pursuance of the said conspiracy the accused persons were waiting for Nachappa and when he was proceeding towards his house by walk, accused No. 1 took the gun belonging to accused No. 2 and fired gun shot two times and when he escaped, accused Nos. 1 and 3 chased him and accused No. 1 fired gun shot two times and made Nachappa to fall into a pit. The accused persons crushed the face of Nachappa with stone and accused No. 1 fired gun shot two times at the chest and committed his murder. In order to screen from legal punishment, the accused persons transported the dead body inside the estate and covered with leaves. One Sri. P.P. Ramesh lodged a Police complaint and on the strength of the said complaint, a case was registered in Madikeri Rural Police Station in Crime No. 238/2010 for the aforesaid offences and FIR was sent to the jurisdictional Magistrate. After completion of investigation the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet against accused Nos. 1 to 3. Charges came to be framed for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 302, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC. The accused Nos. 1 to 3 pleaded not guilty of the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined in all 13 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.13 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.26 and M.O.1 to M.O.40. The statement of accused Nos. 1 to 3 as required under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. came to be recorded whereunder accused Nos. 1 to 3 denied all the incriminating evidence against them. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined in all 13 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.13 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.26 and M.O.1 to M.O.40. The statement of accused Nos. 1 to 3 as required under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. came to be recorded whereunder accused Nos. 1 to 3 denied all the incriminating evidence against them. The accused did not choose to lead any evidence but only got marked Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.4. Learned Sessions Judge after hearing arguments on both the sides and framing points for consideration has passed the impugned judgment dated 01.02.2016 acquitting the accused Nos. 1 to 3 of the charges leveled against them. The State has preferred the present appeal challenging the said Judgment of acquittal. 4. Learned HCGP appearing for the State would contend that the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge is illegal and perverse and evidence on record was not appreciated in proper perspective. It is her further submission that the case of prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence and the trial court has not properly considered the evidence of P.W.1 – complainant, experts P.W.11 to P.W.13 and official witnesses P.W.9 and P.W.10 in right perspective. Recovery of incriminating articles under mahazar has been proved satisfactorily by the prosecution by examining the Investigating Officer even though the panchas have turned hostile. The trial Court has not properly considered the recovery of incriminating articles made at the instance of the accused based on their voluntary statement. The learned Sessions Judge has failed to take into consideration the fact that the accused have not explained how their clothes seized under mahazar based on their voluntary statement were found to be stained with `O’ group blood alleged to be the blood group of the deceased Nachappa. The learned Sessions Judge has completely overlooked the evidence of P.W.13. In his evidence P.W.13 has stated about the SBBL gun recovered at the instance of accused No. 2 on his voluntary statement and also about deformed lead pellets sent to him for his examination and opinion. The learned Sessions Judge has not considered properly the evidence of P.W.12 who gave opinion as per Ex.P.18 regarding chance finger print of accused No. 1 found on SBBL gun used in the incident and record at Ex.P.24. The learned Sessions Judge has not considered properly the evidence of P.W.12 who gave opinion as per Ex.P.18 regarding chance finger print of accused No. 1 found on SBBL gun used in the incident and record at Ex.P.24. Learned Sessions Judge has failed to draw proper inference from the circumstantial material and evidence on record and those drawn are adverse. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/accused Nos. 1 to 3 would contend that as the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence it is for the prosecution to prove motive and each of the circumstances pointing out the guilt of the accused and the prosecution has failed to prove the motive for the commission of the offence by the respondents/accused Nos. 1 to 3 and the circumstances proved will not form a complete chain so as to point out the guilt of the respondents/accused Nos. 1 to 3 and the prosecution has failed to prove the recovery at the instance of the respondents/accused Nos. 1 to 3 under mahazars since P.W.3 and P.W.6 who are panchas have not supported the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. Those mahazars are at Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.10. Even the prosecution has failed to prove the drawing of inquest mahazar as per Ex.P.2 for which the very said panchas are examined to prove the same who have turned hostile. It is his further submission that P.W.4 – wife of the deceased and P.W.5 – brother of P.W.4 are residing in some other village as there was dispute between P.W.4 – Shashikala and her husband deceased – Nachappa and she had no contact with the deceased – Nachappa since last 1-½ years. It is his further submission that there is a delay in handing over the FIR to the jurisdictional Magistrate and the delay has not been properly explained. It is his further submission that Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.4 are records pertaining to the criminal cases registered by the deceased – Nachappa against different persons and the deceased – Nachappa had enemies as he is a quarrelsome person which creates a doubt regarding the involvement of the respondents/accused Nos. 1 to 3 in the commission of the murder of deceased – Nachappa. The prosecution has failed to establish that there was dispute between accused Nos. 1 to 3 in the commission of the murder of deceased – Nachappa. The prosecution has failed to establish that there was dispute between accused Nos. 1 and 2 and their brother deceased – Nachappa with regard to property which is the alleged motive for commission of the offence. The evidence of P.W.11 to P.W.13 who are official witnesses does not conclusively establish the circumstances to prove the guilt of the respondents/accused Nos. 1 to 3. Learned Sessions Judge, on appreciation of the evidence on record, has rightly came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of respondents/accused Nos. 1 to 3 beyond all reasonable doubt and rightly acquitted the accused of the charges leveled against them. There are no grounds for interfering with the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge. With this he prayed to dismiss the appeal. 6. We have consciously considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the records. 7. The case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. If the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence then the prosecution has to establish the motive for commission of the offence. In the case on hand the alleged motive for commission of the offence by the respondents/accused Nos. 1 to 3 is that accused Nos. 1 and 2 being the brothers of deceased – Nachappa had dispute with regard to property. P.W.1 being the neighbour of the respondents/accused Nos. 1 to 3 and the deceased – Nachappa, has not deposed anything regarding the property dispute between the respondents/accused Nos. 1 to 3 and the deceased –Nachappa. P.W.4 – wife of deceased has stated that she is staying in her mother’s house along with her son since two years prior to the death of her husband as her husband used to give ill-treatment to her by consuming alcohol. She has not deposed anything regarding the property dispute between accused Nos. 1 and 2 and the deceased. In the cross-examination she has admitted the suggestion that when she was along with deceased, the relationship between the accused persons and the deceased was good. P.W.5 – brother of P.W.4 has also not stated anything regarding the property dispute between the accused Nos. 1 and 2 and the deceased. Except these evidence there is nothing on record to establish that there was property dispute between the accused Nos. P.W.5 – brother of P.W.4 has also not stated anything regarding the property dispute between the accused Nos. 1 and 2 and the deceased. Except these evidence there is nothing on record to establish that there was property dispute between the accused Nos. 1 and 2 and the deceased. 8. P.W.10 – the Police Inspector who conducted part investigation has admitted in his cross-examination that the deceased – Nachappa had registered complaint against Diwakar Rai, also against Gopala, Lokesh and Jaya. The deceased – Nachappa had also filed PCR No. 508/2006 against M.G. Nagesh and it was referred to Madikeri Rural Police Station. He has also admitted the suggestion that the deceased had also filed another PCR No. 221/2008 against Dinesh and others and it was referred to the Police for investigation and the said four documents confronted to P.W.10 which were admitted are at Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.4. The said documents goes to show that the deceased had filed criminal case against several persons they have grudge against the deceased. The said aspect goes to create a doubt in the case of the prosecution with regard to the involvement the respondents/accused Nos. 1 to 3 in the commission of murder of the deceased – Nachappa. 9. The case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. As the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence the prosecution has to prove each and every circumstance so as to form a chain only pointing out the guilt of the accused. The Apex Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra reported in 1984 (4) SCC 116 has dealt with the case pertaining to circumstantial evidence and has laid down five golden principles which constitute the pancha sheela principles in a case based on circumstantial evidence. They are enumerated in paragraph No. 153 which reads as under: 153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned ‘must or should’ and not ‘may be’ established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned ‘must or should’ and not ‘may be’ established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between ‘may be proved’ and “must be or should be proved” as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra” where the following observations were made : [SCC para 19, p.807: SCC (Cri) p.1047] Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.” 10. The learned Sessions Judge has referred to certain decisions on the said point. In Sangili @ Sanganathan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2014 SAR (Crl.) 1205 it is held that in a case relating to circumstantial evidence complete chain of circumstances must be established by the prosecution pointing out to the culpability of the accused person. Chain should be such that no other conclusion except the guilt of the accused person is discernible without any doubt. 11. As per the evidence of P.W.1 he has heard the sound of firing at 09.55 pm on 25.10.2010 and he intimated the same to the Police on the next day over telephone on 26.10.2010 at about 08.30 am. P.W.1 in the cross-examination has admitted that he has a telephone connection to his house. Even though he is a handicapped person he ought to have immediately intimated regarding hearing of the firing sound on that night itself. P.W.1 in the cross-examination has admitted that he has a telephone connection to his house. Even though he is a handicapped person he ought to have immediately intimated regarding hearing of the firing sound on that night itself. On the next day P.W.1 went along with the PSI to the spot from where he heard the sound and after seeing the dead body he filed a complaint as per Ex.P.1 and criminal law was set into motion. Even though the said complaint – Ex.P.1 is filed at 12.30 pm it reached the jurisdictional Magistrate at 05.30 pm as deposed by P.W.7 – Police Constable who carried Ex.P.13 FIR and handed over to the jurisdictional Magistrate. There is a delay in handing over the FIR to the jurisdictional Magistrate. 12. The inquest mahazar drawn over the dead body of the deceased – Nachappa is at Ex.P.2. P.W.3 and P.W.6 are panchas to the said inquest mahazar and they have not supported the case of the prosecution with regard to the drawing of inquest mahazar on the dead body of the deceased person in their presence. Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.10 are the mahazars said to have been drawn in the presence of P.W.3 and P.W.6. The said P.W.3 and P.W.6 have also not supported the case of the prosecution regarding drawing of Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.10 mahazars in their presence. Ex.P.3 is seizure mahazar of swab of accused No. 1; Ex.P.4 is cloth seizure mahazar at the instance of accused; Ex.P.5 is the seizure mahazar of torch and T-shirt and pant of accused No. 1; Ex.P.6 is the seizure of kovi, 3 empty cartridges and 5 live cartridges and license of gun at the instance of accused No. 2; Ex.P.7 is the seizure mahazar of shirt, pant and one torch of accused No. 3 at his instance; Ex.P.8 is scene of offence mahazar wherein M.O.15 to M.O.27 have been seized; Ex.P.9 is seizure of spade (M.O. 28) mahazar at the instance of accused Nos. 2 and 3 and Ex.P.10 is seizure mahazar of gunny bag and banian of deceased - Nahcappa. These mahazars are drawn on the basis of the voluntary statements of accused Nos. 1 to 3 which are at Ex.P.15 to 17 respectively. The prosecution has failed to establish the seizure of M.O.1 to M.O.38 under Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.10 at the instance of accused Nos. 1 to 3. 13. These mahazars are drawn on the basis of the voluntary statements of accused Nos. 1 to 3 which are at Ex.P.15 to 17 respectively. The prosecution has failed to establish the seizure of M.O.1 to M.O.38 under Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.10 at the instance of accused Nos. 1 to 3. 13. P.W.8 is the Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased – Nachappa and postmortem report is at Ex.P.14 and she has opined that the death is due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of gun shot injuries sustained. Apart from gun shot injuries there are other lacerations and contusions over the dead body of the deceased as noted by P.W.8. The clothes of the accused seized at their instance sent to FSL were found to be not blood stained as mentioned in Ex.P.22 – report issued by P.W.11 – Deputy Director, RFSL, Mysuru. The other articles 1 to 3, 5, 10, 12, 13 and 15 to 19 were stained with blood of O group of human body and those articles were of the deceased and also other articles seized at the spot of the incident. P.W.12 is the finger print expert who has issued opinion as per Ex.P.19 along with covering letter Ex.P.20 and he has opined that finger print lifted on the SBBL gun – M.O.6 tallies with the finger print of accused No. 1 sent by the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer has not drawn any mahazar at the time of obtaining the finger print of accused No. 1 or at the time of lifting the finger print impression on M.O.6 – SBBL gun which is mentioned as Q1 in Ex.P.19 – opinion issued by P.W.12. 14. P.W.13 is the Ballistic expert and he has issued report as per Ex.P.21 along with his reasons for opinion at Ex.P.26 who has examined the SBBL gun, 3 spent cartridges, 2 - 12 bore cartridges and 13 deformed led pellets and red coloured piston wad and had opined that SBBL gun bears signs of discharge and it was in working condition at the time of examination and its effective range is 40 yards and pellets and wads in article No.10 are the components of 12 bore cartridge and the same have been fired through the SBBL gun at article 6. Articles 7 and 9 have been fired through the SBBL gun which is at article 6. Articles 7 and 9 have been fired through the SBBL gun which is at article 6. The said evidence of P.W.13 goes to establish that 13 deformed lead pellets and one red coloured plastic piston wad said to have been found in the body of deceased – Nachappa were fired with the SBBL gun. The seizure of SBBL gun at the instance of accused Nos. 1 and 2 and other seizure of 3 spent cartridges and 2 – 12 bore cartridges under mahazar has not been established by the prosecution. All the above aspects goes to show that the prosecution has not established all the circumstances. 15. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Harendra Narain Singh Vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1991 SC 1842 has held that if there are two views possible from the evidence on record, one pointing to the guilt of accused and another to the innocence of accused, then, the view, which is favourable to the accused, is to be accepted and benefit of doubt shall be given to the accused. The learned Sessions Judge placing reliance on the said judgment of the Apex Court has given benefit of doubt to the respondents/accused Nos. 1 to 3. 16. In the case of Ramanand Yadav Vs. Prabhunat Jha reported in 2014 (8) JT 246 (SC): (2003) 12 SCC 606 and in the case of C.K. Dase Gowda and others Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2014 (13) SCC 119 the Apex Court has observed that there is no embargo on the appellate Court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. 17. The paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. 17. Considering all these above aspects we are of the considered opinion that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly held that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the respondents/accused Nos. 1 to 3 beyond all reasonable doubt and rightly extended the benefit of acquittal to respondents/accused Nos. 1 to 3. We do not find any grounds to interfere with the well reasoned Judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge. In the result, the following; ORDER (1) Appeal is dismissed. (2) The judgment of acquittal passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri dated 01.02.2016 in S.C. No. 42/2011 acquitting respondents/accused Nos. 1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 302, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC is confirmed.