Per T.K. CHANDRASHEKHARA DAS, J.:-By the impugned judgment the Additional Sessions Court, Greater Bombay, found both the appellants guilty for offence under section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. and each were convicted to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for 6 months. They were also convicted of the offence punishable under section 201 read with 511 and 34 I.P.C. but no separate sentence was passed. Accused No. 1 filed Criminal Appeal No. 556/92 and accused No. 2 filed Criminal Appeal No. 193/93. Mrs. Saxena, Counsel who filed appeal on behalf of accused No. 1 has not appeared and argued before us. However, Mrs. Kamath, appointed by the State for accused No. 2 in Criminal Appeal No. 193/92 has appeared and argued the case for both the accused. Since both the appeals arise out of a single judgment of the trial Court, we have heard and disposed of the above two appeals by this common judgment. 2. The charge against the accused was that while both the accused were living in a hut at Ramabai Nagar hutments, Bhandup (West), Bombay 400 078, between the midnight of 30-1-1988 and 01.00 A.M. of 31-1-1988, with the common intention, both of them intentionally and knowingly killed Yadav Sahaji Gayasamandir, the husband of accused No. 1, by means of assaulting him with a heavy grinding stone (pata) and other inhuman physical torture and thereby both of them committed an offence of murder punishable -under section 302 I.P.C. 3. The prosecution case can be briefly stated as follows : The deceased Yadav Sahaji Gayasamandir lived in a hut, having the walls of tin sheets, partitioned into two parts, by a curtain at Ramabai Nagar hutments, Bhandup (West), Bombay 400 078. In the northern portion of this hut, the deceased along with his wife Suman Yadav Gayasamandir, accused No. 1, and his two children of less than 5 years of age was living. His elder son aged about 8 years used to live with his father-in-law in a hutment of Kanjurmarg. The deceased was a labourer. His wife accused No. 1, used to serve as a labourer in a Steel Supplying Company at Kanjurmarg. His elder son aged about 8 years used to live with his father-in-law in a hutment of Kanjurmarg. The deceased was a labourer. His wife accused No. 1, used to serve as a labourer in a Steel Supplying Company at Kanjurmarg. According to the prosecution, about 3 years prior to the incident accused No. 2 came to Bombay and happened to serve as a watchman in the laboratory of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission, which is situated near the working place of accused No. 1. Accordingly, the two accused came in contact at their place of work and their relationship grew up into an illegitimate connection. About 8 to 9 months prior to the date of the incident. Accused No. 2, who hails from Nagewadi, Khanapur, District Sangli, came and lived in the southern portion of the tenement of the deceased, on rent. Accused No. 2 was married about six years prior to the incident and 2 to 3 years after the marriage he deserted her. On 18-11-1987 he again married P.W. 7 Rekha and lived at Nagewadi for a fortnight and thereafter lived in the rented room belonging to the deceased only for a period of one month. During that period P.W. 7, Rekha noticed that the accused No. 2 and accused No. 1 used to have food together in the same thali, used to go out of the hut together, work together and used to return home together. Consequently P.W. 7 Rekha, wife of accused No. 2, suspected that the two accused were having illicit relations though both of them posed that they were brother and sister. Since accused No. 2 ill-treated Rekha P.W. 7 she went to live with her father P.W. 15 Antu Keshav Karande, near Sion Hospital. 4. On 30-1-1988 at about 5.00 p.m. accused No. 1 Suman returned to her house. At about 10.00 p.m. the deceased returned to his house from his place of work. The two accused by hitting with a grinding stone, on the head of the deceased, while he was asleep, committed his murder. They put the dead body of the deceased in a trunk. At about 10.00 p.m. the deceased returned to his house from his place of work. The two accused by hitting with a grinding stone, on the head of the deceased, while he was asleep, committed his murder. They put the dead body of the deceased in a trunk. With a plan to throw away the trunk and destroy the evidence of the offence of murder they in the next morning, i.e. on 31-1-1988 brought the trunk to the door of the room of the accused No. 2 with the assistance of two persons including P.W. 5 Shashikant Kadam. Accused No. 2 took the trunk on his head, but because of the heavy weight he did not dare to take it to a longer distance. Therefore the trunk was kept in the room itself. It is further the case of the prosecution that the accused No. 1 visited the house of her father at Kanjurmarg, left her kids there, telling that her husband was missing from the previous day evening and wanted to go in search of him. Both the accused then approached the brother of accused No. 1 seeking monetary help for leaving Bombay. Since he had no money the brother of the accused No. 1 handed over one golden ring to the accused they sold that ring on the same day for Rs. 1,200/- at the shop of Shital jewellers in Kurla locality. 5.On 1-2-1988 since the accused No. 1 did not return to their house, the father and mother of the accused No. 1 were crying. At about 7.30 p.m. accused No. 1 came to the house of her father. P.W. 6 Shantabai Suryagandh, P.W. 17 Kesharbai Sathe and some other women folk gathered there. P.W. 6 Shantabai Suryagandh questioned accused No. 1 when accused No. 1 confessed that while she was asleep on 30-1-1988 night the accused No. 2 by hitting a grinding stone on the head of the deceased committed his murder and there after both of them kept the dead body of the deceased in the trunk which was kept in her house. 6.It is in the evidence of P.W. 2 P.S.I., Ramesh Chango Patil, that while he was on station house duty at Bhandup Police Station, at 11.15 p.m. on 1-2-1988, accused No. 1 came to the police station and reported that her husband was missing since 30-1-1988 evening. 6.It is in the evidence of P.W. 2 P.S.I., Ramesh Chango Patil, that while he was on station house duty at Bhandup Police Station, at 11.15 p.m. on 1-2-1988, accused No. 1 came to the police station and reported that her husband was missing since 30-1-1988 evening. He thereafter made a report in the station diary and entered the description of the missing person. Accused No. 1 thereafter went away and within just 20 minutes at about 11.35 p.m. she again came back and told the police officers present there that some foul smell was coming out of her room. P.W. 2 P.S.I., Ramesh Chango Patil became suspicious of her conduct and along with Police Inspector Jahangirdar followed her with a photographer and petromax. When they reached the northern door of the hut they found that the said door was closed from inside and southern door was locked from outside. When they asked for key accused No. 1 stated that she is not having the key. However, they broke open the lock and entered the southern room. They noticed one iron trunk covered with a quilt in the verandah of that room. The room gave a foul smell. They opened the lid of the trunk and it was found to contain a dead body of a male person. The fact of the dead body had disfigured. P.S.I. Patel called panchas in the presence of panchas the dead body was removed out of the trunk and it was identified as that of the deceased, Yadav Sahaji Gayasamandir, by the accused No. 1 and other persons presenting in the neighbouring houses. P.S.I. Patil prepared the panchanama and attached the lungi muddemal Article No. 3, quilt muddemal Article No. 6 and the trunk muddemal Article No. 1. The lungi was found in the trunk and the quilt was used to cover the trunk. He also connected samples of earth mixed in blood. Accused No. 1 was arrested on 2-2-1988 and the offence was registered. 7.The investigation of the case was taken up by P.W. 12 Police inspector Humayuddin Jahangirdar. He drew the panchanama of the scene of offence attached the quilt and the grinding stone which had blood stains under panchanama. He also connected samples of earth mixed in blood. Accused No. 1 was arrested on 2-2-1988 and the offence was registered. 7.The investigation of the case was taken up by P.W. 12 Police inspector Humayuddin Jahangirdar. He drew the panchanama of the scene of offence attached the quilt and the grinding stone which had blood stains under panchanama. He noticed that there were patches of blood mixed in the earth and that an attempt was made to do away with it by using the cowdung paste under the guise of cleaning. Thereafter the dead body was sent to Cooper Hospital. On 2-2-1988 itself accused No. 2 was arrested by P.S.I. Gawali and produced before the Magistrate. While he was in custody accused No. 2 volunteered to produce the blood stained clothes, i.e. Sari, muddemal Article No. 10, blouse muddemal Article No. 11; belonging to accused No. 1 and pant muddemal Article No. 12 and the shirt muddemal Article No. 13 belonging to the accused No. 2 which he had kept in a cloth bag (Article No. 14) under a cupboard in a room in Ghatla village, by the brother of the accused No. 2 Babusaheb Pawar P.W. 9. Panchanama, Exhibit 19, was accordingly drawn by P.S.I. Jahangirdar. Thereafter accused No. 2 led the panchas and the police party in a jeep to Ghatla village and there in room No. 7, Municipal Chawl E/5, from under the cupboard the accused No. 2 produced the cloth bag containing sari, blouse, pant and shirt (Articles 10 to 13), stained with blood, which were attached under panchanama Exhibit 20. All these articles were forwarded to Chemical Analyser for examination. It was found that those clothes were stained with blood group 'B', that of the deceased and of human origin. 8.The Doctor Mr. Mohan Warang, Asst. Police Surgeon who conducted the post mortem examination found the skull fractured in the temporal parietal region of scalp. It showed a depressed guttered box type crack fracture of skull and comminuted gutted fracture in the left temporal parietal region and occipital bone. He also notioed that the left temporal bone was fragmented, lacerated and torn up and brain matter was leaking out of the cavity. After completing the formalities of the investigation a chargesheet came to be filed against both the accused. 9.Before the trial Court both the accused denied the charges. He also notioed that the left temporal bone was fragmented, lacerated and torn up and brain matter was leaking out of the cavity. After completing the formalities of the investigation a chargesheet came to be filed against both the accused. 9.Before the trial Court both the accused denied the charges. They also denied the illicit relations between them. They claimed that they were not living in the room of the deceased since one month prior to the death of the deceased. The specific case of the accused No. 1 was that during that period she was living at the place of her father in Kanjurmarg; whereas the case of the accused No. 2 is that he had left the room and gone to live to some other place, one month prior to the offence. 10.In all the prosecution examined 17 witnesses. The trial Court relying upon the circumstantial evidence, in the absence of the eye witness, found that there is a motive for the offence and held that the circumstances established beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused for having committed the murder of the deceased. 11.Ms. Kamath, learned Counsel appointed for accused, has strenuously argued that the motive which is required to be proved in a case like this has not been proved by the prosecution. She submitted that excepting P.W. 7, the wife of the accused No. 2, the other witnesses did not speak about the illicit relationship existed between accused No. 1 and accused No. 2. Though she admitted that both together go to the place of work, return together and eat together, she submitted that the other witnesses had not doubted their relationship. She submitted that the motive cannot be established merely on the basis of the suspicion entertained by P.W. 7. Regarding the other circumstances she urged that the prosecution has not established that at the time of the alleged occurrence both the accused were staying in the hut belonging to the deceased. According to her the prosecution has not proved any evidence to show that at the time of occurrence they were staying in the said room. She further challenged the prosecution case that both the accused were seen near the trunk which contained the dead body of the deceased in the verandah of the room. According to her the prosecution has not proved any evidence to show that at the time of occurrence they were staying in the said room. She further challenged the prosecution case that both the accused were seen near the trunk which contained the dead body of the deceased in the verandah of the room. She criticized the evidence of P.W. 5 Shashikant Rajaram Kadam, who is a milk vendor who deposed that he had seen accused Nos. 1 and 2 near the trunk and tried to lift the trunk by accused No. 2 and also deposed that he could identify the sari which accused No. 1 was wearing on that day and the dress worn by accused No. 2 also. The learned Counsel challenged his evidence that he had come there for vending milk to P.W. 14 who is staying just opposite to the room of the accused. She points out that during cross examination P.W. 14 totally denied the fact that he was purchasing milk from P.W. 5. On the basis of this statement of P.W. 14, the learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the very presence of P.W. 5 on the early morning on that day where he claimed that he had seen the accused Nos. 1 and 2 cannot be believed. Therefore she submits that the only link that the prosecution has attempted to establish nexus of the accused with the trunk has been broken in view of the evidence of P.W. 5. 12.We cannot accept the submissions made by the Counsel for the appellant. P.W. 5 deposed that he was a milk vendor. He corroborates the evidence of P.W. 14 Samadhan S. Ambole. P.W. 14 categorically stated that he was staying just opposite to the house of the accused and that he could see what is happening in the room of the accused. He stated that the distance between his room and the room of accused No. 1 is about 5 ft. About one month prior to the incident there was a quarrel between the accused No. 2 and his wife. He had sent his wife to her father and mother. He stated that he used to see the two accused going out for work together and used to return home in the evening together. About one month prior to the incident there was a quarrel between the accused No. 2 and his wife. He had sent his wife to her father and mother. He stated that he used to see the two accused going out for work together and used to return home in the evening together. He stated that on 31-1-1988 at about 6.30 a.m. while he was cleaning his teeth he noticed the trunk before the Court near the open door of the room of the accused No. 2 and accused Nos. 1 and 2 were standing near the said trunk. He also recognized the grey coloured bush shirt and pant that the accused No. 2 was wearing on that day as also the khaki coloured sari that accused No. 1 was wearing. He also stated that on 2-2-1988 at about 1.30 a.m. the police took out the trunk from out of the room of the accused No. 2 and found the dead body of the husband of the accused No. 1 in the trunk. In the cross examination his evidence could not be shaken in any material particulars. The learned Counsel for the accused could not throw any challenge on the evidence of P.W. 14. P.W. 5 fully corroborate the evidence of P.W. 14. Merely because P.W. 14 says that he was not purchasing milk from P.W. 5 will not itself render his evidence unbelievable because both the witnesses P.W. 5 and P.W. 14 are natural witnesses, and their presence at that time cannot be questioned. The circumstance that the accused were seen standing near the trunk is a very strong indication to the incriminating circumstance towards the commission of the offence by the accused. 13.The learned Counsel further challenged the observations of the Court below with regard to the conduct of the accused No. 1. According to the evidence of P.W. 2 Ramesh Chango Patil,. who was on duty in the Bhandup Police Station at 6 p.m. onwards at about 11.15 p.m. the accused No. 1 Suman came to the police station and reported that her husband was missing. He immediately made entry in the diary as entry No. 44/88 in his own hand writing and he proved this entry before the trial Court. who was on duty in the Bhandup Police Station at 6 p.m. onwards at about 11.15 p.m. the accused No. 1 Suman came to the police station and reported that her husband was missing. He immediately made entry in the diary as entry No. 44/88 in his own hand writing and he proved this entry before the trial Court. Just after 15 to 20 minutes thereafter accused No. 1 again came to the police station and reported that a bad smell was coming from the residence of tenant Pandurang Pawar, accused No. 2. P.W. 2 made another entry in the diary of the said information as entry No. 46/88 dated 1-2-1988 which is marked Exhibits 10. He stated before the Court that he had suspicion about the behaviour of the accused No. 1, followed accused No. 1 with a petromax and went to her residence. He stated that when they reached at the residence at about mid night it was found that the door of the north side of the room was latched from inside. He was emphatic that he did not get bad smell. There after at the instance of accused No. 1 he went near the southern door which was found locked from outside. He asked for the key but accused No. 1 could not bring any key. However, P.W. 2 broke open the door of the room. Even then he did not get the bad smell. After entering the room he got the bad smell. He also found the trunk. This circumstances, as rightly pointed out by the trial Court is a very strong circumstance, saddling the liability of the offence of the accused Nos. 1 and 2, particularly statement of accused No. 1 and her behaviour will go to show that she was fully aware as to what had happened to her husband. 14.P.W. 2 in his deposition further stated that within 10 to 15 minutes accused No. 1 could not have gone to her house and come back. Therefore her story that she had gone back to her house and found bad smell coming out of the house cannot be believed. Moreover, according to P.W. 2 there was no smell coming outside the room when they went to the residence of the accused. Therefore her story that she had gone back to her house and found bad smell coming out of the house cannot be believed. Moreover, according to P.W. 2 there was no smell coming outside the room when they went to the residence of the accused. 15.Another circumstances is that there are only two doors for the room; and one door is closed from outside and the other latched from inside. Therefore without a person entering the room, the outer door could not have been closed. Before coming to the police station she might have entered the room. All these behaviour and statements of the accused No. 1 looks to be artificial and suspicious and these circumstances unescapably lead to a very strong inference that the accused has committed the offence. The learned Counsel could not challenge these circumstances and the suspicious behaviour of the accused No. 1. 16.The learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that non examination of the father and mother of the accused No. 1 is fatal and weakened the chain of circumstances, that the prosecution tried to establish in this case. According to her though accused No. 1 was accompanied by her father and mother in an auto rickshaw to the police station for reporting that her husband was missing their statements were not recorded. We do not find anything would turn out from the non-examination of the father and mother of accused No. 1. The prosecution has not stated that the father and mother of accused No. 1 had come to the police station. It may be true that the father and mother of accused No. 1 may had accompanied her to the police station. There is also possibility that she alone had gone to the police station. The learned Counsel further submitted that the prosecution has not established the actual presence of the accused No. 2 in the house, particularly, when his case was that he left the house a month ago. 17.We do not think that this arguments plausible. As we have already pointed out it is an admitted case that the accused No. 2 was staying in the said room as a tenant of accused No. 1 and in such a case it is for him to prove that he was (sic not) staying in that house at the time of the occurrence. As we have already pointed out it is an admitted case that the accused No. 2 was staying in the said room as a tenant of accused No. 1 and in such a case it is for him to prove that he was (sic not) staying in that house at the time of the occurrence. Without adducing any evidence regarding this aspect of the matter the argument of the learned Counsel cannot be accepted. The burden of proof that he was not staying in the house of accused No. 1 is entirely on the accused No. 2 but he did not discharge that burden. On the other hand P.W. 7 and other witnesses had stated that accused No. 2 was staying in the room of accused No. 1 as a tenant. As observed earlier P.W. 5 and P.W. 14 in their evidence stated that both the accused Nos. 1 and 2 were seen on 31-1-1988 early in the morning standing in front of the house near the trunk. This circumstance establish the presence of the accused No. 1 in the house and without the knowledge of the accused Nos. 1 and 2, the offence could not have been taken place. 18.Another circumstances is that P.W. 8, Shobha Bhimrao Bankar, another lady who is residing in the adjacent hut stated that both the accused No. 1 and the deceased were staying in the hut and accused No. 2 was also staying in the same hut. She stated that while she was sleeping in the night on 30-1-1988 at about 10 p.m. she heard the deceased calling the name of Suman (Accused No. 1) to awaken her from outside the door and she could realised that the deceased had come at that time. She also saw the deceased entering the house. She stated that next morning at about 7 a.m. accused No. 1 left her house along with her children telling P.W. 8 that she was going to Kanjurmarg and that she would not return in the evening. She did not see the deceased thereafter. 19.The learned Counsel tried to argue relying upon the evidence of P.W. 8 Shobha Bankar that deceased and accused No. 1 loved each other and the deceased and his brother used to quarrel when they lived at Kanjurmarg. She did not see the deceased thereafter. 19.The learned Counsel tried to argue relying upon the evidence of P.W. 8 Shobha Bankar that deceased and accused No. 1 loved each other and the deceased and his brother used to quarrel when they lived at Kanjurmarg. But she stated that she did not see the brother of the deceased and his wife visiting the house of the deceased in the month prior to his death. Much could not be stated by the Counsel to challenge the evidence of P.W. 8. 20.P.W. 9 Babasaheb Vithoba Pawar is the cousin brother of accused No. 2. He stated that on 1-2-1988 at about 10 a.m. accused No. 2 came to his hut at Ghatla village. He had one yellow colour brief case with him. He kept the brief case in his room and went away telling that he will return after some time. P.W. 9 kept the suit case in a wooden plank used as a rack. Accused No. 2 however, did not return on that day. Police brought him on the 2nd day and recovered the muddemal articles 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14, sari and blouse of accused No. 1 and pant and shirt of accused No. 2 respectively. This is an important circumstance which tells the close relationship between accused Nos. 1 and 2. There was no explanation forthcoming either from accused No. 1 or from accused No. 2 as to how their clothes came to be kept together in one bag by accused No. 2. This piece of circumstance is another strong indication of the relationship between accused Nos. 1 and 2. 21.P.W. 10 Vimal Kailas Gayasamandir, sister in law of the deceased also corroborates the evidence adduced by P.W. 9. She stated that she saw the deceased calling the name of Suman in the night of 30-1-1988. Therefore the evidence of P.W. 10 and P.W. 8 clearly establish that they have seen the deceased in the house on 30-1-1988. 22.Further we have the evidence of P.W. 7 Rekha Pandurang Pawar who is the wife of accused No. 2. She states that accused No. 2 and she were married about 5 years back. Her father and mother lived in Sion. They have lived as husband and wife after the marriage at Ramabai Nagar hutment, Bhandup for about one month. 22.Further we have the evidence of P.W. 7 Rekha Pandurang Pawar who is the wife of accused No. 2. She states that accused No. 2 and she were married about 5 years back. Her father and mother lived in Sion. They have lived as husband and wife after the marriage at Ramabai Nagar hutment, Bhandup for about one month. Prior to the marriage accused No. 2 used to live as tenant in the house of accused No. 1. She suspected the relationship between accused Nos. 1 and 2. She deposed that accused Nos. 1 and 2 used to take food together in one thali and often went out of the house together and therefore she suspected that they might be in love. We have also evidence of P.W. 6 who is a neighbour of the parents of accused No. 1. She deposed that accused No. 1 has confessed that accused No. 2 with grinding stone, hitting on his head killed the deceased and accused No. 2 was threatening her with dire consequence if she informs to the police. We find no reason to disbelieve her evidence. 23.Further we have the evidence of Investigating Officer Jahangirdar P.W. 12, whose evidence establish the circumstances incriminating the accused. He corroborates the evidence of P.S.I. Patil who recorded the complaint of the accused about the missing of her husband. He deposed to the Court that he had accompanied accused No. 1 to her hut at Ramabai Nagar. After reaching the spot accused No. 1 had pointed out the door of the hut but that door was latched from inside. She has spotted that door in Exhibit 7 plan. He further stated that when he went to the other side of the room the same was also found locked. When he asked for key she stated that she did not have the key and therefore he broke open the door. At that time the panchas were present. He asked P.S.I. Patil to prepare the inquest panchanama and attached the trunk, article 1, lungi article 2, the samples of blood, articles 3 and 4 and the quilt article No. 5. After posting two constables to guard the scene of offence he and P.S.I. Patil returned to the police station and recorded the statement of P.W. 2 at Exhibit 11 and registered the F.I.R. He arrested accused No. 1. After posting two constables to guard the scene of offence he and P.S.I. Patil returned to the police station and recorded the statement of P.W. 2 at Exhibit 11 and registered the F.I.R. He arrested accused No. 1. He also took accused No. 1 with him and went to the scene of offence. Panchas were again called who acted as panchas at the time of inquest. The house of accused No. 1 consist of two rooms, divided by a curtain. The deceased lived in the northern room and the accused No. 2 lived in the southern room. They, noticed the quilt was blood stained, the grinding stone, article No. 7 was placed near the wall and it was also stained with blood on the reverse side. It appeared that the site of 5/6 feet long and 3/4 feet wide was cleaned by applying cow-dung paste. Still some reddish colour was feasible. He also collected the earth sample Exhibit 8 produced before the Court. He also collected earth sample Exhibit 9. He examined in all 10 witnesses and P.S.I. Gawli arrested accused No. 2 on 2-2-1988. They were produced before the Metropolitan Magistrate and after obtaining remand he interrogated 7 witnesses. The accused volunteered to produce the blood stained clothes in this case and it was taken into custody in the presence of two panchas. The accused No. 2 in the presence of panchas disclosed that he will take them to the room where the clothes of the accused Nos. 1 and 2 were kept and he also volunteered to produce those clothes after drawing panchanama Exhibit 19 and went to the place where the clothes were kept as indicated in the earlier part of the judgment. The grinding stone was found to be blood of B group which is the group of the deceased. Muddemal articles 10,11,12 and 13, the clothes of accused were found to be stained with blood and the chemical analyst showed that it contained B group which is of the deceased. An argument was advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the blood stains found in sari and blouse of accused No. 1 is of menstruated blood and her blood was also found to be of group B and therefore the blood stains found on articles 10 and 11 cannot be taken as incriminating circumstance against her. An argument was advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the blood stains found in sari and blouse of accused No. 1 is of menstruated blood and her blood was also found to be of group B and therefore the blood stains found on articles 10 and 11 cannot be taken as incriminating circumstance against her. 24.But the expert evidence belied this argument of the Counsel for the accused. P.W. 16 Dr. Baburao who collected the blood of the accused on 4-2-1988, to a specific question put to him, emphatically answered that the menstruated blood and the ordinary blood could be distinguished. He also added that the chemical analyst can distinguish these two types of blood. Therefore in view of this expert evidence we cannot place any reliance on the argument of the Counsel for the appellant. 25.In the circumstances and the evidence as discussed above, we find that a strong circumstantial chain has been established by the prosecution against the guilt of the accused. Circumstances such as the motive, behaviour of the accused No. 1 before the police, seeing the accused near the trunk which contained the dead body, recovered from the residence of the accused and blood stain of group "B" found on the clothes of the accused lead to the conclusion that the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and on scanning through the evidence we cannot found that any chain has been broken or any chain became weak to sustain the prosecution case. On appreciation of the evidence discussed above we have no hesitation to hold that the accused and the accused alone must have committed the murder of the deceased. We find no ground to interfere with the findings of the Court below. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed. The convictions of the appellants Suman Yadav Gayasamandir and Pandurang Khashaba Pawar, for offences punishable under section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. and 201 read with 511 read with 34 I.P.C. are confirmed. Their sentences for the offence under section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. are also confirmed. Appellant Pandurang Khashaba Pawar is in jail and he shall remain there till he serves out his sentence. It appears that though appellant Suman Yadav Gayasamandir was granted bail she has not availed of the same. Their sentences for the offence under section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. are also confirmed. Appellant Pandurang Khashaba Pawar is in jail and he shall remain there till he serves out his sentence. It appears that though appellant Suman Yadav Gayasamandir was granted bail she has not availed of the same. In case she has availed of her bail she shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence. Appeals dismissed.