Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J. - The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 15/16-7-2011, passed by the Fast Track Court-XVII, Bangalore City, in SC No. 874 of 2008 is called in question in these appeals by the convicted accused.

By the impugned judgment, the Trial Court convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 392 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Cri. A. No. 1148 of 2011 is filed by accused 2, whereas Cri. A. No. 192 of 2002 is filed by accused 1.

2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that, between 10.00 a.m. and 1.30 p.m. on 16-4-2008, accused 1 and 2 with an intention to rob the gold ornaments in the house of P.W. 1-Ramana Rao, situated within the limits of Rajagopalanagar Police Station, entered the house; after noticing that Smt. Gangamma (mother of P.W. 1), aged about 75 years (deceased) was alone in the house, squeezed her neck and pressed her face with pillow and kept rice bag on her chest; thereafter the accused robbed cash and gold ornaments worth Rs.5 Lakhs and disappeared from the scene. It is relevant to note that accused 1 is the brother-in-law of P.W. 1 (wife of accused 1 and the wife of P.W. 1 are genitive sisters). P.W. 4 also knew accused 1.

3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution in all has examined 14 witnesses and 19 Exhibits and 29 Material Objects. On behalf of the defence, no witness is examined and no document is marked. As aforementioned, the Trial Court on evaluation of the material on record, convicted both the accused for the aforementioned offences.

4. Sri C.H. Jadhav, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of accused 1 (appellant in Cri. A. No. 198 of 2012) taking us through the entire material on record submits that none of the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution is proved by it beyond reasonable doubt; there is inordinate delay in lodging the complaint; the police had already arrived at the scene of offence prior to lodging of the complaint; the manner in which the complaint is lodged creates suspicion in the mind of the Court; though the police came to the spot even prior to lodging of the complaint, there was no reason as to why the complainant should go to Police Station and lodge the complaint as per Ex. P. 1.

He further submits that the place of incident, i.e., house of P.W. 1 is surrounded by ten houses in the same building and none of the persons adjoining houses came to the scene of offence; the last seen theory put forth by the prosecution deserves to be rejected, inasmuch as the statement of P.W. 4 who has deposed about the last seen theory is recorded only on 22-4-2008 though the incident has taken place on 16-4-2008; P.W. 4 is the owner of the house wherein P.W. 1 was living and he knew accused 1 also; P.W. 4 assisted P.W. 1 in lodging the complaint and he gave moral support to him immediately after the incident and therefore it is highly unnatural on the part of P.W. 4 in not disclosing last seen theory before anybody, including the police either at the time of lodging the complaint or at the time of drawing inquest panchanama at Ex. P. 7; absolutely no records are forthcoming as to who collected the finger prints of the accused for the purpose of comparison; in the absence of such vital material, the evidence of the finger prints' expert and his report at Ex. P. 4 cannot be relied upon. He also submits that since accused 1 is the brother-in-law of P.W. 1, it was quite possible for him to visit the house of P.W. 1 frequently and therefore it is not unnatural that the finger prints were found on the almirah, fan, etc. in the house of P.W. 1. In respect of the circumstance relating to recovery concerned, Sri Jadhav submits that recoveries are made belatedly, i.e., after 3 to 4 days of the arrest of the accused; none of the panchas to recovery panchanama at Exs. P. 16 and P. 17 is examined before the Court; since P.Ws. 9 and 14 being the Inspectors of Police, their evidence needs to be disbelieved more