1. - The learned Sessions Judge, Jalore vide impugned judgment dated 21.9.2000 passed in Sessions Case No. 74/98, has convicted the four appellants for the offence under Section 302 r/w Section 34 IPC, and sentenced them to imprisonment for life, and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, they have been directed to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment. However all the accused persons have been acquitted, of the charge under Section 201 I.P.C.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 27.9.1998, one Pura Ram (PW-4) lodged a written report at Police Station Sayla, alleging inter alia, that in the morning of that day, his cousin (uncle) Pratap ji told him that dead body of Sakriya is lying on the Chabutra at Baiyasa Ki Jal. The informant is said to have gone there, and found the body to be bearing numberous injuries. He made enquiries, whereupon, Deepa and Fuiya (PW-9 and Pk/V-10) respectively, narrated to him that at about 8.00 last evening, when they were going to the fields, from the village, on the way, when they were at the house of Masriya, the four appellants were giving beating to Sakriya, in the Chok, inside the house. Sakriya was shrieking. It was then alleged that Chatra and Kesa had also witnessed the incident, and the accused persons, on being asked about Sakriya did not given satisfactory reply, and simply commanded to run away. Bansiya is said to have given out that, in the mid night 12.00-1.00 AM, all the four accused persons were seen carrying a person, and on being asked they simply directed the witness to run away. Then all the four persons dropped the body of that person at Bayosa Ka Than and went away. It was also alleged that, on account of previous enmity, Sakriya has been killed. On this report a case under Section 302 IPC was registered.

3. After usual investigation, challan was submitted against all the four accused persons before the learned Magistrate, who committed it to the learned trial court. Learned trial court framed the charges against all the accused persons, for the offence under Section 302 IPC, in the alternative under Section 302/34, and Section 201 IPC. The accused persons denied the charges, and claimed to be tried.

4. During trial, the prosecution examined some 13 witnesses, and tendered in evidence numerous documents, while the defence also tendered in the evidence four documents and examined two witnesses Khangara and Kolaram. The learned trial court, after completing the trial convicted, and sentenced the accused persons as above.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant assailing the impugned judgment has contended that, the learned trial court has carried in placing reliance upon the evidence of PW-9 and PW-10 Deeparam and Fuiya. According to learned counsel. these witnesses are only chance witnesses, are planted witnesses, and cannot be relied upon. It is also contended that in view of the subsequent conduct of the witnesses also, it is clear that their conduct is wholly unnatural, and have simply come forward to oblige of these witnesses is discarded, or disbelieved, there is absolutely no evidence on record' to support the prosecution, and as such they are entitled to be acquitted.

6. The learned public prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the impugned judgment, and contended that the evidence of these two witnesses is wholly reliable and natural evidence, they were going to their field, en route, they saw the incident being committed in the house of appellant Masra, simply because they did not narrate it in the morning to other persons, does not adversely effect, either their credibility, or the fact of their having seen the incident. It was also contended that their evidence is further corroborated from the faci that hear the fencing of the house of Masra, a blood stained cloth was recovered, one button, and one Kada of the appellant Masra was also found at the place of incident, which shows that the incident did take place, and did take p