- (1.) The challenge in this appeal by the two appellants is to a judgment and order of the High Court of Karnataka dated 19th June, 2013 by which the appellant's conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC" for short) has been maintained and the sentence of life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.10,000/- each, etc. has also been upheld.
(2.) The prosecution case rests entirely on three circumstances which have been set out by the High Court as follows: "(i) The deceased borrowed loan and he did not return and decamped from Ramanagaram. (ii) The deceased is in the company of A1 and A2 as spoken to by PW1 and PW2; and (iii) The report of the Doctor suggests that the death is homicidal."
(3.) The accused appellants and the deceased along with Suma (PW1) and Rama Nayak (PW2) were together on 26th December, 2004, the precise time being around 1.30 p.m.. The dead body was recovered after a gap of four (04) days i.e. on 30th December, 2004. The post-mortem report indicated that the death had occurred 30 hours prior to the time of post-mortem examination. The medical evidence, therefore, would be suggestive of the fact that the dead-body was recovered after about two (02) days from 1.30 p.m. of 26th December, 2004. The question that confronts the Court is whether on the basis of the aforesaid evidence the conviction of the accused appellants is sustainable in law.;