Hussainsab and Others vs The State of Karnataka

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor.

The appeal in Crl. A. No. 2607/2013 is filed by the accused No. 4, whereas the appeal in Crl. A. No. 2621/2013 is filed by accused Nos. 1 to 3, questioning their conviction.

The case of the prosecution was, that on 10.7.2011, at about 1.00 p.m., Fakkirappa Basappa Talawar, namely, P.W. 1, is said to have filed a complaint, to state that he had brought P.W. 9 Smt. Bhimavva Panchappa Kili and her son Vitthal, from their village Basaragi, to work on his lands and had provided shelter to them and they were living there. He was taking care of Vitthal as his own son and that accused No. 3 Rajesab and his wife Mumtaz and others were also attending to agricultural work on his land. He had heard rumours that Mumtaz and Vitthal were having an illicit relationship. On 9.7.2011 when he returned from Hubballi, P.W. 4 Hanumantappa Ramappa Talawar, P.W. 5 Maruti Venkappa Talawar and P.W. 6 Shankrappa Hanumappa Talawar had together come to his house and informed him that accused Nos. 1 and 2 were seen taking Vitthal towards Ballur cross and accused Nos. 3 and 4 were heard saying that accused Nos. 1 and 2 would finish off Vitthal. After seeing off accused Nos. 1 and 2 with Vitthal, Vitthal was said to be sitting astride on the motorcycle between accused Nos. 1 and 2. Accused Nos. 3 and 4 are said to have gone away at about 7.30 p.m. On the information so received by the complainant, they had all gone in search of Vitthal and could not find him.

On 10.7.2011, at about 8.00 a.m., when the complainant was in his house, P.W. 8 Bheemappa Yallappa Talawar and Parameshwarappa Nidawani had come and informed him that the accused Nos. 1 to 4 were seen speaking loudly about having committed the murder of Vitthal, because he was having illicit affair with Mumtaz, wife of accused No. 3, and that if anybody else interfered with their family affairs the same fate would meet them as well. It is in that background the complainant and others are again said to have gone in search of Vitthal and when they could not trace him, a complaint was lodged.

Later, the police are said to have recovered the dead body of Vitthal on the banks of Mulla Halla, within the village limits of Chulki, in Saundatti taluka. The complaint was said to have been drafted by P.W. 10 on the instructions of P.W. 1 and thereafter P.W. 1 had affixed his thumb impression on the complaint. The complaint having been received, a case was registered for the offences punishable under Section 120B, 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ''I.P.C.'', for brevity), and further investigation was carried out.

It transpires that P.W. 20 and 19 had arrested accused Nos. 1 to 4 at Yamanur bus stand and produced them before the Court and on their information recovered the dead body and incriminating objects and thereafter recorded statements of witnesses and carried out further investigation and other procedures and it is thereafter the charge sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Navalgund, who took cognizance and committed the case to the Court of Sessions dated 3.12.2011 in Case C.C. No. 268/2011. On receipt of the records, a Sessions case was registered against the accused and the case was made over to the Fast Track Court-III, Dharwad, for trial. Thereafter charges were framed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections as aforesaid and the accused having pleaded not guilty and having claimed to be tried, the case was transferred at the instance of the accused.

The prosecution had thereafter examined 20 witnesses and it got marked 29 documents and 12 material objects. The statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. (hereinafter referred to as ''Cr.P.C.'' for brevity). The accused persons are said to have filed a written reply with four documents, but did not tender any evidence. After hearing the arguments of the State and the accused, the Court below had framed the points for its consideration and has answered the same in the affirmative and has convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine amount, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year, for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and also to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- each, and in default of payment of fine amount, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months, for the offence punishable under Section 201 read with Section 34 of IPC and no separate sentence was awarded on the accused for the offence punishable under Section 120B read with Section 34 of IPC. Out of the fine amount, Rs. 25,000/- was to be paid to the mother of the deceased as compensation. The sentences were to run concurrently. It is that, which is under challenge in the present appeals.

The learned counsel for the appellant in appeal in Crl. A. 2607/2013 would draw attention to several discrepancies that are replete in the judgment of the Court below. In order to prove the homicidal death of the deceased, it is pointed out that the prosecution had examined P.W. 12 who had conducted the postmortem showing the cause of death as being due to asphyxia and shock as a result of strangulation. The motive for the commission of the offence was shown as the illicit relationship between the deceased with P.W. 14, the wife of accused No. 3 and in order to prove the same he relied on the evidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 9 and P.W. 14. However on perusal of the evidence of the said witnesses the following inconsistencies and discrepancies are apparent.

P.W. 1 and P.W. 9 had deposed in their evidence that they had no personal knowledge regarding the illicit relationship between the deceased and P.W. 14. P.W. 9 had stated that on an enquiry regarding illicit relationship between P.W. 14 and the deceased, he is said to have stated that no such relationship existed between the deceased and P.W. 14 and she had denied working under P.W. 1 and also denied the illicit relationship with Vitthal and was also treated as a hostile witness.

P.W. 4 had stated that he saw the incident from a distance of one kilometre, so the question of hearing the conversation of the accused regarding the motive could be safely ruled out.

P.W. 5 had stated that he was 400 feet away from the spot where the accused Nos. 1 and 2 are said to have carried the deceased between them who was placed astride the motorcycle between accused Nos. 1 and 2 by accused Nos. 3 and 4. And if they were 400 feet away from the spot, he could neither see properly nor could hear the conversation between the accused persons.

P.W. 6 has not said anything about the illicit relationship between Vitthal and P.W. 14. Insofar as the further case of the prosecution of the circumstances appearing against the accused as to place reliance on the last seen theory, the prosecution had relied on the evidence of P.W. 4 to P.W. 6 in order to prove that the deceased was last seen in the company of accused on 9.7.2011 at 7.30 p.m. However it is pointed out that the following discrepancies are borne out from the evidence of the said witnesses.

P.W. 4 has stated that on 9.7.2011 at about 7.00 p.m. he along with P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 were standing in an open space in front of a school, at which time accused Nos. 1 and 2 came on a motorcycle and deceased was made to sit on the motorcycle by accused Nos. 3 and 4 and that a towel and lungi was tied to the neck of the deceased. P.W. 4 has further stated that the motorcycle was seen going towards Ballur cross with the deceased sitting astride the motorcycle between accused Nos. 1 and 2 and they had also followed them towards Ballur cross and accused Nos. 3 and 4 had come towards them saying that Vitthal would be finished off as he had lowered the reputation of their family. In this background P.W. 4 claims to have informed P.W. 1 at about 7.30 p.m. of what transpired. The entire scene was said taken place over five minutes and the accused Nos. 1 and 2 were seen going away with the deceased towards Ballur cross and he claims to have seen the entire incident at a distance of one kilometre and according to him, there were people moving about near the spot. Apart from P.W. 4, P.W. 5 and P.W. 6, no other witnesses were examined as regards the said event.

P.W. 5 in turn has stated that he heard accused Nos. 3 and 4 stating that accused Nos. 1 and 2 would murder the deceased and that they would also murder P.W. 14 and all this was heard by him while witnessing the scene from 400 feet from the spot. He has also stated that it was getting dark and street lights had come on and people were moving around near the spot and he has also stated that the accused had taken 10 minutes to put the deceased between accused Nos. 1 and 2 and accused No. 1 and 2 rode away on the motorcycle. He does not say anything about P.W. 6, but along with P.W. 4 are said to have heard the accused Nos. 3 and 4 standing at the spot and discussing amongst themselves about the accused Nos. 1 and 2 killing Vitthal and he also had stated that the motorcycle went in front of him and that there was no attempt made to shout at Vitthal or trying to rescue him.

P.W. 6 has stated that they were all standing on the road in front of the school and that accused Nos. 1 and 2 had taken Vitthal on a motorcycle and that accused Nos. 3 and 4 had tied a towel and lungi around the neck of Vitthal and that thereafter they had all gone to the house of P.W. 1 to inform him. But he had gone out of the town and came back at 9.00 p.m. from Hubballi. He was at a distance of one kilometer from the spot. That they stood at the spot from 7.30 p.m. to 9.00 p.m. waiting to see whether the motorcycle would come back.

It is pointed out that P.W. 4, P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 were closely related to P.W. 1. P.W. 4 was the nephew of P.W. 1 and P.W. 5 was the brother-in-law of P.W. 1 and P.W. 6 was again a cousin of P.W. 1. In the sketch of the place where the incident said to have taken place, there is no indication of where P.W. 4, P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 were standing and whether the deceased was lifted and put on the motorcycle between accused Nos. 1 and 2. Therefore the learned counsel would contend that the last seen theory as propounded by P.W. 4, P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 is not capable of being accepted.

Having regard to the distance from which these witnesses are supposed to have seen the deceased being taken away on the motorcycle and further the exchange of conversation between the accused of their intention to murder Vitthal and Mumtaz and hence the entire case of the prosecution resting on the evidence of these witnesses to establish the circumstances cannot be accepted.

Insofar as the further circumstances sought to be alleged as to the accused having raised slogans in the village on the next day and loudly claiming to have murdered Vitthal and that the same fate meeting anyone interfering with the reputation to their family is concerned, the prosecution has relied on the evidence of P.W. 8 and the said witness had stated that he along with C.W. 11 were standing at the bus stand at which time accused Nos. 1 and 2 went by shouting that they had killed Vitthal and the dead body had been thrown at Mulla Halla and thereafter he had gone to Mulla Halla and saw the dead body at 3.00 p.m. He has admitted that he came with P.W. 1 to give evidence to Court. Therefore the learned counsel would submit that he was clearly a got up witness who had tendered evidence at the instance of P.W. 1. It is evident that P.W. 4 to P.W. 6 and P.W. 8 were certainly witnesses, who were tendering evidence at the instance of P.W. 1.

As regards the arrest of the accused their voluntary statements, recovery of the dead body, etc., the learned counsel would point out that on the request of P.W. 10, P.W. 19 claims to have apprehended accused Nos. 1 to 4 at Yamanur bus stand and produced them before the Investigating Officer namely P.W. 20 at 2.00 p.m. on 10.7.2011 and that the investigation was handed over to P.W. 20 at 1.15 p.m. and by 1.40 p.m. they had arrested accused Nos. 1 to 4. The accused were identified on the information said to have been given by some persons. Ex. P. 19 is a report submitted by P.W. 19 which is contrary to the oral evidence of P.W. 19 himself. In Ex. P. 19 it is stated that P.W. 19 had been to Yanamur bus stand along with his staff, on seeing them two persons started to run away and on suspicion those two persons were apprehended, who turned out to be accused Nos. 1 to 4. There is no mention about the time as to when the accused Nos. 1 to 4 were arrested.

It is further pointed out that Ex. P. 21 is said to be the voluntary statement of accused No. 1 which led the police to recover the dead body at Mulla Halla but the voluntary statement was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, as Ex. P. 5 the spot panchanama, Ex. P. 2, the inquest report discloses the fact that P.W. 4 had shown the spot where the dead body was lying. At the time when they reached the spot, there were already about 300 people present at the spot where the dead body was lying. Even as per P.W. 8 he has seen the dead body at Mulla Halla at 3.00 p.m. Further P.W. 1 in his cross examination had admitted that accused No. 1 took the police and himself to Mulla Halla, there were already people standing around the banks of Mulla Halla. Insofar as accused Nos. 2 and 3 who were said to absconding after the incident, the learned counsel would point out that there is nothing on record to indicate that the said accused persons were absconding. Neither P.W. 19 nor P.W. 20 had deputed any Police Officer to go in search of accused Nos. 2 and 3; there is also no report in respect of accused Nos. 2 and 3 absconding.

Insofar as the recovery is concerned, it is pointed out that the prosecution had failed to prove the same as P.W. 13 the owner of the motorcycle is said to have turned hostile to the prosecution and the tyre marks of the motorcycle at the place where the dead body was found was also not proved by scientific evidence. Therefore the said motorcycle having been used in the commission of offence is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Insofar as the further material evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution namely the blood stains found on the clothes of the deceased, it is pointed out that blood stains found on the clothes of the deceased and the concrete stone used to smash the face of the deceased and also blood stains on the clothes of accused No. 2 being of the same blood group as that of the deceased, as contended by the prosecution would not establish that they had indeed committed any such murder. P.W. 3 has stated that the panchanama was written by the police and the clothes of Vitthal were seized by police and claims to have belong to Vitthal. P.W. 10 admits that he has not sent the above material for tests, which is also admitted by P.W. 12 the Medical Practitioner.

Further, the forensic science laboratory report at Ex. P. 29 in respect of the blood stains discloses that all the items sent are stained with blood group B except item Nos. 3, 4 and 6. But the analyst who had conducted the test is not examined in order to prove the said document. Further the said document does not disclose the RH factor of the blood group. It does not disclose as to whether it was the blood group B positive or negative. It is also said to be claimed that accused were in blood stained clothes for three days even after the incident. He was arrested on 10.7.2011 and he was wearing the clothes, as per Ex. P. 6, were said to be blood stained with the blood of the deceased. With this the learned counsel would submit, that the said contention is not readily acceptable at all. P.W. 7 has stated that he went to the police station at 12.00 noon whereas Ex. P. 6 panchanama was drawn from 10.45 to 11.15 p.m. on 12.7.2011.

These above and other discrepancies, the learned counsel would submit, would not enable the prosecution to claim that charges have been proved beyond all reasonable doubt and the finding of the Court below notwithstanding such inconsistencies and glaring discrepancies has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice in the appellants being foisted with the extreme punishment of life imprisonment and hence seeks acquittal of the accused.

While the learned counsel for the appellants in the connected appeal in Crl. A. No. 2621/2013 while supporting the arguments of the learned counsel for the accused No. 4 would contend that the motive alleged by the prosecution is not established. That the case is based entirely on circumstantial evidence and that the prosecution is to prove the chain of events which lead to the commission of the act alleged and if the entire material placed on record is perused, such a chain of events is not forthcoming and it cannot be said that the prosecution had established the case beyond all reasonable doubt.

The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would seek to support the reasoning of the Court below and would seek to point out that the Court below has carefully analyzed the evidence on record. Firstly, insofar as the homicidal death of the deceased is concerned, the evidence of P.W. 12, the Medical Practitioner, who conducted the autopsy on the dead body would clearly indicate that the deceased had suffered an unnatural death and on account of several injuries on his body, and the face having been smashed with the concrete block, to disfigure the face of the deceased so as to make it impossible for identification, would clearly indicate that it was a homicidal death.

As regards the motive, the Court below has referred to the evidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 9 and P.W. 14. Insofar as the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 9 is concerned, their evidence to the effect that they heard rumours of such an illicit relationship between the deceased and P.W. 14, the wife of accused No. 3, the Court below has held could not be brushed aside as it was information that they had received from various sources and there were rumours in the village about such an affair between the deceased and P.W. 14. Insofar as P.W. 14, herself having denied any such relation, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would point out that no woman having an affair could be expected to admit that she was indeed involved in such an affair and denial of such a relationship is not unusual.

However, it is pointed out that the trial Court has addressed one other circumstance, namely, that immediately after the commission of murder of Vitthal, the accused persons who are said to have threatened to kill P.W. 14 as well, had tried to commit her murder by hanging her and she had managed to escape and had lodged a criminal case which was registered as S.C. No. 52/2012 and the case was prosecuted. However it resulted in the acquittal of the accused namely accused No. 3 and another, since P.W. 14 had failed to appear in the case and tender evidence in support of the allegation. It is out of sheer fear for her life that she had failed to appear and tender evidence. This was a clinching circumstance to indicate that there was an illicit relationship which had been discovered by the accused and therefore the extreme step of having committed the murder of the deceased and the attempted murder of P.W. 14 was sufficient to disclose that there was a motive for the accused to commit the murder of the deceased. This the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would point out cannot be faulted and there was material for the Court to come to a conclusion that there was a motive.

Secondly, insofar as the strong circumstances appearing against the accused of having committed murder of Vitthal, is the evidence of P.W. 4 to P.W. 6, except to the extent that there are inconsistencies as to the distance from which they had witnessed the accused Nos. 3 and 4 lift the deceased and place him on the motorcycle between accused Nos. 1 and 2, had then ridden away with him towards Ballur cross is concerned, the said witnesses P.W. 4 to P.W. 6 having been stated that they had witnessed this scene from varying distances, from half a kilometer to 400 feet, need not be construed as being fatal to the case of the prosecution. They were villagers and the inadvertent mentioning of the distance without realizing the accuracy of the same ought not to be held against them. For otherwise their evidence is consistent. Insofar as the deceased having been taken away by the accused and the accused Nos. 3 and 4 also talking amongst themselves as to Vitthal being taken away to be killed and that P.W. 14 also should be killed as she had brought disrepute to the family of the accused. It is contended that this is acceptable evidence, in the face of accused No. 1 immediately upon his arrest, having made a voluntary statement and having also taken the police to the spot where the dead body was thrown, would clinch the case of the prosecution.

Insofar as the strong circumstantial evidence being present to bring home the charges against the accused, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would also draw attention to other circumstances namely P.W. 4 having come to the house of P.W. 9 and having informed her that they had seen her son being taken away by the accused and that they apprehended that serious harm would come to him as they had heard that he would be murdered. And she having told him that since it was late in the night, it was better that they informed P.W. 1 and thereafter the said witnesses P.W. 4 to P.W. 6 having informed P.W. 1 and thereafter they having made a search for the deceased and on the next day on the further information of P.W. 8 as to he having heard the accused shouting loudly that they had killed Vitthal and that the same fate would meet others who may try to interfere with their family affairs and try to damage the reputation of the family etc., was clearly sufficient to establish the strong circumstances appearing against the accused.

Insofar as the arrest and voluntary statement and recovery of the dead body is concerned, the evidence of P.W. 19 and P.W. 20 and also the evidence of P.W. 1 and his complaint, is sufficiently proved by reference to the several material documents that are produced and the panchanama witnesses who have witnessed the recovery of the said articles which is discussed at great length in the judgment of the trial Court, the learned counsel would further submit that the very arguments canvassed by the appellants has been canvassed by the appellants before the trial Court as well and the trial Court has dealt with each and everyone of such contentions at length in its judgment and therefore the judgment of the Court below is a well considered and reasoned judgment which has established that the prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt and hence, there is no warrant for interference having regard to the cold blooded murder of the deceased and hence, seeks dismissal of the appeals.

On consideration of the above rival contentions and on a close examination of the records and having addressed the reasoning of the Court below, the first circumstance that we are required to address is whether there was a motive for the Accused to have committed the alleged murder. The evidence of the prosecution to establish the motive is with reference to the testimony of P.W. Nos. 1, 9 and 14. P.W. 1 is the Complainant. P.W. 9 is the mother of the deceased and P.W. 14 is wife of Accused No. 3. P.W. 1 and P.W. 9 have clearly stated that they had heard rumours in the village of an illicit relationship between P.W. 14 and the deceased. Beyond this, they had no first hand information of any such relationship. P.W. 9 had claimed that she had questioned her son about such a relationship and he is said to have stated that there was no truth in the allegation. P.W. 14 - the wife of Accused No. 3 having been examined in this regard by the prosecution, was unusual. In that, the prosecution could not have expected P.W. 14 to state that she was having an illicit relationship with the deceased. This was the height of naivety and the Trial Court has rightly observed that it could not be expected of P.W. 14 to state that she was indeed having a relationship. However, if there were rumours of any such relationship, a jealous husband being driven to the extent of committing an act of murder cannot be ruled out and the fact that immediately after the murder of the deceased, that there was an attempt on the part of Accused No. 3 and one other to murder P.W. 14 by trying to hang her and in that regard P.W. 14 having instituted a criminal case which was registered as a Sessions Case, but, ultimately, had resulted in acquittal of the Accused therein, since P.W. 14 had failed to tender evidence, is yet another circumstance which would fortify the situation that there was indeed suspicion of a relationship between P.W. 14 and the deceased. Therefore, it cannot be said that the prosecution had not established the possible motive for the Accused to have committed the murder of the deceased.

The next circumstance which the prosecution was required to establish were the circumstances which would lead to an unerring finding that there was indeed a chain of events which would point to the Accused having committed the murder of the deceased. In this regard, we have the evidence of P.W. Nos. 4, 5 and 6. As coincidence would have it, all three of them were closely related to P.W. 1. It is their evidence that they were all standing together outside a school compound at 7.30 pm and that they observed Accused Nos. 3 and 4 lifting up deceased and placing him astride a motorcycle between Accused Nos. 1 and 2 who came there riding on the motorcycle. It is also their evidence that there was a lungi and towel tied around the neck of the deceased. They have not said whether he was conscious, unconscious, in a drunken state, dead or alive. Therefore, this narration of the sequence of Accused Nos. 3 and 4 picking up the deceased and placing him on the motor cycle is vague as ever. There is no indication of where Accused Nos. 3 and 4 and the deceased had come from and how Accused Nos. 1 and 2 had come on their motorcycle, to the spot. Whether it was a pre-arranged meeting or whether they met by chance is also not indicated. Further, the witness P.W. 4 has stated that he witnessed this scene of the deceased being put on the motor cycle from a distance of one kilometre whereas P.W. 5 states that he saw the scene from 400 metres and P.W. 6 states that he saw the scene from 200 metres. The endeavour on the part of the prosecution to state that this inconsistency requires to be ignored as they were illiterate villagers cannot be readily accepted. Even the most illiterate man will know the difference between one kilometre, 400 metres and 200 metres. Whether they could witness all this in such detail from the distance that they have mentioned, is itself doubtful. Added to this, the said witnesses have further indicated that it was also to their knowledge, for they heard Accused Nos. 3 and 4 say that the deceased would be finished or would be killed by Accused Nos. 1 and 2 as he had been instrumental in bringing a bad reputation to their family name by having had an affair with the wife of Accused No. 3. It is also stated in an off hand manner. It is not clear as to whether the Accused Nos. 3 and 4 did so as they were passing by in front of the said witnesses and within their ear short for them to have heard these statements. Therefore, the evidence of these witnesses does not evoke the confidence of this Court relating to the natural sequence of events. Even assuming that the last seen theory is established and the deceased having been seen in the company of Accused Nos. 1 to 4 by these witnesses, the further statements of the witnesses that they had waited there till about 9 pm to ensure and to ascertain whether the Accused would return to that area and thereafter having chosen to inform P.W. 9 about the incident and at her instance having then decided to go to P.W. 1 to inform him of the same and P.W. 1 having returned from Hubli later in the evening and thereafter all of them having made a search for the deceased and on the next day, having heard from P.W. 8 that Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were seen to be passing along the bus stand area, loudly proclaiming that they had committed the murder of the deceased and thereafter P.W. 1 and others having made a further frantic search for the deceased and then having chosen to lodge a complaint are a sequence of events which cannot be said to be a natural flow of events. In other words, the very narration of the occurrence of the incident whereby Accused Nos. 3 and 4 are said to have placed the deceased on the motor cycle between Accused Nos. 1 and 2 with a lungi and towel tied around his neck is itself not readily acceptable. A further question then arises whether the deceased was in a state of undress if his lungi and towel were tied around his neck and if there were other members of the general public in the area as stated by the very witnesses and if there were shops and other establishments open at that time of the evening, it is unusual that nobody has noticed this and that no other person has been examined as witness. Whether these witnesses could all simultaneously notice the said scene from a considerable distance is again a grey area and raises a serious doubt of the actual occurrence of the said event. In this view of the matter, the further endeavour of the prosecution to establish its case with reference to the blood stained clothes having been recovered on the voluntary statements of Accused No. 1 and the dead body of the deceased having been discovered at the instance of Accused No. 1 also pale into insignificance. In any event, even this is not free from doubt. As for instance, apart from the ligature mark around the neck of the deceased to indicate that he was strangulated, it was also found that his face had been smashed beyond recognition with a cement block. Therefore, the manner in which the blood stains had occurred on the clothes of the Accused is not readily discernible for if the deceased was strangulated and cement block was repeatedly dropped on his face to disfigure him, it is strange that blood stains would have splashed in such a quantum on the clothes of the Accused is yet another area which can not be readily accepted by this Court.

Further, the claim that the dead body of the deceased was discovered at the instance of Accused No. 1 is also not clear, for there is material on record to indicate that it was P.W. 1 who had indicated the location of the dead body and there were scores of other people who had already gathered there near the dead body when the panchanama was drawn up. Therefore, to place reliance on the so called voluntary statement and the recovery of blood stained clothes or the dead body is also not clearly established as being at the instance of the Accused. Further, if Accused No. 3 was a jilted husband who had the motive to commit murder of the deceased, it is unclear as to how the other Accused were equally motivated to commit the murder of the deceased. Therefore, in so far as the reasoning of the Trial Court is concerned, apart from its finding that there was likelihood of a motive in Accused No. 3 having committed the murder of the deceased, the other findings or reasoning leading to the findings cannot be accepted. In that, the last seen theory is itself doubtful. As already pointed out, the evidence of P.Ws. 4 to 6 is not free from doubt and is unconvincing to establish that an unerring chain of sequence of events which is time and again insisted upon by the Courts in accepting circumstantial evidence as bringing home the charges made out against the Accused in a criminal case involving murder. Therefore, we are of the firm opinion that from these primary observations as regards the sequence of events and the veracity of evidence of the witnesses, the prosecution has failed to establish the commission of the offence as alleged by the Accused beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appeals are allowed. The Judgment of the Trial Court is set aside. The accused are acquitted and they shall be set at liberty forthwith.

The operative portion of the Judgment shall be communicated to the Jail Authorities forthwith, in order that the accused are set at liberty forthwith.