JUDGMENT :

The State has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 01.02.2016 passed in S.C. No. No. 42/2011 by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 302, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC.

2. Heard Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, learned HCGP appearing for the appellant – State and Sri. B.S. Prasad, learned counsel for respondents – accused Nos. 1 to 3.

3. Brief facts of the case are that on 25.10.2010 around 09.55 pm in Hookadu Paisary situated at Kaggodlu village accused Nos. 1 to 3 have conspired to kill Nachappa, brother of accused No. 1 since there was land dispute between accused Nos. 1 and 2 and Nachappa. In pursuance of the said conspiracy the accused persons were waiting for Nachappa and when he was proceeding towards his house by walk, accused No. 1 took the gun belonging to accused No. 2 and fired gun shot two times and when he escaped, accused Nos. 1 and 3 chased him and accused No. 1 fired gun shot two times and made Nachappa to fall into a pit. The accused persons crushed the face of Nachappa with stone and accused No. 1 fired gun shot two times at the chest and committed his murder. In order to screen from legal punishment, the accused persons transported the dead body inside the estate and covered with leaves. One Sri. P.P. Ramesh lodged a Police complaint and on the strength of the said complaint, a case was registered in Madikeri Rural Police Station in Crime No. 238/2010 for the aforesaid offences and FIR was sent to the jurisdictional Magistrate. After completion of investigation the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet against accused Nos. 1 to 3. Charges came to be framed for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 302, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC. The accused Nos. 1 to 3 pleaded not guilty of the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined in all 13 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.13 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.26 and M.O.1 to M.O.40. The statement of accused Nos. 1 to 3 as required under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. came to be recorded whereunder accused Nos. 1 to 3 denied all the incriminating evidence against them. The accused did not choose to lead any evidence but only got marked Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.4. Learned Sessions Judge after hearing arguments on both the sides and framing points for consideration has passed the impugned judgment dated 01.02.2016 acquitting the accused Nos. 1 to 3 of the charges leveled against them. The State has preferred the present appeal challenging the said Judgment of acquittal.

4. Learned HCGP appearing for the State would contend that the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge is illegal and perverse and evidence on record was not appreciated in proper perspective. It is her further submission that the case of prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence and the trial court has not properly considered the evidence of P.W.1 – complainant, experts P.W.11 to P.W.13 and official witnesses P.W.9 and P.W.10 in right perspective. Recovery of incriminating articles under mahazar has been proved satisfactorily by the prosecution by examining the Investigating Officer even though the panchas have turned hostile. The trial Court has not properly considered the recovery of incriminating articles made at the instance of the accused based on their voluntary statement. The learned Sessions Judge has failed to take into consideration the fact that the accused have not explained how their clothes seized under mahazar based on their voluntary statement were found to be stained with `O’ group blood alleged to be the blood group of the deceased Nachappa. The learned Sessions Judge has completely overlooked the evidence of P.W.13. In his evidence P.W.13 has stated about the SBBL gun recovered at the instance of accused No. 2 on his voluntary statement and also about deformed lead pellets sent to him for his examination