Short Note : 1. The relations between the appellant Kamta Pershad and the deceased Shrinarayan were highly strained. Appellant Kamta Pershad had promised to pay Rs. 4,000 to the appellant Premdas for committing the murder of Shrinarayan. On 22-2-1971 Shrinarayan was shot dead by Premdas. Appellants were convicted under section 302 IPC. Held : There is the statement that Rambali alias Premdas promised to kill Shrinarayan and that the appellant Kamta pershad undertook to pay Rs 4,000 as remuneration therefore Then it was stated that Rambali returned with a gun, told Kamta Pershad that he had returned after killing and then in answer to question No.4, Kamta Pershad told him that he should throw away the barrel and an iron rod in the tank. To the same effect is the evidence of the appellant Sawat as D. W. 2. There is no evidence that the gun of which the barrel was a part, was actually used in the commission of the offence. The evidence of Shri J. P. Nigam (P. W. 32), Ballistic Expert shows that he could not say whether the pellets extracted from the body of the deceased were fired from the gun, Art. H. There is no evidence that this very gun was used in the commission of murder within the knowledge of the appellant Sawat and whether he had thrown the barrel into the tank with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment. The appellant Sawat is the servant of the appellant Kamta Per shad and there is every possibility that he threw away the barrel and the iron rod at the instance of his master in usual course of duty and not with the intention of screening his master from legal punishment. This Court is of the view that the confessional statement and evidence of the appellant Sawat do not bring him under the clutches of section 201 IPC. Surajpal Singh v. State of M. P., 1972 JLJ 1008 , Mst. Bakhtawari v. Emperor, AIR 1930 All. 45, Jagla Kikla v. State, AIR 1962 Guzrat 225, Jamnadas Sindhi v. State, 1962 JLJ 194, Dadulla and others v State, 1961 JLJ 1250, relied on. 2. This Court has perused the evidence as well as the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge and find that the order of acquittal under section 120-B and other sections of the IPC of the other non-applicants is well reasoned. 2. This Court has perused the evidence as well as the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge and find that the order of acquittal under section 120-B and other sections of the IPC of the other non-applicants is well reasoned. 3. There has been no manifest illegality and interference is not called for in order to prevent gross mis-carriage of justice. D. Stephens v. Nosibolla, AIR 1951 SC 196 , Ramkishan Singh v. Harmit Kaur and another, AIR 1972 SC 468 , relied on Appeal allowed.