JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Sessions Judge Jhunjhunu, dated September 28, 1979 whereby he convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as under : 1. Under section 305 IPC or 302 read with section 34 IPC imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 300/-. In default of payment of fine to further suffer six months rigorous imprisonment. 2. Under section 201 IPC or section 201 read with section 34 IPC five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-In default of payment of fine to further suffer three months rigorous imprisonment. 3. Under section 397 IPC ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine to further suffer six months rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that on January 31, 1979, Leeladhar PW 20. S.H.O. police station, Jhunjhunu, along with his Deputy Superintendent of Police was going for investigation of a murder case. When they were stopped at Bus-stand, Shakhad by the certain persons they were informed that in the tank nearby certain meeting of a car, torn clothes foot mades and a Topa (head weer) were lying. These articles having been found in suspicious circumstances were seized by the Dy. S.P and a memo Ex_ P 27 was prepared. 3. On February 3, 1979, when the S.H.O. Leeladhar reached police station he was informed by Ram Singh PW 18. In-charge police :station Kotwali that on February 2, 1979 at 9.30 p.m. one Hari Kishan Kapoor had lodged a report about missing of one Laxmi Narain along with Car No. RJF 3432. This report is Ex. P 10. Alongwith this report Ram Singh handed over a letter written by the S.H2O. police station, Sadar Bikaner addressed to Leeladhar. This report Ex. P 10 was the effect that on Jannary 27, 1979 at about 7.15 p.m. Laxmi Narain driver had gone with his Ambassador Car bearing registration No. RJF 3432, 1966 model and deep sky colour which had been hired by one Kishore Singh of Kali Pahadi. Kishore Singh is said to have been accompanied by one more boy. Both these persons are missing with Laxmi Narain and the car and it was also mentioned that to the same effect information has also been given at police station No. 4, Bikaner. Kishore Singh is said to have been accompanied by one more boy. Both these persons are missing with Laxmi Narain and the car and it was also mentioned that to the same effect information has also been given at police station No. 4, Bikaner. When Leeladhar read this report he felt suspicious and went in search of the person at the tank where certain articles have been recovered on January 31, 1979. On February 4, 1979 at 1 p.m. one Hanuman Jat PW 2 informed the S.HO. that he had seen a dead body lying in a ditch near the Bus-stand and his one hand is visible. On this the Sub-inspector reached the spot alongwith the Dy. S.? PW 19 Karan Singh and got the dead body recovered which was identified by Hari Kishan Kapoor PW 5. The inquest memo of the dead body was prepared and the dead body was sent for post mortem examination which was conducted by PW I Dr. Girdhar Bhomiya who found the following injuries on his person : " 1- nksuksa ?kqVuksa ij lkeus dh rjQ [kjksapA 2- LVst cw.M xnZu ds ckbZ rjQ dU/ks ij xnZu ds ikj 4 AA bUp xgjk] frjNk ,d bUp yEck 1@8 bUp pkSM+k tks fd xnZu vkSj dU/ks ds ikl ihNs dh rjQ FkkA 3- LVsc cw.M 2 bUp xgjk ,d bUp yEck o 1@8 bUp pkSM+k tks fd ?kko ua0 2 ds ckbZ rjQ o mlesa 1 1@2 bUp nwj ihNs dh rjQ FkkA 'ko dks phjus ij ckbZ rjQ dk QSQM+s ds mij dh f>Yyh dVh gqbZ tks fd ckgj dh pksV la[;k 2 o 3 ls lEcfU/kr ( djliks.M ) Fkh ck;sa QSQMs+ dk mijh Hkkx dVk gqvk [kwu esa yFkiFk o ckbZ rjQ dh Nkrh ds vUnj [kqu Hkjk gqvk FkkA " It is pertinent to mention here that when the S.H.O. returned to the police station after completing the recovering the dead body and sending it for post-mortem examination he lodged the report Ex. P 31 at police station Jhunjhunu on February 4, 1979 at 8.00 p.m. 4. During the course of investigation the investigating officer went to Bikaner and from police station Sadar, Bikaner, obtained a report Ex P. 9 which was given to Superintendent of Police. Bikaner who had sent it to police station Kotegate and had also asked the S.H.O. to write a letter to S.H.O. Jhunjhunu. During the course of investigation the investigating officer went to Bikaner and from police station Sadar, Bikaner, obtained a report Ex P. 9 which was given to Superintendent of Police. Bikaner who had sent it to police station Kotegate and had also asked the S.H.O. to write a letter to S.H.O. Jhunjhunu. In this report Ex. P 9 dated February 1, 1979 it was mentioned that on February 27, 1979 at 7.15 p.m. his father told him that he was going to village Chhineri with the military personnel and would return on the following day. This Army Official was said to be taking meals in the fort saying this his father went towards fort, He did not return till night of January 28. 1979, therefore, it made the family members worried so on January 29, 1979, he went to one Mangej Singh, PW 6, and expressed his worry to him and asked him the where aborts of that Army personnel. Mangej Singh teld him that it was Kishore Singh is a resident of Kali Pahadi near Jhunjhunu. He was said to be a retired military personnel and was accompanied with a boy aged about 18 to 20 years. Kishore Singh had told him that he wanted to find out a service for the boy and he will leave him on his return from Chhineri where he was going to meet some of his relations. It was further alleged that Mangej Singh further told him not to worry since they might have been detained for some reason but when they did not return up to January 30, 1979, he again went to Mangej Singh 7 p.m. who told nim that he should go to Chhineri and find out the truth. Thereupon Mangilal went to Chhineri on motor-cycle with Veer Bhahadur PW 3 where they enquired from Mool Singh whose two daughters are married at Kali Pahadi. Mool Singh told Mangilal that he had no relations in the name of Kishore Singh and he had never come to his place, They returned to Bikaner on the night of January 31, 1979 and lodged this report. 5. The investigation was taken over from Leeladhar by Dy. S.P. Karan Singh PW 19 who went to Delhi for investigation and arrested the accused on March 17, 1979. 5. The investigation was taken over from Leeladhar by Dy. S.P. Karan Singh PW 19 who went to Delhi for investigation and arrested the accused on March 17, 1979. On the next day of the arrest, i.e., March 18, 1979 while under arrest the accused Kishore Singh gave an information to the effect that he has given the Car to a mistry Kashmirilal for denting, painting and engine works at Delhi and he can get the same recovered. In pursuance of this information memo the car was recovered on March 19, 1979 from the garage of Kashmirilal. The recovery memo Ex. P 20 was prepared. Again during the period when he was under arrest the accused gave on information on March 24, 1979, wherein he stated that he can get the property mentioned earlier in Ex. P 27. recovered. There was no question of this recovery since those goods had already been seized as mentioned on January 31, 1979, but the place was the same where the earlier seizure had been made. The investigating officer also recorded the evidence to the effect that the accused had been indulging in Jeep liftings earlier. After completion of investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-appellant and the boy whose reference came in the statement of Mangej Singh could not be apprehended. The charge-sheet was submitted in the court of the Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Jhunjhunu who committed the accused to the Court of Sessions for trial. At the trial the accused was charged with offence under sections 302, 201, and 394 IPC. He denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 6. The prosecution in support of its case examined 20 witnesses and thereafter the statement of the accused was recorded. The accused In his statement admitted his going to the mistry for denting, painting and repairing the car belonging to Laxmi Narain but he stated that he had merely accompanied two Army Officials from Delhi to the shop and he himself has nothing to do with the car in question. 7. The accused In his statement admitted his going to the mistry for denting, painting and repairing the car belonging to Laxmi Narain but he stated that he had merely accompanied two Army Officials from Delhi to the shop and he himself has nothing to do with the car in question. 7. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that (i) Laxmi Narain met a homicidal death (2) that the accused was in possession of the car CJF 3432 belonging to the deceased and that the same had been recovered on the information and at the instance of the accused and that the accused got the number plates, seat covers and colour of the car changed and finally he absconded after the occurrence. 8. The findings of the learned Sessions Judge have been challenged before us vehemently by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant. His submission is that the prosecution has miserably failed to connect the accused with the crime. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the statement of Mangej Singh does not corroborate the prosecution story. Secondly . there is no evidence worth the name to suggest that accused Kishore Singh at any stage hired the car recovered. It has further been contended that the accused is an Ex Army Personnel and his accompanying the Army Officers in Delhi is very natural. His defence, therefore, is that he never knew that the car is a stolen car and that its colour is being charged for the purpose of changing its identify and further that he has nothing to do with the car in question, had not given it for removal of denting nor colouring. He had only accompanied the Army Personnel's to the shop of the mistry and because he accompanied them he has falsely been involved in the case. 9. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has contended that the accused Kishore Singh is involved in car lifting from before, the evidence recording which has been placed on record that his going to Bikaner on January 27, 1979 is fully established. He had taken his meals with Mangej Singh in fort and then he had left in car. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has contended that the accused Kishore Singh is involved in car lifting from before, the evidence recording which has been placed on record that his going to Bikaner on January 27, 1979 is fully established. He had taken his meals with Mangej Singh in fort and then he had left in car. The incriminating evidence in shape of recovery of certain goods of the car and the car itself from a mistri at Delhi conclusively proves that it was the accused Kishore Singh and none else who had taken the car from Bikaner, killed the driver of the car on the way and after reaching Delhi he left the as with a mistry for changing its colour, number plates and seat covers and further that he remained absconding. It was also contended that the evidence of an orderly of an Army Officer at Delhi is to the effect that it was he who had taken him to the mistri and had a package deal for denting, colouring and repairing the engine of the car. It was thus contended that the irresistible conclusion is that the accused-appellant committed the murder of Laxmi Narain and ran away with the cat. Thus, according to the learned public Prosecutor the case is fully proved and the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court should be maintained. 10. We have given our earnest consideration to the rival contentions and perused the record carefully. 11. There is no direct evidence in this case to connect the accused with the murder of Laxmi Narain and the whole case is based on circumstantial evidence. We are aware of the law governing the cases of circumstantial evidence and are conscious of the fact that no link in the chain of circumstances should be missing and that the prosecution case should not admit on any other hypothesis than the one of guilt of the accused. 12. There is hardly any controversy about the death of Laxmi Narain and that his dead body was recovered from near the bus-stand in village Jeewa-ka-bas. The question is as to whether there is an evidence to connect the accused with the fact that it was he who has murdered or had showed common intention with the other body to murder deceased Laxmi Narain and placed the dead body in the manner it is recovered. The question is as to whether there is an evidence to connect the accused with the fact that it was he who has murdered or had showed common intention with the other body to murder deceased Laxmi Narain and placed the dead body in the manner it is recovered. Hence in this back-ground we would discuss the evidence on record. The first circumstance against the accused consists of his going to Bikaner on January 27, 1979. Mangilal PW 5 is son of deceased Laxmi Narain. He has stated that his father plies taxi No. RJF 3432. On January 27, 1974 at about 1 in the noon when he came home his father was taking meals. Since he was in need of money he asked his father to which he stated that he may take the money from his pant's pocket. He, therefore, took a hundred rupee note out of six notes lying in his pocket and went away. In the evening when he came home he enquired from his mother for the whereabouts of his father and she stated that he was told that he will go to village Chhineri. After sometime his father came and he enquired from him as to whether he had not gone to village Chhineri to which he replied that the person who had hired the car was taking his meals with one Mangej Singh PW 6 in the fort and mean while he had come to take a cup of tea. His father has told him that he will return on January 28, 1979, but when he did not come back up-to the morning of January 29, 1979, he went to Mangej Singh and enquired. Mangej Singh said that the car had been hired by one person from Kali Pabadi who has gone to Chinera for meeting some relations. He said that this man was also accompanied with a boy. Mangej Singh also informed him that those people will go Jhunjhunu straight from Chhineri. When his father did not come even up to January 30, 1979, he again met Mangej Singh but the answer was the same. He said that this man was also accompanied with a boy. Mangej Singh also informed him that those people will go Jhunjhunu straight from Chhineri. When his father did not come even up to January 30, 1979, he again met Mangej Singh but the answer was the same. Thereafter on January 31, 1979, this fact was again asked from Mangej Singh who told him to go to Chhineri where he went with Veer Bahadur Singh PW 3 and met one Mool Singh who stated that Kishore Singh of Kali Pahadi who had hired the Taxi, is involved in illegal transactions regarding Jeeps, hence it is difficult to trace out the driver and impossible to locate the Car. They returned to Bikaner and he told the entire story to his father-in-law Hari Kishan Kapoor at whose advice he moved an application to the Superintendent of Police which is Ex. P 9. His father-in-law told him that he will lodge the aforesaid report about missing of his father on February 2, 1979, when he goes Jhunjhunu. On February 5, his father's dead body was brought to his house and then he learnt that his father has been murdered. He also stated as to what was the clothes and other goods with his father when he had gone from Bikaner. This witness identified the car Article 12 to be one which his father was plying. 13. PW. 6 Mangej Singh, who though has been declared hostile by the court at the request of the public prosecutor, has admitted the fact that he knew the accused from before. He had come to Fort about 12 months back and from there he had left for Chhineri. He has stated that he would either go in a bus or a Taxi. He however does not know as to which particular vehicle he took for going to Chhineri, According to him the accused met him alone and he also stated that he does not know anybody in the name of Laxmi Narain Modi. He however, admitted that he know Mangilal PW. 5 who had met him four or five days after Kishore singh's leaving Bikaner. He however, stated that Kishore Singh did come to him but he had not seen any car. This witness when was confronted with the portion in his statement Ex. P. 13 before the police he denied to have made any such statement. 5 who had met him four or five days after Kishore singh's leaving Bikaner. He however, stated that Kishore Singh did come to him but he had not seen any car. This witness when was confronted with the portion in his statement Ex. P. 13 before the police he denied to have made any such statement. Veer Bahadur Singh PW. 3 has stated that on January 27, 1979, when he was standing outside his house Laxmi Narain was going towards his own house. He had Ambassador car which he used to ply on hire. He had a talk with him at that time and Laxmi Narain had told him that he was going to Chhineri with Army personnels. He has stated that his car is lying in the Fort and further that he was staying 100 yards away from the Fort. On January 31, 1979 Laxmi Narain Modi son of Mangilal came to his house and told him that his father had left Chhineri on January 27, 1979, but he has not returned till that date. This witness however, advised to wait for some time and further that his father had told him also that he was going to Chhineri. Mangilal thereupon asked him whether he can accompany him to Chhineri. Thereafter both of them went to Chhineri on a motor cycle where they met one Thakur Mool Singh and narrated the whole incident. Mool Singh told them that he has no direct relation with Kishore Singh but he knows him as his daughters had mulled in village kali Pahadi. He stated that Kishore Singh had not come to Chhineri and also that he alongwith Mangilal and Hari Kishan visited Jhunjhunu in a car where also he made a search but invain, hence the report of missing was filed. A perusal of the above three statements leaves no doubt in our mind that Kishore did visit Bikaner on January 27, 1979, and he told that he was going to village Chhineri and that Laxmi Narain went with Kishore Singh in his car which was hired by the former towards village Chhineri where actually they did not reach. A perusal of the above three statements leaves no doubt in our mind that Kishore did visit Bikaner on January 27, 1979, and he told that he was going to village Chhineri and that Laxmi Narain went with Kishore Singh in his car which was hired by the former towards village Chhineri where actually they did not reach. It is also borne out from the record that Kishore Singh had earlier made a plan that he may even not go to village Chhineri, and it was for them that he told Mangej Singh that he may go to Jhunjhunu straight from Chhineri. Thus the first circumstance that Kishore singh went to Bikener, contacted Mangej Singh and went with one more boy in the car with Laxmi Narain deceased is fully established. It is also established that a hot search was made about Laxmi Narain from Jan. 29, 1979, morning till the date the body was recovered and that Mangi lal had gone to village Chhineri and Mool Singh to find out the whereabouts of his father who 1s alleged to have gone with Kishore Singh.The circumstance that Mangilal accompanied with Veer Bahadur went to the place of Thakur Mool Singh whose daughters have been married in Kali Pahadi, is a circumstance in favour of the prosecution to infer that it was none other than Kishore Singh who had gone to Bikaner and left in the car belonging to Laxmi Narain on a pretext that he was going to Chhineri where in fact he did not go. The above facts also found corroboration from the statement of Hari Kishan Kapoor who is father-in-law of Mangilal and to whom Mangilal on January 29, 1979 narrated the fact about his father taking the taxi to village Chhineri and when he did not return again up to January 31, 1979 he again informed this witness and thereafter on February 1, 1979 they went to Superintendent of Police, Bikaner alongwith one Professor Nag and at the advice of the latter the application was given at police station No. 4 which is Ex. P 9. Learned counsel for the accused appellant admitted that Ex. P 9 is lacking in many details and there are no cross checks about its correctness. It is pertinent to mention that the purpose of filing the report Ex. P 9. Learned counsel for the accused appellant admitted that Ex. P 9 is lacking in many details and there are no cross checks about its correctness. It is pertinent to mention that the purpose of filing the report Ex. P 9 was only to inform the police that Laxmi Narain was missing with the Taxi and all facts concerning the details about any other factor except the missing of the vehicle was not necessary to be mentioned in this report. We have perused this report and are fully convinced that it has all the necessary details required in a report regarding missing of a person with the Taxi and all facts concerning the detail about any other factor except the missing of the vehicle was not necessary to be mentioned in this report. We have perused this report and are fully convinced that it has all the necessary details required in a report regarding missing of a person with the vehicle. Learned counsel for the accused appellant also made a criticism about the testimony of Mangej Singh and submitted that since he has been declared hostile and does not corroborate Mangilal in all material particulars his testimony should be discarded as a whole. We are unable to accept this contention since we are placing reliance on that part of the statement of Mangej Singh which finds corroboration from the other witnesses and we have relied on him to the extent that Kishore Singh did visit Bikaner, had his meals with Mangej Singh and told that he will go to village Chhineri either by bus or a taxi and in our considered opinion those facts ate enough to connect the accused appellant with the fact of Kishore Singh's going with Laxmi Narain in latter's taxi. 14. The next set of evidence consists of statement of Radha Mohan PW 10, Kishorilal PW 11 William Toffin PW 12. Ram Gopal PW 13, Khairatilal PW 14 and Beharilal PW 15. PW 10 Radha Mohan has stated that it was either on 29th or 30th January, 1979 the accused accompanied with one Sukhanand came to his shop where he carries on the business of spray, painting of scooters. He had an Ambassador car which he himself was driving and that he wanted the car to be coloured. The car which was brought was of light blue colour and its registration number was RJF 3432. He had an Ambassador car which he himself was driving and that he wanted the car to be coloured. The car which was brought was of light blue colour and its registration number was RJF 3432. Sukhanand has stated that the accused had come from outside and wanted his car to be painted to which he said that he only deals with Scooters and it is William and Kashmiri lal who were doing denting as well as colouring the cars. He therefore, took them to the shop of Kashmiri Lal and William. At the time when this car was being taken to William's garage then it was being driven by the accused Kishore Singh. Kashmiri Lal PW 11 has stated that he has a workshop of denting on Ansari Road. Delhi and with him also works Shiv Behari lal who is mechanic. Attached to this workshop is workshop of William who is doing the colouring business of cars. The accused had come to his shop soon after January 26, 1979 for getting the colour changed and he was accompanied with two Army Personnel's and Radha Mohan who stated that those persons were known to him and their work should be done. A bill for completing the denting, painting and other miscellaneous work was finalised at Rs. 1350/-. Thereafter the accused left the car on the next day. Accused on that day had gone back with the car and returned the next day and left it for service. Thereafter, the delivery of the car was not taken by the accused till February 12, 1979, and the police came to recovery this car and the police was accompanied with the accused. This witness in his cross examination has stated that they do not take the cars of strangers for changing the colour and he had accepted it because the accused was accompanied by the local Army Personnel's. This man however, admitted that he was not knowing the Army Personnel's from before but the car was accepted for colouring because these people were accompanied by Radha Mohan who is having the same trade of colouring the scooters. William Steefan, PW 12, Ram Gopal PW 13 and Khairatilal PW 14 have also established the presence of the accused soon after January 26, 1979 along with this car. William Steefan, PW 12, Ram Gopal PW 13 and Khairatilal PW 14 have also established the presence of the accused soon after January 26, 1979 along with this car. We need not discuss their evidence in details because it is pertinent to mention that the accused in his statement recorded under section 313 Cr. PC has stated that he was in Delhi on January 26, 1979 where two Army personnel's told him that they wanted their vehicle to be repaired and told him also that as soon as he understands in vehicles he should get the estimate prepared for repairing the vehicle avid it is for this purpose that he had taken the car to the aforesaid persons, namely, Radha Mohan Kashmirital and William. The accused further stated that he would have got Rs. 200/- in this task. He stated that he stayed in Delhi for some time and thereafter he went towards Nagad where his brother-in-law stays. He has stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case. A perusal of the aforesaid statements with the statement of the accused leaves no room for doubt that the accused was in possession of this vehicle in Delhi soon after it has been taken from Bikaner. The explanation of the accused that it was some Army personnel's who were in possession of this vehicle and who wanted it to be repaired for which his services were sought, is in our opinion an absolutely false explanation. It was within the special knowledge of the accused as to who were those Army personnel's who were in possession of the vehicle and who asked him to take the vehicle for denting and colouring and he could have named those personnel's to the police or atleast could have pointed out as to where they were putting up in Delhi. He has deliberately not named any person in this respect and this leads us to believe that the accused is not only trying to suppress the facts but is trying for misleading the court. A perusal of his statement along with the statements of the prosecution witnesses is enough for legitimately inferring at the accused who himself is an Ex. Army personnel sought the services of some other Army men in Delhi to ask the car repairer to do the needful since the colour of the car otherwise could not have been changed in Delhi. Army personnel sought the services of some other Army men in Delhi to ask the car repairer to do the needful since the colour of the car otherwise could not have been changed in Delhi. This circumstance, therefore, that the accused was found in Delhi with the car removed from Bikaner is fully established. 15. The aforesaid two circumstances combined together coupled with the explanation of the accused leaves no doubt in our mind that accused fully knowing deliberately ditched Laxmi Narain took his car on pretext for going to Chhineri and robbed him of the car and thereafter got it completely renovated so that it could not be identified subsequently and thus the ingredients for the offence of robbery are fully satisfied in the instant case. 16. Now the question remains is whether this report can lead us to infer as to whether it was the accused who committed the murder of Laxmi Narain ? In a case like the present where a person is indulged in business of illegal transactions of vehicle as is evident from other evidence placed on record in the shape of affidavit of Kishore Singh PW 26 as proved by Shafi Mohammed PW 17, the evidence has to be carefully scrutinised and the intention of the accused has to be inferred from the circumstances in which the robbery has been committed. Once it is established that the accused was accompanied by one more person and had taken the vehicle from Bikaner on a false pretext that he had to go Chhineri but had taken it to Delhi for renovating so as to make it unidentifiable, compels us to believe that the accused had in his mind from before that they may do away with the driver on the way for removing the car and this is fortified from the injuries which the deceased sustained in this case. Laxmi Narain had a stab wound on his neck on the left side of shoulder 41/2" deep but was 1" in length and ⅛" in width. This was on the back side of the neck and shoulder. The second injury was also 1" long ⅛" wide and 2" deep 11/2" away from the aforesaid injury. These external injuries had gone up to the lungs and were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death. This was on the back side of the neck and shoulder. The second injury was also 1" long ⅛" wide and 2" deep 11/2" away from the aforesaid injury. These external injuries had gone up to the lungs and were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death. Infliction on the stab wounds from behind shows that either the accused or his companion in the vehicle occupied the realat of the car and inflicted the aforesaid injuries so that the deceased may die while on the steering wheel and they could remove the vehicle. The existence of the blood on seat covers, paidan, mat and clothing's of the deceased are available from where the dead body was recovered. All go to show that murder has been committed while the driver was on seat and his dead body has thereafter been taken out and concealed. In this respect the recoveries made in pursuance of information Ex. P 30 and consequent to that recovery Memo Ex. P 23 strengthens on inference. Thus, we are of the opinion that it was either the accused or his companion/companions who were responsible for the murder of Laxmi Narain. The accused Kishore Singh is responsible for the constructive liability of committing the murder of Laxmi Narain as he had shared the common intention if not did it himself. Since we are unable to come to a definite conclusion as to whether he or his companion had actually inflicted the injuries but we are certain in our conclusion that it was a case of sharing the common intention and the accused cannot escape the liability. His subsequent conduct in caused the disappearance of the evidence on record is a further fact which leads us to arrive at an irresistible conclusion that he participated in the crime. in view of our findings as mentioned above, the trial court was justified in convicting the accused for offence under sections 397, 302 and 201 IPC and we affirm the findings of the trial Court. 17. In the result, we find no force in this appeal and dismiss the same.Appeal dismissed. *******