1. The case of the prosecution is that on 18.12.2010 at about 9.00 a.m., CW.11 Gopal who was working as a Maistry with CW.1 K.A. Vijaykumar, came and told him that in his estate, near Marasanagi village, he saw a dead body of a female beneath the silver oak tree. CW.1 went there and saw the dead body. He immediately informed the same to the Kalasa Police by filing a complaint. Thereafter, the police took photographs, held an inquest and sent the dead body for postmortem examination. Pamphlets were circulated with the photo of the deceased for the purpose of identification. Some of the persons identified the dead body as that of the wife of CW.17, who was working as a Conductor in a private bus and that the deceased was residing at Navile Village in Mandya District. The information was received by the Investigating Officer who thereafter contacted the Kestur Police, who identified the same with regard to a missing complaint in Crime No.133 of 2010 filed in Kestur Police Station and therefore, the deceased was identified as one Mamatha and the complainant therein was the husband of the deceased. Thereafter, the husband was secured. He stated that his wife was the President of Sthree Shakthi Sangha and would often visit the house of CW.32. That on 17.12.2010 at about 6.30 a.m., she left home by stating that she intended to go to the house of CW.32, in relation to the activities pertaining to the Sangha. At about 7.00 a.m., she called him to intimate that she did not get the bus. Once again she called and stated that she has boarded the bus and asked him and their daughter to go to Hosadurga to the house of her parents to celebrate the festival. On the same day between 10.30 p.m. and 10.45 p.m., he received two missed calls from the phone of the deceased. When he tried to return the call, the mobile was switched off. On the next day morning, he went to Hosadurga along with his daughter. He did not find his wife there. After participating in the festival, he came back to his village Navile. He started making enquiries. Thereafter, he came to know that on the previous day at about 3.30 p.m., accused nos.1 and 2 came there in a white Indica car and she has gone with them. Thereafter, he filed a missing complaint.

2. Based on the complaint by CW.1, a case was registered in Crime No.57 of 2010 of Kalasa Police Station and investigation was taken up. Charge-sheet was filed against the accused for the offences punishable under sections 302, 392, 201 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. In order to prove its case, the prosecution in all examined 26 witnesses, marked 36 exhibits and 20 material objects. The defence marked Ex.D1 which is the relevant portion marked in section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code statement of PW.19. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. By the impugned order, both the accused were convicted for the offences punishable under sections 302, 392, 201 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- each and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code. They were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under section 392 of Indian Penal Code. They were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under section 201 of Indian Penal Code. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants –accused have filed this appeal.

3. Sri. H.C. Hanumaiah, learned counsel appearing for the appellants contends that the impugned order of the trial court is erroneous and liable to be set aside. That the trial court has failed to consider the evidence in the right persp