JUDGMENT : S.J. Imam, J. 1. The two appellants, Boya Arava Veeranna and Boya Arava Nagappa, have filed this appeal with special leave against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court upholding their conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Two other accused, Boys Arava Narasimhulu aud Boys Gikke Peddaiah, although filed an appeal against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, they have since died. 2. According to the prosecution story, on the morning of August 21, 1958 when the deceased was answering a call of nature in the easing ground of the village, the five accused assaulted the deceased causing him injuries with spears and sticks and thereafter they carried away his body and threw it in a canal. The attack on the deceased was witnessed by P.W. 2 Madiga Rogenna and P.W. 3 Venkatapuram Narasappa. P.W. 1 Madappa and P.W. 6 Pedda Hanumanna went in search of the deceased and the accused and took a path to Sillar Doddi which is about six miles away from Ganjehalli. They were searching for the deceased when towards the evening before sunset, they saw the five accused with a dead body, immediately Madappa and Pedda took over and hid themselves. These witnesses saw the five accused carrying a dead body and throwing it in the canal. As it was raining heavily they took shelter in Hanuman Temple. As it rained all the night and next morning, further investigation could not be made till the afternoon next day. The village Munsiff sent his report, Ex.P-3, which reached the Magistrate on August 23, 1958. Immediately on receipt of Ex.P.3, the Sub Inspector of Police, P.W. 14, registered a case, issued F.I.R. and recorded the statements of P.Ws. 2, 3 and 10 to 12. P.W. 15, the Circle Inspector of Police, Emiganore arrived at Ganjehalli next day and he directed P.W. 14 to make a search for the body. On August 24, 1958 the accused were at rested and sent for remand on August 25, 1958 to the Magistrate of Pathikonda. 3. On August 24, 1958, P.W 8 Golla Govindappa saw a dead body floating in the canal at a place called Murubaktham Doddi and informed Papi Reddy P.W. 9, village Munsiff of that. The village Munsiff came and saw the corpse and sent a report. Ex.P-7, to the Police Station, Gonegundla. 4. 3. On August 24, 1958, P.W 8 Golla Govindappa saw a dead body floating in the canal at a place called Murubaktham Doddi and informed Papi Reddy P.W. 9, village Munsiff of that. The village Munsiff came and saw the corpse and sent a report. Ex.P-7, to the Police Station, Gonegundla. 4. The dead body was recovered from the canal and it was identified by P.W. 11. In all there were 15 injures on the deceased, of which 8 were incised wounds. According to the opinion of the Doctor, the deceased died due to these injuries, which were all ante-mortem. 5. The accused were charged with offences under Sections 148, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused No. 5 was held not guilty, but accused 1 to 4 were convicted under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code only. 6. The motive stated was the enmity between the parties of the village Munsiff P.W. 9 and the village Karnam. P.W. 12. Another cause of enmity alleged was' that the deceased kept the sister of accused No. 1 as his mistress. Another ground of enmity stated was that in 1957, P.W. 1 murdered one Boya Tippanna, who was a relative of accused Nos. 1 and 2. Accused 1 and 2 were the principal eye-witnesses in that case. In the P.R.C. Case No. 3/1957, all the accused were acquitted. 7. The learned Sessions Judge held that though the story of P.W. 1 and 6 going in search of the dead body of the deceased may be a bit difficult to believe in spite of the fact that the eye-witnesses may have some interest, the offence was brought home against accused 1 to 4 as they were mentioned in the report given by P.W. 4 Talari Rimanna as having been informed by P.W. 10. There is no motive imputed to P.W. 2, who was only remotely connected to respondents in the security case. There is also no motive imputed to P.W. 3 who was not even connected directly or indirectly with the respondents. The learned Judge accepted the said evidence and convicted the appellants under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. On appeal the High Court agreed with the Sessions Judge and confirmed the conviction. Hence the appeal. 8. There is also no motive imputed to P.W. 3 who was not even connected directly or indirectly with the respondents. The learned Judge accepted the said evidence and convicted the appellants under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. On appeal the High Court agreed with the Sessions Judge and confirmed the conviction. Hence the appeal. 8. The evidence of P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 was sought to be discredited on two grounds (1) the Police Diary was not sent along with the remand report to the Magistrate and (2) the statements made by P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 to the police would detract from the weight of their evidence. 9. The default committed by the Police in not sending the police diary at they should do under Section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code, it is contended 'prejudiced the accused' in as much as it deprived them of valuable opportunity to test the credibility of P.W. 2 and P.W. 3. There is no doubt that the police did not strictly conform to the provisions of Section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code but this could not vitiate the trial and the default made by the police cannot displace the evidence of a truthful witness. The Courts below have accepted the evidence of P.W. 3 and they were also satisfied on the evidence of P.W. 12 and P.W. 15 that their statements were made to the police on the date they purport to have been made. There are therefore no grounds for taking a different view and discard their evidence. The second contention has also no force. The previous statements made by witnesses (P.W. 2 and P.W. 3) to the Police under Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code are clearly inadmissible for any purpose unless the witnesses are contradicted in the manner provided by Section 245 of the Evidence Act. It is not disputed that procedure was not followed. That apart, the alleged contradictions are not material and they do not really detract from the truth of their version. In the result, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissal.