JUDGMENT : 1. These two appeals are filed against the judgment and order of sentence passed in SC No. 10/2019 dated 24.02.2020 by the Learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, Sitting at Hubballi, wherein, the learned Sessions Judge, convicted the accused/ appellant for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part I and Section 201 of IPC and sentenced the accused/appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and he shall liable to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- in default of payment of fine, he is further directed to undergo imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part I of IPC. The accused is also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo imprisonment for a period of one year. Learned Sessions judge has further ordered that the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. The factual matrix of the prosecution case in brief are as follows: One Karbasagowda Fakkiragowda Satmara-PW1 had lodged a complaint as per Ex.P.1 before PW-18/CPI of Kundagol Police Station, alleging that, his brothers, namely, Sankanagowda Fakkiragowda Satmara (now deceased in this case) and Devendragowda Fakkiragowda Satmara is examined as PW-8 are residing together. That, his elder brother, deceased Sankanagowda was alcoholic and after consuming the same, he used to commit cruelty to his family members and also to his brothers. Unable to tolerate the same, his wife and elder son were residing in her parental house at Ranathoor, Shirahatti Taluk. It is the further case of the prosecution that, on early morning of 26.08.2018, the deceased’s elder son Sureshgowda Sankanagowda Satmara - appellant/accused came to his house at Kubhihal to celebrate the Rakhi festival with his cousins at about 3:30 pm. While, accused and his brother were sitting at their house, the deceased barged in, by seeing his son (accused), being annoyed, started abusing in vulgar language. By hearing the same, the neighbor i.e. Naganagowda Satmar/PW-6 when rushed to the spot and witnessed that the deceased was abusing his son stating that “why did you come back, you should have been lived with your mother?” by that time, PW-1 intervened and advised the diseased to leave him. By hearing the same, the neighbor i.e. Naganagowda Satmar/PW-6 when rushed to the spot and witnessed that the deceased was abusing his son stating that “why did you come back, you should have been lived with your mother?” by that time, PW-1 intervened and advised the diseased to leave him. For which, the deceased had thrown the wooden stand on the complainant-PW-1 stating that “who is he to advise him?” However, he escaped unhurted. By hearing the same, the appellant/accused annoyed on his father, who was not allowing him to live happily, by causing harassment to him and his mother, picked up a knife form the house and repeatedly stabbed on deceased face, stomach and chest. Due to the same, the deceased collapsed in the house. Though PW-1 and others i.e. the inmates of the house, made an attempt to treat the deceased, he succumbed to the injuries. Hence, PW-1 lodged the complaint before the respondent/Police i.e. before PW-18, and who registered the FIR as per Ex.P.36 in Crime No. 131/2018 dated 26.08.2018 for the offences punishable under Section 302 of IPC. 3. Subsequently, PW-18 conducted the investigation by drawing the spot Mahazar as per Ex.P.3 and conducted the Inquest Panchnama on the dead body of the deceased as per Ex.P.13. Later, he arrested the accused on 31.08.2018 and recorded his voluntary statement and based on the same, recovered the knife which is said to have been used for the commission of the Crime at MO.3. 4. Further, by drawing the various Mahazars and also obtaining the Post-mortem report from the Doctor and also the report from the Scientific Officer and by recording the statements of all the witnesses, he laid the charge-sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC before the committal Court. 5. After committal of the case before the Sessions Court, the learned Sessions Judge framed the charges against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC and read over the same to the accused. However, the accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 6. In order to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences charged against him, the prosecution in total examined 18 witnesses as PWs. 1 to PW-18 and also got marked 47 documents at Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.47 so also got identified 19 material objects at MOs.1 to MO.19. However, the accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 6. In order to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences charged against him, the prosecution in total examined 18 witnesses as PWs. 1 to PW-18 and also got marked 47 documents at Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.47 so also got identified 19 material objects at MOs.1 to MO.19. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the learned Sessions Judge read over the incriminating evidence of the material witness to the accused as contemplated under the provisions of Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused denied the same. However, the accused neither choose to examine any witness on his behalf nor produced any documents. 7. After assessment of the oral and documentary evidence placed before the learned Sessions Court, the learned Sessions Judge framed the following Points for consideration: (1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that due to harassment given by his father Sankanagouda, the Accused and his mother were left their house at Kubihal started residing at his maternal grand father's house at Ranathoor village, Shirahatti Taluk, on 26/8/2018 the accused came to Kubihal village to celebrate Rakhi festival with his cousin sisters but on that day at 3 p.m. when he was watching TV, at that time his father started abusing him, by that time the complainant had told the deceased don't abuse him, he came to celebrate Rakhi Festival, after that he will leave by tomorrow, for which the deceased annoyed on his brother, had thrown the wooden stand, the accused who watching this, infuriated the act of his father, by uttering that “he is the man who is allowed us to live happily, for which Today I will finish him” and with an intention to commit murder, went inside brought the knife stabbed on his father's face, chest and stomach, from this the deceased collapsed, though the Complainant and his brothers attempted to treat the deceased, but succumbed to stab injuries, thereby the committed the offence of murder punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code? (2) Whether the prosecution proves the beyond reasonable doubt that on the above date, time after committing murder, the Complainant and his brother, by not knowing what to do, went to the neighbored house, when they back, they found that. (2) Whether the prosecution proves the beyond reasonable doubt that on the above date, time after committing murder, the Complainant and his brother, by not knowing what to do, went to the neighbored house, when they back, they found that. Accused was not there, but the Accused with an intention to cause the disappearance of evidence of the crime, changed the clothes on the dead body, by keeping cotton on the stomach tied with the Lungi, further washed the bloodstains with the gunny bags, thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 201 IPC? (3) What order? Learned Sessions Judge, answered Point No. 1 partly in the affirmative, Point No. 2 in the affirmative and Point No. 3 as per the final order and convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part I of IPC and sentenced him as stated supra. The said Judgment is challenged under these appeals by the accused as well as the State. The accused preferred Crl. Appeal No. 100190/2020 to set aside the judgment passed in SC No. 10/2019 and to acquit the accused from the charges leveled against him. Whereas the State has preferred Crl. Appeal No. 100527/2021 praying for convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and to modify the judgment and order of sentence dated 24.02.2020 passed in SC No. 10/2019. Since, both these appeals arising out of the same judgment passed in SC No. 10/2019, we have taken up these appeals together for common disposal. 8. Heard the learned counsel Sri. Avinash M. Angadi for the appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 100190/2020 for accused, so also the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor in Crl. Appeal No. 100527/2021 for the State. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contends that the judgment under these appeals suffers from perversity and illegality and the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused only based on surmises and conjectures, without appreciating the evidence deposed by the witnesses. He would further contend that, the learned Sessions Judge has failed to appreciate that all the material witnesses i.e. PWs. 1, 6, 7 and 8 are being the eye-witnesses to the alleged incident, turned hostile to the prosecution case. In spite of the same, learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused only based on Ex.P.10-C.D and FSL Report-Ex.P.47. 10. According to the learned counsel, though the Investigation Officer recorded the statement of PWs. 1, 6, 7 and 8 are being the eye-witnesses to the alleged incident, turned hostile to the prosecution case. In spite of the same, learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused only based on Ex.P.10-C.D and FSL Report-Ex.P.47. 10. According to the learned counsel, though the Investigation Officer recorded the statement of PWs. 1 and 6 under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. before the jurisdictional Magistrate, both these witnesses totally given a go-bye-to the prosecution case, during the course of evidence. As such, those statements cannot be relied for any purpose. He would further contend that though, during the course of recording the statements of PWs. 1 and 6 under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. the Investigation Officer video graphed the same as per Ex.P.10, those witnesses have denied the very contents of the statements and deposed that they made such statements under the coercion of the respondent/Police. In such circumstances, no evidentiary value can be attached for those statements. He would further contend that the complainant who is none-other than the uncle of the accused, so also the brother of the deceased himself denied the contents of Ex.P.1, in his evidence. As such, the prosecution has totally failed to prove the charges leveled against the accused. 11. The learned counsel further contends that the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is nothing but a moral conviction, instead of considering the evidence available on record. In order to buttress his arguments, he relies on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Yankappa S/o Siddaning Hirekurbur vs. State of Karnataka in Crl. Appeal No. 200020/2015 decided on 16.10.2020. Accordingly, he prays to allow the Crl. Appeal No. 100190/2020 and to dismiss the appeal preferred by the State in Crl. Appeal No. 100527/2021. 12. Refuting the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor would vehemently contend that the learned Sessions Judge wrongly convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part I of IPC instead of convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, when ample evidences are available on record. According to the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor, the prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of the accused by placing cogent evidence before the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. According to the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor, the prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of the accused by placing cogent evidence before the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. In spite of that, the learned Sessions Judge, wrongly invoked the exception provision under Section 300 Part I of I.P.C and sentenced the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part I of IPC. 13. According to the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor, though the material witnesses, PWs. 1, 6, 7 and 8 have turned hostile to the prosecution case, their evidence cannot be brushed aside since, PWs. 1 and 6 have tendered their statements as mandated under 164 Cr.P.C. which was video graphed by the Investigation Officer-PW-17 and the C.D. of the same marked under Ex.P.10 before the trial Court. Further, the trial Court also displayed video footages during the course of trial and rightly came to a conclusion that those witnesses have profoundly without duress deposed before the Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. As such, the learned Sessions Judge invoking the provision under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, drawn a presumption in favour of the prosecution and has rightly convicted the accused. Nevertheless, the investigation officer has also obtained the necessary certificates under Section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act from the person who recorded the statements of PWs. 1 and 6 which is marked at Ex.P.40. In such circumstances, though the learned Sessions Judge rightly concluded that, the evidence of PWs. 1 to 6 are trustworthy to believe, but wrongly convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part I of IPC instead of Section 302 of IPC. Accordingly, the learned ASPP prays to allow the appeal filed by the State in, Crl. Appeal No. 100527/2021 by dismissing the appeal preferred by accused in Crl. Appeal No. 100190/2020. 14. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, so also on perusal of the evidence and materials placed before us, the Points that would arise for our consideration are that: “1. Whether the learned Sessions Judge has committed an error by convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Exception I to Section 300 of IPC and sentencing him under Section 304 Part I of IPC? 2. Whether the Judgment under these appeals is suffers from any perversity or illegality?” 15. Whether the learned Sessions Judge has committed an error by convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Exception I to Section 300 of IPC and sentencing him under Section 304 Part I of IPC? 2. Whether the Judgment under these appeals is suffers from any perversity or illegality?” 15. Since, both these Points are interlinked with each other, they are taken together for common discussion in order to avoid the repetition of facts. Accordingly, this Court being the appellate Court is required to relook and re-appreciate the materials and evidence made available before this Court and on a cursory glance of the evidence adduced by the prosecution before the trial Court, we find: PW-1 Karabasagouda Fakkiragouda Satmar, is the brother of the deceased who lodged the complaint as per Ex.P.1 before PW-18 and he is also an eye-witness to the alleged incident. Further, his statement was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. before the jurisdictional Magistrate as per Ex.P.9. Though, the prosecution heavily relied on the evidence of this witness, he totally turned hostile to the prosecution case and denied the contents of Ex.P.1, so also Ex.P.9. PW-2 Nagappa Danappa Hubballi and PW-3-Manjunath Chandrappa Mugali both these witnesses are the panch-witnesses for the Inquest Panchnama-Ex.P.13. Though, they identified their signatures at Ex.P.13, they both denied the contents of Ex.P.13 and turned hostile to the prosecution case. PW-4 Khayam Shoukatali Nalaband, witness for the Seizure Mahazar i.e. MOs.3 to 10 under Ex.P.21. However, this witness has also turned hostile to the prosecution case. PW-5 Kallappa Bharamappa Harakuni, Co-Pancha for Ex.P.21-Seizure Mahazar i.e. the seizure of MOs.3 to 10. However, this witness also turned hostile to the prosecution case. PW-6 Naganagouda Bapanagouda Satmar, alleged eyewitness to the incident, brother of the deceased in this case. His statement is also recorded by the learned Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. as per Ex.P.24. However, this witness also turned hostile to the prosecution case by denying the contents of Ex.P.24. PW-7 Chandragouda Sankanagouda Satmar, younger brother of accused, another eyewitness to the incident, however during the trial he turned hostile to the prosecution case. PW-8 Devendragouda Fakkiragouda Satmar, another eyewitness to the incident. However, this witness also turned hostile to the prosecution case. PW-9 Nirmala Sankanagouda Satmar, hearsay witness, she, after the incident, was informed by her mother, however, this witness also turned hostile to the prosecution case. PW-8 Devendragouda Fakkiragouda Satmar, another eyewitness to the incident. However, this witness also turned hostile to the prosecution case. PW-9 Nirmala Sankanagouda Satmar, hearsay witness, she, after the incident, was informed by her mother, however, this witness also turned hostile to the prosecution case. PW-10 to PW-13 are the hearsay witnesses to the prosecution case. All these witnesses have turned hostile to the prosecution case. PW-14 Dr. Shridhar Patil, Doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and issued postmortem report as per Ex.P.34. PW-15 Nagaraj Veerappa Hosakeri, the then police constable who submitted FIR and complaint before the jurisdictional magistrate at Hubballi. PW-16 Sharankumar Venkappa Dwaranahalli, Assistant Executive Engineer, drawn spot sketch as per Ex.P.39. PW-17 Shankaragouda Ramanagouda, the then police constable, recorded Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement and video graphed the same. PW-18 Venkataswamy P. Investigating Officer in this case, laid the charge-sheet against the accused for the offences as stated supra. 16. On careful perusal of the above evidence available on record, in order to prove the homicidal death of the deceased in this case, the prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of the Doctor-PW-14 who conducted postmortem on the dead body and issued the report as per Ex.P.34. On perusal of Ex.P.34, the Doctor has opined that “the death is due to hemorrhage and shock as a result of multiple injuries sustained.” It was also opined that, the deceased had expired 12 hours 24 minutes prior to the examination. He further opined that, the injuries caused to the deceased are ante mortem in nature. The said evidence of the Doctor corroborates with the inquest panchanama conducted by the Investigating Officer on the dead body as per Ex.P.3. PW-2 and PW-3 are the witnesses for Ex.P.3. Though the said witnesses turned hostile, they have identified their signature on Ex.P.3. Hence, a collective reading of the evidence of Doctor -PW-14 coupled with autopsy report at Ex.P.34 and the Inquest panchanama at Ex.P.3, we are of the considered view that, the prosecution has proved the homicidal death of the deceased in this case. Nevertheless, learned counsel for the appellant not seriously disputed the homicidal death of the deceased. 17. In order to connect the accused for the homicidal death of the deceased, the prosecution mainly relied on the evidences of the eye-witnesses i.e. PW-1, PW-6, PW-7 and PW-8. Nevertheless, learned counsel for the appellant not seriously disputed the homicidal death of the deceased. 17. In order to connect the accused for the homicidal death of the deceased, the prosecution mainly relied on the evidences of the eye-witnesses i.e. PW-1, PW-6, PW-7 and PW-8. Further, on a careful glance, all these witnesses have turned hostile to the prosecution case. Though PW-1 lodged a complaint as per Ex.P.1, he denied the contents of Ex.P.1. In such a circumstance, no evidentiary value can be attached to the evidences deposed by these witnesses. Learned Sessions Judge has primarily relied on the video footage recorded in Ex.P.10, which was made as per the mandate of Section 164 Cr.P.C. and on this footing, has drawn a presumption against the accused under the provisions of Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act. 18. However, on meticulous examination of the evidence of PW-1 and PW-6 tendered before the Trial court, the statement that is been video graphed has been completely denied and additionally, they have stated that the same was made under the duress of the police authorities. Though the learned public prosecutor has cross-examined these witnesses, nothing contrary has been elucidated from their evidence. Further, other eyewitnesses i.e. PW-7 and PW-8 have completely turned hostile to the prosecution case. 19. Moreover, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Naresh vs. State of Haryana, (2023) 10 SCC 134 , emphasizing on the appreciation of video graphic evidence has held as under: “18. The courts below have relied on CCTV footage to convict the appellants and co-accused persons. However, we are of the considered view that the said evidence could not have been relied upon, as it was infested with serious doubts and the very manner in which it came into existence itself would raise a serious doubt not only about its source but also raises a serious doubt about the presence of the appellants at the scene of crime. PW-8, who made a video from his mobile phone of the CCTV footage on 22-4-2016 and has claimed to have handed over the recorded CD (Ext.P-3) to the police on 1-6-2016. However, the video (CD) has not been forwarded by the police to the Forensic Science Laboratory. 19. He (PW-8) claims to have downloaded the video from his mobile phone and transferred to his laptop and then prepared CD (Ext.P-3). However, the video (CD) has not been forwarded by the police to the Forensic Science Laboratory. 19. He (PW-8) claims to have downloaded the video from his mobile phone and transferred to his laptop and then prepared CD (Ext.P-3). Neither the laptop nor the mobile phone was produced by the prosecution or had been seized by the police during the course of investigation. The trial court's conclusion is based on inconsistent evidence and there is lack of clarity in the evidence of PW-8. He has identified his signature on the certificate Ext.P-L (furnished as required under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act) which certificate was prepared by police official Mr Aman and he has not been examined. The CD (Ext.P-3) was played in the trial court and observation recorded by the Sessions Judge which is to the following effect would acquire great significance. “COURT OBSERVATION: from the video clips the faces of assailants and complainants are not decipherable.” (Emphasis supplied by us) Hence, the case on hand is examined keeping in view the settled norms, the video footage which has been produced by way of CD-Ex.P.10 is not corroborated by any of the evidence deposed by the witnesses including the witnesses who have deposed the same. It is also evident that, Ex.P-10 was not forwarded to the laboratory for examination. Under the circumstances, the infirmities as to the existence of C.D. the manner in which it came to be recorded and the manner in which the witnesses were taken before the magistrate are kept in dark and without corroboration by the other witnesses, same cannot be relied with, to connect the accused to the homicidal death of the deceased. 20. Further, the prosecution also failed to prove the material circumstance of recovery of the weapon which is said to have been used for the commission of the offence i.e. M.O.3. The witnesses for the same i.e. PW-4 and PW-5 have completely turned hostile to the prosecution case. Mere sending the weapons to the scientific examination and the report of weapon being bloodstained does not connect the accused to the offence without any corroboration by the testimonies of witnesses. The witnesses for the same i.e. PW-4 and PW-5 have completely turned hostile to the prosecution case. Mere sending the weapons to the scientific examination and the report of weapon being bloodstained does not connect the accused to the offence without any corroboration by the testimonies of witnesses. Moreover as held by the Apex Court in S. Gopal Reddy vs. State of A.P. (1996) 4 SCC 596 which is also relied in Padum Kumar vs. State of U.P. (2020) 3 SCC 35 that, evidence of expert witnesses cannot be considered to be of conclusive nature, unless the same is independently and reliably corroborated. Such being the scenario on hand, much credibility cannot be attached to the report obtained from the scientific officer as the same is not corroborated with neither witnesses nor any independent reliable documents. 21. Furthermore, as to the principles considering evidence of Investigation officers and official witnesses are concerned, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pradeep Narayan Madgaonkar vs. State of Maharashtra, (1995) 4 SCC 255 held that: “11. Learned counsel for the State, however, vehemently argued that there was no reason for the court to disbelieve the official witnesses PW-1, PW-4 and PW-6 who had no reason to falsely implicate any of the appellants. They are independent respectable persons. Indeed, the evidence of the officials (police) witnesses cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they belong to the police force and are, either interested in the investigating or the prosecuting agency but prudence dictates that their evidence needs to be subjected to strict scrutiny and as far as possible corroboration of their evidence in material particulars should be sought. Their desire to see the success of the case based on their investigation, requires greater care to appreciate their testimony. Their desire to see the success of the case based on their investigation, requires greater care to appreciate their testimony. We cannot lose sight of the fact that these police officials did not join any independent witnesses of the locality and made an attempt to create an impression on the courts that both PW-2 and PW-5 were witnesses of locality and were independent, knowing fully well that PW-2 was a witness who was under their influence and ‘available’ to them, as he had been joining the raids earlier also and PW-5 was a close associate of PW-2, their friendship having developed during the days of gambling when admittedly the police never conducted any raid at their gambling den.” (Emphasis supplied by us) Hence, though the investigation officer has supported the case of the prosecution, the family members of the deceased who are the witnesses to the prosecution case have turned hostile and not supported the versions put forth by the Investigation officer and hence, in the absence of corroboration, his evidence also cannot be relied upon. Thus, we are constrained to opine that, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove all the circumstances to connect the involvement of the accused in the crime. 22. Additionally, it is also the case of the prosecution that, the alleged incident has taken place inside the house of PW-9 and the deceased are none other than the wife and son of the accused and it is within the domain of the accused to prove with his special knowledge as to the defense that is put forth by the accused contemplated under Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In address to the same, we would refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jaikam Khan vs. State of U.P. (2021) 13 SCC 716 wherein, paragraph No. 73 of the order reads as under: “73. Insofar as the reliance placed by Shri Vinod Diwakar, learned AAG on the burden not being discharged by the accused and no explanation given by them in their Section 313 CrPC statement is concerned, it is trite law that only after the prosecution discharges its burden of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt, the burden would shift on the accused. It is not necessary to reiterate this proposition of law. It is not necessary to reiterate this proposition of law. It will suffice to refer to the following observations of this Court in Joydeb Patra vs. State of West Bengal, (2014) 12 SCC 444 : (2014) 6 SCC (Cri) 786: (SCC p. 447, Para 10) “10. We are afraid, we cannot accept this submission of Mr. Ghosh. This Court has repeatedly held that the burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt is on the prosecution and it is only when this burden is discharged that the accused could prove any fact within his special knowledge under Section 106 of the Evidence Act to establish that he was not guilty. In Sucha Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2001) 4 SCC 375 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 717, this Court held : (SCC p. 381, Para 19) “19. We pointed out that Section 106 of the Evidence Act is not intended to relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, but the section would apply to cases where the prosecution has succeeded in proving facts for which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts, unless the accused by virtue of special knowledge regarding such facts failed to offer any explanation which might drive the court to draw a different inference.” Similarly, in Vikramjit Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2006) 12 SCC 306 : (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 732, this Court reiterated : (SCC p. 313, Para 14) “14. Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not relieve the prosecution to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Only when the prosecution case has been proved the burden in regard to such facts which was within the special knowledge of the accused may be shifted to the accused for explaining the same. Of course, there are certain exceptions to the said rule e.g. where burden of proof may be imposed upon the accused by reason of a statute.” In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the said submissions.” (Emphasis supplied by us) Hence, in view of the settled norms, the burden of proving the special knowledge cannot be shifted on the accused, merely on the basis of factum of place of occurrence, unless, the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, as stated supra, the contention of learned Addl. SPP would not be of much avail to the prosecution case as they have fell defectus in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 23. Further, The Hon’ble Apex Court in the Judgment referred in the case of Mousam Singha Roy and Others vs. State of West Bengal, (2003) 12 SCC 377 has made an observation that in respect of moral conviction, bondering on strong suspicion is not an option to decide a case by the Trial Court and has held in Paragraph No. 27 that: “27. Before we conclude, we must place on record the fact that we are not unaware of the degree of agony and frustration that may be caused to the society in general and the families of the victims in particular, by the fact that a heinous crime like this goes unpunished, but then the law does not permit the courts to punish the accused on the basis of moral conviction or on suspicion alone. The burden of proof in a criminal trial never shifts, and it is always the burden of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence. In a similar circumstance this Court in the case of Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 637 stated thus: It is no doubt a matter of regret that a foul cold-blooded and cruel murder should go unpunished. There may also be an element of truth in the prosecution story against the accused. Considered as a whole, the prosecution story may be true; but between ‘may be true’ and must be true’ there is inevitably a long distance to travel and the whole of this distance must be covered by the prosecution by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence before an accused can be convicted.” (Emphasis supplied by us) Thus, the learned Sessions Judge convicting the accused and sentencing him under Section 304 Part I of IPC in the absence of corroboration from the witnesses produced before it, seems to be a moral conviction but nothing else; as the accused is the son of the deceased and he has committed the murder of his own father. Though, we are aware of the fact that, the prosecution has presented the case of a cruel and cold-blooded murder of the father by his own son, but in the absence of necessary corroborative evidence and the fact that the incriminating witnesses have been turned hostile, this Court is constrained to answer the above raised points in positive as it is a settled principle in the criminal jurisprudence that the presumption of innocence of the accused cannot be given a goby unless the prosecution proves the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. It is also well-settled norm that, the trial Court cannot stretch this principle to such an extent so as to give conviction to the accused solely relying on the evidences that are not corroborative and the incident that is brutal in the prevailing society. Hence, we pass the following: ORDER: (i) The appeal filed by the appellant/accused in Criminal Appeal No. 100190/2020 is allowed. (ii) Consequently, the appeal filed by the State in Criminal Appeal No. 100527/2021 is dismissed. (iii) The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.02.2020 passed by the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad (sitting at Hubballi), is set aside. (iv) The appellant/accused is acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 304 Part I and 201 of IPC. (v) The bail bond and surety bond executed by the accused stands cancelled. (vi) Fine amount, if any, paid by the accused is ordered to be refunded to the accused on proper identification.