The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and in cases relying on circumstantial evidence, the evidence must form a complete chain that excludes any reasonable doubt regarding the innocence of the accused.

JUDGMENT

K.SOMASHEKAR, J. -

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction rendered by the Court of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagaram sitting at Kanakapura in S.C.No.97/2011 dtd. 19/1/2017, whereby convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Ss. 143, 147, 302 read with Sec. 149 of I.P.C. and accused Nos.1 to 6 sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence punishable under Sec. 144 read with Sec. 149 of I.P.C. Further, the aforesaid accused directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Sec. 147 read with Sec. 149 of I.P.C. They shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.25, 000.00 each for the offences punishable under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 149 of I.P.C. and in default for payment of fine amount they have to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. All the sentences awarded against the accused shall run concurrently.

2. Factual matrix of this appeal are as under: It is the case of the prosecution that on 18/2/2011 at around 8.30 p.m. at Chatra-Tigalarahalli Road on BWSSB Road near Pipeline Canal the accused being the persons have formed an unlawful assembly with a common object to eliminate the deceased - Rajendra. Accordingly, they took him on their motor cycles bearing No.KA-04-V-1371, KA-51- J-2679 and moped bearing No.KA-01-K-2188 from his house by saying him that they are going to Kallahalli fair/jatra. The said Rajendra was earning Rs.5, 000.00 per month by working in a factory at Bengaluru. The aforesaid Rajendra did not provide alcohol having a habit to consuming the same. Therefore, some enmity developed in between the aforesaid accused and the deceased. Therefore, the accused persons pushed the deceased - Rajendra into a ditch beside pipeline, later by alighting into the ditch, accused Nos.2 to 5 hold the hands and legs of deceased - Rajendra and accused Nos.1 and 6 assaulted on his head with stone and committed murder.

3. In pursuance of the filing of a complaint by the complainant the criminal law was set into motion by registering FIR as per Ex.P-16 for the aforesaid offences. Subsequent to registration of FIR against the accused being culprits, the investigating agency has taken up the case for investigation and investigation has been done thoroughly and during investigation, the investigating agency has recorded the statement of witnesses and so also drew the panchanama at Ex.P7 and so also taken the PM report at Ex.P11 enclosed thereof during the seizure mahazar at Ex.P14. On completion of entire investigation by the investigating agency filed the charge sheet against the accused before the committal court. Subsequent to filing of the charge sheet, the Committal Magistrate had passed an order under Sec. 209 of Cr.P.C. and accordingly, the case in S.C.97/2011 has been registered. In that case, the Trial Judge having secured the accused for facing up a trial, the accused who defended the case by engaging the service of the advocate.

4. Heard the learned counsel Sri.G.M.Srinivas Reddy for the appellants and so also, learned HCGP namely Sri.V.S.Hegde for the State. Perused the impugned judgment of conviction and order in terms of a sentence rendered by the trial court in S.C.No.97/2011.

5. Subsequently heard the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and defence counsel for the accused and framing of a charge. On prima-facie materials found against the accused and framing the charge against the accused under Sec. 143, 147, 302 read with Sec. 149 of I.P.C., the charges shall be read out to the accused in the language known to them and the accused not pleaded guilty but claimed to be tried. Accordingly, heard the accused and recorded the evidence.

6. Subsequent to framing of charge against the accused, wherein the prosecution in order to establish the case against the accused led in evidence by examining PW-