(1) THIS appeal filed by the two appellants. Gajalaxmi and Bukthavalsalam alias Vatsala (A-2 and A-1 is directed against the judgment and order of the division bench of Madras High court, under which A-1s conviction under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and A-2s conviction under Sections 302/109 and 201, Indian Penal Code have been confirmed. The case mainly rests on the evidence of P. W. 1, the approver. (2) THE deceased Lakshmi Ammal was the mother of P. W. 2 (Ethiraj) who is the husband of the second appellant. P. W. 2 was working in the Heavy Vehicles Factory at Avadi. The second appellant comes from Bangalore, where her parents and brothers are living. She was given in marriage to P. W. 2 on 26/11/1972. It appears from the beginning the deceased did not take kindly to the second appellant and she was constantly nagging her. The prosecution examined several witnesses who spoke about the hostility between the deceased and A-2. (3) ACCORDING to the prosecution, P. W. 1 the approver who belonged to Bangalore took to bad ways and used to indulge in thefts and, therefore, he was driven out of home and thus he was a wayward youth. He became friendly with the first appellant who suggested that P.W. 1 may come along with him to Madras. The first appellant told P. W. 1 about the second appellant and the ill-treatment meted out to her by the deceased. According to the prosecution, the ill-treatment of the second appellant continued and the second appellant began saying openly that her life was being ruined by Lakshmi Ammal the deceased. Thus, the constant nagging and ill-treatment by Lakshmi Ammal of the second appellant had provoked the two appellants to conspire and do away with her with the assistance of P. W. 1-the approver. This is said to be the background for committing the murder of the deceased. (4) THE prosecution examined several witnesses who spoke about the movements of A-1 and P.W. 1 and the same has been accepted by both the courts below and it may not be necessary for us to again traverse the same. Now, coming to the occurrence as such. On 19-1 1-1978, it is said that A-1 and P.W. 1 occupied a room in a lodging house at Madras. At about 3 p.m. on 20-1 1-1978. P. W. 1 and the first appellant started for Avadi. Now, coming to the occurrence as such. On 19-1 1-1978, it is said that A-1 and P.W. 1 occupied a room in a lodging house at Madras. At about 3 p.m. on 20-1 1-1978. P. W. 1 and the first appellant started for Avadi. They took M. O. 1 and 2 the rope and the two sets of gloves along with them and reached Avadi at about 6 p.m. Thereafter they went to the house of P.W. 2. As per prior arrangements, P. W. 1 and A-l entered the house with the help of A-2. When the deceased was going towards puja room, P. W. I, the approver sprang on her and held her mouth closely shut with his right hand. Accidentally the right little finger got caught in the mouth of Lakshmi Ammal and she bit the finger of P. W. 1. However, P. W. 1 did not loosen his grip. A. 1 tried to strangulate the deceased with the rope while P. W. I was keeping her mouth shut with his hands. Thus they managed to silence her and thereafter A-1 took out a razor and cut the neck of the deceased as a result of which the deceased died. The first appellant opened the bureau and both P. W. 1 and the first appellant took away some valuables, including some ornaments. Thereafter they closed the door of the house and left the place of occurrence. (5) SUBSEQUENTLY. P. W. 1 and A-1 were arrested and since P. W. 1 was in a mood to confess the guilt, he was produced before the concerned magistrate and after completion of necessary formalities his confession was recorded and he was thus figured as P. W. 1 in the case. Both the courts have examined the evidence of P. W. 1 in detail and categorically held that his version is true and he could be taken as a reliable witness and thus satisfied the double tests. Now coming to the corroboration part of it. So far as A-1 is concerned, the prosecution relied on the evidence of medical witnesses. The doctor (P. W. 22 who conducted the autopsy found a clear-cut wound running from left side to right side and as per P. W. Is version, the first appellant cut the neck of the deceased with the razor. So far as A-1 is concerned, the prosecution relied on the evidence of medical witnesses. The doctor (P. W. 22 who conducted the autopsy found a clear-cut wound running from left side to right side and as per P. W. Is version, the first appellant cut the neck of the deceased with the razor. P. W. 22 further opined that MO-1, the razor could have caused such injuries. The prosecution also relied on the evidence of P. W. 10-a pan broker of Bangalore who deposed that A-1 and P. W. 1 visited his shop and sold out a chain for Rs. 2,200.00. Though in certain aspects this witness gave answers which do not support the prosecution case. but. so far as pledging part is concerned, his evidence is believed by both the Courts below. P. W. 11 is another pan broker of Bangalore who spoke about the purchasing of MO- 6 (jewellery) from A-1 and P. W. 1 .Thereafter, there is evidence of P. W. 36 who spoke about the move- ment of A-1 and P.W.1 together and trying to evade arrest. The evidence of P. Ws. 37 and 46 shows that the first appellant and P.W.1 used to visit Jayashankar Lodge. Then, there is also evidence of P. W. 52, the Inspector of Police who arrested them on 29-12- 1978 at the central Railway Station, Madras when they were about to board the Bangalore bound train. The statement OF A-1 under Section 27, Criminal Procedure Code was recorded and at his instance, MOs. i, e. razor, wrist watch and some other articles were recovered from the pan broker. Thus. there is ample corroboration of P. W. 1s evidence so far as culpability of the first accused is concerned. (6) SO far as the second accused is concerned, we find there is no such corroboration which lends assurance in respect of her guilt. It may be mentioned here that the second appellant was convicted under Section 302/109, Indian Penal Code Except P. W. 1s evidence which is to the effect that A-2 told him about the ill-treatment meted out to her by the deceased and her desire to get rid of her, there is no other acceptable evidence which in any manner corroborate the evidence of P. W. I for convicting A-2 under Section 302/109. Indian Penal Code A-2 was also convicted under Section 201 on the ground that she gave a false report to the Police. We, however, find that under the circumstances, it cannot be definitely said that she gave such a complaint only to screen the offenders or to cause disappearance. If Section 302/ 109, Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained, then it is difficult to say that A-2 intentionally gave a false report causing her disappearance. (7) WE have perused the judgments of the courts below and we are satisfied that so far as the first accused (Bakhtavatsaiam) is concerned, the evidence of P.W.1. the approver is amply corroborated and. therefore, no interference is called for. So far as the case of A-2 (Gajalaxmi) is concerned, we find there is no sufficient corroboration to sustain the conviction either under S.302/109 or 201, Indian Penal Code In the result, the appeal is dismissed so far as the appellant Bakhtavatsaiam (A-1 is concerned and is allowed so far as the appellant Gajalaxmi (A-22 is concerned.