M.M.PUNCHHI, J.

(1) THE conviction of the appellants who are son and father, under Sections 302/34 IPC is based on circumstantial evidence. The deceased, Asha Devi, was the wife of Appellant 1 and the daughter-in-law of Appellant 2.

(2) THE prosecution case is that Asha Devi, deceased, was married to Ramchandra Sao, Appellant 1 in the year 1982 but she had gone to live with him in December 1983.

(3) LATER on a day when her husband was not at home her father-in-law Girija Sao, Appellant 2 is said to have caught her by the arm with meaningful glances. On account of his undesirable advances she reported the matter to her husband and certain ladies in the neighbourhood. A panchayat was convened where the incident was discussed and a decision was awarded that separate residences be set up for father and son. Asha Devi and her husband would live separately and not in the house of her father-in-law. All the same the parties kept living together and two months went by. This part of the prosecution story remains unquestioned because admission in regard to the decision of the panchayat has been made by the appellants in their statements under Section 313 o