The prosecution must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly in circumstantial cases where extra-judicial confessions are heavily scrutinized for credibility and corroboration.

JUDGMENT :

K. SURENDER, J.

The appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code for committing murder of the deceased who is the husband of PW.1.

2. According to PW.1, the deceased Kistappa is her husband. On the date of the incident, PW.9 who was engaged as farm servant by the deceased called the deceased and informed that one person was sleeping in the field. The deceased went to the agricultural field which is an extent of 7 acres, around 9:00 a.m. At 9:30 a.m, when PW.1 tried to call the deceased, the phone was switched off. PW.1 then asked PW.2 who is the mother of the deceased and another person namely Shivappa (given up during trial) to go to the agricultural field and see as to what happened. Later PW.1 came to know that the accused killed her husband in one Manikreddy Patel’s fields. When PW.1 and other villagers went to the agricultural field, they found the deceased lying dead. The deceased had received injuries on head, legs and other parts of the body. PW.1 then went to the Police station at 12:30 and lodged complaint. In the said complaint-Ex.P1 it was stated that PW.9 informed the deceased that some unknown person was obstructing from ploughing the fields, as such the deceased left the house and thereafter she could not contact him on phone. Then she sent PW.2 and Laxmappa to the fields. There, they found that some unknown person had killed the deceased in the lands of Manikreddy (PW.8) and went away. The Police went to the scene of offence and PW.12-Investigating Officer took up investigation on the same day i.e. on 15.05.2014. There PW.12 examined PWs.1, 2, 9 and also Shivappa. Scene of offence-panchanama was conducted and sketch was drawn. Later having concluded inquest proceedings, the body was sent to Government Hospital at Tandur for post-mortem examination.

3. PW.11 who is the post-mortem doctor conducted Autopsy and found the following injuries;

i) Head injury deep lacerated wound

ii) Superficial lacerated wound on hands and legs.

According to PW.11, the death was due to head injury by sharp weapon and death occurred due to intra cranial haemorrhage.

4. According to PW.12, PW.4 who is a farmer of the same village informed that the accused belongs to Karankote village and he used to visit Chandravancha gate for consuming Toddy. On the basis of clue given by PW.4, a special team was formed to go to Karankote village. PW.3 who is the Sub-inspector of Police had shown photographs of old history sheets of criminals to PW.4 who identified the accused who was also involved in another crime No.216/2012 under Section 302 and 301 of the Indian Penal Code of Karankote Police Station. The details of the case in Crime No.216/2012 are not given nor the photograph shown to PW.4 is placed on record.

5. While efforts were going to apprehend the accused, the accused went to PW.7 who is the Sarpanch of the village on 30.05.2014 and confessed that he had killed the deceased since an altercation ensued in between him and deceased in the fields. PW.7 then took the accused to the police station and handed him over to the Police. The accused was interrogated and pursuant to the confession, the accused lead PW.12 and panch witnesses to the scene of offence and showed the axe which was the crime weapon along with the towel of the deceased. The said towel-MO.6 and M.O.7-axe were seized at the instance of the accused. Thereafter, the accused allegedly explained as to how he attacked the deceased. Having concluded investigation, charge sheet was filed for the offences under Section 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

6. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges for the said offences and examined PWs.1 to 12 and marked Exs.P1 to P10. MOs.1 to 7 were also brought on record by the prosecution. The learned Sessions Judge on the basis of circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution, held that the accused had committed the murder of the deceased and accordingly convicted him.

7. Learned Counsel appearing