Mohan M. Shantana Goudar, J.

1. The judgment and order of conviction dated 11.7.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Court, Hassan in SC. No. 53/2010, is called in question in these appeals by the convicted accused.

Crl. A. No. 965/2012 is filed by convicted accused No. 1, whereas Crl. A. No. 909/2011 is filed by convicted accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4.

All the accused were tried and convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302and 201 r/w. Section 34 of IPC.

Case of the prosecution in brief is that accused No. 1 is the wife of the deceased Nagaraju; the deceased used to quarrel with accused No. 1 frequently by consuming alcohol and used to assault her; for the said reason accused No. 1 hatched the plan in collusion with accused Nos. 2 to 4 to do away with the life of the deceased Nagaraju.

Accused No. 2 is the husband of sister of accused No. 1 and co-brother of the deceased; at about 6.00 p.m. on 5.9.2009, accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 came in a Tata Sumo vehicle bearing Regn. No. KA-05-D-379 to the house of accused No. 1, who in turn has paid Rs. 5000/- and agreed to give golden ring to each of accused Nos. 3 and 4; Accused No. 1 also gave a plastic rope for committing the murder of the deceased; accused Nos. 2 to 4 accordingly took the deceased in the said Tata Sumo vehicle as per the instructions of accused No. 1; initially they went to Malanad Wine Shop, wherein the deceased was made to consume alcohol; thereafter accused No. 2 to 4 took the deceased near Doddatappalu village on B.M. Road, NH. No. 48 and strangulated the deceased Nagaraju with plastic rope, consequent upon which, the deceased deed in the said vehicle and the dead body was thrown by them in a drainage in order to conceal the offence; P.W. 1, a passer-by saw the dead body on 6.9.2009 and informed the same to Sakaleshapura Police Station by lodging the complaint against unknown persons; the statement of P.W. 1 was recorded as per Ex. Pl and Crime No. 163/2009 came to be registered by P.W. 26, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Sakaleshpura Police Station, based on the complaint lodged by P.W. 1; P.W. 30, the Inspector of Police completed the investigation and laid the charge sheet against the four accused.

2. In order to prove its case, the prosecution in all examined 30 witnesses and got marked 29 Exhibits and 14 Material Objects. On behalf of the defence, no witness is examined and no documents are marked. As aforementioned, the trial Court after hearing, convicted all the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC.

3. Sri Balan, learned advocate appearing on behalf of accused Nos. 2 to 4 taking us through the entire material on record submits that the Court below is not justified in convicting the accused merely on assumptions; none of the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution is proved, much less beyond reasonable doubt; all the important witnesses who were supposed to depose about recovery of certain incriminating articles etc., have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution; the reasons assigned by the trial Court are improper and incorrect and consequently the conclusion reached by it is incorrect.

The said submissions of Sri Balan are supported by Sri K.S. Chandrakanth Gowda, learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused No. 1 and Sri Laksmeesh Mutaguppi, learned amicus curiae.

Per contra, the learned Government Pleader argued in support of the judgment of the Court below.

4. P.W. 1, who was a passer-by saw the dead body found in a ditch and informed the same to Sakaleshpura Police Station by lodging the complaint at Ex. P1. Crime is registered against unknown persons. P.W. 1 is also the witness for Ex. P2 and P8, scene of offence mahazar and inquest mahazar respectively.

P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 were supposed to depose about the motive for commission of the offence. P.W. 2 is the father of the deceased and P.W. 3 is the elder brother of the deceased. P.W. 4 who is an independent witness, has deposed that quarrels used to ta