Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the State against the Judgment and order of acquittal passed by Fast Track Court-II, Shimoga in S.C. No.124/2004. The accused were charged, tried and acquitted for the offences under Sections 449, 392 and 302 r/w Section 34 I.P.C.

2. This appeal arises out of merciless and ghastly murder of the old couple in their farm house for gain.

Case of the prosecution in brief is that accused No.1 was acquainted with both the deceased; deceased U.B. Manjunath Ithal is husband of deceased Kalavathi Ithal; accused No.1 is the friend of accused No.2; accused Nos.1 and 2 with the common intention of committing robbery of the house of deceased and murder of the deceased trespassed into the farm house of the deceased in between 9.00 to 9.30 p.m. on 14.11.2003, murdered both the deceased and robbed silver, gold and diamond articles worth Rs.1,71,000/- apart from certain cash. On the following morning, PW-3 – Lakshman the servant working in the house of the deceased went to the house of the deceased to attend the work as usual and noticed the dead body of the deceased Kalavathi Ithal through the window and also noticed the blood marks near the window; being afraid he informed the matter through telephone to Smt. Vani Upadyaya (PW-1), the daughter of deceased Ithal couple staying at Shimoga; immediately PW-1 along with her husband (PW-17) and others came to the spot and saw the couple having fallen in a pool of blood with injuries all over their bodies; PW-1 also noticed missing of gold and diamond articles from the person of her mother; having found that her parents are murdered for the sake of money and ornaments, she lodged the complaint before the PSI of Rural Police Station, Shimoga (PW 24) as per Ex.P1 at about 9.00 A.M. on 05.11.2003. PSI – PW-24 took the complaint from PW-1 from the spot and sent the same to Police Station through Police Constable No.1402, who in turn took the complaint to the Rural Police Station, Shimoga (PW-19) wherein ASI registered crime No.833/2003 in Shimoga Rural Police Station. Thereafter, FIR was sent to the learned jurisdictional Magistrate as per Ex.P19. The Police during course of investigation lifted finger prints of the accused No.1 from the steel almirah of the deceased and recovered gold ornaments as well as weapons at the instance of accused No.1 and weapon from accused No.2 after recording their voluntary statements. The Police after completion of investigation laid the charge sheet against both the accused for the offences under Sections 302, 392 and 449 r/w Sec. 34 I.P.C.

3. Since the accused did not plead guilty, the Trial was conducted against the accused for the offences under Sections 449, 392 and 302 r/w Sec. 34 I.P.C.

4. In support of its case, the prosecution in all examined 24 witnesses and got marked 42 exhibits and 22 material objects. The accused did not lead any evidence. However, Ex.D1 and D2 are got marked in the cross-examination of PWs 10 and 15 respectively.

5. The Trial Court on evaluation of evidence on record held that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and has consequently acquitted the accused.

6. Sri. G.M. Srinivasa Reddy, learned Government Advocate representing State and Sri. R.B. Deshpande and Harish Kumar for the respondents argued in support of their respective cases. The Advocates on record have taken us through the entire material on record including the judgment of the Court below. Learned Amicus Curie assisted the Court effectively.

7. The following points arise for our consideration:

a) Whether the Trial Court is justified in disbelieving the recovery made by the investigating agency pursuant to voluntary statements of Accused Nos.1 and 2?

b) Whether the Trial Court is justified in not relying upon the evidence on record relating to finger prints of accused No.1 found on the Almirah of the deceased as compared with the admitted finger prints?

c) Whether the Trial Court is justified in ac