The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and reliance on insufficient evidence cannot sustain a conviction.

JUDGMENT :

H.P. SANDESH, J.

Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned Addl. SPP for the State.

2. The factual matrix of the case of prosecution before the Trial Court is that the father of the complainant was murdered by his son-in-law, since the accused was ill-treating the daughter of the deceased, both physically and mentally. The daughter of the deceased had come back from her matrimonial home and was staying with her parents at Sarawad village. It is also the case of the prosecution that eight days prior to the incident, Beerappa (the deceased) had been approached by the accused, who had come to Sarawad and was insisting the deceased to send his daughter (wife of the accused) back to him. The deceased did not agree for the same. Hence, taking advantage of the fact that the deceased was sleeping in front of his house on the road during the summer season, the accused dropped a stone on his head and committed his murder. When, the complainant (son of deceased), woke up to attend nature call, he witnessed the incident and on screaming, other villagers rushed to the spot. Hence, a complaint was given and case was registered.

3. The police, after investigation, filed a charge sheet against the accused and examined witnesses PWs-1 to 19. Documents were marked as Exs.P-1 to P-28 and material objects at MOs-1 to 14.

4. The Trial Court, taking note of the evidence available on record, accepted the prosecution theory and convicted the accused for the offence under Section 302 of IPC, imposing life imprisonment and fine. The conviction and sentence is challenged before this Court in this appeal.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused vehemently contend that, in spite of the complainant as well as other relative witnesses, and other independent witnesses turning hostile, the Trial Court committed an error in accepting their evidence, even though there was no incriminating material against the accused. It was further contended that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was misinterpreted and misunderstood by the Trial Court and in the absence of any corroborative piece of evidence, the accused ought not to have been convicted.

6. It was further argued that the Trial Court only relied upon the evidence of PW-15, who wrote the complaint and the complaint, Ex.P-7, but, he submits that only as per the instructions of PW-3, he wrote the complaint. Counsel also contended that even the recovery at the instance of the accused was not proved and the witnesses examined for recovery have also turned hostile. Therefore, benefit of doubt ought to have been extended in favour the accused. Hence, judgment of conviction and sentence requires interference.

7. Per contra, learned Additional SPP appearing for the State in his arguments would vehemently contend that even if relative witnesses have turned hostile, in their cross- examination it is elicited that the deceased went for sleeping and also that the accused was seen going towards the Samudaya Bhavan. It was submitted that the Trial Court rightly took note of the circumstantial evidence available on record, as well as the FSL report with regard to the seizure of the blood- stained clothes of the accused and rightly convicted the accused. Hence, no interference is required.

8. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional SPP and on perusal of the material available on record, the points that arise for consideration of this Court are:

“i. Whether the Trial Court committed an error in convicting and sentencing t