B.A. Patil, J.

The appellant being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the III Addl. Sessions Judge, Mysore in S.C.No.4/2012 dated 07.09.2013 has preferred this appeal, whereunder the accused-appellant was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' for short) and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. Challenging the legality and correctness of the said judgment, the appellant is before this Court.

2. We have heard Sri Kapil Dixit, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri Vijay Kumar Majage, learned Addl. SPP appearing for the respondent-State.

3. Before considering the case, we feel it just and proper to put forth the facts of the case. The genesis of the case of the prosecution is that the deceased Manjunath was elder brother of the accused and he used to harass his mother demanding amount as he was addicted to bad vices. It is further alleged that the deceased was driving autorickshaw on rental basis. The mother of the deceased and accused had invested some amount in chit fund. The deceased Manjunath had taken the chit amount in order to have a house on mortgage and in this regard, the accused quarrelled with brother-deceased Manjunath. In furtherance of his intention and vengeance, on 14.09.2011 at about 11.00 a.m., the accused took the deceased in an autorickshaw under the guise of getting a gas cylinder and took him near Hullahally Nala and attacked the deceased with a knife and thereafter dragged him out of the autorickshaw, stabbed him and assaulted with cement brick and thereby caused the death. It is the further case of the prosecution that the complainant PW1-Rachaiah, Police Constable, who was on rounds, on seeing the same rushed to the spot and immediately apprehended the accused and at the same time PW13-Prabhulingaradhya, Head Constable, also came to the spot by noticing the assault and they took the accused to the Police Station produced him before Investigating Officer and filed the complaint as per Ex.P1. A case was registered in Crime No.145/2011 for the offence punishable under Sections 302 of IPC. After investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the charge sheet against the accused. The learned Magistrate took the cognizance and after following the procedure laid down under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. and after supplying the copies of the charge sheet material, as the said case was triable by the Court of the Sessions, the same was committed to the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court took cognizance and secured the presence of the accused, who was in judicial custody and after hearing the learned Special Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for the accused, charge was framed, read over and explained to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and as he intended to be tried, the trial was fixed.

4. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution got examined 27 witnesses and got marked 28 documents and 11 material objects. After conclusion of the evidence of the prosecution, the statement of the accused came to be recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by putting incriminating material as against him. He has denied all the incriminating material evidence against him. The accused did not choose to lead any defence evidence and has also not got marked any documents. After hearing the learned counsels appearing for the parties, the Trial Court found that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and convicted him. Challenging the legality and correctness of the said judgment, the accused-appellant is before this Court.

5. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant are that the prosecution has not established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Even then the co