JUDGMENT :

Criminal Appeal No. 100100/2019 has been preferred by the appellant-accused No.4 whereas Criminal Appeal No. 100115/2019 has been preferred by the appellant-accused No. 2, in Sessions Case No. 170/2016 dated 05.12.2018, passed by the learned III Addl. District and Sessions Judge & Special Court under POCSO Act, 2012 at Belagavi, convicting the appellant-accused Nos.2 and 4 for the offence punishable u/s 201 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC and sentencing them to undergo simple imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-each.

2. We have heard the learned counsels for the appellants-Sri R.M.Javed and Sri Vishwanath Badiger so also the learned Addl. S.P.P. for the respondent State Sri V.M. Banakar and perused the records.

3. The factual matrix of the case are that, on 07.03.2016 at about 3.30 p.m. a dead body was found in platform No. 1 of Belagavi Railway Station covered with clothes, with foul smell and it was the dead body of a lady aged about 30 years. Suspecting some miscreants have murdered the lady and kept the body in the Railway Station, the Assistant Sub Inspector of the Railway Police Station filed the complaint and a case has been registered in Crime No. 10/2016. Subsequently, accused No.2 has been apprehended and recorded the voluntary statement. At that time, it was revealed that, on 05.03.2016 accused Nos.1 and 2 were in the house along with the deceased. PW4 was also in the house. When PW4 left the house at 4.30 p.m. to bring CW10, accused No.1 was watching TV. When she came back she suspected the behaviour of accused No.2 as well as accused No.1. When she made enquiry with the accused No.1, they informed that deceased is in the room and changing the dress. But subsequently she noticed that the body of Anjali was lying in the room. When enquired, they disclosed that they will dispose of the dead body by properly packing and thereafter in the night hours they washed the place and at about 3.30 PM accused No.1 brought accused Nos.3 and 4 and lifted the body on their shoulders. When she asked, what they have done with the lady, they disclosed, that accused No.1 tried to have sex with the deceased, when she refused and started to make hue and cry, by hearing the same they apprehended that if she tell to others, that he will be derived of his father’s job, and in that light, he smothered her by strangulating her neck. Thereafter, the investigation was completed and charge sheet has been filed.

4. The learned Sessions Judge & Special Court secured the presence of the accused and charge was framed. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and as such the trial was fixed. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, got examined 15 witnesses and got marked 30 documents and 28 material objects. Thereafter the statement of the accused was recorded u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused denied all the incriminating materials and they have not led any evidence nor got marked any documents. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court held the accused No.1 guilty for the offences punishable u/s 376, 302 and 201 of IPC so also Sec. 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act. The accused Nos.2 to 4 have been convicted for the offence punishable u/s 201 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC. The appellants-accused Nos.2 and 4 are before this Court challenging their conviction.

5. It is the submission of the learned counsels for the appellants Nos. 2 and 4 respectively that, though there is no evidence available before the Court, the trial Court mechanically passed the impugned judgment. It is their further submission that, except the evidence of PW4 there is no other corroborative evidence and only on the basis of the sole evidence of PW4 the trial Court has convicted the accused. The accused No.4 has not played any role while committing the offence and he was not knowing that the said load was containing the dead body and even then he has been convicted. Alternatively it is their contention that the trial Court w