Judgment

S.P. Kurdukar, J.—Parthasarthi (P.W. 1) alongwith his wife Gangabai (P.W. 2) and two children, namely, Suresh and Manjunath (P.W. 3) came to the house of mother of P.W. 2 at B.M.L. Nagar K.G.F on 19.4.1988 to attend the Seemantha ceremony of the wife of the brother-in-law of Parthasarthi to be held on 20.4.1985. The parents of Gangabai (P.W. 2) reside at B.E.M.L Nagar K.G.F. The appellant-accused is the real brother of Gangabai (P.W. 2). Parthasarthi (P.W. 1) was sleeping in one of the rooms in that house. Gangabai (P.W. 2) between 4 and 5.00 P.M. came to the room where Parthasarthi (P.W. 1) was sleeping and told him that their son Suresh had been killed. On hearing this news, Parthasarthi (P.W. 1) and Gangabai (P.W. 2) rushed to the said room where dead body of Suresh with head severed was lying on the floor and the appellant was standing there with a kathi in his hand. Partha­sarthi (P.W. 1) then immediately rushed to the police station and lodged a complaint against the appellant. The police reached the place of occurrence immediately and carried out the necessary investigation.

2. The appellant was put up for trial for committing the murder of Suresh aged about 4 years, an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried. He pleaded innocence and stated that he did not know who committed the murder of Suresh. His further plea was that the dead body was found in the bath room and not in the room. He also denied that he was standing near the dead body in the room with kathi. The substance of his defence was that he is innocent and he be acquitted.

3. At the outset, it be stated that there is no eye witness to the occurrence in question. The prosecution case entirely rested on cir­cumstantial evidence. The circumstances sought to be proved upon by the prosecution were :

(1) Suresh died a homicidal death

(2) Suresh was hale and hearty when he was taken by the appel­lant in his room just a few minutes before the incident.

(3) The dead body of Suresh with his head severed from the body was found in the room of the appellant and he was standing there with the blood stained kathi in his hand.

(4) Abscondance of the appellant after the occurrence.

(5) Recovery of the weapon at the instance of the appellant.

4. The learned Principal Sessions Judge at Kolar, after appraisal of oral and documentary evidence on record, by her judgment and order dated 23.1.1993 acquitted the appellant holding that the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt the complicity of the appellant in the present crime.

5. The State of Karnataka being aggrieved by the order of acquittal preferred a criminal appeal to the Karnataka High Court at Bangalore. The Division Bench of the High Court on re-appraisal of the evidence on record did not agree with the order of acquittal passed by the trial court and held that the prosecution has conclusively established all the circumstances which would complete the chain thereof and these proved circumstances would unmistakably point out to the guilt of the appellant. The High Court thus allowed the appeal and set aside the order of acquittal and convicted the appellant for the offence punish­able under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer life imprison­ment. It is against this judgment and order of conviction the appel­lant has filed this appeal to this Court.

6. Mr. R.K. Jain, learned Senior Counsel, appearing in support of this appeal, contended that the High Court was wholly unjustified in re­versing the order of acquittal. The view taken by the trial court was equally probable and reasonable one. Learned counsel took us through the judgment of the courts below. The reasons given by the trial court for acquittal in our considered view were totally unsustainable in law. The order of the trial court proceeded or mere surmise and con­jectures without assessing the prosecution evidence in proper perspec­tive. The reliance placed by the trial C