Judgment Govinda Menon, J.-Accused I and 2 in S. C. No. 107 of 1949 on the file of the Court of Session, Coimbatore division, have been convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of one Giri Gowda just after dusk on the 23rd October, 1948, at the village of Doddinduvadi in Coimbatore district. They were also convicted under section 201, Indian Penal Code, for causing disappearance of the evidence of murder. There were two other charges, viz, that against first accused with having caused simple hurt to Siddha Chetty (P.W.3) and the second accused with having caused simple hurt to Siddha Gowda (P.W.1). For these minor offences the first accused was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two months and the second accused also to rigorous imprisonment for the same period. The third accused who is the appellant in C. A. No. 650 of 1949 was found guilty of an offence under section 201, Indian Penal Code, along with accused 1 and 2 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years. The referred trial and the appeals by the accused have been heard together and we have heard arguments from Mr. V. Rajagopalachari for accused 1 and 2 and from Mr. P.S.Balakrishna Aiyar for the third accused. As the facts and circumstances are so interconnected that it will be convenient to deal with the two appeals together we do not intend to deliver separate judgments in each of the appeals. Shortly put, the prosecution case is that accused 1 and 2 were on inimical terms with the deceased Giri Gowda and therefore they, along with a number of other people, lay in wait on the evening of the 23rd October, 1948, when Giri Gowda was returning from Kollegal to his village, waylaid him, dragged him out of the jutka in which he was travelling and then the first accused stabbed him and the second accused beat him. Thereafter he was carried to a nearby place where again he was stabbed and beaten as a result of which he expired. It is further stated that after sometime both accused 1 and 2 exclaimed that Giri Gowda was dead and therefore they should carry him away. The evidence in the case further proves that he was carried away from the scene of crime and later on has not been heard of at all. It is further stated that after sometime both accused 1 and 2 exclaimed that Giri Gowda was dead and therefore they should carry him away. The evidence in the case further proves that he was carried away from the scene of crime and later on has not been heard of at all. We shall therefore set out shordy the prosecution evidence on which we are asked to infer that Giri Gowda has been murdered by accused 1 and 2. At about 7 or 8 a.m. on 23rd October, 1948, Giri Gowda went in a jutka to Kollegal which was 7 miles from his village and after finishing his business he left Kollegal at about 5-30 p.m. on that day. He was accompanied in his jutka which was-driven by P. W. 3 by two friends of his, P.Ws.1 and 4. All the four of them neared the village of Giri Gowda and when at the junction of the Kollegal Road and the minor road which branches off north along which Giri Gowda had to proceed to his village, P.W.2 got down. P.Ws.1 and 4 and the deceased were in the jutka which was driven by P.W.3. As they proceeded a little further in the direction of the village of Doddinduvadi, according to the evidence let in it was about 7 p.m. and there was no light. It is further stated that they were nearing a village school and were in the road in front of the village school which is marked in the plan Ex. P-6. It is then stated that accused 1 and 2 came from a place near the school. The first accused caught hold of the reins of the horse while the second accused tried to get into the jutka by climbing on the wheel.. P. W.3, the jutka man, asked the first accused to let go the reins of the horse. Giri Gowda also asked the first accused to leave the reins. But the first accused did not. pay any attention and tried to get into the jutka, whereupon he was obstructed by P. W. 3. The first accused fisted P.W.3 on his testicles and he fell down. It was stated that the first accused was armed with a bichuwa and the second accused with a stick. But the first accused did not. pay any attention and tried to get into the jutka, whereupon he was obstructed by P. W. 3. The first accused fisted P.W.3 on his testicles and he fell down. It was stated that the first accused was armed with a bichuwa and the second accused with a stick. As soon as P.W.3 fell down P.W.4 who was in the jutka got: down, went and stood at a little distance. As the jutka was still in motion accused; 1 and 2 came running behind the jutka and the second accused asked P.W.1 to get down, which behest P.W.1 obeyed. The second accused then beat P.W.1 with the stick. Thereafter the second accused pulled Giri Gowda out of the jutka by his leg. The first accused stabbed Giri Gowda in front of his chest with the bichuwa. Giri Gowda cried “Ayyo, Appa.” But the second accused beat him again on the head two or three times with the stick. There were other people who were also, standing there belonging to the party of the accused. All of them came and joined accused 1 and 2. They lifted Giri Gowda and bodily removed him to a place 10 or 15 yards to the south and there also the first accused stabbed him with a bichuwa and the second accused beat him with a stick. At this time it is stated that P. Ws. 6 and 7 were a little to the east in front of the school. One of them who had an electric torch flashed the torch whereupon the first accused is said to have stated that whoever flashed the torch would be killed. By that time Giri Gowda had died. Thereafter P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 went to the village and P.W.1 sent a messenger to the Moniagar of the village who according to him could not be got at. The Moniagar returned at about 10 or 10-30 p.m. and P.W.1 gave a complaint, Ex. P-1, at about 11 p.m. which was received by the Moniagar at 12 midnight, and this was sent to the police station and received by the police officer, P.W.19 at 5-30 a.m. on 24th October, 1948. The police officer immediately went to the scene of crime and started the investigation. P-1, at about 11 p.m. which was received by the Moniagar at 12 midnight, and this was sent to the police station and received by the police officer, P.W.19 at 5-30 a.m. on 24th October, 1948. The police officer immediately went to the scene of crime and started the investigation. He examined the place where the attack was alleged to have taken place, recovered certain material objects and proceeded with the investigation. Despite the best attempts made by the investigating staff it was not possible to find out the body of Giri Gowda, and until to-day the body of Giri Gowda has not been traced. It is in evidence that the first accused surrendered on the 1st April, 1949 and the second accused was arrested on the 14th April, 1949, the third accused having surrendered in Court on the 23rd February, 1949, after the charge-sheet was filed before the committing Magistrate. The prosecution story as outlined by us above is spoken to by P.Ws.1, 3 and 4. In the main the evidence of these witnesses is to the effect that they saw Giri Gowda being dragged out of the jutka, stabbed by the first accused, beaten by the second accused and thereafter carried by the two accused as well as the other adherents to a place a little away from the original scene of attack and there again stabbed and belaboured. P.Ws.1 and 3 have received injuries at the hands of the assailants and they have been treated and wound certificates given. The further stage of the disposing of the dead body can be gathered from the evidence of P.Ws.8 to 12, most of whom say that they saw the first and second accused and others carrying away something in a northerly direction after 7-30 p.m. the same night. One of the witnesses, P. W. 8, says that it was a dead body. The other witnesses testify that the thing, whatever it might be, was wrapped in a gunny bag and was being carried tied to a pole. When interrogated, the first accused is alleged to have stated that it was dead pig whose carcass was being carried. One of the witnesses, P. W. 8, says that it was a dead body. The other witnesses testify that the thing, whatever it might be, was wrapped in a gunny bag and was being carried tied to a pole. When interrogated, the first accused is alleged to have stated that it was dead pig whose carcass was being carried. We have also the evidence of P.Ws.14 and 15 of whom P.W.14 overhears a conversation between the first and third accused to the effect that the first accused was threatening to throw the corpse into the third accused’s well and inform the police if he had not been paid the amount promised. The third accused is alleged to have replied that he would pay the amount as agreed and that no trace of the dead body should be left anywhere. P.W.15 deposes that the third accused confided to him about the death of Giri Gowda and that Giri Gowda was got murdered at his instance. It is on this evidence that we have to find out whether the prosecution has proved the case. Mr. Rajagopalachari appearing for accused 1 and 2 raised three points, the first of them being that in the absence of the corpus delicti it is not possible to presume that Giri Gowda is dead. Secondly he contends that it was impossible in the nature of things for P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 to have identified the assailants at the time of the assult, because according to the learned counsel, it was the fifth day after the Full Moon and therefore at about 7 or 7-30 p.m. there would not have been enough light and not even twilight for the witnesses to see the deceased being belaboured and stabbed. The third aspect of the learned counsel’s argument is based on the fact that the first information report purported to have been written by P.W.1 at 11 p.m. was received by the village munsiff at 12 midnight and was received at the police station only at 5-30 a.m. the next day. The learned counsel argues that if the offence had taken place at about 7 or 7-30 p.m. and P.W.1 was a witness to the occurrence there can be no justification for the delay of nearly four hours for him to prepare the complaint and for that document to have reached the village munsiff an hour later. The learned counsel argues that if the offence had taken place at about 7 or 7-30 p.m. and P.W.1 was a witness to the occurrence there can be no justification for the delay of nearly four hours for him to prepare the complaint and for that document to have reached the village munsiff an hour later. From the fact that the time that elapsed between the actual occurrence and the receipt of the complaint by the village munsiff is nearly four hours and more, the learned counsel wants the Court to infer that there has been an attempt to foist a false case and that was the reason why the complaint has been so delayed. We shall discuss each of these points one by one. Regarding the first argument that corpus delicti has not been produced, Mr. P.S.Ramachandra Aiyar in his reply invited our attention to a decision of the Allahabad High Court reported in Bandhu v. Emperor1. The learned Judges Stuart and Sulaiman, JJ., were of opinion that where a man was brutally attacked with lathis by several persons and after being beaten into unconsciousness was removed by the assailants and was never seen again it is not possible to hold that the man is dead and therefore the assailants could not be held guilty of murder. In our opinion the legal position has been too widely stated in this decision. The learned Public Prosecutor invited our attention to passages in the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Empress of India v. Bhagirath2 and also to the statement of law contained in Archbold’s Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice, 31st edition, at page 865. He also submitted that statements in Gour’s Criminal Law, Vol. II at page 1020 are helpful for his contention. We need hardly add that it is not obligatory for proving the death of an individual that his dead body should be recovered. He also submitted that statements in Gour’s Criminal Law, Vol. II at page 1020 are helpful for his contention. We need hardly add that it is not obligatory for proving the death of an individual that his dead body should be recovered. In the footnote at page 865 of Archbold’s Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice, 31st Edition, we find the following observations: " Sir H. de Villiers, C.J., said, ‘ I never understood the law as to the corpus delicti to go so far as to hold that where witnesses swear that they saw the person shot by means of a gun, and where they saw the deceased actually dying, a jury may be called upon to say that there is no proof of death whatsoever. I have always understood this rule as to corpus delicti to apply to those cases in which death is relied upon from the fact of the disappearance of the deceased ‘. The observations in Empress of India v. Bhagirath2 are to the effect that the mere fact that the body of the murdered man has not been found is not a ground for refusing to convict the accused person of murder. Let us look at the facts of the case applying the principles which have been mentioned above. We have the fact that the deceased was brutally stabbed and beaten at one place after being dragged out of the jutka. He was carried away by the two accused and others to another locality not far from the original scene of the assault and there also stabbed and beaten. It is further stated that the accused finding that the deceased man had expired said that the body should be removed as he had already died. If we believe the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 the question about the absence of corpus delicti cannot be a matter of very serious consequence. What we have therefore to see is whether the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 can be believed. It is undoubted that P.Ws. 1 and 3 have received injuries and they are positive that the persons who inflicted those injuries are accused 1 and 2. They depose that in the course of the same transaction the accused beat and stabbed the deceased as a result of which he died. P.W. 4 was also in the jutka. It is undoubted that P.Ws. 1 and 3 have received injuries and they are positive that the persons who inflicted those injuries are accused 1 and 2. They depose that in the course of the same transaction the accused beat and stabbed the deceased as a result of which he died. P.W. 4 was also in the jutka. But having got afraid he went a little distance away and that was the reason why he did not receive any injuries. We have carefully perused the depositions of P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 in the light of the criticisms regarding their veracity addressed to us by the learned counsel. It seems to us that despite the fact that the complaint was not sent to the village munsif immediately we cannot find any justification for not accepting the evidence of these witnesses in the main.. They have received injuries and within a few hours the names of the assailants have been mentioned in the complaint made to the village munsif. The argument of the learned counsel is rested on the fact that nobody took any action in informing the village munsif earlier and it is argued that P.W. 6, a relation of the deceased, who was in a nearby place and was one of the persons who witnessed the murder after the torch was flashed should at least have taken steps to inform the authorities about the attack. If we accept the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 4, for not accepting which we do not have any reason whatever, the fact P.W. 6 did not take any steps would not make the prosecution story unacceptable. We are satisfied that the story put forward in its broad outline by P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 is true. Next we have to see whether P.Ws. 8 to 12 are speaking the truth. The evidence of these witnesses becomes important in considering the complicity of the third accused. Having carefully perused the evidence of these witnesses we feel that it cannot be predicated as a matter of certainty that the third accused was seen and identified by these witnesses as having taken part in concealing the crime. All the witnesses say that the third accused was simply following the party. Having carefully perused the evidence of these witnesses we feel that it cannot be predicated as a matter of certainty that the third accused was seen and identified by these witnesses as having taken part in concealing the crime. All the witnesses say that the third accused was simply following the party. As regards P.Ws.14 and 15, it is difficult for us to accept the alleged confession made to P.W.15, and so far as P.W.14 is concerned it is too unsafe to base a conviction on his testimony. We therefore feel that however suspicious the action of the third accused might be, there is not enough evidence to justify his conviction. We therefore give him the benefit of the doubt, acquit him and order his release. With regard to accused 1 and 2, as already stated we believe the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 4, and even if we do not accept the evidence of P.Ws. 8 to 12, the fact that the testimony of P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 is accepted would show that they would be guilty of the offence of murder. We are of opinion that other persons also have taken part in this murder and probably there might be persons behind the scene who have instigated the offence. But since they are not before the Court, it is not possible to say who were primarily responsible for the murder of Giri Gowda. Accepting the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 4, we confirm the conviction of accused 1 and 2. But in view of what we have stated above regarding other persons also being in this nefarious act it seems to us that the ends of justice would be met by reducing the sentence to transportation for life. The other convictions and sentences passed on accused 1 and 2 will be confirmed. K.C. ----- Conviction of accused 1 and 2 confirmed. Sentence reduced to one of transportation. Accused 3 acquitted.