JUDGMENT

Suraj Govindaraj, J. - The appellant is before this Court challenging the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Gadag, dated 25.06.2019 in S.C. No. 34/2017, the appellant being accused No. 2-Hanamant therein.

2. The case of the prosecution was that, accused No. 1-Churchappa being the son-in-law of the complainant caused the death of Ningabasappa, the son of the complainant with the assistance of accused No. 2-Hanamant, in order to knockout the property of the said Ningabasappa, which on his death would have been succeeded to by his wife Jayashree who is the sister of Ningabasappa. It is stated that, the accused No. 2-Hanamant called the deceased to the land of one Shankrappa Yeligar-C.W.10 (P.W.9). They consumed alcohol and at about 10.00 p.m., at the instance of and on promise to make payment of Rs. 60,000/- by the accused No. 1-Churchappa, they strangulated Ningabasappa by using Ningabasappa's shirt, thereby committing his murder and in order to conceal the evidence, both the accused threw the dead body in the canal situated in the land of C.W.10/P.W.9-Shankrappa Yeligar thereby committing offences under Section 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC.

3. Upon investigation being completed, the CPI, Ron, submitted a charge-sheet against accused No. 1-Churchappa and accused No. 2-Hanamant. Accused No. 1-Churchappa was in judicial custody till his death on 04.10.2018. Accused No. 2-Hanamant, being in judicial custody, was secured and the matter was committed to the Sessions Court, accused No. 2-Hanamant was heard before framing of charges, charges were framed, read over and explained to him in the language known to him i.e., Kannada. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses, P.W.1 to P.W.16, got marked 28 documents i.e. Ex. P.1 to P.28 and 03 material objects i.e., MO.1 to MO.3.

5. Upon closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the incriminating evidence against the accused was put across to the accused No. 2 and he has denied the same and his Statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., was recorded, he chose not to lead any evidence. After hearing the arguments, the trial Court convicted the accused No. 2-Hanamant, for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default thereof, to undergo simple imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default thereof, simple imprisonment for 1 year and 3 months for the offence punishable under Section 201 read with Section 34 of IPC. Out of the fine amount, an amount of Rs. 5,000/- was directed to be paid to P.W.1/C.W.1-Basamma, P.W.5/C.W.6-Jyashree & P.W.6/C.W.7-Yallavva and balance to be appropriated to the State.

6. The District Legal Services Authority, Gadag was also directed to decide the quantum of compensation to be awarded under Section 357A of Cr.P.C., to P.W.1/C.W.1-Basamma, P.W.5/C.W.6-Jyashree & P.W.6/C.W.7-Yallavva.

7. It is challenging the said order of conviction and sentence that the appellant is before this Court.

8. Sri Shivaraj S. Balloli, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that-

8.1. The trial Court has not appreciated the evidence on record in a proper and required manner, if at all the sam