S. S. SHINDE, J.

This appeal is filed by the appellants, aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-2, Ambajogai on 24th December, 2013, thereby convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default, to suffer further S.I. for three months and further convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 201 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default to suffer S.I. for one months.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under:-

On 25.07.2007 at 04.00 p.m. in the evening in the land namely 'Ramana Forest Hilly' area within the limit of Ambalwadi, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed, the accused nos. 1 to 4 in furtherance of common intention committed murder of deceased Ram Baburao Masal. It is the prosecution case that, the accused no.1 Ramkishan Hulgunde had suspicion in his mind about illicit relations between deceased Ram Masal and his sister-in-law (wife of his brother). Deceased Ram Masal was frequently visiting the house of accused no.1. Therefore, accused no. 1 had doubt about chastity of his sister-in-law, and it was reason and motive behind murder of deceased Ram Masal, by accused no. 1 Ramkisan with the help of accused nos. 2 to 4, his friends.

It is further the case of the prosecution that, the accused nos. 1 to 4 have caused disappearance of evidence, therefore, they committed offence under Section 201 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As observed in para no.1 hereinabove, the Additional Sessions Judge-2, Ambajogai convicted the appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, hence this appeal by the original accused persons.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that, the prosecution did not establish motive for commission of alleged offence by the appellants. It is submitted that, since the case rests upon the circumstantial evidence, it was necessary for the prosecution to firmly establish motive for commission of offence. It is further submitted that, only one witness has stated about the motive, and that too, vaguely. It is submitted that, the entire prosecution case rests upon the evidence of PW-8 - Rukhminbai Garje who deposed that, the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused persons. It is submitted that, the alleged offence had taken place on 25th July, 2007 and statement ofPW-8 was recorded by the Police on 10th August, 2007. There is inordinate delay in recording the statement of PW-8, and the evidence of PW-8 is also not trustworthy so as to rest the conviction of the appellants on the basis of her testimony. The brother of the deceased registered Missing Report on 26th July, 2007. In the said Missing Report dated 26th July, 2007, even suspicion is not expressed about the appellants that, they have committed the murder of the brother of the complainant. It is submitted that, Supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded on 11.08.2007, after recovery of the dead body. It- is submitted that, no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution to prove the motive. The dead body was totally decomposed, and therefore, same was not identifiable. Though, the Investigating Officer has stated in his evidence that, he saw the broken mobile handset on the spot, same was not seized. No call details have been inquired/investigated as to phone calls made from the mobile of the deceased as well as accused. Though, the accused nos. 1 and 2 were arrested on 11th August, 2014, and accused no.3 was arrested on 12th August, 2007, an identification parade was conducted on 23rd October, 2007. It is submitted that, on 27th August, 2007 the photographs of the deceased and also the accused were published in daily news paper i.e. Zunzar Ne