JUDGMENT - PATIL KOLSE B.G., J.: - This criminal appeal is directed against the order dated September 26, 1979 of conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge under section 325 read with section 34, under section 201 read with section 34 and under section 323 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. At the admission stage, this Court had issued a notice dated November, 1979 to the appellants to show cause as to why the sentence imposed on them should not be enhanced. The criminal revision application referred to above was filed for enhancement of the sentence by the State on the same day. The same is being disposed of along with this criminal appeal by a common judgment. I have had the privilege of reading the judgment of my learned brother. My learned brother has allowed the appeal and dismissed the revision. Since I disagree with his views, I am giving this separate dissenting judgment. 3. The occurrence leading to the prosecution has resulted in the death of the victim, Suresh. Before narrating the facts and incident in question, it is necessary to mention the background of the present case. Both, accused No. 1 and the deceased were residing opposite each other at Shivaji Nagar Locality, Pune. Accused No. 2 is the maternal uncle of accused No. 1. Satish P.W. 6 was also residing in the neighbourhood of the deceased and accused No. 1. He appears to be the relation of the deceased. Shankar P.W. 10 and the deceased was residing separately in the same building. 4. Two years prior to the incident in question, accused No. 1 along with his parents and sister Vijaya were residing together at Shivaji Nagar. Accused No. 1 on account of his service had shifted his residence at Theur Sugar Factory. Accused No. 2 was also residing at Theur. Accused No. 2 was serving as a Conductor in Pune Municipal Transport. 5. Suresh and Vijaya were in love with each other for more than seven years prior to the incident. They had bound themselves with a promise to marry. They were openly going to pictures and used to move together, which was known to the parents of both. Accused No. 2 was serving as a Conductor in Pune Municipal Transport. 5. Suresh and Vijaya were in love with each other for more than seven years prior to the incident. They had bound themselves with a promise to marry. They were openly going to pictures and used to move together, which was known to the parents of both. Anandibai, the mother of Suresh had approached Sitabai, the mother of accused No. 1 and had requested her to give Vijaya in Marriage to Suresh a month or two prior to the incident. Sitabai, however, did not accept the said proposal. On the contrary, Vijaya's marriage was settled with one constable Waghmare's son. Suresh and Vijaya, however, did not approve of it. They were not ready to leave each other. Vijaya appeared to be firm about her decision to marry the deceased and therefore would not agree to any other proposal. 6. In the morning of January 22, 1979 Vijaya had gone to her brother accused No. 1 at Theur. On that account, about 12.00 noon Suresh requested Satish to accompany him to Theur. Satish very reluctantly agreed to the request made by Suresh. They went to Theur by a bus. They reached Theur at about 3.45 p.m. They met both the accused there at the bus stop only, Ashok, offered them tea. Accordingly, they took tea in a hotel at the bus stop. Ashok then took them to worship Ganesh Diety. After worshipping Lord Ganesh Ashok probably forced them to return to the bus stop, instead of taking them to his house to meet Vijaya. He then took them to drink liquor. Inspite of their refusal, Ashok persuaded them to have liquor. 7. Ultimately, they along with accused No. 2 sat in a bullock cart and went about two miles away where they alighted at a locality called Mangarudi Vasti. Ashok purchased a bottle of liquor. It was consumed by Ashok, Suresh and Satish. Another half bottle was purchased which was also consumed by the three. The liquor was purchased from P.W. 9 Rakhpasare. Pandurang, accused No. 2 however, did not take liquor. He therefore, asked for toddi. They then went to a toddi shop along the Solapur Road. Accused No. 2 purchased four bottles of toddi. Suresh and accused No. 2 only consumed the said toddi. Suresh then wanted to smoke a cigarette. The liquor was purchased from P.W. 9 Rakhpasare. Pandurang, accused No. 2 however, did not take liquor. He therefore, asked for toddi. They then went to a toddi shop along the Solapur Road. Accused No. 2 purchased four bottles of toddi. Suresh and accused No. 2 only consumed the said toddi. Suresh then wanted to smoke a cigarette. The cigarettes however, were not available there. All of them then went to a locality called Nikte Vasti and bought a cigarette packet of Charminar Brand from P.W. 7 Supekar. It was about 7.15 to 7.30 p.m. and all of them were fully drunk. Then both the accused prevailed on Suresh to have dinner. They, therefore, took Suresh and Satish towards the vasti of accused No. 2. On the way at the said vasti both the accused picked up two sticks. They started beating the deceased and Satish by sticks, kicks and fists blows. On account of the stick blows Satish received injuries on his fore head, back and left hand middle fingers. The injury on his fore head was bleeding. He, however, escaped from the cluches of the accused, and ran away. Both the accused however continued to beat Suresh with sticks in the wheat crop near the vasti of accused No. 2. Satish tried to seek held from the people in the neighbouring locality. He met P.W. 8 Maruti who, out-right refused to help them. Satish therefore, came to Pune on foot. 8. About 1 a.m. he reached his home in Pune and reported the incident to P.W. Shankar. He also ascertained that Suresh had not come home by that time. Satish, Shankar and one Sadba Jadhav then went to the place of incident by auto rickshaw. Neither Suresh not the accused were found at that place. They then went to the house of the accused No. 2 in the land in question. The accused were then warming themselves around the fire. They inquired with the accused about Suresh. The accused, however, gave evasive replies. After the said futile exercise they came back to Pune and found that Suresh had still not come home. They, therefore, again went to Theur in search of Suresh. They went to all the places which were pointed out by Satish such as Toddi Shop, liquor den, cigarette shop, etc. The accused, however, gave evasive replies. After the said futile exercise they came back to Pune and found that Suresh had still not come home. They, therefore, again went to Theur in search of Suresh. They went to all the places which were pointed out by Satish such as Toddi Shop, liquor den, cigarette shop, etc. They however, could not trace Suresh till 6.00 to 6.30 a.m. They then again returned to Pune. 9. About 12.00 to 12.30 noon Satish and Shankar went to the Police Station, Loni-Kalbhor. Satish lodged a complaint in the form of a missing report which was recorded by Vishwanath P.W. 15, Police Head Constable, under section 323 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. He treated the offence as non-cognizable one and asked Satish to seek redress in the Court of law. Vishwanath, however, gave Vadi for medical treatment of Satish to the Sasoon Hospital, Pune, On the same day probably at the same time, Shankar lodged a missing complaint in this behalf. 10. On January 26, 1979, Suresh's dead body was found floating in the well of one Navalakha situated along the Theur-Naigaon Road. The dead body was covered in a sak (gunny bag) and a stone of 20 kgs. was tied by means of a rope to the waist of the corpse. The body was taken out of the well. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were arrested on the same day under arrest panchanama Ex. 17. Clothes on the person of accused No. 1, (articles 2 and 4) and on the person of accused No. 2 (articles 5 and 6) were attached. The police Head Constable Vishwanath recorded the statement of Shankar P.W. 10 on the same day. On January 27, 1979 supplementary statement of Satish was recorded by PSI Dhimdhime P.W. 17. He then drew panchanama of the scene of offence (Exh. 23) and attached article Nos. 7, 8, 23 and 24 i.e. a stick, a piece of wood, a packet of Charminar Cigarettes and a button respectively. There were six cigarettes in the packet. All the articles seized under different panchnamas were sent to the Chemical Analyser on February 28, 1979 by a letter, an office copy of which is at Exh. 44. The Chemical Analyser's report is at Exh. 44. On March 28, 1979 charge-sheet Exh. 47 was submitted to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune. There were six cigarettes in the packet. All the articles seized under different panchnamas were sent to the Chemical Analyser on February 28, 1979 by a letter, an office copy of which is at Exh. 44. The Chemical Analyser's report is at Exh. 44. On March 28, 1979 charge-sheet Exh. 47 was submitted to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune. He committed the case to the Sessions Court. 11. The learned Sessions Judge tried the appellants under section 302 read with section 34, under section 201 read with section 34 and under section 323 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The defence of the accused was that of a total denial. The learned trial judge convicted both the accused for offences punishable under section 325 read with sections 34, 201 read with sections 34 and 323 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Each of the accused was sentence to suffer R.I. for four years, one year and one year respectively. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 12. The appellants and the State have challenged the said order in the Criminal Appeal and Criminal Revision respectively. 13. Mrs. Agarwal, the learned Counsel for the accused challenged the order of conviction mainly on two grounds. Firstly, according to her, the evidence of Satish P.W. 6 is full of contradictions and omissions. He has no regard for truth and oath. Secondly his evidence is not corroborated. Mrs. Rao, the learned Public Prosecutor also did not support the order of conviction and even the revision for the enhancement of the sentence awarded by the trial Court. 14. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the evidence of Satish read as a whole is truthful and natural. It is undoubtedly necessary to scrutinize the evidence keeping in view the deficiencies, draw backs and infirmities pointed out by Mrs. Agarwal, and evaluate them to find out whether they are against the general tenor of the evidence given by Satish. According to Satish, he knew the deceased and the accused since their childhood. Accused No. 1 had shifted his residence to Theur two years prior to the incident. His parents along with his sister Vijaya continued to stay at Shivaji Nagar. Accused No. 2 stayed at Theur. 15. According to Satish, he knew the deceased and the accused since their childhood. Accused No. 1 had shifted his residence to Theur two years prior to the incident. His parents along with his sister Vijaya continued to stay at Shivaji Nagar. Accused No. 2 stayed at Theur. 15. Suresh, the deceased was staying opposite the house of accused No. 1 and Satish was staying in the neighbourhood of Suresh. Suresh and Vijaya, sister of accused No. 1 had love affair for seven years and they had decided to marry each other. Anandibai, the mother of Suresh had proposed to Sitabai, the mother of accused No. 1 the marriage of Vijaya and Suresh. The proposal was made a month or two prior to the incident. Sitabai, however, did not accept the proposal. The love affair between the two continued even after the said rejection. 16. Which emerge from the deposition of P.W. 6 Satish the following facts/ are not disputed. About 12 noon on January 22, 1979 Suresh came to Satish and requested to accompany him to Theur as Vijaya had gone there that morning. With reluctance Satish accompanied him to Theur. About 3.45 p.m. they reached Theur. Both the accused met them at the bus stop. Accused No. 1 asked them to have a cup of tea. All of them had tea. Thereafter they worshipped Lord Ganesh. According to Satish further both the accused thereafter took Suresh and Satish to a distance of about two miles by bullock cart. Then they went to a camp called "Manggarudi Vasti". Accused No. 1 then purchased one and a half bottle of liquor. All of them except accused No. 2 consumed liquor. Accused No. 2 then took them to a toddi shop. He purchases four bottles of toddi and the same were consumed by accused No. 2 and the deceased only. Suresh then wanted to smoke a cigarette, but as cigarettes were not available, they went to Nikte Vasti. Satish at the instance of the deceased, purchased a Charminar Cigarette Packet. The accused then insisted on having dinner together. Suresh and Satish accordingly were taken to a wheat crop field. It is there that both the accused started beating the deceased and Satish with sticks and fists blows. Satish received stick blows on his head, back and left hand middle finger. He sustained a bleeding injury on his forehead. The accused then insisted on having dinner together. Suresh and Satish accordingly were taken to a wheat crop field. It is there that both the accused started beating the deceased and Satish with sticks and fists blows. Satish received stick blows on his head, back and left hand middle finger. He sustained a bleeding injury on his forehead. He however, escaped from the clutches of the accused. He tried to seek help from the neighbouring field owners. One of them was the hostile P.W. Maruti. He however did not succeed in the said mission. He then came to Pune on foot about 1 a.m. and rushed to Shankar P.W. 10 the paternal uncle of the deceased and told him about what had happened. Both of them alongwith one Sadba Jadhav then went to the place of offence by an auto rickshaw. They, however, could not trace the deceased. They went to the vasti of the accused where both the accused were warming themselves around the fire. Shankar inquired with the accused about the whereabouts of the deceased. They gave evasive replies. When they failed to trace the where abouts of the deceased, they went to the Loni-Kalbhor Police Station about 12.00 to 12.30 noon. Satish lodged the first information report Exh. 26 in the form of a missing report which was treated as non-cognizable complaint and Satish was asked to seek redress from the Court. Satish was, however, given yadi of the Sassoon Hospital for his medical treatment. Accordingly, medical treatment was given to him. 17. At this stage it is necessary to list the contradictions and omissions appearing in the evidence of this witness. The first contradiction is in respect of the relation of Satish with the deceased. In the F.I.R. he has stated that Suresh was related to him. He has, however, denied the relation with Suresh in Court. The second contradiction is in connection with the visit to the house of accused No. 1 on the date of the incident after they reached Theur. The third contradiction is regarding the place where accused No. 1 met them. The fourth contradiction is about the word "Pahune" that was addressed by accused No. 1 to Suresh. The fifth contradiction is about the fact of their consuming liquor at Bhill Vasti. The sixth contradiction is regarding the intoxication of Suresh, and Satish at Bhill Vasti. The third contradiction is regarding the place where accused No. 1 met them. The fourth contradiction is about the word "Pahune" that was addressed by accused No. 1 to Suresh. The fifth contradiction is about the fact of their consuming liquor at Bhill Vasti. The sixth contradiction is regarding the intoxication of Suresh, and Satish at Bhill Vasti. The seventh contraction is about the ignorance of Satish as to where the deceased went in the darkness of night. None of the contradictions listed above except the last one deserve consideration. Those contradictions do not touch the core of the main story of the prosecution. The last contradiction will be considered a little later. All other contradictions are with reference to the contents of the first information report Exh. 26. It is about the fact that Satish slept in his house after returning to Pune on that night. The contradiction is brought on record at Exh. 50. The following facts are not mentioned in the F.I.R. :- (1) the accused No. 2 was with them when they went to Bhill Vasti; (2) the accused No. 2 stated that he was not taking liquor but was taking toddi. (3) they went to the toddi shop; (4) accused No. 2 and Suresh had consumed four bottles of toddi; (5) the purchase of cigarettes; (6) accused No. 2 said that cigarettes were not available there; (7) they went to Nikte Vasti to purchase cigarettes; (8) Suresh gave Satish Rs. 20/- for purchasing cigarettes; (9) the beating given to Suresh and Satish was in the land; (10) Suresh had fallen down on getting the beating. Accused No. 1 had pressed the throat of Satish; (11) Satish did not tell P.W Maruti the hostile witness that the accused had beaten him and Suresh, Maruti did not allow satish to sleep in his house; (12) Satish along with Shankar and Sadba went to the house of accused No. 1 by a rickshaw on that night. That the accused were warming in front of the house of accused No. 1. That the accused were warming in front of the house of accused No. 1. (13) Shankar P.W. 10 enquired with the accused about the whereabouts of Suresh and they were told by accused No. 1 that nobody had come there; (14) Satish and Shankar had gone to Theur twice on that night; (15) Anandibai had proposed to Sitabai, the marriage of Vijaya and Suresh and Sitabai had not accepted this proposal; (16) Both the accused along with Suresh and Satish had gone by bullock cart to Bhill Vasti. The omissions listed above would show that they are of a minor nature and of trivial importance not touching the core of the case. They are matters of default and F.I.R. is not expected to contain them. This is particularly so in the present case because Satish's complaint was treated as a non-cognizable one. One can easily visualise the casualness with which the complaint must have been recorded by the Police Constable. It has to be noted in this connection that not a single omission has been brought on record in respect of the police statement of Satish recorded on 27-1-79. Though the presence of accused No. 2 is not referred to at Bhilla Vasti in F.I.R. his presence is abundantly proved at the time of the actual assault on Suresh and Satish. In my opinion no significance therefore can be attached to the omissions at Sr. Nos. 2 to 8. The omission at Sr. No. 9 is wrongly recorded by the learned Judge as there is mention of the place of beating in the F.I.R. The evidence of Satish is further strongly corroborated by the medical evidence on the point of actual beating or Suresh and Satish. The omission at Sr. No. 10 cannot be attached any importance. It refers to Satish, not the deceased. As regards omission at Sr. No. 11 P.W. Maruti has not supported the prosecution and therefore the omission is of no significance. The omissions at Sr. Nos. 12,13 and 14 would go to show the retural conduct of the relations of the deceased and therefore non-mentioning of them would not affect the credibility of the witnesses. The omissions in general and the omissions at Sr. Nos. 15 and 16 in particular are of minor details and the witnesses are not expected to give such details in a missing report. 18. The omissions in general and the omissions at Sr. Nos. 15 and 16 in particular are of minor details and the witnesses are not expected to give such details in a missing report. 18. For appreciating the contradictions and omissions referred to above, it is also necessary to remember the circumstances under which Satish along with Shankar had gone to the Loni-Kalbhor Police Station. After they failed to trace the deceased at Theur or at Pune, as a last resort they went to lodge a complaint in the form of missing report. At that time they could not have anticipated the murder of Suresh. They had, therefore, no reason to give all the details which are tried to be brought on record by the defence. Regarding the contradictions about the deceased leading the place of offence in fear of more beating, Satish had shown his inability to reply to the questions put to him by the Police Officer because he was unaware of it. Minor discrepancies of trivial nature do not touch the core of the case. A hyper technical approach in the appreciation of the evidence by taking a sentence here or there torn out of context must be avoided. Such approach in the present case will give undue importance to the technical errors committed by the constable who recorded the first information report in a very casual way. I am, therefore, not inclined to reject the evidence of Satish as a whole. Moreover, the learned Judge before whom Satish gave evidence had an opportunity to form an opinion about the general tenor of the evidence. In the absence of such an opportunity, I must attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the learned trial judge. According to me, there are no weighty and formidable reasons to discard Satish's evidence and, therefore, it will not be proper to reject his evidence on the ground of minor variations or infirmities. 19. According to our common experience, even an honest and truthful witness commits mistakes in giving evidence about the details, unrelated to the main incident. The illiterate witnesses lose their equilibrium in the atmosphere of the Court. Satish has studied only upto IVth standard. He cannot, therefore, stand on a better tooting than a rustic villager. The complaint further appears to have been lodged and recorded in very casual manner. The illiterate witnesses lose their equilibrium in the atmosphere of the Court. Satish has studied only upto IVth standard. He cannot, therefore, stand on a better tooting than a rustic villager. The complaint further appears to have been lodged and recorded in very casual manner. It would therefore not be proper to attach any importance whatsoever the omissions and contradictions referred to above. On the contrary, the evidence of Satish is simple and natural. There could not have been any better witness than Satish to prove the prosecution case. I have, therefore no hesitation in holding that Satish's evidence read as a whole bears in a ring of truth. As stated earlier, the defence could not bring out a single omission from his police statement except a contradiction of no significance which is recorded at Exh. 50 that too on a very minor point. The said police statement was recorded on January 27, only after the dead body of Suresh was found in the well. 20. Further, there is ample corroboration to the story given by Satish. According to satish, he purchased, at the instance of the deceased, the cigarettes from P.W. Supekar on the fateful night. Supekar though turned hostile, has admitted in his evidence that Satish had purchased cigarettes from him on that night. He, however, does not admit the presence of the accused and the deceased there. The fact is further corroborated by the finding of the cigarette packet contained six cigarettes. The wheat crop at the scene of offence was found trampled upon at two places, suggesting the marks of violence. But for the said scuffle, the wheat crop would not have been run over at the said places as mentioned in the panchanama Exh. 23. The trodden wheat crop coupled with the finding of sticks articles Nos. 7 and 8 and Charminar Cigarette Packet, supports the story narrated by Satish. 21. The finding of human blood of 'B' group of the deceased on the pyjama of accused No. 1 (article No. 3 before the Court) and article No. 7 C.A.'s report) and open shirt of accused No. 2 (article No. 6 before the Court and article No. 9 in C.A.'s report) has corroborated Satish's story qua each of the accused. 21. The finding of human blood of 'B' group of the deceased on the pyjama of accused No. 1 (article No. 3 before the Court) and article No. 7 C.A.'s report) and open shirt of accused No. 2 (article No. 6 before the Court and article No. 9 in C.A.'s report) has corroborated Satish's story qua each of the accused. Both the accused in reply to question No. 59 put to them under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code have no doubt thus tried to explain circumstance. According to accused No. 1 : "On 21-1-79 Sangita the daughter of accused No. 2 fell down and sustained a bleeding injury on the head. I lifted Sangita and took on my lap and then handed over to accused No. 2. The blood stains noticed on my said pyjama were of the blood of Sangita's injury. Sangita is aged 5 years." Accused No. 2 says as under : "On Sunday 21-1-79 my daughter Sangita aged 5 years fell down in the courtyard and sustained bleeding injury on the head. The accused No. 1 lifted her and took her on the lap and called me. I was inside the house. After I came out I took Sangita from accused No. 1 and held her near my stomach. The pant and the shirt on my person became stained with blood oozing from the injury of Sangita." The explanation according to me, is obviously false and connected one. The close scrutiny of the C.A.'s report Exh. 45 itself falsified the explanation of the accused No. 1. Pyjama article 7 has four blood stains of about 0.5. cms in diameter situated in right leg. According to him, he lifted Sangita, the daughter of accused No. 2 and took her on his lap. She, however, had sustained a bleeding injury on her head. In the first instance, there are only four blood stains of 0.5 cms. in diameter. He lifted Sangita and took her on his lap when a bleeding injury was caused on her head. The blood stains therefore would not appear like the blood stains in question. They would be in the form of patches and also bigger ones. They would not be so small in diameter. He then handed over Sangita to accused No. 2, who, according to him, held Sangita near his stomach. The blood stains therefore would not appear like the blood stains in question. They would be in the form of patches and also bigger ones. They would not be so small in diameter. He then handed over Sangita to accused No. 2, who, according to him, held Sangita near his stomach. The pant and shirt on his person, therefore, according to him were blood-stained on account of the blood from the injury of Sangita. This explanation is against false because the blood stains found on the shift article 6 were few, ranging from 1 to 0.5 cms. in diameter distributed mostly on front and cuffs. He has come out with a specific case that the blood was oozing out from the injury. However the blood stains in this case were distributed at various places and such type of blood stains were only possible if the blood had spurted out. Further, except their bare word, there is nothing to evidence their story. 22. From the aforesaid discussion, I have no hesitation to hold that the explanation given by both the accused is palpably false. Moreover, the resent of such type of blood stains supports the theory of the prosecution. The other submission of Mrs. Agarwal in this behalf that the blood group of the accused was not ascertained loses its significance for the simple reason that they did not come out with a case that it was their own blood. On the contrary, they have come out with the specific case as stated above which is found to be false. The other submissions of Mrs. Agarwal that nobody would wear the same clothes till the time of their arrest cannot be considered in view of the fact that the blood stained clothes which were attached from their person had blood of 'B' group. 23. The evidence of notice wrongly discarded by the learned trial judge is fully established by the prosecution. Satish in his evidence has stated that: "The room where Suresh was staying was in front of the room where the accused No. 1 was staying. Deceased Suresh and Vijaya, the sister of accused No. 1 were having love affair with each other. Suresh and Vijaya were having such love affair since about 7 years. Suresh and Vijaya were to marry each other. I know the mother of Suresh and her name is Anandabai. Deceased Suresh and Vijaya, the sister of accused No. 1 were having love affair with each other. Suresh and Vijaya were having such love affair since about 7 years. Suresh and Vijaya were to marry each other. I know the mother of Suresh and her name is Anandabai. The name of the mother of accused No. 1 is Sitabai. Anandabai had proposed Sitabai to give Vijaya in marriage to Suresh. That proposal was made a month or two prior to the death of Suresh. Sitabai did not accept the proposal made by Anandabai. The love affair between Suresh and Vijaya continued even after the proposal was rejected." That story is absent in the F.I.R. There is however, no omission to this effect in the police statement dated January 27th. Shankar P.W. 10 has stated in his evidence that : "There was love affair between Vijaya and Suresh. The love affair between Vijaya and Suresh continued for 6 to 7 years. Vijaya and Suresh were going to marry each other. One day the mother of Suresh called mother of Vijaya at her house. The name of mother of Vijaya is Sitabai. The name of mother of Suresh is Anandabai. Anandabai told Sitabai that since there was love affair between Suresh and Vijaya for 6 to 7 years, they should be married within a day or two. Sitabai did not accept this proposal of Anandabai. Sitabai told Anandabai that she was going to marry Vijaya with a son of her brother, 7 to 8 days after Sitabai refused the proposal of Anandabai, I came to know that Vijaya's marriage was decided to be performed with the son of one Constable Waghmare. The refusal of the proposal of Anandabai by Sitabai took place 10 to 15 days prior to the death of Suresh. Even after the refusal of the proposal the love affair between Suresh and Vijaya continued. Suresh and Vijaya used to wander together openly." 24. This evidence of both the witnesses has been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge on a very filmsy ground recorded in para. 20 of his judgment. According to him, there is a discrepancy of time of the proposal of the marriage made by Anandabai, the mother of Suresh to Sitabai, the mother of Vijaya. According to satish it was a month and according to Shankar it was about 10 to 15 days prior to the incident. 20 of his judgment. According to him, there is a discrepancy of time of the proposal of the marriage made by Anandabai, the mother of Suresh to Sitabai, the mother of Vijaya. According to satish it was a month and according to Shankar it was about 10 to 15 days prior to the incident. The learned Sessions Judge further says that the witnesses have failed to disclose the source of their knowledge about the proposal and its rejection. I fail to understand the logic of the learned Sessions Judge in this behalf. Nothing turned on the time as to when the proposal was made and rejected. The witnesses are related to the family of the deceased. Suresh and Satish appear to be very close friends. The source of their information is obvious. Nor was any question put to them in that behalf. On the contrary, their knowledge in this behalf is more probable and natural. On the fateful day when Suresh and Satish reached Theur, accused No. 1 very skilfully did not allow them to reach his house. He took them to the nearby hotel for a cup of tea then to other places. This shows that the accused did not want them to see Vijaya on that day and probably for ever, it appears that even the marriage of Vijaya was settled with one Waghmare. Suresh and Vijaya however were not willing to leave each other. I am, therefore, of the view that the accused had strong motive to get rid of the deceased. 25. Having once accepted Satish's version that he escaped from the assault when both he and Suresh were being beaten, it requires no imagination to infer that the deceased was further beaten to death by the accused. His body was then put in a gunny bag covering him upto the waist so that nobody would identify the dead body. It was also dumped in a well away from the scene of offence with a heavy stone tied to it weighting about 20 kgs with a view to delay the investigation. This, therefore, leads me to the only inference that the accused had beaten the deceased with the intention to commit his murder. No other inference is possible from the facts and circumstances of the case. This, therefore, leads me to the only inference that the accused had beaten the deceased with the intention to commit his murder. No other inference is possible from the facts and circumstances of the case. I, therefore, do not agree with the finding of the learned Sessions Judge that the accused only intended to give severe beating to the deceased. In the case, they would not have hatched the further planning of dumping the dead body of the deceased in the manner aforestated. 26. In my opinion, therefore, the prosecution has very successfully brought home the guilt of the accused under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. I, therefore, allow the revision Application No. 819 of 1979 filed by the State and modify the order of conviction recorded under section 325 read with section 34 by the learned Sessions Judge and record the conviction of both the accused under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 27. As I propose to award the minimum punishment prescribed under the law i.e. imprisonment for life, I do not think it necessary, in the interest of justice to hear the accused on the point of sentence. 28. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed and the revision is allowed. The order of the learned Sessions Judge is modified. The conviction under section 325 read with section 34 is converted to the conviction under section 302 read with section 34 of the Penal Code. The accused be sentenced to suffer R.I. for life. Appeal dismissed. -----