Judgement

BHAGWATI, J. : These are Appeals with special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Hyderabad confirming the convictions and the sentences of transportation for life imposed upon the appellants, accused 1 to 4, by the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Medak, in respect of an offence under S. 243, A.P.C. corresponding to S. 302, Indian Penal Code.

2. The accused 1 to 4, along with one Baldev Muthiah, were charged that they, on or about the 15th day of Isfandar 1359 F. (15th January 1950) at 10 o clock in the night, abducted one Muneem Lachiah, Telanga, resident of Dognelli, who was at his house, and carried him outside the village where they did him to death, due to enmity, by hitting him with stick and spear and that they took away a silver kardoda and arm kada from his body and that they thereby committed offences punishable under Ss. 243 and 330, A.P.C.

3. The learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused 1 to 4 of the offence under S. 243, A.P.C. and sentenced them to transportation for life. The accused 2 was further convicted under S. 337, A.P.C. and sentenced to a term of two years rigorous imprisonment. The sentences of transportation for life were submitted to the High Court for confirmation in accordance with the relevant provision of law in Hyderabad.

The High Court of Hyderabad, in appeal, agreed with the conclusion reached by the learned Sessions Judge and confirmed the conviction of the accused 1 to 4 under S. 243, A.P.C. and the sentences of transportation for life awarded to them by the Court below.

One of the learned Judges of the High Court simply confirmed the sentence under S. 243, A.P.C. but another learned Judge held that the accused were guilty of the offences under Ss. 243 and 330, Hyderabad Criminal Procedure Code (possibly meaning there by A.P.C.) and sentenced each of the accused to undergo life imprisonment on the above charges ill-realising that, in the whole of the judgment with which he agreed, there was not a word to justify the conviction under S. 330 A.P.C.

In substance, the judgment of the High Court came to this that the accused were convicted of the offence under S. 243, A.P.C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment in respect of the same.

4. There was no direct evidence of the accused having committed the offence. The whole case rested on circumstantial evidence and that evidence consisted of the testimony of three witnesses, the wife of the deceased P. W. 5, the young son of the deceased P. W. 6 and a neighbour P. W. 7, who deposed that, on the evening of the day in question, all the four accused had gone to the house of the deceased and accosted him, asking him to accompany them to the well of one Deshmukh.

There was evidence if ill-will between the deceased and the accused in that the accused were alleged to have abducted the deceased a month before the alleged murder and set him at liberty on payment of ransom of Rs. 350/- and also that the accused had, only three days before, deprived the deceased of a goat belonging to him from the possession of Kumari Sayiga P. W. 2 and slaughtered it and ate it away and there was consequently a quarrel arising out of the search of the house of accused 1 and 2 made at the instance of the deceased.

Lastly, there were recoveries of the silver kardoda at the instance of accused 2, a white turban and a stick from the house of accused 1 and another stick from the house of accused 3. The silver kardoda was alleged to have been removed from the person of the deceased and buried in a secluded spot which was pointed out by accused 2 and the white turban was alleged to have been stained with human blood.

These were the pieces of circumstantial evidence which, according to the learned Sessions Judge, pointed inevitably to the conclusion that accused 1 to 4 were responsible for his death. The learned Judges of the High Court also were of the opinion that there were eye-witnesses but a strong motive for the murder and the fact of all the accuse