The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, either by direct evidence or circumstantial evidence. When the prosecution relies on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances should be conclusive and consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence. The accused has the right to explain incriminating materials and the failure to do so can be considered as an additional link in the chain of circumstances.

JUDGMENT

M.G.Uma, J. - The accused in S.C.No.95/2015 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, sitting at Jamakhandi, ( the trial Court for short) are the appellants in these appeals.

2. The accused No.1 is the appellant in Crl. A. No.100153/2018 and the accused No.2 is the appellant in Crl.A.No.872/2018. The accused have challenged the judgment dated 27.04.2018 passed by the trial Court convicting them for the offence punishable under Section 498A and the accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code ( the IPC for short) and sentencing them to undergo imprisonment and to pay fine, with default sentence.

3. The parties are referred as per their original rank before the trial court for the sake of clarity.

4. Heard Sri. Srinand A.Pachhapure, learned Counsel and Sri.V.M.Banakar, learned Additional SPP for the parties.

5. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that Sumithra (referred as 'the deceased' for short) was the wife of accused No.1. Accused No.2 is the brother of accused No.1. They were suspecting the deceased s fidelity and insisted that she should not go out of the house. They even prevented her from going to coolie work and mingling with other persons. They were assaulting the deceased with common intention and thereby treated her with cruelty. With the intention of causing her death, they tried to commit murder by tying a plastic wire around her neck on 22/06/2015 at 10:00 pm in the land of Basappa Mandgani Hulyal bearing Survey No.43 situated at Mugalkhod village and discarded the dead body in the land of Gatageppa Shivapura bearing Survey No.41 of the same village.

6. The deceased s brother - PW1 lodged the first information against six persons as per Ex.P1 and set the criminal law into motion. The investigating officer, after completing the investigation filed charge sheet only against these two accused for the above said offences. On the matter being committed by the committal court, the trial Court secured the presence of the accused 1 and 2; they denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

7. The prosecution therefore examined 20 witnesses to prove its case and got marked 40 documents and three materials objects. The accused denied all the incriminating circumstances in their statements recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., but not chosen to lead any evidence in support of their defence.

8. The trial Court after taking into consideration all the material on record has come to the conclusion that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused 1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Sections 498A r/w 34 of IPC and that of accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. However it has acquitted accused No.2 of the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.

9. The accused 1 and 2 are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 3 years for the offence punishable under Section 498A r/w 34 of IPC and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- each and in default to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year. Accused No.1 is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- by the impugned judgment.

10. Aggrieved by the same accused 1 and 2 have preferred the above appeals on various grounds. However the State has not preferred any appeal against acquittal of accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.

11. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that there are no eye-witnesses to the incident. The prosecution is relying on circumstantial evidence to prove its case. Motive is one of the circumstances relied on by the prosecution.

12. Charge No.2 is framed alleging specific overt acts by these accused giving an impression that there are eyewitnesses to the crime. But, the prosecution has not proved either the overt acts as alleged or the motive. Thus there is absolutely no link to connect the accused to the offence.