Waller, J.

1. The three appellants have been convicted of the murder of one Thillaikannu Pillai. The 1st appellant is the murdered mans son. The 2nd and 3rd appellants are respectively the 1st appellants brother-in-law and father-in-law. Another brother-in-law was charged with them but acquitted. There was, we consider, no ground for differentiating between him and his brother. If the Sessions Judge accepted, as he did, the confessions of the 1st and 3rd appellants and the evidence of P.Ws. 10 and 11, he should have convicted the 3rd accused as well. The fact that his name did not appear in Ex. E was, comparatively speaking, of very little significance.

2. That there was ample motive for the murder is clear. In the first place, Thillaikannu was keeping a woman called Nagu and spending money on her, to which his son and no doubt his wifes family objected. In the next, Thillaikannus relations with his sons wife (P.W. 2) had given rise to constant quarrels. He had been intimate with her before she was married and the intimacy continued after her marriage. About ten days before the murder, the 1st appellant had caught her going to his fathers room at night and thrashed her, threa