( 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 t