These two appeals are filed by the State and the

father of the deceased against the judgment of acquittal

passed by 12^th Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi

sitting at Gokak in S.C.No.251/2014 dated 15.11.2017.

4

Crl.A.No.100115/2018 is filed by the State

under

Section

378(1)

and

(3)

of

Cr.P.C.

while

Crl.A.No.100022/2018 is filed by PW-8 under Section 372

of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred

to as ‘Cr.P.C.’, for short)

As both these appeals are arising out of the

same judgment of acquittal, they are heard together and

common order is being passed.

For the sake of convenience, the parties herein

are referred to with their original ranks occupied by them

before the trial Court.

5.

Brief factual matrix leading to the case is as

under:

That on Bhupal Hanji has filed a complaint with

Mudalagi police station that on 27.03.2013 alleging that his

land is situated near Mudalagi-Sunadholi road on bank of

Ghataprabha river and he is cultivating the said land. On

27.03.2013 at about 11.00 a.m., when he was watering the

sugarcane crop, he noticed people gathered near river

5

bridge and out of curiosity, he went there and noticed that

a dead body was floating there in the water. The dead

body was of a male person aged about 20-30 years and the

hands were tied with plastic rope and hence, he suspecting

the murder, lodged a complaint which was registered in

Crime No.46/2013 for the offence punishable under Section

302 and 201 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred

to as ‘IPC’ for short). According to the prosecution, during

the course of the investigation, it is revealed that deceased

was identified as Irappa Bheemappa Kudemmi and his

father subsequently alleged the motive to commit the

offence stating that the deceased had illicit intimacy with

the wives of accused Nos.1 and 3 and as such, he

suspected the accused No.3 and the accused No.3 also

made extra judicial confession before him asserting that

they have to got rid of his son and in the same way they

are going to murder him also. Then the PW-8 has given

statement in this regard before the Investigating Officer

and Investigating Officer has apprehended the accused and

drawn mahazar. He has also recorded the statement of

material witnesses in this regard and found that there is

6

material evidence as against the accused and accused

having committed the murder of the deceased, threw his

dead body in order to screen themselves from the legal

consequences. Hence, he has submitted the charge sheet

on the basis of circumstantial evidence. After the

submission of the charge sheet, learned Magistrate has

taken cognizance of the offence and then committed the

case to the Sessions Court. In the meanwhile, accused

Nos.1 and 2 were arrested and accused No.3 obtained

anticipatory bail. The accused were enlarged on bail in due

course and they have appeared before the learned Sessions

Judge and they were represented by the defence counsel.

The prosecution papers were furnished to them. After

hearing the arguments and perusing the records, the

learned Sessions Judge has famed charge under Section

302 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC against the

accused and the same is read over and explained to the

accused. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be

tried.

7

6.

To

prove

the

guilt

of

the

accused,

the

prosecution has examined in all 30 witnesses as PW-1 to

PW-30 and documents were marked as Exs.P-1 to P-49 and

8 MOs were also marked as M.O. 1 to 8. After conclusion

of evidence of the prosecution, the statement of accused

under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded to enable the

accused to explain the incriminating evidence appearing

against them in the case of the prosecution. The case of

the accused is of total denial and they did not choose to

lead any oral evidence. However, Exs.D-1 and D-2 were got

marked which are the portions of the statements said to

have been given by PW-17 before the Investigating Officer

under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.

7.

After