Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.

The judgment and order dated 22nd June, 2012 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Kolar in Sessions Case No. 124 of 2009 acquitting accused nos.1 and 2 of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 392 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentencing accused no.1 for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC is the subject-matter of these two appeals.

Crl. A. No. 1073 of 2012 is filed by the State questioning the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 392 read with Section 34 of IPC and convicting accused 1 for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC, whereas Cri. A. No. 779 of 2012 is filed by accused no.1-appellant questioning the judgment and order of sentence convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that deceased Narayanamma was aged more than 70 years; the complainant is the husband of deceased 11 Narayanamma and their marriage was performed about 58 years prior to the date of the incident; the complainant and deceased Narayanamma had two sons viz., Nanjundappa and Srinivasa Gowda. Both sons are married and are 11 having children. The complainant and deceased Narayanamma were residing with their elder son at Kembodi Village, whereas their younger son 11 is residing at Kolar and is working as a teacher; at 11.30 a.m. on 22-2-2009, Narayanamma went out of her house after having lunch and she did not II return; the complainant waited till evening of the said day; thereafter, the complainant and other villagers searched for Narayanamma, but they were notable to trace her; at about 8.30 a.m. on 25-2-2009, one Venkateshappa, S/o. Late Muniyappa informed that the dead body of Narayanamma is lying in the eucalyptus grove of Krishnappa of Kembodi; the complainant and his family members went and saw the dead body. The right hand and half portion of the left hand were missing; deceased used to wear Ole and Jumki (gold ornaments worn by the deceased); however, mangalya chain which the deceased used to wear regularly (measuring about 70 gms.) was missing ¦ from her person; the complainant suspected that somebody murdered Narayanamma and robbed Mangalya chain from her person. Based on these allegations, Cri. No. 54 of 2009 came to be registered in Kolar Rural Police Station by Sub-Inspector of Police-P. W. 20; FIR as per Ex. P. 19 was sent to the jurisdictional Court. After completion of investigation, P.W. 17-Inspector of Police laid the charge-sheet.

3. Sri Vijay Kumar Majage, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State by taking us through the material on record submits that the Court below has erred in acquitting the accused of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 392 of IPC and convicting accused no. 1 for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC; the case rests on the circumstantial evidence; all the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are proved, more particularly, the circumstance of recovery of gold ornaments at the instance of accused no. 1; since no proper explanation is forthcoming with regard to possession of the gold ornaments belonging to the deceased by accused no. 1, the Trial Court ought to have convicted the accused for the offences with which the accused are charged.

4. Per contra, Sri M.R. Nanjunda Gowda, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of accused no.1-appellant in Cri. A. No. 779 of 2012 argued that though the Trial Court is justified in acquitting both the accused of the offences with which they were charged, it has really erred in convicting accused no.1 for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC. He submits that the circumstance of recovery against accused no.1 is not at all proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.

5. There are no eye-witnesses to the incident in question. The case rests on circumstanti