C.A. VAIDIALINGAM, J.

(1) IN these appeals by special leave, the appellants who are accused Nos. 2 to 4, challenge the judgment, dated 24/04/1968, of the Madhya Pradesh High court, confirming their conviction and sentence for an offence under S. 302, read with S. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2) THE appellants, alongwith one Bamdeo were charged and tried under S. 302, read with S. 34 of the Indian Penal Code for committing the murder of one Surajkunwar on the morning of 24/08/1967, in furtherance of their common intention. The prosecution case was briefly as follows:

THE deceased Surajkunwar was the widow of one Durjan, brother of Bamdeo, accused No. 1. Accused No. 2 Yudhishtir is the son of Bamdeo. Rajkumar and Shivkumar accused Nos. 3 and 4 are the nephews of Bamdeo. On the death of Durjan, Surajkunwar had inherited as her husbands heir about 22 acres of land. Surajkunwar used to live in the house of Bamdeo, but as differences arose between accused No. I and Surajkunwar, she was having her mess separately in that house for about four years prior to her death. Bamdeo took possession of her lands. Though the deceased Surajkunwar protested against this conduct of accused No. 1, the latter was not agreeable to give back the lands. In view of this, there was a dispute between accused No. 1, and Suraj-kunwar. A few days earlier, prior to 24/08/1967, .Surajkunwar apprehended danger to her life at the hands of accused No.1, and on the advice of Nirpat, the brother of accused No. 1, she used to stay for the night at Nirpats house, which was close by. On 24/08/1967, Ratan (P. W. 1) and Labho (P. W. 6), the farm servants of accused No. 1, had come to his house to take instructions regarding the nature of work to be done that day. At that time the appellants and accused No. I were.sitting in the verandah .of the house, which was abutting the rooms which used to be occupied by Surajkunwar, when she was residing with accused No. 1. Surajkunwar also came to the house of accused No. 1. As soon as she came near the verandah, accused No. 1 and accused No. 3, closed the front and back doors of the house. Accused No. 2 caught hold of Surajkunwar by her neck and all the four accused dragged her inside the house and, pushed her into the room, which was used to be occupied by her. Surajkunwar was pushed on the floor by all the four accused. Accused Nos. 1 and 3 throttled her by pressing her neck. Accused No. 2 gagged her mouth by thrusting a cloth and accused No. 4 caught hold of her legs. This incident was witnessed by both P. Ws. 1 and 6. When Surajkunwar was being dragged into the house she had raised a cry and on hearing the same P. W. 5 Vidyadhar came near the house and raised an alarm. On hearing this alarm of P. W. 5, several persons living nearby including P. Ws. 3, 4, 7 and 9 gathered outside the house. These witnesses saw accused No. 1, opening the back door of the house and the appellants herein running away from the house. Accused No. 1, himself opened the front door of the house and P. Ws. 1 and 6 came out of the house and mentioned to these witnesses about the crime committed by the appellants. When Bamdeo was questioned, he first evaded to give any reply, but later on admitted that he had killed Surajkunwar, P. W. 9 Nohardas Kotwar went and gave the first information report Ex. P. 3 at the Police Station of Basna.

(3) DR. R. N. Sharma (P. W. 16), who conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Surajkunwar had deposed that the death was due to strangulation.

(4) THE appellants, as also accused No. 1, denied the offence with which they were charged and they pleaded that they have been falsely implicated due to enmity.

(5) THE learned Sessions Judge held that accused No. 1, had killed Surajkunwar by throttling her and as such convicted him under S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He. further held that as the act of killing Suraj-kunwar has been done in furtherance of a common intention