Judgment Ramabhadran, J.C. [1] The appellants were jointly tried by the learned Sessions Judge of Mandi, sitting with assessors, of an offence under Section 302, I.P.C. The four assessors were unanimously of the opinion that the two appellants were guilty of the offence attributed to them. The learned Judge agreed with the opinion of the assessors, and convicted Gckal of an offence under Section 302, I.P.C., and Mt. Rup Devi of abetment of the foregoing offence under Section 302, read with Section 114, I.P.C. Both the appellants were sentenced to transportation for life. Gokal was further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 300/-; in default one year's rigorous imprisonment. [2] The appeals, being inter-connected, were heard together at great length. [3] The prosecution case was that Mt. Rup Devi was married to Hari Singh (the victim in this case) some four years ago. Soon after their marriage, differences arose between them and Hari Singh started ill-treating Mt. Rup Devi. Some time towards the end of 1952, or the beginning of 1953, Mt. Rup Devi contracted an illegal connection with Gokal, appellant. In January 1953, Hari Singh caught the two appellants redhanded in a compromising position, Gokal made good his escape, while Mt. Rup Devi was beaten by Hari Singh. Soon afterwards, she went away to her mother's house. Hari Singh, thereupon, filed a complaint under Section 498, I. P. C., against Gokal, but the same was subsequently compromised and Mt. Rup Devi returned to his house. Relations between Hari Singh and Rup Devi, however, did not improve. She continued to meet Gokal secretly. Gokal was infatuated with Mt. Rup Devi and wanted to marry her, but Hari Singh would not let her go. Consequently, according to the prosecution, the two appellants conspired to do away with Hari Singh, when a suitable opportunity presented itself. On the night intervening 20th and 21st June, 1953, Hari Singh and Mt. Rup Devi left their village with a view to visit a 'Sadhu', who lived in another village. Gokal, appellant, who had been informed in advance by Mt. Rup Devi, met the couple at a place called "Gajred-ka-Gallu", near village Sarawan. Gokal had a 'khukri' with him. He gave a blow with that 'khukri' on Hari Singh's neck. Mt. Rup Devi caught hold of Hari Singh by his legs, so that he could not move. Gokal, appellant, who had been informed in advance by Mt. Rup Devi, met the couple at a place called "Gajred-ka-Gallu", near village Sarawan. Gokal had a 'khukri' with him. He gave a blow with that 'khukri' on Hari Singh's neck. Mt. Rup Devi caught hold of Hari Singh by his legs, so that he could not move. Gokal gave some more blows with the 'khukri' with the result that Hari Singh died on the spot and the head was separated from the body. After committing the murder, the two appellants, it is alleged, dragged the dead body through the fields to another spot called "Heud-ka-Nala", where it was buried under the ground. The appellants, thereupon, returned to their respective homes. [4] The dead body of Hari Singh was first seen by a shepherd boy, Bishna (P. W. 2), on 26-6-1953. He got frightened and ran back to his village and told others what he had seen. Sundar Singh and other villagers went to the spot and saw the decapitated body, partially decayed. They identified it to be the body of Hari Singh and kept watch over it. The next morning, namely, on 27-6-1953, Sundar Singh went to Sarkaghat police-station, which was at a distance of seven miles and lodged the first information report, Ex. P. A. at 2 P. M. Learned counsel argued that it was Legha Chowkidar, who gave the first information to the police, and that the report lodged by Sundar Singh has been back dated. He pointed out that, according to Sundar Singh's statement to the committing Magistrate, Hari Singh's father's name was given by Legha Chowkidar, who happened to be present at the 'thana' then. The learned Government Advocate pointed out that there was only one first information report in this case and that was the one lodged by Sundar Singh. He pointed out that, according to the statement of Assistant Sub-Inspector, Surat Singh, Ex. P. A was lodged by Sundar Singh. The matter is also clear from the statement of Sundar Singh to the effect that Legha Chowkidar reached the police-station, while the first information report was being lodged. Consequently, this contention fails. In that report, the body was stated to be that of Hari Singh and Gokal's name was also mentioned as the suspected murderer. The matter is also clear from the statement of Sundar Singh to the effect that Legha Chowkidar reached the police-station, while the first information report was being lodged. Consequently, this contention fails. In that report, the body was stated to be that of Hari Singh and Gokal's name was also mentioned as the suspected murderer. Surat Singh, A. Section I., proceeded to the" spot, reaching there at about 8 P. M. Leaving some constables in charge of the dead body, he went out in search of Gokal, but was unable to find him. He, therefore, returned to the spot the following morning; had the dead body taken out; held an inquest and sent the dead body to Mandi for post-mortem examination. Gokal was arrested at 1 A.M. on 29-6-1954 in village Kot in Kangra district. Mt. Rup Devi was arrested at about 2 P.M. that day. Certain recoveries were made at the instance of Gokal and Mt. Rup Devi. Mr. Rup Devi made a confessional statement during the course of investigation. As a result of police investigation, the two accused persons were sent up and convicted, as already stated. [5] In appeal, learned counsel for the appellants argued, 'inter alia', firstly, that the dead body was not satisfactorily shown to be that of Hari Singh and, secondly, that the prosecution failed to prove that the appellants were responsible for the murder. The following points arise for determination in these appeals: (A) Whether Hari Singh has been murdered? (B) If so, did the appellants, or any of them, cause his murder? (C) In case the offence of murder is not brought home to any of the appellants, are they guilty of any other offence? FINDINGS [6] A Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the evidence on the record does not conclusively prove that the body recovered was that of Hari Singh. Learned counsel pointed out that the body was decomposed and, according to Mohan Singh (P. W. 4), the skin on the face, forehead and nose had practically disappeared. The eyes were also not visible. My attention was also drawn to the post-mortem report, wherein the Civil Surgeon has noted that the body was found completely decomposed at the time of the post-mortem examination. [7] As against this, the learned Government Advocate pointed out that the post-mortem examination took place three days after the recovery of the dead body. The eyes were also not visible. My attention was also drawn to the post-mortem report, wherein the Civil Surgeon has noted that the body was found completely decomposed at the time of the post-mortem examination. [7] As against this, the learned Government Advocate pointed out that the post-mortem examination took place three days after the recovery of the dead body. The Civil Surgeon, Dr. Udupa, had stated categorically that the body could be identified by those, who had seen the man when alive. (After discussion of the evidence of prosecution witnesses who identified the dead body the judgment proceeds.) Learned Government Advocate pointed out that these witnesses bore no enmity towards the appellants and had no reason to identify the body wrongly as that of Hari Singh's. It is also noteworthy that although more than one and a half years have elapsed since Hari Singh disappeared, there has been no news regarding his whereabouts. Had he been alive, his relations, no doubt, would have heard about him by this time. Nor is there any evidence in rebuttal to show that the dead body was that of somebody else. [8] Under these circumstances, I think the Court below was justified in coming to the conclusion that the dead body was that of Hari Singh. [9] It is true that, according to the postmortem report, no definite opinion regarding the cause of death could be furnished, because the body was completely decomposed. At the same time, the fact remains that the head was found cut off from the body. The injuries found by the Civil Surgeon showed that the head had been cut from the trunk by a sharp cutting weapon, like 'khukri' Ex. P. 5. Thus, it is obvious that there has been foul play and Hari Singh was murdered. [10] B. It would be convenient to discuss the case of each of the appellants separately. [11] GOKAL : The learned Sessions Judge, while remarking that there are no eye-witnesses of the crime, nevertheless, has held that the following pieces of circumstantial evidence clearly bring home the offence to Gokal. (1) The learned Judge has found that Gokal had a very strong motive for causing the murder of Hari Singh. The motive was this. Gokal was infatuated with Mt. Rup Devi and despite opposition from Hari Singh, was secretly carrying on with her. There is the statement of Mt. (1) The learned Judge has found that Gokal had a very strong motive for causing the murder of Hari Singh. The motive was this. Gokal was infatuated with Mt. Rup Devi and despite opposition from Hari Singh, was secretly carrying on with her. There is the statement of Mt. Surto (P. W. 10) to the effect that she had arranged a meeting between Gokal and Mt. Eup Devi at her house. This was at his request. While the two were closeted inside the room, Hari Singh came there. Gokal escaped but Bup Devi got a beating. Learned counsel argued that Mt. Surto is an unreliable witness. He pointed out that, on her own showing, the contemplated matrimonial relations between, her family and that of Gokal had been broken off some four or five months prior to the incident. As I shall show presently, this incident finds a corroboration from other witnesses and other evidence. Mt. Karju (P. W. 17) is none other than the mother of Mt. Rup Devi. Her statement is that Mt. Rup Devi regretted that she had been married to Hari Singh. She added that Rup Devi came to her in January 1953; and told her that Hari Singh had caught her in a compromising position with Gokal in Surto's house and, accordingly, had been obliged to flee. Mt. Karju, as already stated, is the mother of Mt. Rup Devi. Her statement deserves the highest consideration. There is also the statement of Ajit Ram, lambardar, P. W. 25, to the effect that in January 1953, Hari Singh had Complained to him that he had caught Gokal, red-handed, while in the act of cohabitation with Mt. Rup Devi at the house of Mt. Surto. At the request of Hari Singh, he drew up a report and sent it to the police-station. Hari Singh again met him and told him that the police had directed him to file a complaint before the Magistrate. [12] The oral evidence discussed above is corroborated by the complaint under Section 498, I. P. C., filed by Hari Singh against Gokal and Mt. Surto in the Court of the Magistrate, second class, Sarkaghat, oh 19-1-1953. The statement of Hari Singh in that case (Ex. CW 1/A) is that, on his return at midnight, he had found Gokal inside his house. Gokal escaped by jumping through the window. Surto in the Court of the Magistrate, second class, Sarkaghat, oh 19-1-1953. The statement of Hari Singh in that case (Ex. CW 1/A) is that, on his return at midnight, he had found Gokal inside his house. Gokal escaped by jumping through the window. He returned again early in the morning and enticed Mt. Rup Devi away. The two accused persons were summoned. The matter was, however, compromised before the Court, vide Ex. C. W. 1/B. There is also the statement of Govind Ram (P. W. 12), nephew of Hari Singh, to the effect that on the night Hari Singh was murdered, he and Mt. Rup Devi kept on quarrelling till 11 P.M. in his presence. Further, in her confession, Ex. P. H. (to which I shall refer in due course), Mt. Rup Devi has clearly deposed as to her strained relations with her husband; her clandestine meetings with Gokal and Gokal's intention to do away with Hari Singh. Thus, there was a very strong motive for the commission of the offence. [13] 2. There is the confessional statement, Ex. P. H., made by Mt. Rup Devi to Mr. D. N. Gupta, Magistrate First Class, Mandi, on 1-7-1953. It was vehemently argued on behalf of the appellants that the confession was not a voluntary one and had been obtained under police pressure. Learned counsel further argued that it was retracted at the earliest possible opportunity. Learned counsel argued that Mt. Rup Devi was produced from police custody and was restored to that custody after her examination and further she was not produced before the Magistrate soon after arrest and, therefore, her confession was not voluntary. Reliance was placed on--'Vidyamati v. The State' where my learned predecessor observed that: "Where not only was the accused produced from police custody, but she was restored to that custody after her examination, and there was unaccountable delay in the police producing her before the Magistrate for the purpose, the voluntary character of her confession under Section 164 cannot but be doubted." The learned Government Advocate pointed out that Mt. Rup Devi was arrested at village Greha on 29-6-1953 at 2 P.M. From Greha, the Sub-Inspector took Mt. Rup Devi to Sarkaghat, at a distance of six miles. Rup Devi was arrested at village Greha on 29-6-1953 at 2 P.M. From Greha, the Sub-Inspector took Mt. Rup Devi to Sarkaghat, at a distance of six miles. As the Magistrate was not present at Sarkaghat on 29th and 30th of June, he, therefore, produced the accused before the Magistrate First Class at Mandi and obtained a remand for ten days. She was put up before Mr. D. N. Gupta, Magistrate First Class, the following day at 4-30 P.M. to have her statement recorded. The Magistrate did not record her statement immediately. He sent away the Sub-Inspector and other police officers and gave Mt. Rup Devi half an hour's time to think it over. He further warn- ed her that she was not bound to make a con-fession and if she did so, the same could be used against her in evidence. After the lapse of half an hour, the Magistrate again enquired from Mt. Rup Devi whether she wanted to make a statement. She replied in the affirmative and, thereupon, her statement was recorded. The confessional statement is a detailed one and contains many bad matters, which would not have been within the knowledge of the police. The learned Government Advocate also pointed out that for nearly seven months, no action was taken by Mt. Rup Devi to disown the statement. He pointed out that it was open to Mt. Rup Devi to send a petition from the jail to the effect that she had been induced or coerced into making a statement. In this connection, he relied upon-- Hem Raj v. State of Ajmer , 1954 AIR(SC) 462 (B), where their Lordships of the Supreme Court Observed that: "But a mere bald assertion by the prisoner that he was threatened, tutored or that inducement was offered to him, cannot be accepted as true without more." The confession appears to have been made voluntarily. It is true that Mt. Rup Devi's confession was subsequently retracted and, therefore, it must be corroborated on material particulars by independent evidence before it can be used against Gokal. As I shall show, there is plenty of corroborative evidence against Gokal quite apart from Mt. Rup Devi's confession. [14] 3. There is the extra-judicial confession Alleged to have been made by Gokal to Mt. Karju (P. W. 17). She is the mother of Mt. Rup Devi. As I shall show, there is plenty of corroborative evidence against Gokal quite apart from Mt. Rup Devi's confession. [14] 3. There is the extra-judicial confession Alleged to have been made by Gokal to Mt. Karju (P. W. 17). She is the mother of Mt. Rup Devi. Her statement is that, on the night of occurrence, Hari Singh and Mt. Rup Devi left three hours before sunrise on their way to see a 'Sadhu'. Two 'gharis' before sunrise, Mt. Rup Devi came back in the company of Gokal. Gokal's hand was bandaged and he was carrying a weapon, which looked like a sickle. Karju asked Gokal where Hari Singh was. Gokal replied that he had finished with him. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that Mt. Karju should not be believed as, on her own showing, she was beaten by the police at Sarkaghat. Learned counsel cited--'Karam Singh v. State' where my learned predecessor observed: "An extra-judicial confession, though original evidence, is no proof of the truth of the facts stated, the existence of which must be established independently." The learned Government Advocate, on the other hand, argued that there is no reason to disbelieve Mt. Karju on this point. He pointed out that Mt. Karju, after all, is the mother of Mt. Rup Devi and her hesitation to make a statement is understandable, because she was afraid that her daughter also would be involved. He cited-- Miram Bakhsh v. Emperor , 1931 AIR(Lah) 529 where a Division Bench of that High Court' observed that: "The mere fact that an eye-witness does not come forward immediately and investigation is begun is not by itself, in this country, necessarily a sufficient ground for rejecting his testimony." The learned Sessions Judge was impressed by the demeanour of this witness at the trial. I am also of the opinion that this piece of evidence can be taken into consideration against the accused. [15] 4. The learned Judge relied on the statements of Sant Ram (P. W. 8) and Bhagat Ram (P. W. 16) to the effect that they saw Gokal near the scene of occurrence at 11 P.M., on the night of murder. Sant Ram admitted that he had carried on litigation against his father on ac count of some land sold by him to Gokal. Bhagat Ram, admittedly, did not mention to any one what he had seen. Sant Ram admitted that he had carried on litigation against his father on ac count of some land sold by him to Gokal. Bhagat Ram, admittedly, did not mention to any one what he had seen. According to him, he was sent for by the Sarkaghat police 20 or 25 days later. How the: police came to know that Bhagat Ram was in a position to throw light on the case remains a mystery. In my view, therefore, this piece of circumstantial evidence cannot be relied upon. [16] 5. There is also the circumstance that on the night of murder Hari Singh and Mt. Rup Devi left their house three hours before day break, intending to visit a 'Sadhu'. An hour before day break, Mt. Rup Devi returned, accompanied by Gokal. This is proved by the statement of Mt. Karju (P. W. 17), mother of Mt. Rup Devi. Govind Ram (P. W. 12), nephew of Hari Singh, has deposed that Mt. Karju was present in Hari Singh's house on the night of murder. Mt. Surto (P. W. 10) has also stated that Mt. Rup Devi told her that she would be going to a Sadhu to find out whether she would be blessed with a child or not. In her confessional statement, Ex. P. H., referred to above, Mt. Rup Devi has stated that, after the murder, she and Gokal returned to Hari Singh's house. This circumstance, therefore, is another link in the chain of circumstantial evidence against the accused. [17] 6. On 1-7-1953, Gokal was examined by the Civil Surgeon of Mandi, Dr. Udupa. He found an incised injury 3"x3/4"x1/2" beside the thumb of his left hand. In the opinion of the doctor, the injury had been caused by a sharp cutting instrument, like a 'khukri'. It was 10 to 15 days old. Gokal's explanation in the Sessions Court was that he fell from a tree on the 23rd of June, while cutting leaves and in the process, his sickle struck . his hand and cut it. The learned Judge has rightly remarked that the explanation given by Gokal to the Committing Magistrate was a different one, namely, that he had received the injury while cutting grass. The presence of the injury does corroborate the statement of Mt. his hand and cut it. The learned Judge has rightly remarked that the explanation given by Gokal to the Committing Magistrate was a different one, namely, that he had received the injury while cutting grass. The presence of the injury does corroborate the statement of Mt. Karju (P. W. 17) to the effect that Gokal's hand was covered with a cloth, when he came to Hari Singh's house early in the morning with Mt. Rup Devi. It also corroborates Mt. Rup Devi's confession, Ex. P. H., to the effect that during the commission of the murder, Gokal received an injury on his left hand. [18] 7. There is the circumstance that, at the instance of Gokal, the blood-stained 'khukri', Ex. P-5, ana the 'kachha', Ex. P-9, were recovered by S. I. Mohan Singh. The 'khukri' was recovered from Gokal's house. On reaching his house, Gokal asked his mother, Mt. Daulatu, to bring out the 'khukri'. She, accordingly, went in; unlocked the box and took out the 'khukri', Ex. P-5, and gave -it to Gokal. Gokal passed it on to the police. It is true that the recovery has been denied by Gokal. : From the statements of Bhagat Ram. (P. W. 21) and Ajit Ram, lambardar, (P. W. 25), however, the recovery of the 'khukri' at the instance of Gokal is clearly established. Similarly, the recovery of the 'kachha' from the "Heud-ka-. Nala" is proved from . the statements of Prabh Dayal (P. W, 15) and S. I. Mohan Singh. Gopala (P. W. 14), tailor, deposed that the 'kachha', Ex. P-9, was made by him for Hari Singh. Prom the reports of the Chemical Examiner and Serologist, Exs. P.T. and P. V., it is shown that both these articles were stained with human blood. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that these reports should not have been taken into consideration, because neither the Chemical Examiner, nor the Serologist was produced as a witness. As the learned Government Advocate pointed out, under Section 510, Criminal P. C., these reports are admissible in evidence and there is no need to produce the Chemical Examiner. He cited-- Emperor v. Bachcha , 1934 AIR(All) 873 (E) to show that it was not necessary that the Examiner should appear as a witness. He further relied on-- Dhunda. As the learned Government Advocate pointed out, under Section 510, Criminal P. C., these reports are admissible in evidence and there is no need to produce the Chemical Examiner. He cited-- Emperor v. Bachcha , 1934 AIR(All) 873 (E) to show that it was not necessary that the Examiner should appear as a witness. He further relied on-- Dhunda. v. Emperor, 1936 AIR(Lah) 335 where a Division Bench of that High Court pointed out that: "The discovery of a blood-stained article is not enough by itself to justify the conviction for murder. This is circumstantial evidence, the value of which is very great when used to corroborate other evidence." The recovery of the blood-stained 'kachha'--proved to be that of Hari Singh--and the 'khukri' are valuable links in the chain of the prosecution evidence against the accused. [19] 8. There is the circumstance that, while in the custody of the police, Gokal led the S. I. and some witnesses and pointed out places in "Gajred-ka-Gallu", where there were signs of dragging. He then led the party" to "Heud-ka-Nalla" and there pointed out a spot, where two blood-stained stories were lying. Gokal has, no doubt, denied this, but this is proved from the testimony of S. I. Mohan Singh, who is corroborated by Ajit Ram, lambar-dar (P. W. 25), Sadhu Ram (P. W. 19) and Prabh Dayal (P. W. 15). It is true that this circumstance, by itself, is not sufficient to bring home the guilt to Gokal, but it is one more link in the chain of evidence against him. [20] No defence was adduced by Gokal. That makes no difference because, obviously, the onus of proof lay on the prosecution. Learned counsel for Gokal rightly pointed out that where in a case like this the evidence is almost entirely circumstantial, the duty of the Court, as laid down in-- Hanumant Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh , 1952 AIR(SC) 343 (G), is that: "In dealing with circumstantial evidence, the rules specially applicable to such evidence must be borne in mind. In such cases there is always the danger that conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof. In such cases there is always the danger that conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof. In cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should, in the first instance, be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused." [21] I have, in the foregoing pages, discussed the entire circumstantial evidence produced against Gokal accused. Out of these, I have discarded only one piece; namely, that Gokal was seen on. the night in question near the scene of occurrence by Sant Ram and Bhagat Ram. Even if we discard that piece of evidence, the cumulative effect of the remaining evidence on the record, coupled with the retracted confession of Mt. Rup Devi, leaves, in my opinion, no room for doubt that it was Gokal and nobody else, who had caused the death of Hari Singh. As was pointed out in--'In re, Ramaswamy Konar', : AIR 1954 Mad 1006 (H) : "Though a conviction based on a retracted confession is not Strictly illegal, still it is a rule of prudence to base a conviction only if the same has been corroborated by other independent evidence. It is not necessary that the entire details of the confession should be corroborated. If the confession is proved to be true by a reference and recourse to other facts and circumstances, then the confession can be accepted." [22] In my view, therefore, the cumulative effect of all the evidence on the record is Co snow that Gokal caused the death of Hari Singh on the night in question. [23] Mt. Rup Devi: Mt. If the confession is proved to be true by a reference and recourse to other facts and circumstances, then the confession can be accepted." [22] In my view, therefore, the cumulative effect of all the evidence on the record is Co snow that Gokal caused the death of Hari Singh on the night in question. [23] Mt. Rup Devi: Mt. Rup Devi was charged with the murder of Hari Singh, but she was convicted of abetment thereof, i.e., under Section 302, read with Section 114, I. P. C. The learned Judge based his conviction on the following pieces of evidence: (a) Mt. Rup Devi's confession, Ex. P.H. (b) The recovery of the blood-stained 'salwar', Ex. P-2, from her person, (c) The circumstance that on the night of occurrence, she went out with Hari. Singh and returned early in the morning accompanied by Gokal and without Hari Singh. (d) The fact that she pointed out certain places in 'Gajred-ka-Gallu', where there were signs of dragging. (e) Her motive to do away with Hari Singh. On these premises, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that Mt. Rup Devi had a common design with Gokal to murder Hari Singh. [24] Learned counsel for the appellant argued that since Mt. Rup Devi was charged with the main offence alone, it was not open to the trial Court to convict her of the abetment of the aforesaid offence. Reliance was placed, 'inter alia', on,-- Emperor v. Raghya Naghya , 1924 AIR(Bom) 432 (I), where a Division Bench of that High Court observed that: "When a person is charged with an offence, he cannot be convicted of abetment of such offence, when abetment is not separately charged." Learned Government Advocate in reply cited-- Samuel John v. Emperor , 1935 AIR(All) 935 (J), where Bennet J. held that: "When the person charged with an offence of rape has been convicted for its abetment with- out amending the original charge, the conviction is valid." In my opinion, however, it is not necessary to pursue this matter any further, because, as I shall . show presently, the evidence on the record is not sufficient to prove that Mt. Rup Devi had a common design with Gokal to cause the murder of Hari Singh. As to whether any other offence is brought home to her will be discussed subsequently. show presently, the evidence on the record is not sufficient to prove that Mt. Rup Devi had a common design with Gokal to cause the murder of Hari Singh. As to whether any other offence is brought home to her will be discussed subsequently. [25] Let us examine the various pieces of evidence relied upon by the learned Sessions' Judge, (a) While the confession does disclose that Mt. Rup Devi was not happy with Hari Singh and wanted to part company with him, it does not show that she wanted him to be murdered. It is true that she was aware that Gokal was waiting for an opportunity to ambush and murder Hari Singh and knowing this, she told him that Hart Singh intended to go to the 'Sadhu' on Sunday morning. Prom this, I was asked to infer that she abetted in the commission of the murder. I do not, however, agree. It may be that Mt. Rup Devi knew that Gokal would ambush Hari Singh on the way. Mt. Rup. Devi's conduct in not warning Hari Singh and letting him go to his doom without a warning is certainly open to censure. But this would not, in my opinion, amount to abetment. In the body of the confession, there is a statement to the effect that after Gokal had given a blow on Hari Singh's neck with his khukri', she (Rup Devi) caught hold of Hari Singh's legs so that he could not stand up. This, undoubtedly, would amount to abetment of murder. The confession, however, was retracted and this particular statement has not been corroborated by other evidence. So, it must be left out of consideration. In her statement at the trial, this allegation was denied by Mt. Rup Devi. Consequently, the confession does not, in my view, prove abetment of murder. [26] (b) Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the presence of blood on the 'salwar' does not necessarily warrant the inference that the appellant had a hand in the murder. He suggested that the blood-stains may be due to appellant's menses. In my opinion, this circumstance may be due to causes other than Mt. Rup Devi having abetted in the murder. [27] (c) It is true that from the record, it is established that Mt. Rup Devi left Hari Singh in the night and returned early in the morning, accompanied by Gokal. In my opinion, this circumstance may be due to causes other than Mt. Rup Devi having abetted in the murder. [27] (c) It is true that from the record, it is established that Mt. Rup Devi left Hari Singh in the night and returned early in the morning, accompanied by Gokal. It is also true that during the night Hari Singh was brutally murdered. This, however, does not necessarily .warrant the Inference that Mt. Rup Devi had a hand in the murder. As I shall show presently, this might show that she was aware that murder had been committed, but concealed it with a view to screen Gokal from legal punishment, (d) The same remarks apply to the fact that Mt. Rup Devi pointed out places in "Gajred-ka-Gallu", where there were signs of dragging. [28] (e) Coming to the question of motive, learned counsel for the appellant argued that Gokal had already two wives living and, therefore, it was hardly likely that Mt. Rup Devi would be attracted by him. On this point, however, it is difficult to dogmatize. At the same time, motive, however strong, cannot form the basis of conviction without clear and cogent evidence, establishing the crime. [29] In this state of affairs, I hold that the evidence on the record does not establish beyond doubt that Mt. Rup Devi did abet Gokal in the murder of Hari Singh. [30] C. Although the evidence on the record is not sufficient to bring home the offence of abetment of murder to Mt. Rup Devi, it seems to me that it is enough to show that she knew that Hari Singh had been murdered and, with a view to screen Gokal from legal punishment, caused the evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear and also gave information respecting the offence, which she knew to be false. This is clear from the fact that, in the confession, she admitted that after the murder she and Gokal, dragged the dead body towards the 'Nala' and buried it. It was in this condition that the dead body was subsequently discovered. It was also significant that she pointed out the places in "Gajerd-ka- Gallu", where there were signs of dragging. There is also the circumstance that after the murder of Hari Singh, Mt. Rup Devi took no steps to inform the police and get the culprit arrested. According to Mt. It was also significant that she pointed out the places in "Gajerd-ka- Gallu", where there were signs of dragging. There is also the circumstance that after the murder of Hari Singh, Mt. Rup Devi took no steps to inform the police and get the culprit arrested. According to Mt. Surto (P. W. 10), Mt. Rup Devi told her that Hari Singh had run, aijray.* Govind Ram (P. W. 12), nephew of Hari Singh, v had stated that he was informed by Mt. Rup-. Devi that Hari Singh had probably gone to Bhakra, or had joined the army^ All this clearly shows that Mt. Rup Devi, knowing that Hari Singh had been murdered, gave out a wrong version regarding his disappearance with a view to screen Gokal from legal punishment. [31] In my opinion, therefore, Mt. Rup Devi is guilty of an offence under Section 201, I.P.C. It is true that she was not charged in the alternative under Section 201, I. P. C., but .there is no legal impediment to her conviction under that section, although she was not charged with it. I am. supported in this view by 'Sm. Kalawati v. State of Himachal Pradesh , 1953 AIR(SC) 131 (K),--a case from Himachal Pradesh--wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed that: "The border line between abetment of the offence and giving false information to screen the offender is rather thin in her case, but it is prudent to err on the safe side, and hold her guilty only of an offence under Section 201. It was held by the Privy Council in Begu v. Emperor , 1925 AIR(PC) 130 (L), that in a charge of murder under Section 302, a conviction under Section 201, without a further charge being made was warranted by the provisions of Section 237, Criminal P. C." ORDER [32] In view of all that has been said above, I allow appeal No. 14 of 1954, filed by Mt. Rup Devi in part. I set aside her conviction of an offence under Section 302, read with Section 114, I. P. C, Instead, I convict her of an offence under Section 201, I. P. C., and, bearing in mind that she is only about 18 years of age and in all probability was led astray by Gokal (who was old enough to be her father), sentence her to undergo three years' rigorous imprisonment. As regards criminal appeal No. 15 of 1954, filed by Gokal, I maintain his conviction of an offence under Section 302, I.P.C., as well as the sentence of transportation for life inflicted upon him. He should thank his stars that in spite of the fact that he committed a brutal and premeditated murder, he was let off with the lesser of the two penalties prescribed by law, There was, however, no point in tacking on a fine of Rs. 300/- to the sentence of transportation for life. The sentence of fine is, there fore, set aside. Pine, if realized, must be refunded. Subject to this slight modification, Gokal's appeal is rejected. Appeal dismissed.