The rule of caution, as propounded by Mahmood J. in Empress v. Debi Singh, should be observed by the third Judge in a reference under Sections 378 and 429, Code of Criminal Procedure.

( 1 ) AS a result of the difference of opinion between Bhimasankaram J. and Sanjeeva Row Nayudu J. , as to whether accused 1 to 3 committed the offence of murder under Section 302 I. P. C. read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code, on the midnight of 14-3-1958 at Nagraj-pally, Medak District, the Division Bench directed that the case may be heard by a third Judge under Section 429 Code of Criminal Procedure, and the case was accordingly posted before me for delivering my opinion. The reference to Section 429 Code of Criminal Procedure, in the order is stated both by the learned Advocate for the appellants as also by the learned Public Prosecutor to be a slip for Section 378, Code of Criminal Procedure. Though Section 378 Code of Criminal Procedure, enacts that the third Judge before whom the opinions of the differing Judges are laid shall deliver his opinion after such hearing as he thinks fit, I heard tne arguments on both sides in detail and perused the entire evidence as o whether the prosecution has satisfactorily established that accused 1 to 3 are guilty of the offence charged against them.

( 2 ) BEFORE dealing with the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as to the motive of the accused in committing the murder as also the commission of the offence, I shall refer to the various suspicious circumstances relied on by the learned Advocate for the appellants. The offence took place at Nagraj-pally on the midnight of 14-3-1958. The police Station is situate at Nanganoor, 3 miles away from the village. The First Information Report marked as Exhibit P-3 was according to P. W. 16 presented only at 11 a. m. , on 15th March, though according to P. W. 5, he took the report to the Police Station House at about 8 a. m. It is surprising to note that instead of proceeding to the Police Station at Nanganoor and reporting the offence, P. W. 5 stated that he proceeded to a village Siddannapeta, 5 or 6 miles away, and got the First Information Report drafted by Rama Reddy, the clerk of the Village Patel Moh-ammad Akbar. It is of importance to note that though under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the first information report should be signed by the person giving it, Exhibit P-3 does not bear the thumb impression of P. W. 5. Though on Exhibit P-3, it is noted that it was delivered at 11 a. m. , it is curious that P. W. 16 did not proceed to the scene of offence till 3 or 3-30 p. m. Though the inquest was stated to have been held at 4 or 4-30 p. m. , and the corpse was sent to the Doctor at Siddipet, 14 miles away, the body did not reach till 2-00 p. m. , on 16-3-1958. The First Information Report, which was delivered at the Police Station according to P. W. 16 at 11 a. m. , reached the Magistrate at Siddipet only at 3 p. m. on 16th. It is very significant to note that at the inquest, the two alleged eye-witnes es P. Ws. 2 and 3 were not examined. Even though the case of the prosecution is definile that they received information that the accused committed the offence, they were not arrested by P. W. 16 soon after he reached the village. It is stated that it was only after the Sub-Inspector (P. W. 17) took over the investigation at 8-30 p. m. that he arrested the accused at 9 p. m. The accused, who were produced before the Magistrate at Siddipet, 14 miles away ->n 16th were once again remanded to the Police custody, and it is staled that thd material objects were all discovered on 18th as a result of the information given by them at their village Nagrajpally. No explanation whatsoever is given as to why the accused were not arrested till 9 p. m. on 15th or as to why their houses were not searched till 18th. The material objects that are alleged to have been seized were not produced before the Magistrate till 20th. The explanation of P. W. 17 that the Sarishtadar of the Magistrates Court refused to receive the material objects on 19th when they were produced in the Court on the ground that the bailiff was not pre