The standards of proof in criminal law necessitate that the prosecution must establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, which was not met due to lack of reliable evidence.

JUDGMENT :

VENKATESH NAIK T, J.

Challenging the order of conviction and sentence, accused Nos.1 and 2 in S.C.No.5022/2014 dated 09-11-2018 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, to sit at Kanakapura, has preferred this appeal.

2. The appellants were tried in S.C.No.5022/2014 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ' IPC ') on the basis of the charge-sheet filed by Harohalli Police Station in Crime No.74/2014 of their Police Station.

3. The appellants are accused Nos.1 and 2 in S.C.No.5022/2014. For the purpose of convenience, the parties herein are referred to henceforth according to their ranks before the trial Court.

4. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

Accused No.2 was given in marriage to Sri Mante Lingaiah (hereinafter referred to as 'victim'). Accused No.2 developed illicit relationship with accused No.1 and the victim was the obstacle for their relationship. Hence, they hatched a plan to eliminate the victim. Accordingly, on 05.03.2014 at 11:00 p.m., when the victim was sleeping in the farm house at Survey No.83 of Sidi Deverahalli, accused No.1 came to the house of the victim and called accused No.2, who was sleeping near the door of the house, at that time, the victim woke up and questioned the presence of accused No.1, immediately, accused Nos.1 and 2 by covering the victim's face and neck with MO4-towel, strangulated him near a mango tree in front of their house and escaped from there.

5. PW1-Nagaraju is the elder brother of the victim. He came to know about the incident through PW5-Nisarga, daughter of the victim and accused No.2. Thus, he lodged a complaint vide Ex.P1. PW11-D. Maruthi, Sub-Inspector of Police registered an F.I.R. vide Ex.P11 and arrested accused Nos.1 and 2. Thereafter, PW10-C. Sampath Kumar, Investigating Officer, visited the spot and conducted inquest and spot mahazars vide Exs.P2 and P3 respectively, examined the witnesses, completed the investigation and filed the charge-sheet against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the aforesaid offence.

6. The trial Court on hearing the parties, framed the charges against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC . As accused Nos.1 and 2 denied the charges, the trial was conducted.

7. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined in all twelve witnesses as PWs.1 to 12 and got marked thirteen documents as per Exs.P1 to 13 and four material objects as per MOs.1 to 4. After their examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.'), accused Nos.1 and 2 neither filed defence statement nor led defence evidence.

8. The trial Court on hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment and order, convicted them for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- each and in default to pay the fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.

9. The trial Court held that though the case was based on eyewitness account and some of the witnesses did not support the prosecution version, however, the prosecution succeeded in establishing the circumstances set up by it by cogent evidence and accused Nos.1 and 2 failed to explain the incriminating circumstances. The said judgment is assailed in this appeal.

10. Heard both side.

Submissions of Sri P.D. Subrahmanya, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant-accused No.2 and Sri Prathap S.S., learned counsel for the appellant- accused No.1

11. The case was based solely on the circumstantial evidence. There are no direct witnesses to the incident. The chain of circumstances set up by the prosecution must be so complete pointing to only the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and any break in the chain should enure to the benefit of the accused. Independent witnesses-PWs.2 and 4 to inquest and spot mahazars, PW3-victim’s brother's