JUDGMENT H.C.P. Tripathi, J. - This appeal by the State of Uttar Pradesh is directed against an order of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, in favour of the Respondents in a case Under Sections 302 and 307 both read with Section 149 and Section 201 IPC, 2. The accusations against the Respondents in short were that on 26-2-1964, at about 4 p.m. having armed themselves with lethal weapons they formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of its common object committed the murder of Tutain and Guman in a field, caused injuries to Parmanand (PW 1) when he tried to interfere and thereafter removed the dc ad bodies from the scene of incident for screening themselves from legal punishment. 3. The prosecution case in brief is as follows: Respondents Amritlal, Khalak Singh and Bhagwan Das are real brothers and so are Respondents Amar Singh and Dhanpat. Sunder Lal's father Dhanni was the real brother of Ganpat father of Amrit Lal, Khalak Singh and Bhagwan. Das and Hori Lal is the son of Sunder Lal. They are Lodis by caste and so were the victims Tutain and Guman. The parties resided in village Veeran. Police Station Jaria in the district of Hamirpur. Smt. Sia Rani (PW 2) is the widow of Tutain deceased and Parmanand (PW 1) is the son of Smt. Sia Rani by her previous husband Phool Chand. About ten days prior to the occurrence Guman had caught hold of the wife of Respondent Khalak Singh in the Har of the village for having sexual intercourse with her. A few days thereafter a Panchayat of the Biradri was convened and it had excommunicated Guman and his family members for this misbehaviour. The excommunication of Guman and his family members by the Panchait had, however, not satisfied Khalak Singh and his father Ganpat who extended a threat to avenge themselves for the dishonour done to a woman member of their family. Tutain and Guman owned a field in the Har of the village. On 26-9-1964, Tutain, Guman, Smt. Sia Rani and Parmanand had gone to that field for bringing Jundi sticks and Haryali for fodder. They had taken two bullock carts with them. Tutain and Guman owned a field in the Har of the village. On 26-9-1964, Tutain, Guman, Smt. Sia Rani and Parmanand had gone to that field for bringing Jundi sticks and Haryali for fodder. They had taken two bullock carts with them. At about 4 p.m. one of the bullock carts had been loaded with Jundi sticks and the load, was being tied with a rope by Tutain and Guman from one side and Parmanand and Sia Rani on the other. Suddenly the seven Respondents out of whom Amrit Lal was armed with a gun, Hori Lal and Dhanpat with spears and Amar Singh and Khalak Singh with Pharsa and the rest with lathis emerged from the north and Amrit Lal fired a shot hitting Tutain who fell on the ground. Immediately thereafter the remaining six Respondents started belabouring Tutain and Guman with their respective weapons till they were dead on the spot. When Smt. Sia Rani and her son Parmanand rushed to defend them Amrit Lal caught hold of Sia Rani's hands and Dhanpat pierced his spear in the right axilla of Parmanand felling him on the ground. Sunderlal and Bhagwan Das showered lathis blows on fallen Parmanand. The miscreants picked the dead bodies and carried them towards north oh one of the carts parked there and disappeared from the scene. The entire incident was, however, witnessed by Baladin who was collecting fodder in the same field and some passers by who had been attracted to the scene on hearing the report of the gun fire. The witnesses had followed the miscreants for some distance but when Amrit Lal threatened to shoot them they had to return without being able to prevent them from carrying the dead bodies. Parmanand rushed to the police station Jaria five miles away and lodged a first information report of the occurrence on the same date at 6-45 p.m. in which he gave the essentials of the prosecution story. On the basis of this report a case was registered and investigation followed. 4. Sub Inspector O.P. Sharma (PW 8) interrogated Parmanand at the Police Station and reached the village at about 8 p.m. He inspected the field which was alleged to be the venue of the murder and prepared a site plan. On the basis of this report a case was registered and investigation followed. 4. Sub Inspector O.P. Sharma (PW 8) interrogated Parmanand at the Police Station and reached the village at about 8 p.m. He inspected the field which was alleged to be the venue of the murder and prepared a site plan. He noticed blood splashed in sufficient quantity in the centre of the field and obtained sample of the blood stained earth in a sealed container. He searched for the dead bodies during the same night but could not trace them. On the next morning he continued his search for the dead bodies but without any result. On 28-2-1964, however, he succeeded in tracing the bullock cart of the deceased which was said to have been used for carrying the dead bodies from the place of occurrence, in an Arhar field. Several parts of the bullock cart had blood stains on them. They were cut and sealed at the spot. None of the Respondents was available inspite of search. They subsequently surrendered in court on 2-3-1964. 5. The blood stained earth and the pieces of cart were subsequently examined by the Chemical Examiner and Serologist and their reports which are on record indicate that the cart pieces were found to be stained with human blood but the origin of blood stains on the earth could not be determined owing to its disintegration. 6. Parmanand was medically examined by Dr. S.A. Hanafi at Rath dispensary on 27-2-1964, at 10.45 a.m. who found one-punctured wound, three contusions, one contused abrasion and one abrasion on his person. The injured complained of pain in the middle finger of the left hand. The punctured wound was grievous but the rest of the injuries were simple. In medical opinion the punctured wound could have been caused by some sharp pointed weapon like spear and the rest with lathis. All the injuries were about 18 to 19 hours old. In cross-examination Dr. Hanafi asserted that the injuries could have been caused within 4, 6 or.10 hours before or 12 or 13 hours before but it could not be said that there was greater probability of the injuries having been caused 12 to 13 hours before. 7. At the trial Respondents pleaded not guilty to the charges. In cross-examination Dr. Hanafi asserted that the injuries could have been caused within 4, 6 or.10 hours before or 12 or 13 hours before but it could not be said that there was greater probability of the injuries having been caused 12 to 13 hours before. 7. At the trial Respondents pleaded not guilty to the charges. They admitted to have their inter se relationship but denied that Dhanpat's father Sunder was the real brother of Ganpat. All of them denied their connection with the crime and stated to have been falsely implicated by the witnesses on account of enmity of which they failed to give any details. They, however, brought on record some documents to establish enmity with some of the witnesses. One of these documents is a certified copy of the plaint filed by Sunder, Ganpat and some others against Gram Samaj of Veeran in the year 1955 and the other is a certified copy of the statement of Sheo Din in the aforesaid case stating therein that the land in suit belonged to Gram Samaj. The other document is a copy of the report made by Kamla Man against Sheo Din (PW 4) with the police u/s 504/506 IPC. 8. The case of the prosecution rested on the testimony of five eye-witnesses namely Parmanand and his mother Sia Rani, Daya Ram, Sheo Din and Bala Din (PWs 1 to 5) all of whom supported the prosecution story in all its essential particulars and stated to have seen these Respondents committing the murder of Tutain and Guman injuring Parmanand and thereafter carrying away the dead bodies on the bullock cart of the deceased. Parmanand and Sheo Din also testified that a few days before the occurrence a Panchait had been convened in the village at the instance of Ganpat for considering the misbehaviour of Guman with the wife of Khalak Singh and the Panchait had excommunicated Guman and his family members. Ganpat and Khalak Singh were not satisfied with the decision of the Panchait and had threatened therein to wreak vengeance on Guman for his misconduct. 9. Ganpat and Khalak Singh were not satisfied with the decision of the Panchait and had threatened therein to wreak vengeance on Guman for his misconduct. 9. The learned Sessions Judge was, however, of opinion that the motive suggested by the prosecution has not been established, that in all probability the first information report was not lodged at the time at which it purports to be and there was a responsible possibility of the occurrence having taken place some time during the night and therefore, although Guman and Tutain had been murdered and Parmanand had undoubtedly sustained injuries it was doubtful that he had seen and recognised the assailants. Accordingly the learned Sessions Judge held the various charges not established against the Respondents and acquitted them. 10. Having heard Learned Counsel for the State and for the Respondents at considerable length and having perused the evidence and circumstances appearing on the record we are of opinion that the findings of the trial Judge are not based on a reasonable appreciation of evidence and the acquittal of the Respondents has resulted in miscarriage of justice. 11. The learned trial Judge has acquitted the Respondents mainly on the following grounds: (a) The motive for the crime has not been established. (b) The presence of Bala Din and Daya Ram at the time of occurrence is highly doubtful. (c) Sheo Din is not an independent witness and testimony does not inspire confidence. (d) The presence of Smt. Sia Rani at the scene of occurrence is highly doubtful and although "Parmanand had no doubt sustained injuries some time on 26-2-1964, yet it is doubtful that he had seen and recognised the assailants either of his own or of his uncles." (e) As Parmanand's blood was not found in the field his having been injured there is doubtful. (f) The occurrence in question probably took place some time in the night and the assailants of the deceased could not be recognised. (g) That there is no evidence to prove that the bullock cart belonged to the deceased and that the blood found on it was human blood. 12. None of the aforesaid grounds, however, finds support from the evidence on record and we proceed to consider them seriatem. (Their Lordships then considered the grounds seriatem and proceeded:) 13. (g) That there is no evidence to prove that the bullock cart belonged to the deceased and that the blood found on it was human blood. 12. None of the aforesaid grounds, however, finds support from the evidence on record and we proceed to consider them seriatem. (Their Lordships then considered the grounds seriatem and proceeded:) 13. Again the finding of the trial Judge that although Parmanand had received injuries as is evident from the medical evidence on record he might have received them at some other place and not during the occurrence under consideration and that he was not in a position to recognise at all his own assailants or the assailants of his two uncles is to say the least wholly perverse being based on conjecture. It is difficult to believe that by a strange coincidence Parmanand received serious Injuries at some other place when his two uncles were being murdered in the field. In our opinion even if the statements of Daya Ram, Sheo Din and Bala Din are not taken into account for their presence being doubtful at the scene of occurrence the presence of injured Parmanand and his mother Smt. Sia Rani at the time of occurrence is established beyond doubt and their testimony which finds support from the medical evidence and circumstances on record leaves no room for doubt that Guman and Tutain were murdered in the field by these Respondents. The fact that one of the bullock carts was found on the scene of occurrence on the next morning by the Investigating Officer and the other cart was traced out two or three days after from an Arhar field and its portions had human blood stains lends powerful corroboration to the testimony of the aforesaid witnesses. It is true that the cor pus delecti has not been found but to sustain a charge of murder, the failure on the part of the prosecution to recover the dead body will not indicate that there was no murder if the other evidence is convincing to establish the crime. It is true that the cor pus delecti has not been found but to sustain a charge of murder, the failure on the part of the prosecution to recover the dead body will not indicate that there was no murder if the other evidence is convincing to establish the crime. In other words if the ocular testimony as corroborated by the circumstances is of such a character that it leaves no room for doubt that the murder has been committed and points out unmistakably as to who the murderers are the mere circumstance that the culprits had succeeded in disposing of the dead bodies in a clandestine manner to screen themselves from legal punishment should not stand in the way of their conviction as that will amount to giving benefit to wrong doers for their own wrongful acts. 14. In conclusion, therefore, we hold that, the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the various charges against the Respondents and they ought to have been convicted and sentenced by the trial court on those charges. 15. Accordingly this appeal is allowed. The acquittal of the Respondents as recorded by the trial Judge is set aside. Instead all of them are convicted u/s 302 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life. They are further convicted u/s 307 read with Section 149 IPC for causing serious injuries to Parmanand and u/s 201 IPC for causing the dead bodies of the victims to disappear with the intention of screening themselves from legal punishment and are sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment under each count. Respondents Amrit Lal, Hori Lal, Dhanpat, Amar Singh and Khalak Singh are further convicted u/s 148 IPC and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment each and Respondents Bhagwan Das and Sunder Lal are convicted u/s 147 IPC and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment each. The sentences of the Respondents under the various counts are directed to run concurrently. The Respondents are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled. They must surrender forthwith to serve out the sentences awarded to them by this Court.