The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt based on motive, conduct, recovery of incriminating materials, and disappearance of evidence. The benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused when incriminating evidence is lacking.

JUDGMENT

M.G.Uma, J. - The appellant-accused No.2 has preferred Crl.A.100330/2017 and accused Nos.1 and 3 have preferred Crl.A.No.100080/2018 aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.08.2017 passed in S.C.No.5002/2016 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ballari, (for short referred to as 'the trial Court') convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short referred to as 'the IPC) and sentencing them to undergo imprisonment and to pay fine with default sentence.

2. Heard the learned counsel Smt. Aruna Deshpande for accused Nos.1 and 3 and Sri. B.Anwar Basha for accused No.2 and the learned Additional SPPSri. V.M.Banakar for respondent-State.

3. Brief facts of the case as made out by the prosecution are that accused Nos.1 to 3 who were staying with the deceased Anil Prasad Yadav, picked up quarrel with him, on 22/9/2015 at 8.30pm, in Shankar Nagar Camp by the side an old garage in Survey No.208C of Ingalagi in P.B.S. Mines plot. The accused No.1 with the common intention to eliminate the deceased assaulted him with stone on his head while accused Nos.2 and 3 were holding him and accused Nos.2 and 3 assaulted the deceased with knife on his neck. The accused thus caused his death. Further, accused Nos.1 to 3 in order to destroy the evidence of committing the crime, shifted the dead body from the scene of occurrence and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 r/w 34 of IPC.

4. It is contended that, the informant-PW1 lodged the first information as per Ex.P1 setting the criminal law into motion against unknown persons who might have caused the death of the deceased. On the basis of this information, the FIR as per Ex.P18 was registered. Accused Nos.1 to 3 were subsequently apprehended. Their voluntary statements were recorded which subsequently led to the recovery of the incriminating material, viz., the knife used in commission of the offence by the accused. The railway tickets booked by accused Nos.1 and 2 with an intention to flee from Hospet, along with their mobile phones were also recovered from the accused. The investigating officer after completing the investigation, filed charge sheet against accused for the above said offences. The jurisdictional Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and committed the matter to the learned Principal District and Session Judge, Ballari, who inturn made over the matter to the trial Court for trial. The trial Court secured the presence of accused Nos.1 to 3. Accused have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution in order to prove its contention, got examined PWs.1 to 18, got marked Exs.P1 to P29 and identified MOs.1 to 18. Accused Nos.1 to 3 have denied all the incriminating materials available on record in the statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., but have not chosen to lead any evidence in support of their defence. The trial Court after taking into consideration all the materials on record has came to the conclusion that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 r/w 34 of IPC and has passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the accused. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court, accused Nos.1 and 3 have preferred Crl.A.100080/2018 and accused No.2 has preferred Crl.A.100330/2017 on various grounds.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court is illegal, perverse and same is liable to be set aside. The trial Court has not taken into consideration the oral and documentary evidence placed before it in proper perspective. The trial Court has ignored the fact that the first information as per Ex.P.1 was lodged against unknown persons. There are n