( 1. ) APPELLANTS Pratapsicgh and Janved have been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life Under Section 302 read with Section 34, Penal Code by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind. They have, therefore preferred this appeal against their conviction and sentences.

( 2. ) APPELLANT Pratapsingh is the husband of Mst, Mahadevi (P. W. 10.) Appellant Janved is her brother. Pratapsing was residing in Kaharanka-Mohalla at Bhind while Janved is a resident of village Kaharanka pura about 6 to 7 miles from Bhind, Deceased Ramcbaran sweeper was also a resident of Bhind.

( 3. ) THE case of the prosecution is that on account of liason between Mst. Mahadevi (P, W. 10) wife of appellant Pratapsingh and the deceased Bamoharan both the appellants committed the murder of Ramcharan in the house of Pratap on the 11th April 1967 at about 10 P. M. and thereafter ran away leaving the dead body in the house. Head-Constable Barfraj Beg (P. W. 1) who happend to pass by the house soon after this incident was inform, ed by Mat. Mahadevi that her husband and brother had run away after committing the murder. He, therefore, lodged the report Ex. P. 1 at the Police Station at 10. 85 P. M. , on the same night. On receiving this report Rule 8. Sharma 8. 0. (P. W. 21) proceeded to the spot and reoorded the inquest report Ex. P. 21 after holding an inquest. The dead. body was then sent to Civil Hospital Bhind for post-mortem examination. Dr. S. S. Sharma (P. W. 7) performed the autopsy. He found a number of incised -wounds on the person of the deceased some of which were on the face and the neck. The atlas vertebra of the neck was cut through and through and the spinal oord was severed. In the opinion of the Doctor the death was due to the said injuries which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. He further opined that these injuries could be caused by the ssvord Article a.

( 4. ) B. L. Tripathi (P. W. 16) who was then attached to the Kotwali Bhind and had ac. companied R S. Sharma 8. 0. (P. W. 21) inspected the spot on 12-4. 67 in accordance with the directions of Sharma. He prepared the map Ex. P. 2 and seize blood stained earth from the spot No. 3 as shown in the map. He also seized a broken Barchhi, two broken teeth aoiled with blood and a sword (Article A) from the spot No. 16 aud certain other articles under Seizure Memo Exs. P. 3, P. 9. Both the appellants were tried on a charge Under Section 302 read with Section 34, Penal Code. They abjured their guilt and their defence was that they were not at the spot at the time of occurrence.

( 5. ) FROM the medical evidence as well as other evidence on record it is clear that the deceased Ramcbaran was done to death with a Bharp edged weapon like a sword at the time of this occurrence, It ia not necessary to refer to the evidence on this point beoauae it has not been questioned by the learned cousel for the appellants. The main point for consideration, therefore, ia whether the appellants were responsible for causing the death of the deoeas-ed Ramcharan.

( 6. ) UNFORTUNATELY there ia no direct evidence on this point because the only eye-witness, namely, Mat. Mahadevi (P. W. 10) turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. The case, therefore, rests mainly on circumstantial evidence. One of the impor-tant circumstances relied upon by the prosecution is that the dead-body of the deceased was found inside the house of the appellant Pratap. On this point we have the evidence of Sarfraj Beg (P. W. 1), Chimman (P. W. 5) brother of the deceased, Chhabu (P. W. 6), Harvilas (P. W. 9) and Rule 8. Sharma (P. W. 21) 8. 0. Bhind. According to all these witnesses the dead body was lying in the house of Pratap.

( 7. ) IT would be pertinent to mention here that a number of witnesses namely, Ga,nga-charan (P. W. 2), Ghasiram (P. W. 3), Raghu-ver (P. W. 4), Nathu (P. W. 11), Cbhidi (P. W. 17) and Gendalal (P. W. 18) testified that the dead body was ljing outside th