The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for conclusive and incriminating evidence in cases based on circumstantial evidence, as well as the need to establish a clear motive and ensure the credibility of witness testimonies.

JUDGMENT

M. S. Jawalkar, J. - Heard Mr. Anoop Gaonkar, learned Counsel under the Legal aid scheme for the appellants and Mr. Pravin Faldessai learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

2. The present appeal challenges the judgment and sentence dated 13.03.2015, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Margao-Goa, in Sessions Case No.07/2014, by which both the appellants/accused were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment of one year.

3. Facts that are material for deciding this appeal are as under :

On 26.10.2013 at about 07.25 Shri Sachin Lokre, Police Sub-Inspector attached to Collem Police Station received a phone call from Station Master of Collem Railway Station informing that one dead body of a male person is lying near Old Railway Shade Water Tank. Accordingly, a case of unnatural death under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. was registered.

4. Psi Lokre headed towards the spot and found one dead body of a male person lying in a supine position on an uneven cement floor in front of the locked door in the verandah of one old dilapidated house of South West Railway Department, situated at Souzamol, Collem. The dead body was identified by one Vasu Shelgar, who runs a bar and restaurant at Collem, as that of Sitaram alias Mama, who was working as painter/labor in the Collem area. A detailed scene panchanama was conducted in the presence of two panch witnesses, relevant items/articles found present at the spot were attached under the panchanama and the dead body was shifted to GMC Morgue at Bambolim. On 27.10.2013, said PSI Lokre, in the presence of two panchas, conducted a detailed inquest panchanama over the dead body of the deceased. It was noticed that the deceased was having cut injury on the backside of his head, the left side of the face was seen swollen and the backside of the head was in a pool of blood. Some fly eggs/white-like substance was formed in the scalp hair and at the nostrils. The post mortem examination over the dead body was conducted on 28.10.2013 and the cause of death was given as damage for the neck and chest as a result of injuries by blunt force impact. Accordingly, PSI Lokre conducted further inquiries and registered an offense of murder on behalf of the State. A search was made to trace the suspected accused.

5. On the information received, the suspected persons were detained from Kolhapur on 19.11.2013 and handed over to PI of Collem Police Station on 20.11.2013. An arrest panchanama was drawn in the presence of the panchas. During the investigation, on 21.11.2013, on the voluntary statement of accused no.2, in the presence of panchas, a recovery panchanama was drawn under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and blood-stained clothes, which he was wearing at the time of the incident were recovered from the house, which was occupied by him. Thereafter, on 22.11.2013, on disclosure statement made by accused no.1, in the presence of panchas, blood-stained clothes of accused no.1 were recovered, which were hidden by him, outside the shed in the bushes.

6. During the investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded. The exhibits/materials preserved by police were forwarded to CFSL, Hyderabad. The reports showed that the exhibits contained the blood of the deceased and, hence, the accused with common intention committed an offense punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC.

7. Upon commitment of the case to the Court of Sessions the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Margao, to whom the case was assigned charged the appellants of offenses punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. The appellants pleaded not guilty and, therefore, were put on trial at which the prosecution examined twenty-one witnesses in its attempt to bring home the guilt of the appellants. After considering the prosecution evidence in