IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, especially in circumstantial evidence cases, where inconsistencies can lead to acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

K.SOMASHEKAR, J.

Criminal Appeal No.773/2018 and Criminal Appeal No.195/2018 have been preferred by the appellants / accused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) challenging the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence rendered by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, sitting at Kanakapura, (for short ‘trial Court’) in S.C.No.5017/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’). Both the appellants / accused Nos.1 and 2 namely Smt. Uma and Shri Shivabasavegowda have been convicted by the trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 r/w 34 of IPC. Both accused Nos.1 and 2 were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.30,000/- each for the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. For the offence under Section 201 r/w 34 of IPC, both accused Nos.1 and 2 were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- each, in default of payment of fine amount, the accused shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. The sentences awarded against the aforesaid accused persons were ordered to run concurrently.

2. Heard learned counsel Shri Veeranna G.Tigadi for appellant / accused No.1 namely Smt. Uma in Criminal Appeal No.773/2018 and so also learned Senior Counsel Shri C.V.Nagesh for learned counsel Shri Raghavendra.K. for appellant / accused No.2 namely Shri Shivabasavegowda in Criminal Appeal No.195/2018. Perused the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence rendered against both the accused Nos.1 and 2, consisting of evidence of PWs.1 to 19, documents at Exs.P1 to P24, and material objects marked as M.Os.1 to 8.

3. The factual matrix of these appeals is as under:-

It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased namely Smt. Doddadevamma had lent the hand loan of Rs.25,000/- to the accused No.1 – Smt. Uma and the deceased was demanding the accused No.1 to repay the aforesaid loan amount. Accused No.1 stated that she had sustained a huge loss in the silk business and after selling the silkworms, would pay the amount and on 28.01.2013, the deceased demanded accused No.1 pay back the amount, and accused No.1 assured to pay the amount and took the deceased to her house at around 6.45 p.m. But, even after 8.00 p.m., the deceased did not return to her house. Therefore, the family members of the deceased started searching for her, but they could not find her and their efforts went in vain. On 29.01.2013, around 1.30 p.m., the complainant received an information that the deceased had been murdered at the Silkworm Cocoons house of accused No.1, and thereafter only, the complainant lodged the complaint before the police having jurisdiction to deal with the matter and based upon the complaint filed by the complainant, the criminal law was set into motion by recording the FIR under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. Subsequent to registering the case against accused Nos.1 and 2, the Investigating Officer has taken up the case for investigation and conducted the investigation thoroughly and laid the charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 and 2 before the committal Court. Subsequent to laying up of charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 and 2, wherein the committal Court had passed a committal order keeping in view Section 209 of Cr.P.C., and wherein this order had been passed by the Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Kanakapura and committed the case to the District and Sessions Court, Ramanagara for trial, subsequently, heard on charge and charges were read over to the accused Nos.1 and 2 in the language known to them and wherein they have pleaded not guilty, but claim to be tried, accordingly, the plea of the accused have been recorded separately.

4. Subsequently, in