DILIP B. BHOSALE J.—This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 8th Jan. 2008 rendered by Fast Track Court-V, Mysore, convicting all the six appellants-accused for the offences they were charged with. Accused Nos. 1 to 5 were tried and held guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 364, 302, 404 and 201 of IPC read with Section 149 IPC and accused Nos. 6, 1, 3 and 5 were tried and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC read with Section 34 of IPC. Accused Nos. 1 to 5 were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the period ranging from three months under Section 143 IPC to life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 149 of IPC. Accused No. 6, 1, 3 and 5 were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for a period of seven years. All the six accused were also directed to pay fine and in default to undergo simple imprisonment ranging from one month to one year. All the sentences of imprisonment awarded were directed to run concurrently.

2. The prosecution case, as disclosed from the evidence on record, is that P.W. 10-R. Shivanna and the deceased R. Srinivas were the brothers and residents of village Alagudu, Taluk T. Narasipura. They were fruit vendors. On 20th of December, 2005, at about 5.00 p.m. the deceased left the shop after having handed over a cash counter key and his mobile phone to P.W. 14-Karaga Shetty informing him that he was going to Mysore and thereafter, it is alleged, he did not return. P.W. 10-Shivanna made attempts to search his brother but his efforts were in vain. On 25th December, 2005, in the morning, while P.W. 10 was on his way to Edathore, some agricultural labourer informed him that they had seen half burnt dead body by the side of Mandi Balalu canal. On receiving this information P.W. 10 with his friend immediately rushed to Mandi Balalu canal at about 10.00 a.m. and there they noticed half burnt dead body of the deceased-Srinivas.

3. P.W. 10-R.Shivanna, then went to T. Narasipura Police Station and lodged a complaint (Ex.P19). P.W. 21-B.Basavaraju, on the basis thereof registered a Crime bearing CR No. 249/2005, and set the investigation in motion. He arrested A2, A5 and A6 on 19.1.2006 and the remaining accused (A1, A3 and A4) on 4.2.2006. During investigation, he recorded statements of several witnesses, conducted different panchanamas and seized/attached material objects. After completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed on 8.4.2006. The case was then committed to the Court of Sessions, where the charges under the aforementioned provisions of IPC were framed. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The defence propounded by them was that of total denial.

4. In the course of trial, the prosecution examined 22 witnesses and placed 48 documents (Exs.P1 to P48) and 15 material objects on record in support of their case. The Court below after having considered the entire materials on record, convicted all the six accused vide Judgment and Order dated 8.1.2008.

5. The case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution to bring home guilt of the accused are last seen together, motive, recovery of incriminating articles, extra judicial confession and the mahazar, showing that A2, A5 and A6 had shown the scene of offence to the police and the panchas, where the dead body was found on 25.12.2005.

6. Out of the 22 witnesses examined by the prosecution, P.W. 1-Rangaswamy; P.W. 2-Vasim Ahamed; P.W. 3-Sathish; P.W. 5-Shamshuddin; P.W. 9-Vrushabendra and P.W. 13-Ananthaa Raje Urs, turned hostile. In other words, those witnesses did not support the prosecution at all. Insofar as P.W. 13 is concerned, though he was declared hostile, his evidence has been believed by the trial Court to the extent that he had seen A-l and the deceased together last. P.Ws. 4, 11, 16 and 17 are the panch witnesses; P.Ws. 12, 18 and 19 are the photographers; P.Ws. 7, 21 and 22 are the police witnes