Judgment

DUA, J.: The appellant was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Shimoga, under S. 302, I. P. C. for the murder of one Govindappa, a village postman and was awarded capital sentence. He was also held guilty of an offence under S. 201, I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years. The High Court of Mysore confirmed the conviction and sentence under S. 302, I. P. C. It also upheld his conviction under S. 201, I. P. C. but set aside the sentence on this court observing that when a person is convicted both under S. 302 and S. 201, I. P. C, it is undesirable to pass separate sentences for both offences. In this appeal with special leave the appellant challenges his conviction and sentence under S. 302, I.P.C.

2. The appellant was tried, along with Laxmamma (accused no. 2) wife of the deceased Govindappa and her mother Gangamma (accused no. 3) wife of late Mylappa. The two women were charged with abetment of murder and were acquitted by the trial court. We are not concerned with them m this appeal. There is no eye witness in the case and the courts below have accepted the prosecution story on circumstantial evidence. The question before us is whether the circumstantial evi