T .K. Chandrashekhara Das, J. - These appeals arise out of a Judgment of the learned District and Sessions Judge. South Goa at Margao in Sessions Case No. 23/92, where by the accuseds were convicted under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life. Accused No.1 filed Appeal No. 19/95 and accused No.2 filed Appeal No. 14/95. Accused No.1. Vassanti Gaonkar is the wife of the deceased Shri Yeshwant Raghu Gaonkar and accused No.2 is the paramour of accused-No. 1.

2. The charge against the accused was that on or about I -6- 1992 between 2 to 4 p.m. in the jungle at Vatolemol, Shivshurem Sanguem with common intention they committed murder of Shri Yeshwant Raghu Gaonkar by assaulting with a coita and stone on the face front. Nose, neck throttled and private part twisted, which resulted in instantaneous death of Yeshwant Raghu Gaonkar. Altogether 18 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. But there was no eye -witness and as a result, the Lower Court had to rely upon the circumstantial evidence adduced in this case. P.W. 1, Bombo Gaonkar is the panch witness to the inquest panchnama. Exhibit P.W. 1/ A; P. W. 2, Or. Silvano Oias, who conducted the autopsy examination on the dead body of Shri Yeshwant Gaonkar; P.W. 3, Narayan Gaonkar, another panch witness to the inquest panchnama; P.W. 4, Shivaji Gaonkar, who is the brother of the deceased has spoken about the illicit relations between accused No.1 and accused No.2 and also has spoken that on 1-6-1992, he had gone for his work in the morning and came for lunch and again went for duty and came back at 6 p.m. When he came back, his mother, Mogrem told him that Yeshwant was dead in Vatolemol. Accordingly he and the eldest son of the deceased went to Vatolemol where they could not .find the dead body of Yeshwant and they went nearby the hut where the father of the accused No.1 by name Curgoro resides. Then P.W. 4 asked him whether he saw Yeshwant. Then Curgoro took them to the dead body of Yeshwant, which was lying in bushes and there were injuries on his forehead, the neck appeared to be swollen injury on one of the hands, the private part appeared to be twisted. He then informed this incident to the Sarpanch of their Village. P.W. 5, Francisco Gracias is the panch witness of recovery of coita panchnama. P. W. 6, Tereza. Travasso is the panch of the attachment of the clothes of accused No. 1 and her arrest; P.W. 7. Raghav Joshiis the panch witness to the recovery of stone at the instance of accused No.2; P.W. 8, Mahindra Oessai and P.W. 9. Xavier Pinto, photograehers who took photographs of coita and stone used for offence. P.W. 10 Olimpio Cardozo is the pancha to the arrest panchnama of accused No.2; P.W. 11, Raghu Gaonkar is the, brother-in-law of deceased and brother of accused No.1. He states that on 1-6-1992, he had gone the Canacona and he returned to his sugarcane plantation by 5 p.m. Then he went to see plantation and by the side of t he planation, there is a "Karo" tree. On passing through the planation, he heard some one crying from near that 'Karo' tree. When he went to see who was crying he found that it was accused No.1. On questioning her she told him that her husband has committed suicide. At that time, he saw his father also coming towards the sugarcane plantation and asked him where accuse9No. 1 was. He told him that accused No.1 was crying near the 'Karo' tree. They then went there and his father asked accused No. 1 why she was crying, she also gave the same reply to her father and she pointed out by her hand, showing the spot where the suicide was committed. Then P.W. 11 and his father Gudgudo Gaonkar went towards the spot where they saw the dead body of the deceased and it was bleeding from his forehead. The deceased was wearing at that time only an underwear or a short pant. Both of them then went near accused No.1 and his father told her that she should go and inform about the incident to her parents-in-law. Accused No.1 then w