The case of the prosecution is that on 13.03.1996 between 9.45 a.m. and 12.30 p.m., the accused went to the house of the complainant at No.967, 11th Cross, II Stage, Hebbal, within the limits of Metagalli Police Station, Mysuru, under the pretext that they need drinking water. When the deceased Savitha – the wife of the complainant, opened the door, the accused entered the house, physically caught hold of her and slit her throat with a knife. She was stabbed a number of times. They snatched gold and silver ornaments from her body. They broke open the cupboard kept in the house and took away gold and silver articles.

2. On the basis of the complaint lodged by PW.1, a case was registered for the offences punishable under section 396 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code against unknown persons. Investigation was taken up. Chargesheet was filed. A splitup chargesheet was filed against accused Nos.4, 6 and 7. The remaining accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined twelve witnesses and marked sixteen exhibits along with nine material objects. The defence marked two exhibits. The Trial Court convicted accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under section 396 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to death, along with a fine of Rs.5,000/each. Accused Nos.5, 8 and 9 were acquitted.

3. The Trial Court made a reference under section 366(1) of Cr.P.C. which is registered as Crl.R.C.No.16 of 2010. The convicted accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 have filed Crl.A.No.738 of 2011.

4. The appellants’ counsel contends that the reasons for convicting the accused are unsustainable. That no conviction could be made based on the voluntary statement made to the police. That the recoveries do not match the items that have been stolen from the deceased. Therefore, the recoveries by themselves cannot constitute a ground for conviction.

5. On the other hand, the learned Special P.P., contends that there is no error that calls for interference. That the trial court has considered the entire evidence in the right perspective and has rightly convicted the accused. That the appreciation of the evidence by the trial court cannot be found fault with. That the witnesses have stood by their statements and cannot be doubted. That the reasons assigned by the trial court are based on the evidence on record. Hence, no interference is called for.

6. Heard Sri.Hashmath Pasha, learned counsel appearing for the accused and Sri. H.N.Nilogal, learned Spl. Public Prosecutor and examined the records.

7(a). PW.1 is the complainant and the husband of the deceased. He has stated that on 13.3.1996 at 3.00 p.m., PW.5 met him at Kirloskar Factory and said that there was something wrong in his house and asked him to come. When PW.1 came and entered his house, he found the dead body of his wife. The gold mangalya chain and one left ear stud were missing. In terms of Ex.P2 – the spot mahazar, M.Os.1 to 5 were recovered.

M.O.6 – the broken right ear ring was found lying at the scene of offence. M.Os.7 to 9 are golden rings and ear studs. After lodging the F.I.R., the complainant – PW.1 has given a further statement giving details about various other jewellery that were found missing from the house.

(b). PW.2 is the panch for the spot mahazar –Ex.P2 as well as inquest report Ex.P4.

(c). PW.3 is a nearby resident who was informed by PW.4 about the incident. He has stated that PW.5 brought the husband of the deceased to the scene of offence.

(d). PW.4 was residing on the upstairs of the house of the complainant and the deceased. He has stated that while he was going to his house, he heard the child crying. The crying continued for quite a sometime. Since the same did not stop, he went and met PW.3 and informed him about the same.

(e). PW.5 has stated that as on the date of the incident, PWs.3 and 4 came to his house to make a telephone call to the husband of the deceased. Since contact could not be mad