Shinghal, J. —The two appeals in this case are directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur dated April 29,1961, convicting appellants Kanhaiya Lal and Swami Saran of offences under secs. 302 and 302/109 I.P.C. respectively. While Kanhaiyalal has been sentenced to imprisonment for life, Swami Saran has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. Kanhaiya Lal and Swami Saran have filed jail appeals. A notice was issued to Swami Saran by an order of this court dated July 25,1961 to show cause why his sentence should not be enhanced so as to make it in accordance with the law. A separate case has been registered in that connection as criminal revision No. 242 of 1961. The two appeals and the revision will, in these circumstances, be disposed of together by this judgment. 2. Mohanlal P.W. 1 married his son Sohanlal with Smt. Beena Devi P.W. 2 daughter of Gopi Nath P.W. 16 on December 13,1958. Accused Kanhaiyalal is the son of Mohanlals elder brother and he used to reside separately with his mother in Mohalla Telipara, Jaipur City, and Mohanlal also used to reside in the same locality. The allegations of the prosecution are like this : Before marrying Smt. Beena Devi with Sohanlal, her father Gopi Nath obtained the horoscope of the accused Kanhaiyalal also, but as his horoscope did not tally, the matter did not proceed any further and Beena Devi was married to Kanhaiya Lals first cousin Sohanlal. Kanhaiyalal, however, nursed a grievance on that account as he suspected foul play on the part of Mohanlal in getting the proposal of his marriage with Smt. Beena Devi rejected by Gopi Nath His grievance continued even after Smt. Beena Devis marriage with Sohan Lal and he used to make indecent overtures to her. Apart from his passion for Smt. Beena Devi, Kanhaiyalal also had an eye on the property of his uncle Mohanlal. Sohanlal was studying in those days in the Maheswari High School, Jaipur, in the 7th class. He used to live with his father Mohanlal. On the morning of February 14,1959 (Suraj Saptami day) Sohan Lal went to his school as usual wearing a black coat, a blue pant, a kathai sweter, a pink silken shirt, a banian, shoes and longs. There were morning hours for the school. He used to live with his father Mohanlal. On the morning of February 14,1959 (Suraj Saptami day) Sohan Lal went to his school as usual wearing a black coat, a blue pant, a kathai sweter, a pink silken shirt, a banian, shoes and longs. There were morning hours for the school. His friend Swami Saran accused also went with him to the school and they persuaded Sohanlal to accompany them. They went to the shop of Nathumal P.W. 5 where they took betels cigarettes and match box. Latter, Nazir Khan P.W. 36 saw them going towards the hillock of Bichoon the same day while Sawai Singh P.W. 26 saw them near a well in village Mokhampura at about 3 p.m. Matadeen P. W. 16 saw them in Mahalla village thereafter. The same afternoon, Kanhaiya Lal took his food at the house of Smt. Keshar P.W. 7 in that village along with accused Swami Saran and Shohanlal. He borrowed Rs. 2/- from his aunt Smt. Durga P.W. 6. The accused returned with Sohanlal to Jaipur the same evening and they were taken from "Panch Batti" road crossing to Bagroowalon ka rasta where Swami Saran used to reside, by Heera Lal. P.W. 39, in his ricksha. Swami Saran called his land-lord Bhonri Lal P.W. 29 on reaching his house and the latter came and opened the door. He gave the explanation to Bhonri Lal that all three of them were coming from Ajmer and were late because of the late arrival of the train. They then went to Swami Sarans room. Phool Chand P.W. 40 who was another tenant of Bhonri Lal, also saw the two accused and Sohan Lal at that time. It is alleged that the two accused committed the murder of Sohanlal that night by strangulating his throat with handkerchief Ex., J. and piece of stick Ex. 1 and that they wrapped the dead body thereafter in the cover of Swami Sarans quilt Ex. K and placed it in the tibara of Mahadevjis temple nearby. In the morning, Swami Sarans room was found locked and he was not seen at his house thereafter untill the police arrested him on February 18,1959. The dead body of Sohan Lal was recovered on the next day at the instance of Kanhaiyalal from the tibara. Swami Saran was also arrested the same day. 3. In the morning, Swami Sarans room was found locked and he was not seen at his house thereafter untill the police arrested him on February 18,1959. The dead body of Sohan Lal was recovered on the next day at the instance of Kanhaiyalal from the tibara. Swami Saran was also arrested the same day. 3. Coming back to the developments which took place since Sohanlals departure in the company of the accused it has been stated that the normal time for Sohan Lal to return from the school was by 12-30 p.m. When he did not return until the afternoon his father Mohan Lal went to the house of Babu Lal P.W. 4, who used to study in the same school with Sohan Lal, to make an enquiry. Babulal informed Mohan Lal that the accused Kanhaiya Lal had taken away Sohan Lal from the School. Mohan Lal went to Kanhaiya Lals house to make further enquiries but he did not find him there although he went twice the same evening. Then from 10 p.m. to 1-30 a.m. Mohan Lal kept sitting at Kanhaiya Lals house, but Kanhaiya Lal did not return till then. At about 5-30 a.m., Mohan Lals wife Smt. Manohar P.W. 3 informed him about the return of Kanhaiya Lal to his house and so Mohan Lal went there and was informed by Kanhaiya Lal that he did not know anything about Sohan Lal and had not seen him. Kanhaiya Lal was then taken by Mohan Lal and others to the house of Babu Lal and was confronted with Babu Lals statement that he (Kanhaiya Lal) had taken away Sohan Lal from the school, but Kanhaiya Lal continued to deny that allegation. Thereafter all of them went to the house of Kishan Gopal P.W. 25, who was another class-fellow of Sohan Lal, and he also confirmed Babu Lals version that Kanhaiya Lal had taken away Sohan Lal. In the meantime, Mohan Lal lodged report Ex. P. 1 in P.S. Manak Chowk. As the case related to P.S. Kotwali, it was transferred there and a case under sec. 363 and 365 I.P.C. was registered by the police. Mohan Lal however continued to make his personal efforts to trace out his son. He further interrogated Kanhaiya Lal and learned from him that he was at Maniawas with his uncle Dhanna on February 14, 1959. 363 and 365 I.P.C. was registered by the police. Mohan Lal however continued to make his personal efforts to trace out his son. He further interrogated Kanhaiya Lal and learned from him that he was at Maniawas with his uncle Dhanna on February 14, 1959. As Kanhaiya Lal refused to accompany Mohan Lal to Maniawas for the verification of his statement, Mohan Lal went there with some other persons and learnt that Kanhaiya Lal had not visited Maniawas on February 14, 1959. On return., Mohan Lal told Kanhaiya Lal of what he learnt from his uncle Dhanna Lal, but Kanhaiya Lal persisted in saying that he had been to Maniawas and offered to have the statement personally verified on the next day. However, when Mohanlal went to his house the next morning, he learnt from Kanhaiyalals mother that Kanhaiyalal had gone to Mahalla and not to Maniawas. Mohanlal again went to Maniawas with Kanhaiyalal and learnt from Kanhaiyalals uncle Dhanna Lal that Kanhaiyalal had visited him in the meantime and had requested him to say that he (Kanhaiyalal) was at Maniawas, but that he had turned down the request. Thereafter Mohanlal went to Mahalla with Kanhaiyalal where the latters cousin (aunts son) Mohanlal P.W. 8 used to reside and he learnt that Kanhaiyalal had tried to persuade this Mohanlal also to say that he alone had visited his house on February 14, 1959 but that he had refused the request. Mohanlal learnt there that his son Sohanlal had visited the house of Mohanlal P.W.8 on February 14, 1959 in the company of the accused and all three of them had taken their food there at the house of Mohanlal P.W. 8. The police arrested Kanhaiyalal on February 18, 1959 and Swami Saran was also arrested the same day, in the night. 4. Kanhaiyalal gave information Ex. P. 18 to the police on February 19, 1959 that he and Swami Saran accused had placed the dead body of Sohanlal in a tibara of the Bagichi of Mahadevji near the southwestern wall, after covering it up in the white cover of Swami Sarans quilt, and had placed the blue pant, pink shirt, black woollen coat and the shoes of the deceased there, which he could recover. The police accordingly was led to the tibara in question by Kanhiyalal which was at a distance of 50 paces from the house of Swami Saran accused, and the dead body, as well as the other articles, were recovered at his instance the same day from the same place, vide memo Ex. P. 6, in the presence of Vinendra Prasad P.W. 13. Thereafter Kanhaiyalal accused gave information Ex. P. 17 to the Police on February, 24, 1959 that he had placed a pair of gold Jongs, studded with white stones, under a mattress, on a shelf of the room above the main entrance of his house, which also he could recover. The police accordingly recovered the longs vide memo Ex. P. 5 from the same place at the instance of Kanhaiyalal, in the presence of Hanuman Bux P.W. 32. Finally, Kanhiyalal accused gave information (Ex.P. 8) to the police on March 5, 1959 that the handkerchief and the piece of wood had been hidden by him under a stone slab in a dirty lane behind the house of Bhonrilal, and that he could get them recovered. Accordingly the police was taken to that place by the accused the same day and handket chief Ex. J and stick Ex. P. were recovered in the presence of Ram Ballabh P.W. 19 vide memo Ex. 9. 5. It is also alleged that accused Swami Saran gave information Ex. P. 19 to the police on February 19, 1959 that the cotton of his quilt and the sweater had been locked by him in his room and that he could get them recovered. He led the police to his room for the recovery the same day and sweater Ex. B and the cotton of the quilt were recovered vide memo Ex. P. 2 in the presence of Bhopa P. W. 17 and Shyam Sunder P. W. 10. 6. It may be mentioned that accused Swami Saran was sent to the judicial lock up on March 6, 1959. He was produced before Shri Shambhu Singh P.W. 39, Municipal Magistrate, Jaipur City, on March 21, 1959, for recording his confessions. That confession (Ex. P. 13) was recorded by the learned Magistrate the same day. Swami Saran narrated the entire incident in detail in that statement. He was produced before Shri Shambhu Singh P.W. 39, Municipal Magistrate, Jaipur City, on March 21, 1959, for recording his confessions. That confession (Ex. P. 13) was recorded by the learned Magistrate the same day. Swami Saran narrated the entire incident in detail in that statement. According to it, accused Kanhaiyalal persuaded Sohanlal to accompany him to Bichoon by assuring him that he had obtained his mothers permission to take him there. They took a bus going towards Kishangarh and got down at Mokhampura. Bichoon was at a distance of about 4 kos from there. Kanhaiyalal took them to a hillock outside Bichoon village, informing them that Bichoon was on the other side of it and saying that they would go to his uncles house after easing themselves there. While they were resting on the hillock, Kanhaiyalal pressed the throat of Sohanlal as a result of which Sohanlal fell down. At that time Swami Saran was at some distance from them and he found that Sohanlals throat had become red on account of the injury and there were marks of nails on it. Sohanlal then began to run down the hillock and Kanhaiyalal followed him. He persuaded Sohan Lal to believe that he only wanted to test him and had cut a joke with him. They went to a tank where they took water and then started back for Jaipur. They took a bus for Mahalla village and after taking their food there they all started for Jaipur on foot. Kanhaiyalal borrowed Rs. 2/- from an old woman in Mahalla before leaving for Jaipur. Kanhaiyalal sat on a well after covering a distance of a mile or so and he called the other two to that place, but they stayed away at a distance of 50 or 60 paces. Sohanlal and Swami Saran then started further and Kanhaiyalal joined them. They reached Bagroo at about 8-30 p.m. and from there they came by bus to Makhrota. They started their journey on foot thereafter. Kanhaiyalal again sat near a well and although Sohanlal and Swami Saran tried to persuade him to go farther, he said that his mind was not in order and that he would commit suicide by falling in the well. Sohanlal and Swami Saran then started from that place and Kanhaiyalal joined them soon after. They reached Amani-Shah-Ka-Nullah and found a truck passing by. Sohanlal and Swami Saran then started from that place and Kanhaiyalal joined them soon after. They reached Amani-Shah-Ka-Nullah and found a truck passing by. They stopped it and reached Jaipur in it sometime between 10 and 11 p.m. The truck driver left them at "Panch Batti". Kanhaiyalal suggested that they should all go to Swami Sarans house for rest and they went in a rickshaw to Bagroowalon ka-Rasta where Swami Saran used to live in Bhonrilals house. They reached the house at about 11-30 p.m. and Swami Saran asked Bhonrilal to open the door. They were admitted to the house by Bhonri Lal and all three slept in Swami Sarans room after arranging the beddings. Kanhaiyalal had tied a handkerchief to conceal the injury on the throat of Sohanlal before going to Mahalla and that handkerchief remained there all through. Kanhaiyalal woke up later in the night and asked for water. Sohanlal also woke up and complained of pain in his throat. Kanhaiyalal then began to rub the hair oil of Swami Saran on the neck of Sohanlal and also gave him a white powder to stop the pain. He continued to rub the oil on the throat of Sohanlal and tied the handkerchief after 5 or 7 minutes, round his neck. A little later, Swami Saran woke up on hearing the gurgling sound from the throat of Sohanlal and sound that Sohanlal was in the lap of Kanhaiyalal at that time, the handkerchief was round the neck and a piece of wood was twisted round it. Kanhaiyalal twisted the throat of Sohanlal as a result of which the handkerchief got torn. Swami Saran asked Kanhaiyalal what he had done and Kanhaiyalal told him that Sohanlal had died and that if he (Swami Saran) told anybody about the incident, he would get him murdered by paying Rs. 15/- or 20/- to some one. Then Swami Saran removed the cover of his quilt as desired by Kanhaiyalal. They took off the clothes from the dead body of Sohanlal and placed it in that cover after Kanhaiyalal had removed the gold longs from Sohanlals ears and had pocketed them. Kanhaiyalal asked Swami Saran to go ahead and see if the way was clear. Then Swami Saran removed the cover of his quilt as desired by Kanhaiyalal. They took off the clothes from the dead body of Sohanlal and placed it in that cover after Kanhaiyalal had removed the gold longs from Sohanlals ears and had pocketed them. Kanhaiyalal asked Swami Saran to go ahead and see if the way was clear. As there was no one around, both the accused took the dead body, along with the clothes and other articles of the deceased, and deposited them in a dilapidated tibara in the temple of Shivji which was nearby. They then returned to Swami Sarans house where Kanhaiyalal said that "the wall" had been removed from his way, and asked Swami Saran not to tell any one about the incident. They did not sleep thereafter and Swami Saran went away with Kanhaiya Lal a little before dawn, after locking his room. They went to Kanhaiyalals house. Kanhaiyalal stayed away at some distance and sent Swami Saran to call his brother Jagdish who came out. Both Kanhaiyalal and Jagdish then went inside their house and Kanhaiyalal asked Swami Saran to meet him at 12 in the noon but he did not turn up. Two days later, the accused were arrested as mentioned earlier. This is the gist of the confession which is said to have been recorded by Swami Saran. 7. After completing the investigation, the accused were challaned to the court of Magistrate First Class No. 2, Jaipur City, who committed them to the court of Session and the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid. 8. The prosecution examined 42 witnesses. Broadly speaking, the evidence relates to (i) the {alleged motive for the murder, (ii) the taking away of Sohanlal by the accused from the school on February 14, 1959, (iii) the presence of the deceased in their company when he was last seen by the witnesses, (iv) the confessional statement of Swami Saran, (v) Kanhaiyalals false statement about his movements on Feb. 14, 1959 and his attempts to persuade his relations to support him in that connection and (vi) the recoveries made at the instance of the accused. We shall have occasion to refer to the evidence while considering it in details. It would be sufficient to refer here to the statement of Dr. 14, 1959 and his attempts to persuade his relations to support him in that connection and (vi) the recoveries made at the instance of the accused. We shall have occasion to refer to the evidence while considering it in details. It would be sufficient to refer here to the statement of Dr. B.P. Bhatnagar P.W.23 who examined the dead body of Sohanlal on February 19, 1959 and whose report in that connection is Ex. P. 11. According to the witness, the body was in an advanced stage of decomposition, the skin had peeled off, blisters were present at various places, the eye balls were protruding out of the sockets and the mouth was open. Maggots were creeping on the back of the body and rigor mortis had passed off. No mark of external injury could be seen due to decomposition. There was fracture and dislocation of the first cervical and the cause of death was "sudden compression of the spinal cord due to the fracture and dislocation of the first and second cervical vertebrae". The death had occurred in about 4 or 5 days and the witness further expressed the view that "strangulation" resulting in dislocation could cause death in this case and also that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death. 9. Both the accused completely denied the allegations of the prosecution. Kanhaiyalal stated that he returned from the second show of the cinema on February 14, 1959, and that he told Mohanlal at 5 a.m. when he came to his house that he had no knowledge about Sohanlal except that he had seen him at 7 a.m. He admitted that he told Mohanlal that he was at Maniawas on February 14, 1959, but he denied that he had refused to get it verified. He also stated that he had gone to Maniawas but he denied that he had gone to Mahalla. He denied having made indecent overtures to Smt. Beenadevi. He also denied that he borrowed any money from Smt. Durga at Mahalla or took food at the house of Smt. Keshar there. He further stated that he did not give any information about the dead body and that the police recovered it itself by simply taking him to the temple. The accused denied the allegations about his trying to set up a false plea of alibi. He further stated that he did not give any information about the dead body and that the police recovered it itself by simply taking him to the temple. The accused denied the allegations about his trying to set up a false plea of alibi. He also denied that any article was recovered at his instance by the police. He stated that he had strained relations with Mohanlal P. W. 8 and that he did not know why the other witnesses had deposed against him. 10. Accused Swami Saran denied all the allegations of the prosecution and retracted from his confession Ex. P. 14 alleging that it was given under police pressure. He also denied that any recovery was made at his instance, but he could not give any reason why the prosecution witnesses had deposed against him. He pleaded that he was presented before the Magistrate at 11 a.m. for recording his confession but the matter was put off for 2 or 3 days and he was kept injudicial lock-up and that S.I. Sawai Singh took him to City Kotwali from the judicial lock up, beat him, and asked him to give a statement according to his wishes threatening that he would be buried alive if he did not do so. The accused also stated that Sawai Singh thrust a stick in his anus and that it was in these circumstances that hi confessional statement was recorded by Magistrate. 11. The accused examined Dr. Suraj Babu D. W. 1 and Lekh Raj D. W. 2 as witnesses to show that the alleged confession of Swami Saran was not voluntary. 12. It is not in dispute before us that Sohanlal died of violence and his dead body, along with his pant Ex. E, coat Ex. F, shoes Ex. G and shirt Ex. H, was found in the tibara of the temple, at a distance of about 50 paces from Swami Saran house. The statement of Dr. B. P. Bhatnagar P.W.23 clearly proves that he performed a post mortem examination on the dead body of Sohanlal on February 19, 1959 and found that there was fracture and dislocation of the first cervical and that the cause of Sohanlals death was sudden compression of the spinal cord due to fracture and dislocation of the first and the second cervical vertebrae. The witness has also clearly stated that the death could be caused with the help of stick Ex. I and handkerchief Ex., J. by strangulation, and that the injuries were sufficient to cause the death in the ordinary course of nature. Dr. Bhatnagar has also stated that the death had taken place about 4 or 5 days earlier. The dead body was shown by the police to Mohanlal P. W. 1, who was the father of the deceased Sohanlal, and there can be no doubt about its identity. It has therefore been clearly established that Sohanlal died of strangulation 4 or 5 days before February 19,1959. 13. The next and the main point for decision is how Sohanlal was killed,and by whom. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants have addressed their arguments separately for the two accused in this respect and they have taken us through the entire evidence. There is no direct evidence of the murder except for the confessional statement of Swami Saran, and the case of the prosecution depends on circumstantial evidence. A part of that evidence, i.e., the evidence relating to the motive for the murder and the denial of certain well established facts by Kanhaiyalal accused, as well as his efforts to create a false plea of alibi, has no direct concern with the case of Swami Saran accused. We therefore think it would be desirable to deal with the two cases separately. 14. We shall first take up the case of accused Kanhaiyalal. It may be mentioned at the outset that learned Dy. Government Advocate has frankly stated that he does not rely on the confessional statement (Ex. P. 14) of accused Swami Saran to prove the guilt of Kanhaiyalal. The evidence against him, therefore, is that relating to the motive for the murder, the taking away of Sohanlal from the school on February 14, 1959, the presence of Sohanlal in the company of the accused thereafter, their having been last seen together until the midnight of that day in the house of Swami Saran accused, the denial by Kanhaiyalal of certain well established facts, his efforts to set up a false plea of alibi and the recovery of the dead body and the other articles at his instance. 15. 15. The prosecution has examined Mohanlal P.W. 1, Smt. Beena Devi P.W.2, Smt. Manohar P. W. 3, Gopinath P. W. 15, Basu Deo P. W. 22 and Satya Narain P. W. 33 to prove that accused Kanhaiyalal nursed a grievance because the proposal for his marriage with Smt. Beena Devi was turned down and she was married to the deceased Sohanlal instead, and also to show that even after her marriage Kanhaiyalal had a passion for Beena Devi. Mohanlal P. W. 1 has stated that Kanhaiyalal had "a bad eye" on Sohanlals wife Smt. Beena Devi and that he wanted to make her his wife. The witness has further stated that Kanhaiyalal once called Smt. Beena Devi and Sohanlal for a photograph and that he saw Kanhaiyalals watch on Smt. Beena Devis wrist on February 13, 1959 and so he became suspicious about Kanhaiyalals intentions towards her. The witness has stated that Kanhaiyalal was his elder brothers son and that he wanted to kill Sohanlal to become the owner of his property. Mohan Lals wife Smt. Manohar P. W. 3 has stated that there was talk about Kanhaiyalals marriage with Smt. Beena Devi and that she was married to Sohanlal as Kanhaiya Lals horoscope did not tally with her horoscope. The witness has also stated about Kanhaiyalals showing currency notes to Smt. Beena Devi in her presence. Further, Gopinath P. W. 15, father of Smt. Beena Devi, has stated that among the horoscopes which were compared for Beena Devis marriage, was the horoscope of Kanhaiyalal accused, but it did not tally. Basu Deo P. W. 22 has been examined to prove that Gopinath took the horoscope of his daughter and of one other boy to him for examination but they did not tally. The witness could not, however, state the name of the boy whose horoscope was brought by Gopinath to him ; his statement is therefore not of any importance. Smt. Beena Devi P. W. 2 has stated that the accused Kanhaiyalal had a bad eye on her, that he used to come to her father-in-laws house and display currency notes looking at her, and that Kanhaiyalal used to "fall on a boy" and look towards her from the shop of Mangal Sindhi which was in front of that house. Smt. Beena Devi P. W. 2 has stated that the accused Kanhaiyalal had a bad eye on her, that he used to come to her father-in-laws house and display currency notes looking at her, and that Kanhaiyalal used to "fall on a boy" and look towards her from the shop of Mangal Sindhi which was in front of that house. She has also stated that Kanhaiyalal had given a watch to Sohanlal and that she had put it on while going to a dinner, but when she came to know that it belonged to Kanhaiyalal, she took it off and gave it to Sohanlal. Further, she has stated that 3 days before Suraj Saptami, Kanhaiyalal asked her husband to bring her to him for 2 hours for taking photographs but she did not go. Satya Narain P. W. 33 has stated that (about 16 or 17 months before the date of his examination in the court of Session) Kanhaiyalal told him that his uncle had, by unfair means, got Smt. Beena Devi engaged to hid own son and did not allow him (Kanhaiyalal) to marry her, and that he would "see his uncle" for that reason. There is nothing in the cross-examination of these witnesses to shake their testimony except that we are not persuaded to hold that there is satisfactory evidence to prove that Kanhaiyalal wanted to murder Sohanlal for the additional reason that he wanted to inherit Mohanlals property. No such allegation was made in the first information report and Mohanlals statement in this connection appears to be an after-thought. Otherwise, the learned trial Judge was justified in holding that the prosecution has succeeded in proving that Kanhaiya Lal nursed a grievance against Mohanlal P. W. 1 because he himself was not married to Smt. Beena Devi, and that Kanhaiyalal had a passion for her although she had been married to Sohanlal almost 2 months before the present incident. The motive for the murder has therefore been established so far as Kanhaiyalal is concerned. 16. There is also satisfactory evidence to prove that accused Kanhaiyalal went to Maheshwari High School on the morning of February 14, 1959, where Sohanlal was studying in the 7th class, and that he persuaded Sohanlal to leave the school and go with him. The motive for the murder has therefore been established so far as Kanhaiyalal is concerned. 16. There is also satisfactory evidence to prove that accused Kanhaiyalal went to Maheshwari High School on the morning of February 14, 1959, where Sohanlal was studying in the 7th class, and that he persuaded Sohanlal to leave the school and go with him. Babulal P. W. 4 also studied in the same school with Sohanlal and he has stated that this was so and that Sohanlal was not seen by him thereafter. It seems that in portion A to B of his statement Ex. D. 5 in the court of the committing magistrate, Babulal stated that he did not know the name and did not recognise the person who took away Sohanlal from the school and he was allowed to be cross-examined by the prosecution because he resiled from his police statement on that point. However the witness, it seems, once again made a statement in conformity with his police statement when he was examined in the court of Session. Although learned counsel for the appellant has argued that we should altogether reject the testimony of Babulal on account of the discrepancy in his statement in the two courts below, we do not think we would be justified in doing so when the other evidence on the record also goes to show that Babulal definitely knew from the outset that. Sohan Lal had been taken away from the school by Kanhaiyalal. Mohanlal P. W. 1 has stated that it was Babulal who gave him the information that Sohanlal had been taken away from the school by Kanhaiyalal and he made a mention of that fact in his first report to the police, Ex.P. 1, on February 14, 1959. The statement of Sohanlals mother Smt. Manohar P. W. 3 also shows that it was Babulal who informed her that Sohanlal had gone away from the school with Kanhaiyalal. We have therefore no doubt that the statement of Babulal P. W. 4 recorded in the court of Session is correct in this respect. The statement of Sohanlals mother Smt. Manohar P. W. 3 also shows that it was Babulal who informed her that Sohanlal had gone away from the school with Kanhaiyalal. We have therefore no doubt that the statement of Babulal P. W. 4 recorded in the court of Session is correct in this respect. Dhanpatrai P. W. 12 was the Headmaster of the Maheshwari High School at that time and he has also stated that Sohanlal was a student of the 7th class in that school, that he was present in the school on the morning of February 14, 1959 and that he left the school at about 9 a.m. before the second meeting and remained absent thereafter. The witness has further stated that Sohanlal went away without permission, leaving his books in the class room. Although the prosecution examined Kishan Gopal P. W. 25 also to prove that the accused Kanhaiyalal took away Sohan Lal from the school, the witness simply stated in the trial court that he saw Sohan Lal and Babulal talking with another boy but that he did not see Sohanlal going away with Kanhaiyalal, the witness further stated that he did not know Kanhaiyalal. He was allowed to be cross-examined by the prosecution as it appeared that he had been won over by the defence. However, even if Kishan Gopals testimony is left out of account, there can be little doubt, on the other evidence on record, that the accused Kanhaiyalal took away Sohanlal from the school on the morning of February, 14, 1959 and that his denial of that fact is false. 17. This conclusion is strengthened by the further evidence led by the prosecution to show that Sohanlal was seen in the company of the accused at several places thereafter on February 14, 1959. Nathumal P. W. 5 has stated that. 3 or 4 days before he came to know about the murder of Sohanlal and 2 days after Basant Panchami, Sohanlal came to his shop at about 10 a.m. along with accused Kanhaiya Lal and one other person, that they took betels, cigarettes and match-box and went away thereafter. The witness has further stated that Sohan Lal was wearing a black coat and blue pant at that time. The witness has further stated that Sohan Lal was wearing a black coat and blue pant at that time. Nazir Khan P.W. 36 is a resident of Bichoon and he has stated that he saw the two accused and Sohan Lal going towards the hillock of Bichoon and that he knew Kanhaiya Lal and Sohan Lal because they also belonged to that village. It is argued by Mr. Garg that the testimony of this witness is not reliable as he could not disclose the names of the other relations of Kanhaiya Lal living in the village. This is not a sufficient reason for discarding the testimony of the witness because it appears from the statement of Mohan Lal P.W. 1 that he originally belonged to Bichoon and Nazir Khan could well have recognised Kanhaiya Lal and Sohan Lal for that reason. The next witness who claims to have seen Sohan Lal in the company of the accused on Suraj Saptmi day is Sawai Singh P.W. 26. He has stated that he saw all three of them at a well in village Mokampura at about 3 p.m. and that they had come from Bichoon side. He has further stated that they went away from there towards the main road and that Sohan Lal was wearing black coat Ex. F at that time. Mata-deen P.W. 16 has stated that he was posted as a teacher in village Mahalla from November 13,1958 to May 16, 1959 and that he saw three new faces and was informed by Sita Ram that one of them was his aunts son, the other was Kanhaiyalal while the name of the third person was not known to him (Sita Ram). 18. Some arguments have been addressed before us to assail the testimony of Nazir Khan P.W. 36, Sawai Singh P.W. 26 and Matadeen P.W. 16 and although those arguments are not of much substance, we do not think it necessary to take the statement of these three witnesses into account against the accused because there is other clear evidence to prove that the deceased Sohan Lal was seen in the company of the two accused on February 14, 1959, up to mid-night. 19. 19. We may refer in this connection to the statement of Smt. Keshar P.W. 7 that accused Kanhaiya Lal, who was the son of her aunt-in-law, came to her house at village Mahalla on Suraj Saptmi, at about 3 or 4 p.m., and that he asked her for food which she prepared and which was eaten by Kanhaiya Lal, his uncles son and his friend. The witness identified accused Swami Saran to be the friend of Kanhaiya Lal who had taken his food at her house that day, and she also offered to give a description of Kanhaiya Lals cousin. The husband of Smt. Keshar was not present at the time as he had gone to another village. We find no reason to disbelieve the witness. She is relation of Kanhaiya Lal and there is no reason why she should implicate him falsely in such a serious case. Smt. Durga P.W. 6 is another relation of accused Kanhaiya Lal and she also stated that Kanhaiya Lal visited her at Mahalla on Suraj Saptmi day and borrowed Rs. 2/- from her for his fare. We have no doubt that the deceased and the two accused visited Mahalla on February 14, 1959, in the afternoon, and were thus at a distance of about 22 miles from Jaipur at that time. It was only natural that they should have taken some time to cover that distance on their return to Jaipur. The prosecution has examined Heera Lal P.W. 35 to prove that the accused and the deceased hired his ricksha the same day at about 10 p. m. after getting down from a truck at the "Panch-batti" crossing and that he left them in a lane in Bagroo-walon-ka-rasta. The witness being a man of discreditable antecedents having been a history-sheeter, we are not inclined to place reliance on his testimony, but there are the statements of Bhonrilal P.W. 29 and Phool Chand P.W. 40 to prove that the accused and the deceased arrived at Bhonri Lals house at about 11 P.M. on Suraj Saptmi, where accused Swami Saran had taken a room on rent about a week before the incident. Bhonri Lal was the landlord of the house while Phool Chand was a co-tenant and there is no reason to disbelieve their testimony that the accused Swami Saran called Bhonri Lal to open the door of the house when he came there that night along with Kanhaiyalal and Sohanlal. Bhonrilal has further stated that Sohanlal was wearing coat Ex. F and pant Ex. E at that time and all three of them went inside Swami Sarans room in the house. He did not see Swami Saran thereafter as he found his room locked in the morning and saw him only after the recovery of the dead body. Phool Chand saw the dead body when it was recovered by the Police and has stated that it was of the same boy who had come with the two accused that night. It has therefore been clearly proved that the deceased was last seen in the company of the two accused until about the mid-night, within a few hours of his murder. The portion of the statement of Smt. Manohar P.W. 3 that she saw the accused Kanhaiya Lal in the lane when he was coming from the side of Chaura Rasta at about 5 a.m. the same night, is a fur-ther link in the chain of the evidence. She asked him where Sohan Lal was, but he denied all knowledge about him. The witness then took her husband Mohan Lal to Khanhaiya Lals house to find out the whereabouts of Sohan Lal and we have already referred to the efforts of Sohan Lals parents to trace him out by confronting Kanhaiya Lal with the information supplied by Babu Lal. All this evidence leaves us in no doubt that the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused shortly before his murder and since the accused have contended themselves with a bare denial that this was so, this circumstance strongly incriminates them. 20. We shall next refer to the various recoveries which were made during the course of the investigation in pursuance of the information given by the two accused, from time to time. The memoranda of the information given by the accused contain a lot of matter which is not admissible under sec. 27 of the Evidence Act and we shall therefore refer only to those portions of the information which are admissible in evidence under the law. 21. The memoranda of the information given by the accused contain a lot of matter which is not admissible under sec. 27 of the Evidence Act and we shall therefore refer only to those portions of the information which are admissible in evidence under the law. 21. We may first mention that dead body of Sohanlal was recovered on Feb. 19,1959 in pursuance of the information given by Kanhaiyalal accused. Circle Inspector Deva Singh P. W. 42 has proved that such an information was given by Kanhaiyalal and that he record it in memo Ex. P. 18. Kanhaiyalal informed the Inspector that he| had hidden the dead body near the south-western wall in the tibara situated in the garden of the temple of Mahadevji, after tying it in a quilt cover and that the blue pant, pink shirt, black wollen coat and shoes of the deceased had also been kept there, which he could recover. The police was accordingly led to that place by the accused in the presence of Virendra Prasad P. W. 13 and the dead body of Sohanlal and the other articles were recovered at his instance vide memo Ex. P. 6. Virendra Prasad is a pleader and there is no reason to disbelieve his evidence about the recovery. He has corroborated the testimony of G. I. Deva Singh that the dead body as well as pant Ex. E, coat Ex. F, shirt Ex. H and shoes Ex.G were recovered at the instance of Kanhaiyalal accused. The recovery was no doubt made from an open tibara and it has been argued that some one else might have placed the dead body there or that the police might have known about its presence from the foul smell due to decomposition. The simple answer to these arguments is that there is no evidence on the record to show that the dead body was planted there by someone else and that if the police had known about its presence earlier, they, had nothing to gain by postponing its recovery. The fact therefore remains that the dead body, as well as the other articles of Sohanlal, were recovered at the instance of the accused Kanhaiyalal from a tibara which was in . close proximity of Swami Sarans house and this is therefore another piece of circumstantial evidence against the accused. 22. The fact therefore remains that the dead body, as well as the other articles of Sohanlal, were recovered at the instance of the accused Kanhaiyalal from a tibara which was in . close proximity of Swami Sarans house and this is therefore another piece of circumstantial evidence against the accused. 22. That Sohanlal was murdered in Swami Sarans house is further proved by the fact that the dead body was found wrapped in the cover of Swami Sarans quilt Ex. K which was identified by Bhonrilal P. W. 29, and the stuffed cotton of the quilt was recovered from Swami Sarans room on February 19, 1959 at his instance. No explanation has been given by the accused why the cotton was removed from Swami Sarans quilt cover and how the dead body was found wrapped in it at the time of the recovery. This,coupled with the other evidence on record, goes to show that the stuffed cotton was removed from the quilt cover in order to wrap the dead body with it before removing it from the scene of the occurrence. 23. The policy also recovered a pair of gold longs Ex. A in pursuance of information given by the accused Kanhaiyalal on February 24, 1959, which was recorded by C. I. Deva Singh in memo Ex. P. 17. In that information he stated that he had kept the longs of the deceased on the shelf in the northern wall of the room on the first floor of his house and that he could get them recovered. Accordingly, the recovery was made at his instance in the presence of Hanuman Bux P. W. 28 the same day, vide memo Ex. P. 5, from the same place, and the long have been indentified by goldsmith Durgalal P.W. 30 and Mohanlal P. W. 1 in the presence of Shri N. N. Bhatnagar P. W. 28, Magistrate, Jaipur. 24. Further, Kanhaiyalal accused gave information to S. I. Sawai Singh P.W. 41 on March 5, 1959 that the handkerchief and the piece of stick bad been placed by him under a slab of stone in the dirty lane behind the house of Bhonrilal and that he could recover them. Ex. P. 8 is the memo of the information. Handkerchief Ex. J and piece of stick Ex. Ex. P. 8 is the memo of the information. Handkerchief Ex. J and piece of stick Ex. I were recovered by S. I. Sawai Singh in the presence of Ram Ballabh P.W. 19 the same day, at the instance of Kanhaiyalal, from the same place, and the Ex. P. 9 is the memo of that recovery. 25. Thus the fact that Sohanlalss dead body, his wearing apparel, his gold Longs and the handkerchief and the piece of stick were recovered on information given by Kanhaiyalal accused, at his instance, also goes to show that he participated in the crime. 26. In addition, there is the evidence on the record to show that accused Kanhaiyalal not only falsely denied the aforesaid well established facts, but tried to give a false explanation about his movements on February 14, 1959. He also tried to persuade his relations to give false statements about his presence on February 14, 1959 in an effort to prove his innocence by showing that the deceased Sohanlal was not in his company on Feb. 14, 1959, that he had not gone to Mahalla with him on that day and that he himself was at Maniawas with his uncle. The statements of Mohanial P. W. 1, Smt. Manohar P. W. 3, Smt. Keshar P. W. 7, her husband Mohanial P. W. 8, Jagdish P. W. 9, Govind Narain P. W. 11, Dhannalal P. W. 14, Hanuman P. W. 18, Hazari P. W. 21 and Sitaram P. W. 34 are relevant in this connection. 27. Mohanial P. W. 1 and his wife Smt. Manohar P. W. 9 have stated how Kanhaiyalal accused denied, on inquiry by them at about 5.30 a.m. on February 15, 1959, that he had anything to do with their son Sohanlal, and how he persisted in that denial even when he was confronted with Babulal P. W. 4. Mohanial P. W. 1 has also stated that on February 16, 1959 when he again went to Kanhaiyalals house, the latter told him that he was at the house of his maternal uncle in village Maniawas on February 14, 1959. Sitaram P. W. 34 has stated much to the same effect. Mohanial P. W. 1 has also stated that on February 16, 1959 when he again went to Kanhaiyalals house, the latter told him that he was at the house of his maternal uncle in village Maniawas on February 14, 1959. Sitaram P. W. 34 has stated much to the same effect. Then there is the statement of Smt. Keshar P. W. 7 that accused Kanhaiya Lal came to her house on Suraj Saptmi with the accused Swami Saran and the deceased Sohanlal, and that Kanhaiyalal again came to her house 2 days latter at about 2 a. m., all alone, and told her that his uncle Mohanial was blaming him for causing the disappearance of Sohanlal and so if he came and made enquiries from her, she should not tell him that (Kanhaiyalal) had visited her with his uncles son. Further, the witness has stated that she told Khaniyalal that she would only state the truth and that he went away thereafter in the motor car in which he had come to her at that odd hour of the night. Smt. Keshars husband Mohanial P. W. 8 has corroborated her statement that the accused Kanhaiyalal visited her house in the night (between February 16, 1959 and February 17, 1959) and asked him to tell his uncle Mohanial, when he came to make enquiries, that he alone had come there on February 14, 1959. The witness, however, refused to oblige the accused and when Mohanial P. W. 1 asked him what the matter was, he told him that Kanhaiyalal had visited his house to persuade him to make a false statement. Hazari P. W. 21 is the driver whose taxi was hired by Kanhaiyalal to go to Mahalla to dissuade Smt. Keshar and Mohanial P. W. 8 from telling the truth and he has stated that Mohanial told him, at the time of hiring his taxi, that he had to go to village Mahalla because his maternal uncle was ill there. All this shows that Kanhaiyalal not only falsely denied that he had taken Sohanlal from the school to Mahalla on February 14, 1959 but he tried to suppress the evidence regarding that fact. The trial court was therefore justified in drawing an adverse inference against him as has been held in Pershadi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh(l). 28. All this shows that Kanhaiyalal not only falsely denied that he had taken Sohanlal from the school to Mahalla on February 14, 1959 but he tried to suppress the evidence regarding that fact. The trial court was therefore justified in drawing an adverse inference against him as has been held in Pershadi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh(l). 28. In fact there is evidence to show that Kanhaiyalal tried his level best to set up the plea that he was in village Maniawas on February 14, 1959, all alone. Kanhaiyalal is the son of the daughter of Dhannalals mothers sister who lived in village Maniawas. He wanted to prove that he was at Dhannalals house on February, 14, 1959 in order to establish a clear alibi. But inspite of their relationship, Dhannalal has stated that 2 or 3 days after Suraj Saptmi, Kanhaiyalal came to him and asked him to inform his uncle Mohanial, who was blaming him for causing the disappearance of his son, that he (Kanhaiyalal) had come to him prior to Suraj Saptmi, but that he refused to make such a false statement. In fact the witness has stated that he had already informed Mohanlal P. W. 1 by that time, when he came to Maniawas, that Kanhaiyalal accused had not visited him at all. Hanuman P. W. 18 has stated that Kanhaiyalal hired his car on February, 17, 1959 at about 6 a. m. on the false pretext that his maternal uncle has been bitten by a snake at Maniawas. He has farther stated that Kanhaiyalal asked his maternal uncle that if the police or anybody else came to enquire about him, he should say that he (Kanhaiyalal) was with him for 4 or 5 days, but his maternal uncle turned down the suggestion and so they came back to Jaipur. Jagdish P. W. 9 and Govind Narain P.W. 11 have corroborated the testimony of the other witnesses regarding the attempt on the part of Kanhaiyalal to create false evidence of his presence at Maniawas. It has therefore been proved that Kanhaiyalal not only falsely denied that he was seen in the company of Sohanlal deceased on February, 14, 1959 in village Mahalla, but he made frantic efforts to prove his presence in village Maniawas on that day by creating false evidence to that effect. 29. It has therefore been proved that Kanhaiyalal not only falsely denied that he was seen in the company of Sohanlal deceased on February, 14, 1959 in village Mahalla, but he made frantic efforts to prove his presence in village Maniawas on that day by creating false evidence to that effect. 29. Thus the prosecution has succeeded in proving beyond doubt that accused Kanhaiyalal had a motive for committing the murder of Sohanlal, that he persuaded him to leave the school on the morning of February, 14, 1959, that the deceased was seen in Kanhaiyalals, company that day in village Mahalla and that they were last seen together at midnight of the same day when they came to the house of Swami Saran accused and went to his room in Bagroo-Walon-Ka-rasta. It has also been proved that Swami Sarans room was found locked on the following morning and that accused Kanhaiyalal made a false statement to Sohanlals father Mohanlal when he met him early on the morning of February 15, 1959, at about 5-30 a. m. and asked him about Sohanlal. The prosecution has further succeeded in proving that Kanhaiya Lal could not substantiate his contention that he had not taken away Sohanlal from the school and had not visited Mahalla with him on February, 14, 1959, and that he tried to set up a false! plea that he had spent the day at Maniawas with his maternal uncle, alone. Moreover, Kanhaiyalal was arrested on February, 18, 1959 and Sohan Lals dead body was recovered at his instance on the following day, near Mahadevjis temple, along with the wearing apparel of the deceased. Kanhaiyalal led to the recovery of the pair of longs of Sohanlal on February 24, 1959 and also got handkerchief Ex., J. and piece of stick Ex. I recovered from the dirty lane behind Swami Sarans house from underneath a stone slab, on March 5, 1959. All these links of circumstantial evidence are important and go to forge a complete chain to prove that it was Kanhaiyalal who committed the murder of Sohanlal as has been alleged. In arriving at this conclusion we have not thought it necessary to refer to the confessional statement (Ex.P.14) of Swami Saran. It is therefore not necessary to refer to the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants in that regard. We may mention that in Hadu Vs. In arriving at this conclusion we have not thought it necessary to refer to the confessional statement (Ex.P.14) of Swami Saran. It is therefore not necessary to refer to the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants in that regard. We may mention that in Hadu Vs. The State(2), referred to by Mr. Garg, it has been observed that it is not enough to prove that the deceased was last seen with the accused, unless it appears that he was in his company at or about the time when and at the place where the murder appears to have been actually committed. These observations cannot avail the accused in the present case because, as has been shown above, there is ample evidence to prove that Sohanlal was in the company of the accused a little before his murder, at Swami Sarans house, where the murder was actually committed. For all these reasons the conviction of Kanhaiyalal for offence under sec. 302 I.P.C. is fully justified and does not call for any interference. 30. We shall how deal with the case of Swami Saran accused. The evidence against him is that he was a friend of Kanhaiyalal accused, that he also went with Kanhaiyalal to the Maheshwari High School on the morning of February 14, 1959 where Sohanlal was persuaded to accompany them to Bechoon and that all three of them were seen together at Mahalla and returned the same night to Jaipur. There is also evidence to the effect that Swami Saran, Kanhaiyalal and Sohanlal went to Swami Sarans house on return to Jaipur, at about midnight, and that Bhonrilal P.W. 29 and Phool Chand P.W. 40 saw them going to the room of Swami Saran. It is not necessary to refer to all this prosecution evidence in detail because we have already referred to it while dealing with the case of Kanhaiyalal and have given our reasons for placing reliance on it. The additional evidence, so far as Swami Saran accused is concerned, is to the effect that his landlord Bhonrilal P. W. 29 has stated that he hired a room in his house about a week before Sohanlals murder. The additional evidence, so far as Swami Saran accused is concerned, is to the effect that his landlord Bhonrilal P. W. 29 has stated that he hired a room in his house about a week before Sohanlals murder. Bhonrilal has further stated that although he saw Swami Saran, Kanhaiyalal and Sohanlal entering Swami Sarans room at midnight on February 14, 1959, he did not find them there in the morning, or thereafter, and saw Swami Saran only after the recovery of the dead body., No explanation has been given by Swami Saran regarding the whereabouts of Sohanlal. His denial that he was in his company is false and is nothing but an incriminating circumstance against him. While dealing with the case of accused Kanhaiyalal we have given our reasons for holding that the murder took place in Swami Sarans room and were fortified in this view by the further fact that the dead body was recovered at a distance of about 50 paces from there. Another highly incriminating circumstance against Swami Saran accused is the fact that the dead body was found wrapped up in the cover of his quilt Ex. K, and Bhonrilal P. W. 29. who was Swami Sarans landlord, has stated that the cover belonged to Swami Saran. It is also significant that the stuffed cotton of the quilt was recovered by the police on information given by Swami Saran, on February 19, 1959, in the presence of Bhopa P. W. 17. No explanation has been given by the accused how the quilt cover and the stuffed cotton came to be separated and why the dead body was found wrapped in that cover. The chain of the circumstantial evidence against Swami Saran leads to the irresistible inference that he participated in the crime, but there is nothing on the record to show that he had a motive for abetting Sohanlals Murder. 31. We may here refer to the statement Ex. P. 14 which was made by Swami Saran before Shri Shambhu Singh P.W. 39 on March 21, 1951. 31. We may here refer to the statement Ex. P. 14 which was made by Swami Saran before Shri Shambhu Singh P.W. 39 on March 21, 1951. In that statement Swami Saran placed the entire responsibility for the murder of Sohanlal on his co-accused Kanhaiyalal, but the two important points which emerge from the statement are that - (i) Kanhaiyalal committed the murder of Sohanlal by strangulation in Swami Sarans presence and (ii) they both wrapped the dead body in the cover of Swami Sarans quilt and then took it to the temple in the vicinity and placed it there in a Tibara along with the other wearing apparel of the deceased. The learned counsel for the appellants have assailed this statement of Swami Saran on the ground that it was recorded under the undue influence of S. I. Swami Singh and that it was neither voluntary nor true. We find that accused Swami Saran was in judicial lock-up since March 6, 1959 while his confession was recorded on March 21, 1959. Moreover, the accused expressly informed the Magistrate that the police had treated him nicely and that he was making a voluntary statement. He was sent back to judicial custody after his confession had been recorded. In all these circumstances, we are not at all persuaded that statement Ex. P. 14 was brought about by undue pressure of the police. In fact a reading of that statement shows that it is exculpatory to a very large extent. Swami Saran has incriminated himself only to the extent of admitting that after the murder of Sohanlal by Kanhaiyalal he and his co-accused Kanhaiyalal placed the dead body in the cover of his quilt and then removed it to the nearby temple of Mahadevji and left it there. If the police had influenced Swami Saran, they would not have asked him to give such an exculpatory statement so far as the offence of murder was concerned when they were charging him with it. Swami Saran took the plea that he was beaten by the police and that a stick was thrust in his anus in order to compel him to make statement Ex. P. 14. He examined Dr. Suraj Babu D. W. 1 and Deputy Jailor Lekh Ram D.W. 2 in that connection. Dr. Swami Saran took the plea that he was beaten by the police and that a stick was thrust in his anus in order to compel him to make statement Ex. P. 14. He examined Dr. Suraj Babu D. W. 1 and Deputy Jailor Lekh Ram D.W. 2 in that connection. Dr. Suraj Babu has, however, stated that Swami Saran was treated only for diarrhoea in the hospital from March 23, 1959 and that he was not suffering from any disease before his admission to the jail hospital. The statement of Lekhram D.W. 2 is also of no avail to the accused because it only shows that Swami Saran was sent out of the jail on March 21, 1959, at about 9-30 a.m. to attend the court. This was nothing unusual because under-trial prisoners are generally taken together to the courts a little before they open. We are therefore satisfied that Swami Sarans statement was voluntary. 32. As regards the truth of the confessional statement, the details mentioned in it run almost parallel to the prosecution evidence referred to above and there is, at any rate, no inconsistency which may go to show that statement Ex. P. 14 is not true as far as it goes. Besides there is no requirement of law that a confessional statement must be corroborated in all respects. The learned trial Judge was therefore justified in taking the statement (Ex. P. 14) into consideration against Swami Saran accused. 33. We have already referred to the fact that there is nothing on the record to show that Swami Saran had a motive to murder Sohanlal and his confessional statement Ex. P. 14 also does not show that he committed the murder or abetted its commission. The prosecution evidence on the record is quite consistent with the inference that he might have taken no other part in the crime than to help Kanhaiya Lal in secretly disposing of the dead body in order to cause the evidence of the offence to disappear. We have been persuaded by two other circumstances in arriving at this conclusion. Firstly, it is not necessary., in a case of death by strangulation, that there should be any noise at the time of the strangulation so as to awaken the persons sleeping nearby. We have been persuaded by two other circumstances in arriving at this conclusion. Firstly, it is not necessary., in a case of death by strangulation, that there should be any noise at the time of the strangulation so as to awaken the persons sleeping nearby. We may only refer to page 165 of Modis "Medical Jurisprudence at | Texocology", 13th edition, in which it has been observed that "strangulation may be committed without any noise or disturbance ; even if other persons are in close vicinity, they may not be aware of the Act." There is therefore no improbability in the confessional statement of Swami Saran that he woke up only after Kanhaiyalal had actually started strangulating Sohanlals throat; and it might then have been too late for him to stop the murder. Secondly, the argument that Swami Saran would not have liked the murder to be committed in his own room by some one who had a personal grudge of his own against the victim, is not without substance, and it may well be that Swami Saran played no greater part in the incident than to arrange the secret removal of the dead body after the murder had been committed in order to screen the murderer. At any rate, there is a lurking doubt whether Swami Saran also participated in or abetted the commission of the murder. The benefit of this doubt must go to him and we are not disposed to uphold his conviction under sec. 302 read with sec. 109 I.P.C. 34. It has however been amply proved by the prosecution evidence referred to above and also by his own confessional statement Ex.P.14 that Swami Saran (i) knew that Sohanlal had been murdered by Kanhaiyalal in his own room and (ii) he tried to causel the evidence of that offence to disappear with the intention of screening the offender and secretly removed the dead body, along with Kanhaiyalal, after wrapping it in the cover of his quilt and placed it in the temple where it was found 4 days latter. Besides, Swami Saran has admitted that before removing the dead body, he himself went out of his house to see whether the way was clear and that they both removed the dead body when they found that it was safe to do so. Besides, Swami Saran has admitted that before removing the dead body, he himself went out of his house to see whether the way was clear and that they both removed the dead body when they found that it was safe to do so. It has been argued in this connection that Swami Saran merely carried out the orders of Kanhaiyalal in helping him to dispose of the dead body because the latter had given him a threat to secure a compliance of his wishes and reliance has been placed on Mst. Bakhtawari Vs. Emperor(3) in this connection. A reading of the relevant portion of statement Ex. P. 14 shows that this argument is not tenable because what Swami Saran has stated is that Kanhaiyalal told him that he would get him murdered by giving Rs. 15/-or 20/- to some one if he told any one about the incident. He has not stated that any such threat was given by Kanhaiyalal for securing his co-operation in the secret disposal of the dead body and the wearing apparel of Sohanlal. On the other hand, the fact that the dead body was lying after the murder in Swami Sarans room, must have led him to arrange its disposal, and we are not persuaded that Swami Saran acted under coercion when he removed the cotton from his quilt, wrapped the dead body in its cover and took it, along with Kanhaiyalal, and left it in the nearby temple of Mahadevji and placed the wearing apparel of Sohanlal there. The facts of Mst. Bakhtawari Vs. Emperor(3) cited by Mr. Soral were vastly different for in that case it was found that Smt. Bakhtawari was bullied by the accused who was a man of a desperate character and she was helpless at that time as there was no one else in the vicinity to come to her rescue in case she adopted an attitude of defiance and raised an alarm. In the instant case, Bhonrilal and Phoolchand were present in the house and would certainly have come to Swami Sarans help if he wanted to seek it. We are therefore satisfied that Swami Saran is guilty of an offence under sec.201 I.P.C. and we convict him thereof. Looking to the circumstances of the case, we sentence him to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years under that section. 35. We are therefore satisfied that Swami Saran is guilty of an offence under sec.201 I.P.C. and we convict him thereof. Looking to the circumstances of the case, we sentence him to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years under that section. 35. In the result, Kanhaiyalals appeal (No. 270 of 1961) is dismissed while Swami Sarans appeal (No. 245 of 1961) is allowed to the extent that his conviction is altered from sec. 302/109 I.P.C. to sec. 201 and he is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years thereunder. The sentence imposed on Swami Saran by the learned trial Judge under sec. 302 read with sec. 109 I.P.C. was contrary to law for obvious reasons, but no correction is called for as his conviction has been altered as mentioned above. Criminal Revision No. 242 of 1961 is therefore dismissed.