(1) THIS appeal by spcial leave is directed against a judgment of the High court in an appeal preferred by the State to challenge the conviction of the appellants under S. 304 Part II Indian Penal Code instead of under S. 302 Indian Penal Code by the Additional Sessions Judge, Poona. the Additional Sessions Judge convicted appellant l under S. 304 Pareil IPC and the second appellant under S. 304 Part II read with S. 109 Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo RI for seven years and fine of Rs. 1,000.00 and RI for two years and fine of Rs. 500.00 respectively. The High court set aside the convictions of the two accused for the lesser offence and convicted them under S. 302 Indian Penal Code and S. 302 read with S. 109 Indian Penal Code respectively and sentenced both of them to suffer imprisonment for life. Against the judgment of the High court the appellants have preferred this appeal. (2) THE facts of the case are not disputed and the oniy controversy in the appeal is regarding the nature of the offence committed by the two appellants. (3) THE prosecution case which has been accepted by the Sessions Judge as well as the High court is to the following effect. Deceased Papa had sent a sum of Rs. 398.00 on 24/01/1974 through his employe Public Witness 10 to purchase ganja from the shop of appellant l. While the ganja was being purchased, the shop was raided by the police and they seized the ganja as well as the sum of Rs. 398.00 sent by Papa. Public Witness 10 was also taken into custody but after being released on bail, he informed Papa as to what had happened. On 27/01/1974, Papa demanded retum of thp sum of Rs. 398.00 by appellant l. Appellant l asked Papa to meet him at his house half an our later. Accordingly, when Papa went there, appellant 2 caught hold of his hands from behind and appellant l repeatediy stabbed Papa with a knife having a blade of 6 inches length uttering the words take this money, take this money. 398.00 by appellant l. Appellant l asked Papa to meet him at his house half an our later. Accordingly, when Papa went there, appellant 2 caught hold of his hands from behind and appellant l repeatediy stabbed Papa with a knife having a blade of 6 inches length uttering the words take this money, take this money. As many as five injuries were inflicted on vital parts of the body of Papa and all the time appellant 2 kept his hold on Papa and thus effectively prevented him from running away or warding off the stabs inflicted on vital parts of his body. On receipt of the stab injuries Papa met with instantaneous death. the occurrence was witnessed by Public Witness 9 and he ran to a place nearby where Public Witness 10 and other witnesses were seated and brought them to the scne. (4) WHILE the vidence regarding the murderous attack on Papa by appellants l and 2 in the manner set forth above was clear and clinching, the Sessions Judge formulated a theory of his own to conclude that the offence committed by the two appellants would oniy constitute an offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and not murder itself. the Sessions Judge, without there being any basis in the vidence for it, proceeded to act on surmises and conjectures and presumed that a heated altercation must have ensued when Papa went to collect the money, that Papa must even have had a tussie with appellant l and caused the abrasions found on him and that in the heat of the quarrel appellant l must have stabbed Papa under grave and sudden provocation and as such he cannot be held to have caused PapaS death with an inten-tion to cause death or to cause such injuries as would be sufficient m the ordinary curse of nature to cause death. By means of such specious reasoning, the Sessions Judge brought down the offence committed by appellant l to one under S. 302 Part II Indian Penal Code and the offence com-mitted by appellant 2 to one under S. 304 Part II read with Section 109 Indian Penal Code and awarded RI for seven years and two years respectively besides imposing fine amounts on them. (5) THE High court after subjecting the vidence to a careful scrutiny and noticing The manner in which The appellants had attacked Papa after asking him to corne home to collect The money claimed by him and The nature of The weapon used and the serious nature of the injuries caused on him by accused l repeatediy stabbing him and accused 2 effectively abetting the commission of the offence by keeping a tight hold on his hands till all the stabs were inflicted, came to the conclusion, and in our opinion very rightly, that the offence committed by the two accused clearly amounted to murder punishable under S. 302 IPC. (6) MR. T.S. Arora, leamed counsel for the appellants sought to contend that the view taken by the Sessions Judge is a plausible view and as such the High court should not have altered the conviction of the appel-lants to one under Section 302 IPC. We find no merit in the argument because the view taken by the Sessions Judge regarding the nature of the offence committed by the appellants is in flagrant violation of the vi-dence adduced in the case and the Sessions Judge has acted on a theory evolved by him on his own surmises and conjectures. the High court was therefore fully justified in allowing the appeal preferred by the State. Consequently, we find no merit in the appeal and accordingly dismiss it. the appellants who are on bail shall surrender thernselves to custody for serving out the sentence failing which they shall be arrested and placed in custody.