The judgment emphasizes the principle that when two views are possible based on the evidence, the view in favor of the accused must be preferred. It also underscores the importance of drawing an inference that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime without any alternate possibility.

K.N. Phaneendra, J.

The aggrieved accused No.1 in SC No.54/2012 on the file of the I Addl. Sessions Judge, Mysuru, has preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 28.2.2013, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted accused Nos.2 to 6 in the said case and found the present appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- with default sentence, of simple imprisonment for one year and also ordered out of Rs.50,000/- to pay an amount of Rs.40,000/- to PW-17 Ladhuram as compensation.

2. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor for the respondent - State. We have carefully perused the entire oral and documentary evidence relied upon by the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused. We have also perused the judgment of the Trial Court.

3. Before adverting to the substantial evidence available on record, we feel it is just and necessary to have the brief factual matrix of the case of the prosecution.

4. It is the case of the prosecution that on 31.3.2011, the accused No.1 has taken the deceased Arjunlal along with him in the evening at about 4 p.m., they started from the house of one Lekharam situated at H.D. Kote Town to Hulla Halli village on Bajaj Motorcycle CT 100. It is further alleged that at about 10.30 p.m., in between Hommaragalli - Hullahalli village road near Kapila River bridge the accused who had pre-planned to kill Arjunlal, assaulted him with a hammer on the hind portion of his head and due to which the said Arjunlal died. In order to ward off any doubt or allegations against him, the accused had informed the same as if the deceased died in an accident. The said information was given to Accused No.5, who inturn, as knowing fully well the true facts, has taken an ambulance to the spot near Hommaragalli and Accused Nos.1 & 5 brought the dead body of Arjunlal to HD Kote Government Hospital. This aspect was also informed to the complainant by name Ladhuram who is examined before the court as PW-17. He came down to the Hospital at HD Kote and there he came to know that the deceased died due to accident. Thereafter, he went to the spot and saw the place, where he suspected that, the deceased might not have died due to accident, but he must have been murdered. Therefore, he came back from the spot and once again forced the accused No.1 to reveal the truth in the presence of the elders of the community of the complainant. In fact, at that time, it is alleged that accused No.1 has revealed the truth stating that he has committed the murder of deceased Arjunlal by assaulting him with a hammer and in order to ward off the allegation, he has given a false information that, the said incident has happened as if, it is an accident. On the basis of the said allegation, he lodged the complaint as per Ex.P-15. It is also worth to mention here that in the said complaint, it is categorically stated that, the said Arjunlal has married a girl by name Hema who is no other than the Accused No.2. As she had some bad character, loose conduct, the deceased was often telling her to mend her conduct etc., Even in spite of that, the accused No.2 has not corrected herself and as such, some hatred ness started between the deceased and accused No.2. In this context, it is stated that, accused Nos.1 to 5 who are the close relatives to each other, have decided to do away the life of the deceased Arjunlal. Therefore, in that context, it is alleged that the above said incident had, taken place.

5. The entire case of the prosecution revolves around the circumstantial evidence. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, examined 36 witnesses as PWs.1 to 36 and got marked Exhibits P- 1 to P-85. The documents on behalf of the accused are marked as Exhibits D1 to D4 during the course of cross examination of some of the