K. N. Phaneendra, J.

The appellant/accused has called in question the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the 5th Fast Track Court at Madhugiri, in S.C. No.21/2012 dated 03.04.2013 in convicting the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under section 302 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- with default sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for two years.

2. We have heard the arguments of Sri. Somashekar Harvi and Sri. M. Shashidhar, the learned counsels for the appellant/accused and also the learned Addl. SPP for the respondent-State.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted two fold arguments before the court. He contended that, the prosecution itself has not proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt so as to attract the provision of Section 302 of IPC. The trial Court has relied upon the evidence of the sole eyewitness to the incident to draw an inference against the accused to convict and sentence him for the offence punishable under section 302 of IPC. When the evidence of the so-called sole eyewitness (PW.6) is only available, the court has to meticulously examine the