JUDGMENT

SINGH, J. :—These appeals were heard on 3-5-1991 and after hearing learned counsel for the parties we had pronounced the operative portion of the judgment allowing the appeals and setting aside the judgment and order of the High Court convicting the appellants for offences under Section 302/34, I.P.C. We had observed that the reasons for the judgment would be given later and now we are giving reasons for the same.

2. These two appeals are directed against the judgment and order of the High Court Of Patna dated 15-7-1986 upholding the conviction of Dr. Harendra Narain Singh and Ram Nath Singh, appellants for the offences under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C.

3. Briefly, the facts as disclosed by the prosecution are that Smt. Jagia Devi, a widow having two sons was carrying four months pregnancy. She was taken to the dispensary of Dr. Harendra Narain Singh, the appellant who was a Homoeopathic doctor on the pretext of treatment of pain in her stomach though the real purpose for taking her to the dispensary was for aborting foetus which she was carrying. She was murdered in the dispensary and her dead body was taken to Village Dibbi in an Ekka and placed in the courtyard of the house of Smt. Tileshwara Kuar. Teg Bahadur Singh PW 11 came to know from a young boy that a dead body was kept in the courtyard of Smt. Tileshwara Kuar. He went to the house of Smt. Tileshwara Kuar and on interrogation she told him that some persons after committing murder of Jagia Devi had kept her dead body inside her house. The door of the house was locked. Smt. Tileshwara handed over the key to Teg Bahadur Singh who unlocked the door and entered the house and found the dead body of Jagia lying on the ground in the courtyard. He rushed to the Police Station and reported the matter to the police which was reduced in writing. The police registered a case and proceeded to the spot. The Investigating Officer recovered the dead body from the house of Tileshwara Kuar and made inquest and sent the dead body for postmortem. On completion of investigation the police submitted chargesheet against seven accused persons, namely, Tileshwara Kuar, Ram Nath Singh, Bishwanath Roy s/o Dip Roy, Ishwar Shah, Dr. Harendra Narain Singh, Smt. Jota Kuar w/o Dip Roy and Bishwanath Singh alias Bissu. During the pendency of the case before the trial Court Bishwanath Roy and Jota Kuar died, therefore, the trial proceeded only against the remaining five accused persons.

4. Before the trial Court, the prosecution produced 14 witnesses in support of its case but there was no direct evidence or eyewitness to support the charge of murder. Entire case of the prosecution is founded on circumstantial evidence. The trial Court acquitted Smt. Tileshwara Kuar who had been charged for offences under Sections 302/34 and 201 of the I.P.C. but it convicted the remaining accused Ram Nath Singh, lshwar Shah, Harendra Narain Singh and Bishwanath Singh alias Bissu for the offences under Section 302 of the I.P.C. read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and also under Section 315/34, I.P.C. On appeal by the accused the High Court acquitted Ishwar Shah, Bishwanath Singh alias Bissu but it upheld the conviction of Dr. Harendra Narain Singh and Ram Nath Singh for offences under Section 302/ 34 of the I.P.C. Aggrieved Dr. Harendra Narain Singh and Ram Nath Singh have preferred these two appeals.

5. The entire case of the prosecution rests on the circumstantial evidence as no prosecution witness has given any direct testimony against the appellants for the commission of the offence for which they have been convicted. The trial Court as well as the High Court both have relied on circumstantial evidence in convicting the appellants for the offences under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. Since the entire case rests on circumstantial evidence it is necessary to refer to the principles which should guide the Court in considering the conviction of an accused resting on circumstantial evidence. It is a cardinal princip