JUDGMENT :

B. VEERAPPA, J.

1. The accused has filed present Criminal Appeal against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.11.2015 made in S.C. No. 139/2009 on the file of IV Additional Sessions Judge, Mysuru convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code.

(I) BRIEF FACT OF THE CASE:

2. The prosecution case is that on 08.10.2008 at about 9.30 a.m. accused was returning from his garden-land, at that time, a dog belonging to PW-5 Nagamma barked at the accused and accused pelted stones to the said dog, enraged by the same, accused assaulted CW-9 AND CW-10 with coconut quills. On seeing this, the deceased Mallaradhya @ Lokesha questioned the accused as to why he was assaulting the ladies with coconut quills and there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased. The accused threatened that he would murder him within 15 days and went away from the spot. It is further case of the prosecution that on 30.10.2008 at about 8.30 p.m. when deceased Mallaradhya was returning home after finishing his work near Ramaswamy channel, accused was waiting for the deceased and assaulted him with chopper (machu) on his face, head and murdered him. Thereafter, threw the dead body into the channel along with his moped in order to screen off the offence of murder. Hence, the accused has committed the aforesaid offences. Based on the complaint by PW-1 Renukaradya, the brother of the deceased, the jurisdictional police after investigation filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code.

3. After committal of the case to the Sessions Court, the learned Sessions Judge framed the charges against the accused and read over and explained to him in the language known to him. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

In order to prove the case of the prosecution examined in all 29 witnesses as PWs. 1 to 29 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to 48 and got marked the material objects as M.Os.1 to 21. After completion of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, statement of the accused as contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded and the accused denied all incriminating circumstances adduced against him by the prosecution witnesses, but he has chosen to lead any evidence nor marked any documents.

4. The learned Sessions judge based on the aforesaid pleadings, formulated three points for consideration, considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge recorded a finding that prosecution proved all the circumstances against the accused and thereby, by the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code. Hence, the present appeal is filed by the accused.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(II) ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY SRI. C.V. NAGESH, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

6. Sri. C.V. Nagesh, learned Senior counsel for the accused contended with vehemence that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court, convicting the accused for the offences made out in the charge sheet is erroneous and contrary to the material on record and liable to be set aside. He would further contend that the entire case of the prosecution is based on the circumstantial evidence as there was no direct evidence for the following alleged circumstances:

1. Last seen theory.

2. Extra judicial confession.

3. Recovery of mobile phone, repiece patti and Chopper i.e. M.O.20, M.Os.15 and 17 respectively.

4. Medical evidence and motive.

7. The learned Senior Counsel further contended that PWs. 2, 22 and 25 were examined as last seen theory witnesses. The said witnesses have turned completely hostile. Therefore, last seen theory is not proved. Even the learned Sessions judge has also recorded a finding that the pros