- 1 - CRL.A No.100088/2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 29th DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100088 OF 2023 (C) BETWEEN: 1. VITHAL S/O. ASHAPPA @ ASHOK PUDAKALAKATTI, AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. TAVALAGERI, TQ. SAVADATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591213. 2. BASAPPA S/O. BHIMAPPA GADAGI, AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. HIRENANDI, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591233. 3. APPAYYA S/O. BASAPPA GADAGI, AGE. 33 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. HIRENANDI, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591233. 4. VITHAL BHIMAPPA GADAGI, AGE. 33 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. HIRENANDI, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591233. 5. PUNDALIK BHIMAPPA GADAGI, AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. HIRENANDI, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591233. 6 . LAKKAPPA BASAPPA GADAGI, AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. HIRENANDI, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591233. Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - CRL.A No.100088/2023 7 . YALLAPPA MALLAPPA PUDAKALAKATTI, AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. TAVALAGERI, TQ. SAVADATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591213. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.L. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH MURGOD POLICE STATION, TALUKA-SAVADATTI, NOW REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP., HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENCH AT DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ASHOK KATTIMANI, AGA) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 09.01.2023 AND ORDER ON SENTENCE DATED 11.01.2023 IN S.C.NO.107/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE XI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI AND THEREBY ACQUIT THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 7 FROM THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 144, 147, 148, 364, 302, 201, 109, 120B R/W. SECTION 149 OF IPC 1860. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 03.04.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA - 3 - CRL.A No.100088/2023 CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA) The accused 1 to 7 have preferred this appeal against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 364, 302, 201, 109, 120B read with Section 149 of IPC passed by the XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi (for short, ‘the trial Court’) in Sessions Case No.107/2018 dated 09.01.2023. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court. 3. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that, Murgod Police have submitted the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 364, 302, 201, 109, 120B read with Section 149 of IPC. It is alleged in the charge sheet that, there was an enmity between Vithal Ajjankatti, his brother Maruti and father of accused No.1 by name Ashok Pudakalkatti. About 20 years ago, said Ashok was murdered at Kolhapur and a case was registered in Gandhi Nagar Police Station, Kolhapur and it had ended in acquittal. Keeping in this mind, on 25.11.2017 at about 11.30 in the - 4 - CRL.A No.100088/2023 morning, near Beereshwar Agro Centre, Yaragatti, the accused agreed to abduct and kill Vithal Maruti Ajjankatti and with a common intention, they kidnapped the Vitthal Ajjanakatti in a Santro Car bearing No.DL-01/CF-7891 and in order to kill him, took him to Sy.no.282 of Kadabaratti village which belongs to Forest Department and there they murdered Vithal Ajjankatti smashing with stones. To destroy the evidence, they removed the cloths from the body of deceased and thrown them in some places and thereby the accused persons have committed the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 364, 302, 201, 109, 120B read with Section 149 of IPC. 4. After investigation, the Investigating Officer has submitted the charge sheet against the accused and a case was registered in Criminal Case No.374/2018 and thereafter the case was committed to the Sessions Court, then it was registered in Sessions Case No.107/2018. On appearance of the accused, arguments were heard on framing of charges, and framed charges for commission of alleged offences; same were read over and explained to the accused. Having understood the same, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. - 5 - CRL.A No.100088/2023 5. To prove the case of prosecution, in all, 20 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.20 and 57 documents were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.57, so also 09 material objects were marked as M.Os.1 to 9. On closure of prosecution side evidence, the statements of accused persons under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. were recorded. Having understood the same, the accused have totally denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses. But they did not choose to lead any defence evidence on their behalf. However, during the course of cross- examination of prosecution witnesses, Ex.D.1 to 3 got marked. 6. Having heard the arguments of both sides, the trial Court has convicted the accused 1 to 7 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 364, 302, 201, 109 and 120B read with Section 149 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 143 read with Section 149 of IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 144 read with Section 149 of IPC and simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 147 read with Section 149 of IPC and simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence - 6 - CRL.A No.100088/2023 punishable under Section 148 read with Section 149 of IPC and undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence punishable under Section 364 read with Section 149 of IPC and imposed life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 109 read with Section 149 of IPC and imposed life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 120B read with Section 149 of IPC and simple imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence punishable under Section 201 read with Section 149 of IPC and imposed life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of IPC along with fine. 7. Being aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction and order on sentence, appellant/accused 1 to 7 have preferred this appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants/accused 1 to 7 would submit that the Judgment of conviction and order on sentence is contrary and against the material placed on record. PW.3 to 7 and 10 have not supported the case of prosecution and the prosecution has failed to prove the Ex.P.21 i.e., scene of abduction panchanama and the prosecution has also failed to prove the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and also failed to prove the alleged kidnap. P.W.2 is the relative of the - 7 - CRL.A No.100088/2023 complainant and the deceased, he has not stated in his statement regarding the enmity between the deceased and the father of accused No.1 and others for about 20 years. There are other material discrepancies which are ignored by the trial Court. The impugned Judgment is erroneous and opposed to law, facts and probabilities of the case. The trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts. The chain of events are required to establish the case of the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts, but the prosecution has failed to establish the case. 9. PW.18 is the scribe of complaint at Ex.P.1. He has clearly admitted in his evidence that he has written the complaint in the Police Station and he has also admitted that the CW-1 has not disclosed the names of accused and their fathers in his presence and Police have furnished the information as to the names of the accused and car number. Further, he has stated that Police have not recorded his statement. 10. P.W.1-Shivappa Pujeri has clearly admitted in his evidence that the Police informed him that the accused have committed the murder of Vitthal Ajjanakatti. Further, he has - 8 - CRL.A No.100088/2023 admitted the number of vehicle, phone numbers of accused persons, name of scribe of the complaint at Ex.P.1. 11. Further, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that at the first instance, on the basis of complaint a case was registered in Crime No.326/2017 of Murgod Police Station under Section 363 of IPC against (i) Vitthal Bhimappa Gadagi, (ii) Yallappa Bhimappa Gadagi, (iii) Basappa Bhimappa Gadagi, (iv) Pundalik Bhimappa Gadagi, (v) Yallappa Mallappa Pudakalakatti and (vi) Vitthal Yallappa Pudakalatti. After investigation, Investigating Officer has submitted the charge sheet against the accused No.1-Vittal Ashappa @ Ashok Pudakalakatti, accused No.2- Basappa Bhimappa Gadagi, accused No.3 Appayya Basappa Gadagi, accused No.4-Vithal Bhimappa Gadagi, accused No.5-Pundalik Bhimappa Gadagi, accused No.6-Lakkappa Basappa Gadagi and accused No.7- Yallappa Mallappa Pudakalakatti. The Investigating Officer has dropped the names of accused-Yallappa Bhimappa Gadagi and Vitthal Yallappa Pudakalakatti, who were shown as accused No.3 and accused No.6, as there is no evidence against them. P.W.1 has clearly admitted in his evidence that he did not see who lifted the deceased into the car and in the FIR it is stated that 4-5 persons have taken the deceased-Vitthal in a car. - 9 - CRL.A No.100088/2023 Accused were arrested on 27.11.2017 at 15:30 hours. Investigating Officer has not discovered anything under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The material witness P.W.4 and 5 have not supported the case of prosecution. 12. The trial Court has erred in marking of entire voluntary statement of accused No.1 as per Ex.P.42, which is not admissible in evidence that there is no consistency in the contents of postmortem report at Ex.P.36 and inquest panchanama as to the injuries caused to the deceased. Absolutely, there is no cogent, consistent, convincing, corroborative, trustworthy evidence placed by the prosecution. However, the trial Court has convicted the accused, which is not sustainable under law and sought for allowing this appeal. To substantiate his arguments, he has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2022) 5 S.C.R. 162. 13. As against this, learned Additional Government Advocate Sri Ashok T. Kattimani would submit that the trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts. Absolutely, there are no materials to interfere with the Judgment of conviction and order - 10 - CRL.A No.100088/2023 on sentence, passed by the trial Court and sought for dismissal of the appeal. 14. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the following points would arise for our consideration: (i) Whether the impugned Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court suffers from legal infirmities, requiring this Court to intercede? (ii) What order? 15. Our answers to the above points are as under : Point No.(i): In the ‘affirmative’. Point No.(ii): as per the final order. 16. We have carefully re-examined the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the material on record and the impugned Judgment as well as arguments submitted on behalf of both sides. It is the case of prosecution that, there was an enmity between Vitthal Ajjankatti, his brother Maruti and father of accused No.1-Ashok Pudakalkatti for about 20 years and said Ashok was murdered at Kolhapur and a case was registered in Gandhi Nagar Police Station, Kolhapur and it had ended in - 11 - CRL.A No.100088/2023 acquittal. Keeping that in mind and to take revenge, on 25.11.2017 at about 11.30 in the morning, near Beereshwar Agro Centre at Yaragatti, accused agreed to abduct and kill Vithhal Maruti Ajjankatti and with a common intention, they kidnapped the Vitthal Ajjanakatti in a Santro Car bearing No.DL-01/CF-7891 and took him in order to kill. Later they murdered Vithal Ajjankatti in Sy.No.282 of Kadabagatti village, which belongs to Forest Department, by using stones. To destroy the evidence, they removed the clothes from the dead body and thrown it at different places and thereby accused have committed the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 364, 302, 201, 109 and 120B read with Section 149 of IPC. 17. The Investigating Officer has cited 27 witnesses in the charge sheet, out of them 20 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to 20 to prove the guilt of the accused and marked 57 documents as Ex.P.1 to 57 as well as marked 9 material objects as M.O.1 to 9. 18. CW.1-Shivappa Pujeri, who is stated to be the complainant/eyewitness examined as P.W.1. He has deposed in his evidence that CW.11 is his younger brother. CW.12 is his younger sister. The deceased-Vitthal is the husband of CW.12. - 12 - CRL.A No.100088/2023 CW.10 and 13 are the children of deceased-Vitthal. He knew the accused. The accused have murdered the husband of CW12. About one and half year back one Saturday in the morning at about 9.00 a.m., he called Vitthal Ajjanakatti and asked him to come to Yaragatti as he wanted to purchase stones and tiles for the construction of his house. He went to Yaragatti from his house along with a cash of Rs.1,00,000/-. At Yaragatti, he handed over cash of Rs.1,00,000/- to the Vitthal Ajjanakatti. They purchased the stones and tiles worth Rs.8,000/-. After purchase, at about 10.00 a.m. they were standing by the door of the shop waiting for the vehicle, at that time, CW.11 came there in a cruiser vehicle and they followed the accused and searched the deceased-Vitthal till Nandikatti village. They were not able to trace either accused or deceased-Vitthal and therefore returned back, by then it was about 4.00 p.m. Then they went to Murgod Police Station and lodged a complaint against the accused persons. Since he is an illiterate, he got the complaint written through CW.17. He then put his thumb impression on the complaint after knowing contents of the complaint. On the next day, Police came to the spot of incident and made enquiries. He showed the spot of incident to the police. The police drew the spot panchanama in - 13 - CRL.A No.100088/2023 the presence of CW-3 and one other person. On Monday, the Police found the dead body of the Vitthal at Kadabagatti Forest and informed him the same. He along with CW-10 to 13 went to the Kadabagatti forest. Accused No.1 was present there along with the Police. Accused No.1 had shown the dead body of the deceased-Vitthal to the Police. There were no clothes on the body of the deceased. It appeared that the deceased was assaulted on the face and head and murdered. The Police conducted the panchanama of the place, where the dead body was found. There were four blood stained stones found near the dead body and mud was also blood stained. Police collected the four blood stained stones, sample of blood stained mud and sample of mud from the said place. Police have taken photographs as per Ex.P.3 and 10. He has identified the M.O.1 to 9. He has also identified the car in which the deceased- Vitthal was forcibly taken by the accused. The photos of the car marked at Ex.P.11 and 12 have identified by him. Further, he has deposed that accused had previous enmity with the deceased and out of the said grudge murdered the deceased. As he was in tension, he had mentioned the names of Yallappa Bhimappa Gadagi and Vitthal Yallappa Pudakalakatti. - 14 - CRL.A No.100088/2023 19. CW.11-Laxman Pujeri, the younger brother of complainant, examined as P.W.2. He has deposed in his evidence that P.W.1 is his brother and the deceased-Vitthal is his brother-in-law. The Vitthal Ajjanakatti is no more. He was murdered by the accused. He has acquaintance with the accused. He owns a cruiser vehicle. He carries passengers daily in the said vehicle from Yaragatti to Gokak. On 25.11.2017, he was sitting in his cruiser vehicle waiting for passengers at Yaragatti village, on that day, P.W.1 and the deceased had been to Yaragatti to purchase tiles and thereafter the accused 1 to 6 came to there, in a Santro car and took the deceased in the car and proceeded towards Gokak. Then he along with P.W.1, tried to chase the Santro vehicle. They searched for the said vehicle at Tavalageri cross, Tadavi Shivapur and others places. They were not able to trace the said vehicle or the deceased. Thereafter, they returned to Murgod Police Station, there, P.W.1 lodged the complaint before the Police. On 27.11.2017, the Police called them to Kadabagatti Forest area and there showed dead body of the deceased. The deceased had sustained injuries on his head and burn injuries on his stomach. There were no clothes on the body of the deceased. There were four blood stained stones - 15 - CRL.A No.100088/2023 lying beside the dead body, he identified the same as M.O.3 to 6. He has also identified the dead body of the deceased on spot and he can also identify the car which was used by the accused and the photographs at Ex.P.11 to 14. The accused had certain earlier enmity with the deceased and for the said reason, the accused have murdered the deceased. 20. CW.14-Ramappa Yakkannavar, is the owner of Beereshwar Agro Centre at Yaragatti-Gokak road, who has witnessed the deceased at the time of kidnapping, who has examined as P.W.3. He has deposed that he do not know the accused persons. He knows the deceased-Vitthal and P.W.1. The deceased-Vitthal is no more and he came to know that he was murdered. He has not seen the deceased being abducted from infront of his shop. He has also not seen the abductors or the manner in which the deceased was abducted. He has not seen the dead body of the deceased. He did not know who murdered the Vitthal. Police have enquired him, he has stated before the Police that he do not know anything about the incident. This witness has treated as hostile witness and he has resiled from the statement before the Police and was cross- examined with the permission of the Court. During cross examination, the Prosecutor has failed to elicit any favorable - 16 - CRL.A No.100088/2023 answers from him to substantiate the case of prosecution. He has categorically denied the statement said to have been recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 of Cr.P.C, which is marked at Ex.P.15. 21. CW.15 Gyanappa Vasudev Gudi and CW.16 Anand Ananth Inchal, are the eyewitnesses while kidnapping the deceased by the accused, examined as P.W.4 and 5 respectively. Both witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution. These witnesses have also cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor after treating them as hostile witnesses. During the course of their cross-examination, they categorically denied the statement and further statement said to have been recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 of Cr.P.C, which are marked as Ex.P.17 to 20. 22. CW.2-Ajjappa Satyappa Hatti and CW.3-Vittal Kenchappa Pujari said to be the attestors to the spot panchanama at Ex.P.21, have also not supported the case of prosecution. 23. CW.6-Balappa Laxmappa Talawar, said to be attestor to the inquest panchanama, who has examined as P.W.9. He - 17 - CRL.A No.100088/2023 has deposed regarding conducting of Ex.P.25 seizure mahazar by the Police. 24. CW.9-Mahantesh Ramanna Kolekar, said to be the attestor to the seizure mahazar, examined as P.W.10. He has not supported the case of prosecution. 25. CW.10-Suresh Vitthal Ajjanakatti, the son of deceased-Vitthal Ajjanakatti, the hearsay witness, examined as P.W.11. He has deposed in his evidence regarding the death of his father and also deposed that due to previous ill-will the accused have murdered his father. 26. CW.8-Basavaraj Suresh Kengeri, said to be the attestor to the seizure mahazar at Exs.P.28 and 29, examined as P.W.12, has not supported the case of prosecution. 27. CW.22-Bhaskar Shripati Pattar, Head Constable, who has produced the accused No.7 and examined as P.W.13. He has deposed that on 28.11.2017 under credible information he has arrested the accused on the same day at 10.00 a.m. near Govinakoppa canal and produced him before the Circle Police Inspector and gave a report in that regard as per Ex.P.31. 28. CW.25-Adiveppa Somalingappa Bolannavar, Head Constable, examined as PW.14. He has deposed in his evidence - 18 - CRL.A No.100088/2023 that on 25.11.2017, he was the Station House Officer of Murgod Police Station, on that day at 4.00 p.m. he has received the written complaint at Ex.P.1 through CW.1. On that basis, he has registered the case in Crime No.326/2017 and submitted the FIR to the Court as per Ex.P.32, then he has entrusted the case file for further investigation to CW.26. 29. CW.24-Ayubkhan Hashamkhan Pathan, ASI, Murgod Police Station, who has examined as P.W.15. He has deposed in his evidence that on 25.11.2017 he has submitted the FIR at 18:30 hours to the Court and in this regard he has submitted a report as per Ex.P.33. 30. CW.21 Dr.Bhimsen Hanumant Bagalkot, Medical Officer, (Orthopedic Surgeon), who has examined the dead body and conducted postmortem of the deceased-Vitthal, who has examined as P.W.16. He has deposed as to the postmortem examination of the deceased and also issuance of postmortem report at Ex.P.36. 31. CW.26 Prasad S/o.Fanikkar, PSI, examined as P.W.17 and he has deposed that on 25.11.2017 he has received the file of this case from CW-25 for further investigation. On 26.11.2017, the CW.1 shown the spot of crime and he has - 19 - CRL.A No.100088/2023 conducted panchanama in presence of panchas between 9.30 to 10.30 a.m. and also prepared sketch and took photographs. Later, he has recorded further statement of CW.1. Therefore, he recorded statements of CWs10 to 19. On 27.11.2017, he took accused No.1 from Hirenandi to Yaragatti Police Out- Station and recorded his voluntary statement as per Ex.P.42. Thereafter, he has produced the accused before the CPI at 12:30 hours. Then, he sought for permission of the Court to insert offences punishable under Sections 364, 302 and 201 read with Section 149 of IPC instead of Section 363 of IPC and submitted a Yaadi to the Court and entrusted further investigation to the CW.27. As per the order of CW.27, he has arrested the other accused and produced them before the CW.27, in this regard, he has submitted a report. Further, he has deposed that CW.15 and 16 have given their statements as per Ex.P.17 and 19. He has also deposed that he has conducted the spot panchanama as per Ex.P.41 and identified Ex.P.42 the voluntary statement of accused No.1, spot photo at Ex.P.2. 32. CW.17-Pandappa Hanamanth Hosatti, the scribe of complaint, examined as P.W.18. He has deposed that about 2 years back, he has written the complaint as per Ex.P.1 as per - 20 - CRL.A No.100088/2023 the say of CW.1 and after read over the contents of the complaint, CW.1 has put his LTM on Ex.P.1. 33. CW.27-Arunkumar G.V., CPI examined as PW.19, has deposed in his evidence as to the part of investigation conducted by him after receiving the case file from CW.26. 34. CW.4-Appanna Govindappa Sankri, Forest Guard, stated to be then attestor to the spot panchanama examined as P.W.20. He has deposed in his evidence that on 27.11.2017 he along with CW.5 called to the forest land at Sy.No.292 of Kadabagatti for conducting of panchanama. Accused No.1 has shown the place of incident, where they have committed the murder of Vitthal Ajjanakatti. They have identified the dead body of Vitthal Ajjanakatti. Thereafter, relatives of deceased identified the dead body. Police have conducted the spot mahazar as per Ex.P.22 and took photo as per Ex.P.23. Police have seized the sample mud, blood stained mud and blood stained four stones from the spot and conducted seizure panchanama as per Ex.P.24. He has identified M.O.1 to M.O.6. 35. A careful scrutiny of the entire evidence placed before us, it is crystal clear that on the basis of complaint filed by P.W.1 as per Ex.P.1, the Murgod Police have registered the case - 21 - CRL.A No.100088/2023 in Crime No.326/2017 against accused 1 to 6 and submitted FIR to the Court as per Ex.P.32 on the same day i.e., on 25.11.2017 at 9.00 p.m. It is admitted fact that complainant is an illiterate and put his LTM as per Ex.P.1C and scribe of the complaint is Pandappa Hanamant Hosatti, who is examined as P.W.18. During the course of cross-examination of P.W.18 has clearly admitted that he has written the complaint in the Police Station and CW.1 is an illiterate. CW.1 has not disclosed the car number, so also the names and fathers names of accused. Police have furnished the names of accused and car number. P.W.14-Adiveppa Bolannavar, Head Constable, has received the complaint and endorsed on Ex.P.1, has clearly deposed in his evidence that on 25.11.2017 when he was working as Station House Officer of Murgod Police Station, he has received the written complaint from CW.1. On that basis, he has registered the case in Crime No.326/2017 and submitted FIR to the Court as per Ex.P.32. In addition, he has clearly admitted in his cross- examination that at the time of receiving complaint it was 4.00 p.m. and complaint was already prepared and brought to the Police Station. 36. CW-1 complainant examined as P.W.1, has deposed in his evidence that he is an illiterate and therefore he got the - 22 - CRL.A No.100088/2023 complaint written through PW.18. The evidence of P.W.1, 14 and 18 are not consistent to each other. The evidence of P.W.14 clearly reveals that PW.17 has not written the complaint in the Police Station. However, the evidence of PW.18 reveals that he has written the complaint in the Police Station and he has written the names of accused and car number as per the information furnished by the Police. Admittedly, deceased- Vitthal has murdered the father of accused No.1 at Kolhapur and this accused No.1 also murdered the uncle of accused No.1 in Tavalageri in the year 2016. It is also admitted by the Investigating Officer, P.W.19 that during the course of investigation he found the deceased. 37. During the course of cross-examination of P.W.1, he has denied the statement recorded by the Police as per Ex.P.1, in which he has stated as under : “«oÀÖ® ªÀiÁgÀÄw CdÓ£ÀPÀnÖ EªÀgÀÄ F ¥ÀƪÀðzÀ°è ¸À£ï-2000 £Éà ¸Á°£À°è vÁªÀ®UÉÃj UÁæªÀÄzÀ C±À¥Àà ªÀÄ®è¥Àà ¥ÀÄqÀPÀ®PÀnÖ EªÀ¤UÉ d«ÄãÀ «µÀAiÀĪÁV zÉéõÀ¢AzÀ PÉƯÁè¥ÀÆgÀPÉÌ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV PÉÆ¯É ªÀiÁrzÀÝgÀÄ. C®èzÉà PÀ¼ÉzÀ ªÀµÀð ¸À£ï-2016 gÀ°è ®PÀÌ¥Àà ªÀÄ®è¥Àà ¥ÀÄqÀPÀ®PÀnÖ EªÀ¤UÉ vÁªÀ®UÉÃj PÀÄgÀħgÀ zÀrØ ±Á¯É ºÀwÛgÀ PÉÆ¯É ªÀiÁrzÀÝgÀÄ. F PÉù£À «ZÁgÀuÉUÁV AiÀÄ®è¥Àà - 23 - CRL.A No.100088/2023 ªÀÄ®è¥Àà ¥ÀÄqÀPÀ®PÀnÖ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÉƯÉVÃqÁzÀ ®PÀÌ¥Àà£À ºÉArÛ «ªÀįÁ ®PÀÌ¥Àà ¥ÀÄqÀPÀ®PÀnÖ @ PÀqÀ© EªÀgÀÄ ¨É¼ÀUÁ« PÉÆnðUÉ ºÉÆÃUÀĪÁUÀ vÀªÀÄä ¸ÀAUÀqÀ «oÀÖ® C±À¥Àà @ C±ÉÆÃPÀ ¥ÀÄqÀPÀ®PÀnÖ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀ£À C½AiÀÄA¢gÁzÀ §¸À¥Àà ©üêÀÄ¥Àà UÀqÀV, «oÀ® ©üêÀÄ¥Àà UÀqÀV, ¥ÀÄAqÀ°ÃPÀ ©üêÀÄ¥Àà UÀqÀV ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ®PÀÌ¥Àà §¸À¥Àà UÀqÀV ¸Á: »gÉãÀA¢ EªÀjUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. EzÀjAzÀ «oÀ® ªÀiÁgÀÄw CdÓ£ÀPÀnÖ EªÀ£ÀÄ CªÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ¹mÁÖV CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆ¯É ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä NqÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝ£ÀÄ.” 38. Apart from this, P.W.1 has clearly admitted that the Police have informed him that the accused have committed the murder of Vitthal Ajjanakatti. Further, he has clearly admitted that he has not mentioned the names of accused in his complaint. This evidence of prosecution witness reveals that though the P.W.1 has no knowledge as to the names and addresses of the accused persons, under the pretext of ill will only at the instance of police, P.W.18 has written the complaint and inserted the names of accused persons and also car number. This inconsistence evidence of P.W.1, 14 and 18 will create doubt about incident said to have been committed by the accused. - 24 - CRL.A No.100088/2023 39. It is the case of prosecution as stated in the complaint that accused 1 to 6, who are shown in the FIR are kidnapped the deceased-Vitthal Ajjanakatti, who is none other than the son-in-law of P.W.1 in a car bearing No.DL-01/CF-7891 at 11.30 a.m. infront of Beereshwar Agro Centre, Yaragatti village. Ex.P.1 at page No.2, it is stated that 4-5 persons got down from the vehicle and all of a sudden took the deceased forcibly in the said car, but subsequently in page No.3, the names of accused 1 to 6 are mentioned. 40. P.W.1 has deposed in his evidence that since he was in tension, he has mentioned the names of Yallappa Bhimappa Gadagi and Vitthal Yallappa Pudakalakatti in his complaint. The Yallappa Bhimappa Gadagi is shown as accused No.2 and Vitthal Yallappa Pudakalakatti shown as accused No.6. The Investigating Officer has dropped the names of accused 2 and 6 in the charge sheet, as there is no evidence against them. However, P.W.1 stated in his evidence that seven accused who have shown in the charge sheet, have come in the car. P.W.1 has not specifically stated the names of accused 1 to 7 shown in the charge sheet. However, he has deposed that all the accused persons came in a car and forcibly took the deceased-Vitthal Ajjanakatti and proceeded towards Gokak. It is an admitted fact - 25 - CRL.A No.100088/2023 that accused 2 and 6 shown in FIR were not present at the time of alleged kidnap of deceased-Vitthal. The name of accused No.1 shown in the charge sheet as Vitthal Ashappa @ Ashok Pudakalakatti was not shown in the FIR. Names of accused No.3-Appayya Basappa Gadagi and accused No.6-Lakkappa Basappa Gadagi were also not shown in the FIR. Later the Investigating Officer has inserted the names of accused 1, 3 and 6 which has not been explained by the prosecution. The Investigating Officer has not whispered anything in this regard before the Court. 41. It is alleged that accused have used the car bearing No.DL-01/CF-7891. The photos of the said car are marked as Ex.P.11 and 12. The voluntary statement of accused by name Vitthal Bhimappa Gadagi and Lakkappa Basappa Gadagi, Appayya Basappa Gadagi, Pundalik Bhimappa Gadagi and Basappa Bhimappa Gadagi are marked as Ex.P.46 to 51, which are reveal that all the accused having a common object to commit the murder of deceased, they have purchased this car bearing No.DL-01/CF-7891 and same was run by the accused- Vitthal Bhimappa Gadagi, but the Investigating Officer has not collected the RC book or B-Register extract of this vehicle and during the course of cross-examination of the Investigating - 26 - CRL.A No.100088/2023 Officer has clearly admitted that he has not collected the documents as to the car M.O.9 and he has also not explained anything as to the non-production of the RC book pertaining to M.O.9-car, which was used for the alleged kidnap of deceased at the relevant point of time. According to the case of prosecution, the Investigating Officer seized the car under panchanama at Ex.P.29 on 29.11.2017 between 15:00 hours to 17:00 hours in presence of panchas Basavaraj Suresh Kengeri and Mahantesh Ramanna Kolekara, which was produced by accused No.2-Basappa Bhimappa Gadagi and accused No.3- Appayya Basappa Gadagi, accused No.4-Vitthal Bhimappa Gadagi, accused No.5-Pundalik Bhimappa Gadagi, accused No.6-Lakkappa Basappa Gadagi and accused No.7-Yallappa Mallappa Pudakalakatti. The mahazar further discloses that at the instigation of accused No.7, accused 2 to 6 have kidnapped then deceased in the Santro Car. The seating capacity of the said car including the driver is five. However, it is alleged by the prosecution that accused 1 to 7 have kidnapped the deceased in the said car in all eight persons were in the car, but the same is not stated by P.W.1, who is an eyewitness to the incident. At the first instance, he has stated in the complaint at Ex.P.1 that 4-5 persons got down from the car and kidnapped - 27 - CRL.A No.100088/2023 the deceased in the said car. However, at the time of panchanama, it is shown that accused 2 to 7 have kidnapped the deceased in this car. Though, the Investigating Officer has seized this car under mahazar Ex.P.29 on 29.11.2017. He has not submitted the PF before the Court on the same day. Only on 11.12.2017 Investigating Officer has submitted this PF No.147/2017 pertaining to the seized Santro car bearing No.DL- 01/CF-7891 worth Rs.40,000/- to the Court. Same is endorsed by the Magistrate on PF No.147/2017. In this PF, it is stated that on 29.11.2017, the 4th accused-Vitthal Bhimappa Gadagi has shown this car to the Police. The panch witness Basavaraj and Mahantesh are examined as P.W.10 and 12. Both witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution. 42. Even during pendency of this case before the trial Court, the concerned RC owner has not claimed this car for his interim custody or even after disposal of this case. When the Police have seized the car at the instance of accused under seizure panchanama at Ex.P.29, Police ought to have collected the RC book or at least B-Register extract. The voluntary statement of the accused which are marked as Ex.P.46 to 51 reveal that the purpose of committing murder of the deceased Vitthal, the accused have purchased this car. Under the given - 28 - CRL.A No.100088/2023 set of circumstances, the Investigating Officer ought to have explained from whom accused have purchased this car, when they have purchased this car, whether car is standing in the name of accused or any other person has not been explained by the prosecution. In the absence of such material piece of evidence, it is not safe to come to the conclusion that accused have purchased this car for the purpose of kidnapping the deceased and thereafter, murdered as alleged by the prosecution. 43. Material witnesses P.W.3-Ramappa Yakkannavar, the owner of Beereshwar Agro Centre, Yaragatti where the accused have kidnapped the deceased-Vitthal. P.W.4-Gyanappa Gundi the owner of Laxmi Automobiles at Yaragatti-Gokak road. P.W.5 Anand Inchal, who owns a shop by name Arihant Traders at Yaragatti-Gokak road, have not supported to the case of prosecution. The panch witnesses P.W.6-Ajjappa Hatti and PW.7-Vitthal Pujari where the panchanama is conducted with regard to abduction of this deceased as per Ex.P.21, have not supported to the case of prospection. 44. According to the case of prosecution, at the instance of the accused, they have conducted the panchanama as per - 29 - CRL.A No.100088/2023 Ex.P.22 in the presence of pancha P.W.8-Laxman Borannavar. But this witness has not supported to the case of prosecution. 45. According to the case of prosecution, they have conducted spot panchanama as per Ex.P.24, where the accused have committed the murder of the deceased in the presence of panchas. One of the panch witnesses-PW8, has not supported the case of prosecution. P.W.9-Balappa Laxman Talawar witness to the inquest mahazar at Ex.P.25, has not supported to the case of prosecution. The Police have seized M.O.1 to 6 under mahazar on 27.11.2017 and inserted the same in PF No.146/2017. But Investigating Officer submitted this seizure report PF.No.146/2017 only on 11.12.2017. The Investigating Officer has not explained the delay in submitting the seizure report PF.No.146/2017 and also PF No.147/2017 to the jurisdictional Magistrate. Accordingly, the Investigating Officer has failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 102 of Cr.P.C. This delay in submitting the seizure report to the jurisdictional Magistrate, also creates doubt as to the conduct of panchanama as well as seizure of properties under PF Nos.146 and 147 of 2017 said to have been seized at the instance of accused. - 30 - CRL.A No.100088/2023 46. On meticulous examination of the entire materials placed before us, it is crystal clear that only one eyewitness P.W.1 who is none other than the father-in-law of deceased, has supported the case of prosecution. Other eyewitnesses have not supported to the case of prosecution. The evidence of P.W.1 is not consistent with the contents of complaint at Ex.P.1 and there is no consistency in the evidence of P.W.1. Contents of complaint at Ex.P.1 as to the dropping of accused No.2 and 6 and implication of other accused, whose names have not been shown in the FIR and subsequently came to be inserted in the charge sheet and non-explanation of the same by Investigating Officer or P.W.1 in this regard, will create reasonable doubt as to the alleged act of the present accused. Due to previous enmity, the complainant would have filed a complaint against the accused as per his convenience, only to take revenge on the accused. Inconsistency evidence of P.W.1, 14 and 18 regarding the implication of accused and car number will create doubt about the act of accused as it is only after due deliberation and discussion the P.W.1 has lodged the complaint to the Police and thereafter he has changed his version stating that due to tension he has mentioned the names of accused 2 and 6, though they were not involved in the incident and - 31 - CRL.A No.100088/2023 subsequently inserted the names of other accused for his convenience. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 is not trustworthy and same is not corroborated by any other witnesses. Hence, interested testimony of P.W.1 cannot be believed and it is also not safe to come to the conclusion on the sole interested testimony of P.W.1 that these accused have kidnapped the deceased in a car as alleged by the prosecution. Accordingly, prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused under Section 363 read with Section 149 of IPC. 47. With regard to offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 120B and 109 read with Section 149 of IPC is concerned, absolutely there is no evidence as to unlawful assembly constituted by the accused with deadly weapons having common object to commit riot and alleged commission of offence. Accordingly, prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the commission of offences under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 120B read with Section 149 of IPC. 48. With regard to offences under Sections 302, 201, 109 and 364 of IPC are concerned; the entire case of prosecution is based on the circumstantial evidence. It is settled legal position of law that in a case of circumstantial evidence, the Judgment remains essentially inferential. The inference is - 32 - CRL.A No.100088/2023 drawn from the established facts as the circumstances lead to particular inference. The Court has to draw an inference with respect to whether the chain of circumstances is complete, and when the circumstances therein are collectively considered, the same must lead only to the irresistible conclusion that the accused alone is the perpetrator of the crime in question. All the circumstances, so established must be of a conclusive nature, and consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. In this regard, we relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court relied by the learned counsel for accused in the case of Ramanand’s referred to supra, wherein it is held as under: “1.1 Although there can be no straight jacket formula for appreciation of circumstantial evidence, yet to convict an accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the Court must follow certain tests which are broadly as follows: Circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; Those circumstances must be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused and must be conclusive in nature; The circumstances, if taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of - 33 - CRL.A No.100088/2023 explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. In other words, the circumstances should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. [Para 46][189-G-H; 190-A-D] 1.2 The case is one of the circumstantial evidence as there was no eye witness of the occurrence. It is settled principle of law that an accused can be punished if he is found guilty even in cases of circumstantial evidence provided, the prosecution is able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the complete chain of events and circumstances which definitely points towards the involvement and guilty of the suspect or accused, as the case may be. The accused will not be entitled to acquittal merely because there is no eye witness in the case. It is also equally true that an accused can be convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence subject to satisfaction of the expected principles in that regard. [Para 47][190-D-F] 2.1 The conditions necessary for the applicability of Section 27 of the Act are broadly as : (i) Discovery of fact in consequence of an information received from accused; (iv) Discovery of such fact to be deposed to; (iii) The accused must be in police custody when he gave information; and (iv) So much of information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered is admissible. [Para 64][199-F-H] 2.2 What emerges from the evidence in the form of panchnama is that the appellant stated before the panch witnesses to the effect that “I will show you the weapon used in the commission of offence”. This is the exact - 34 - CRL.A No.100088/2023 statement which could be read from the discovery panchnama and the Investigating Officer also could not have deposed as regards the exact statement other than what has been recorded in the panchnama. This statement does not suggest that the appellant indicated anything about his involvement in concealment of the weapon. Mere discovery cannot be interpreted as sufficient to infer authorship of concealment by the person who discovered the weapon. He could have derived knowledge of the existence of that weapon at the place through some other source. He may have even seen somebody concealing the weapon, and, therefore, it cannot be presumed or inferred that because a person discovered weapon, he was the person who concealed it, least it can be presumed that he used it. Therefore, even if discovery by the appellant is accepted, what emerges from the panchnama of the discovery of weapon and the evidence in this regard is that he disclosed that he would show the weapon used in the commission of offence. [Para 67][201-D-G] 3.1 Confessions may be divided into two classes, i.e. judicial and extra judicial. Judicial confessions are those which are made before Magistrate or Court in the course of judicial proceedings. Extra judicial confessions are those which are made by the party elsewhere than before a Magistrate or Court. Extra judicial confessions are generally those made by a party to or before a private individual which includes even a judicial officer in his private capacity. It also includes a Magistrate who is not especially empowered to record confessions under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. or a Magistrate so empowered but receiving the confession at a stage when - 35 - CRL.A No.100088/2023 Section 164 does not apply. As to extra judicial confessions, two questions arise: (i) were they made voluntarily? And (ii) are they true? [Para 80][208-B-C] 3.2 An extra judicial confession by its very nature is rather a weak type of evidence and requires appreciation with great deal of care and caution. Where an extra judicial confession is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, its credibility becomes doubtful and it loses its importance like the case in hand. The Courts generally look for an independent reliable corroboration before placing any reliance upon an extra judicial confession. [Para 85][212-F-G] 4. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, motive for committing the crime on the part of the accused assumes greater importance. This Court in various decisions has laid down the principles holding that motive for commission of offence no doubt assumes greater importance in cases resting on circumstantial evidence than those in which direct evidence regarding commission of offence is available. It is equally true that failure to prove motive in cases resting on circumstantial evidence is not fatal by itself. However, it is also well settled and it is trite in law that absence of motive could be a missing link of incriminating circumstances, but once the prosecution has established the other incriminating circumstances to its entirety, absence of motive will not give any benefit to the accused. Thus, even if it is believed that the accused appellant had a motive to commit the crime, the same may be an important circumstance in a case based on circumstantial evidence but cannot - 36 - CRL.A No.100088/2023 take the place as a conclusive proof that the person concerned was the author of the crime. One could even say that the presence of motive in the facts and circumstances of the case creates a strong suspicion against the accused appellant but suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot be a substitute for proof of the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. [Paras 87, 90][213-D-E; 215-D] 5.1 According to the trial court and the High Court, the explanation offered by the accused appellant in regard to the injuries suffered by him on his head is established to be false. In such circumstances, both the courts took the view that the false explanation offered by the accused appellant is an additional link in the chain of circumstances. It is not necessary for this court to go into the issue of false explanation, said to have been offered by the accused appellant as at the most a false explanation can be used as an additional link in the chain of evidence led by the prosecution. This issue pales into insignificance as the various links in the chain of evidence led by the prosecution having not been satisfactorily proved. [Para 92 and 100][215-H; 216-A; 218- C] 5.2 It is well settled that the prosecution must stand or fall on its own legs and it cannot derive any strength from the weakness of the defence. Where various links in a chain are in themselves complete, then a false plea or a false defence may be called into aid only to lend assurance to the Court. In other words, before using the additional link it must be proved that all the links in the chain are complete and do not suffer from any infirmity. It is not the law where - 37 - CRL.A No.100088/2023 there is any infirmity or lacunae in the prosecution case, the same could be cured or supplied by a false defence or a false plea which is not accepted by a Court. [Para 96][217-B-C] 5.3 Before a false explanation can be used as an additional link, the following essential conditions must be satisfied: (i) Various links in the chain of evidence led by the prosecution have been satisfactorily proved. (ii) Such circumstances points to the guilt of the accused as reasonable defence. (iii) The circumstance is in proximity to the time and situation.If the aforesaid conditions are fulfilled only then a Court use a false explanation or a false defence as an additional link to lend as assurance to the Court and not otherwise. [Para 97, 98][217-D-F] 6. None of the pieces of evidence relied on as incriminating by the courts below, can be treated as incriminating pieces of circumstantial evidence against the accused. Realities or truth apart, the fundamental and basic presumption in the administration of criminal law and justice delivery system is the innocence of the alleged accused and till the charges are proved beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of clear, cogent, credible or unimpeachable evidence, the question of indicting or punishing an accused does not arise, merely carried away by heinous nature of the crime or the gruesome manner in which it was found to have been committed. [Para 116][223-F-H]” 49. In the case on hand, the deceased was kidnapped on 25.11.2017 at 11.30 a.m. The Ex.P.1 came to be filed on the same day at 16:00 hours. Ex.P.32 reveals that the FIR reached - 38 - CRL.A No.100088/2023 to the Court on 27.11.2017 at 9.00 p.m. Exs.P.1 and P32, the complaint and FIR respectively, reveal that the complainant has searched for his son-in-law, therefore he could not file the complaint at the earliest. It was only when he could not find the deceased even after search, he has lodged the complaint. It is alleged in the complaint that the complainant knows the mobile number of his son-in-law/deceased as 7259772388. After kidnapping the deceased, he made a call to the said cell number of deceased, but same was not reachable at that moment. It is specific case of the prosecution as alleged in the complaint that accused 1 to 6 shown in the complaint have kidnapped the deceased. When the PW.1-complainant had witnessed as to kidnapping of his son-in-law in car bearing No.DL-01/CF-7891, immediately he ought to have filed a complaint to the Police, but he has not done so. But in the evidence of P.W.1, he has given improved statement that CW.11 forcibly took the deceased-Vitthal, he has chased him in cruiser vehicle, they and CW-11 have followed the accused and searched for the deceased till Nandikatti village, they were not able to trace either the accused or the deceased. Therefore returned back and filed a complaint at 4.00 p.m. This CW.11- Laxman Pujeri examined as P.W.2, has deposed that he along - 39 - CRL.A No.100088/2023 with P.W.1 tried to chase the Santro vehicle. They searched for the vehicle at Tavalageri cross, Tadavi Shivapur and other places they were not able to trace the said Santro car. But this fact has not been shown in the complaint. If really P.W.1 and 2 have tried to chase the Santro vehicle, P.W.1 would have mentioned the name of P.W.2 and also as to the above facts in the complaint. Only for the first time before this Court on oath he has stated that they have chased the Santro through cruiser that belong to P.W.2. Therefore, these reasons assigned by the prosecution cannot be accepted and delay in filing the complaint as to the kidnap of deceased also cannot be accepted. 50. It is the case of prosecution that the Investigating Officer has arrested the accused on 27.11.2017. After recording of the voluntary statement of accused, the Investigating Officer has traced out the dead body of the deceased and conducted inquest panchanama as per Ex.P.25. At the instance of accused, Investigating Officer has seized properties as shown in seizure mahazars. But all the mahazar witnesses have not supported to the case of prosecution. The prosecution has not elicited any favorable answers with regard to the seizure mahazar from the - 40 - CRL.A No.100088/2023 witnesses, even after treating them as hostile witnesses and cross-examined at the length. 51. As already discussed above, as there is abnormal delay of 14 days in submitting the seizure reports to the Court as required under Section 102 of Cr.P.C. and admittedly there is previous enmity between accused and the complainant with regard to the murder of the father of accused No.1 and also his uncle. Therefore, the interested testimony of P.W.1 cannot be believed without corroboration. 52. Viewed from any angle, we do not find any cogent, clinching, corroborative, believable and trustworthy evidence. The entire evidence placed by the prosecution will create doubt about the act of the accused at each and every stage. Since the evidence of prosecution witnesses creates doubt as to the act of the accused, the benefit of doubt shall have be given to the accused. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 53. The trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record in proper perspective and convicted the accused for the alleged commission of offences, which is not - 41 - CRL.A No.100088/2023 sustainable under law. Hence, the impugned Judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court requires interference by this Court. Resultantly, we answer point No.(i) in the ‘negative’. 54. It is to be observed here that in view of the provisions of Section 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as well as Circular No.4 of 2017 issued by this Court to all Judicial Officers across the State, it is deemed just and proper to direct the Member Secretary of the concerned District Legal Services Authority to assess and award appropriate compensation to the victim. Such compensation shall be disbursed promptly and in accordance with the statutory mandate to secure some degree of restorative justice for the victim/children of the decreased. Regarding point No.(ii) 55. For the reasons discussed above, we proceed to pass the following : ORDER (i) Appeal is allowed; (ii) The Judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi in Sessions Case No.107/2018 dated 09.01.2023, is set aside; - 42 - CRL.A No.100088/2023 (iii) Appellants/accused 1 to 7 are acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 364, 302, 201, 109 and 120B read with section 149 of Indian Penal Code; (iv) The fine amount, if any deposited by the appellants/accused 1 to 7 shall be refunded to them. (v) Bail bond of accused Nos.1 to 7 and their surety bonds stand cancelled. (vi) Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the Member Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Belagavi to award suitable compensation as required under Section 357A of the Cr.P.C. and ‘Victim Compensation Scheme’ after due enquiry to the legal heirs of the deceased. (vii) Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment along with trial Court records to the concerned trial Court. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE CKK