Mack, J.- The appellant aged about 28 has been found guilty of the murder of one Koti Veeramma a well-to-do elderly woman aged sixty who lived by herself at Narasapur and disappeared from her house on the night of 17th November, 1949. According to the prosecution case she was throttled to death by four persons including A-1 and A-2 who were actually tried for this murder, one Basavayya a relation of Veeramma and one Ankisetti who has been absconding. 2. The motive centred round Basavayya who is said to have died in jail while on remand and who was the deceased’s sister’s grand-daughter’s husband. The deceased Veeramma is said to have made a settlement deed of her property in favour of Basavayya and to have sought to revoke it by a lawyer’s notice, Exhibit P-3, dated 9th June, 1949, issued by an advocate, P.W. 6. The prosecution case briefly is that Basavayya in conspiracy with the other accused persons encompassed her death before she could revoke the settlement which had been made in his favour. While he retained the property he is said to have distributed the deceased Veeramma’s jewels to the other associates in this crime. 3. The disappearance of Veeramma who was living by herself was noticed and reported by her neighbour, P.W. 1 at the police station seven days later. On the 24th of November the Sub-Inspector after investigation found Veeramma’s body in a salt creek on the evening of 27th in a highly decomposed condition in a gunny bag. The lady doctor, P.W. 5 who held the post mortem could not diagnose the exact cause of death. Veeramma’s body was however identified by three neighbours of her’s P.Ws. 1 to 3 and also by a sari M.O. 6 which was identified by a washerman, P.W. 20 who used to wash clothes for the deceased Veeramma. It was not till 3rd December, 1949, that the appellant was arrested. A-2 has been acquitted on what the appellant’s advocate urges is rather similar evidence. On information given by the appellant the police recovered a number of jewels and ornaments which have been satisfactorily proved to belong to the deceased Veeramma. A silver tumbler (M.O. 4) and a silver plate (M.O. 5) both engraved with Veeramma’s name and a piece of melted gold were recovered from the house of the accused’s mother-in-law in Vallur village. On information given by the appellant the police recovered a number of jewels and ornaments which have been satisfactorily proved to belong to the deceased Veeramma. A silver tumbler (M.O. 4) and a silver plate (M.O. 5) both engraved with Veeramma’s name and a piece of melted gold were recovered from the house of the accused’s mother-in-law in Vallur village. They were found according to the village munsif, P.W. 24 who witnessed this recovery, in a box pointed out by the appellant who furnished the key with which it was opened. M.Os. 4 and 5 were also identified by a goldsmith P.W. 13 who made these articles for Veeramma about three years prior to the occurrence and also by a neighbour P.W. 14. A dealer in gold P.W. 22 produced a piece of melted gold and deposed that the appellant sold a gold bangle to him for Rs. 57 which he melted down on 18th November, 1949. His evidence was supported by his bill book entry, Exhibit P-17(a) which was signed by the appellant himself. Then finally another dealer in gold P.W. 11 who lived in Rajahmundry deposed that the appellant sold to him a piece of gold bangles on 28th November, 1949, for Rs. 54 as evidenced by entry in his bill book, Exhibit P-7(a). The appellant explained in the committing Magistrate’s Court that he was coerced and beaten by the police and made to sign the various papers including those two bill books Exhibits P-7(a) and P-17(a). We see no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the recovery of these jewels on this appellant’s information. What these recoveries prove in the circumstances is that the appellant was found in possession of articles belonging to the murdered Veeramma. 4. There were two witnesses, P.Ws. 8 and 9 who were prepared to depose that they saw A-1 and A-2 Basavayya and Anki Chetti near the Sub-Collector’s office after a cinema show on 17th November, 1949, carrying a gunny bag. Their evidence has raised wholly unnecessary complications in the trial. The learned Sessions Judge quite unnecessarily, in our opinion, framed three charges against these two accused one of murder under section 302, another of robbery under section 392 and yet a third charge under section 201, Indian Penal Code. Their evidence has raised wholly unnecessary complications in the trial. The learned Sessions Judge quite unnecessarily, in our opinion, framed three charges against these two accused one of murder under section 302, another of robbery under section 392 and yet a third charge under section 201, Indian Penal Code. He very strangely acquitted this appellant of the charge under section 201, Indian Penal Code and at the same time on the strength of the recovery of the jewels which he believed belonged to Veeramma he convicted the appellant under section 302 for the offence of murder and sentenced him to transportation for life and in addition found him guilty under section 379 or 411, Indian Penal Code, in the alternative and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. It is quite unnecessary in a case of murder for gain to frame separate charges under section 392 or 411 or section 379 or 201, Indian Penal Code. We are embarrassed at the unsatisfactory manner in which this case has been dealt with and at the acquittal of this appellant in the circumstances of the charge under section 201, Indian Penal Code. Normally if an accused person is convicted under section 302, Indian Penal Code, of murder it would be quite open to the appellate Bench, if the evidence warrants it to modify the conviction to one under section 201, Indian Penal Code, if the facts show that the appellant had no hand in the murder itself but only assisted in the disposal of the body after the murder. 5. On the facts of the present case we think the evidence will not warrant the conviction of the appellant directly on the charge of murder. There is no material to show that he had any enmity against Veeramma and even according to the prosecution case it was the deceased Basavayya who was the main spring of the murder and who employed the services of the other three accused persons and the services of this appellant were utilised for the murder itself. At the same time Veeramma’s body after she was murdered was put into a gunny bag and carried to some considerable distance and deposited in a salt creek. This was obviously the work of several persons and it may well have been that the appellant participated. At the same time Veeramma’s body after she was murdered was put into a gunny bag and carried to some considerable distance and deposited in a salt creek. This was obviously the work of several persons and it may well have been that the appellant participated. On the evidence however in fairness to the appellant we think what the prosecution has conclusively established in this case is that he was in possession of these articles of Veeramma which he undoubtedly received for the services he rendered in connection with the murder. His actual participation in the murder has not been established. In view of the specific acquittal by the learned Sessions Judge of the appellant under section 201, Indian Penal Code, which is of course quite inconsistent with his finding the appellant guilty of murder under section 302, Indian Penal Code, we feel it would not be strictly correct for us to modify the conviction to one under section 201, Indian Penal Code, without the State filing an appeal against the acquittal. With the principal culprit Basavayya now dead the ends of justice would we think be served by our merely confirming the conviction of the appellant under section 379 or 411, Indian Penal Code and the sentence of two years’ rigorous imprisonment passed upon him. The conviction and sentence for murder are set aside. K.S. ----- Conviction and sentence modified.