Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires undeniable proof of all circumstances leading solely to guilt, which was not satisfied in this case.

JUDGMENT :

K.S.MUDAGAL, J.

Challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against them, accused Nos.1 to 3 in S.C.No.5023/2013 on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madhugiri have preferred this appeal.

2. Appellants were accused Nos.1 to 3 in S.C.No.5023/2013. Appellants along with their co-accused i.e., accused Nos.4 and 5 were tried in S.C.No.5023/2013 for the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120B, 411 read with Section 34 of IPC on the basis of the charge sheet filed by Pavagada Police in Crime No.138/2013 of their police station. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to henceforth according to the ranks before the trial Court.

3. By the impugned judgment and order, the trial Court has convicted accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 120B read with Section 34 of IPC and acquitted accused No.5 of the charge for the offence punishable under Section 411 of IPC. Further the trial Court has sentenced accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 120B read with Section 34 of IPC to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default to pay the fine amount, to undergo one month simple imprisonment.

4. The charge against accused Nos.1 to 4 was that they conspired to rob in the house of victim Parimala and in execution of such conspiracy, on 20.08.2013 at about 10.30 a.m. accused Nos.2 to 4 on the indication given by accused No.1, who was already employed in the house of the victim as a maid servant, entered the house deceptively. When victim Parimala was engaged in kitchen, they gagged her mouth with cloth, tied her both hands using a mobile charger wire, hit on her face, strangulated her neck with a rope, thrashed her head against the shelf of the house and committed her murder. Then accused Nos.2 to 4 robbed the jewellery which were on her person as well as from the almirah which was in their house. To project accused No.1 also as a victim and innocent, they tied her hands, gagged her mouth, locked her into the bathroom and escaped. Then accused Nos.2 to 4 handed over some of the robbed jewellery to accused No.5. Accused No.5 knowing fully well that they were robbed jewellery, received them and pledged them with Manapuram Finance Corporation in Anantapura and received Rs.1,52,000/- from the said Finance Corporation. Out of the said sum, Rs.5,000/- was paid to him and the balance was shared amongst accused Nos.2 to 4.

5. The trial Court on hearing the parties framed the charge against accused Nos.2 to 4 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC, accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offence punishable under Section 120B of IPC and against accused No.5 for the offence punishable under Section 411 of IPC.

6. As the accused denied the charges, trial was conducted. In support of the case of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 11 were examined, Exs.P1 to P26 and MOs.1 to 34 were marked. After the examinations of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, they did not lead any defence evidence.

7. The trial Court on hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment and order convicted accused Nos.1 to 4 for the charges brought against them as aforesaid and has acquitted accused No.5.

8. The State has not preferred any appeal against acquittal of accused No.5. Therefore that order has attained finality. Accused No.4 preferred Crl.A.No.445/2015 before this Court. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by judgment dated 09.02.2021 has dismissed the said appeal. Accused No.2 absconded when he was on parole. Accused Nos.1 and 3 are in judicial custody since longtime. Therefore this Court by order dated 12.02.2025 appointed Amicus Curiae for accused No.2 so that the matter could be heard even in the absence of accused No.2.

Submissions of Sri Shaik Saoud, learned Counsel for accused Nos.1 and 3 and Dr.J.S.Halashetty, learned Amicus Curiae for accused No.2:

9 (i). The whole case is based on circumstantial evid