Honniah, J.- These three appeals arise from the judgment dated 29th April, 1967, in Sessions Case No. 69/8 of 1965, by which the learned Sessions Judge, Gulbarga convicted the appellants in these three appeals under section 302 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to death. He also convicted the appellants for the offence punishable under section 449, Indian Penal Code, but in view of the death sentence passed against them for the offence of murders, no separate sentence was passed. Criminal Appeal No. 225/67 is by accused 1; Criminal Appeal No. 226/67 is by accused 2 and Criminal Appeal No, 227/67 is by accused 3. There is also a reference (Criminal Referred Case No. 5 of 1967) by the learned Sessions Judge under section 374, Criminal Procedure Code for confirmation of the death sentences passed against the accused persons. As these appeals and the reference arise from out of the same judgment they are disposed of by this judgment. The case of the prosecution briefly stated is as under. Accused 2 is the younger brother of Revanappa, the husband of the deceased Hirgawwa, accused 1 is his son and accused 3 is his son-in-law. All of them were residing together outside the village of Jivanagi. Hirgawwa and her two sons viz., the deceased Sripati and Shankerappa (P.W. 17) were residing at Bombay since about 8 to 10 years to earn their living. The family house of A-1, A-2 and Revanappa in the village had fallen down. In the vacant space, Revanappa had constructed a room and after his death, his first son Shankerappa had constructed three rooms in the same open site. Out of the 4 rooms, Shankerappa had let out one room to Fatrusab (P.W. 20) and his wife Mehtab Bi (P.W. 8). Disputes arose between Hirgawwa and her sons on the one hand and A-1 and A-2 on the other, in respect of the room that had been let out to Fatrusab and his wife. They claimed that room for themsevles and some four or five months prior to 7th July, 1965, a panchayat was held in the village to settle their disputes. In that panchayat it was settled that A-1 and A-2 should pay Rs. 335 to Shankerappa before the next Ugadi and that Shankerappa should give up possession of that room. They claimed that room for themsevles and some four or five months prior to 7th July, 1965, a panchayat was held in the village to settle their disputes. In that panchayat it was settled that A-1 and A-2 should pay Rs. 335 to Shankerappa before the next Ugadi and that Shankerappa should give up possession of that room. Two or three days after Ugadi, A-1 and A-2 paid Rs. 200 to Shankerappa and asked him to deliver possession of the room. But Shankerappa refused to give up possession unless the balance of Rs. 135 was also paid. Since A-1 and A-2 did not pay the balance Shankerappa went away to Bombay without either returning Rs. 200 received by him or giving up possession of the room in favour of accused 1 and 2. A few days prior to 7th July, 1965, Hirgawwa and her second son Sripati came from Bombay to the village. After their arrival, there was a quarrel between A-1 and Sripati in connection with the delivery of possession of the room. On the fateful day, viz., 7th July, 1965 at about 7 Or 7-30 a.m. all the three accused went to the house of Hirgawwa, A-3 armed with an axe. They picked up a quarrel with Sripati and in the quarrel A-3 gave a blow with an axe on the neck of Sripati as a result of which Sripati received a bleeding injury. On seeing this, Hirgawwa and Mehtab Bi, who were present there, raised an alarm and. hearing their cries, Ashamma (P.W. 15) who was a neighbour came there and snatched the axe from the hand of A-3. It is the case of the prosecution that at that point of time A-2 intervened and snatched the axe from the hand of Ashamma and gave a blow with it on the face of Hirgawwa, as a result of which Hirgawwa received a bleeding injury on her cheek. Hirgawwa become nervous and ran into her house and bolted it from inside. Sripati ran away from that place in order to go to the police station at Mahagaon with a view to give a complaint against the accused persons. Hirgawwa become nervous and ran into her house and bolted it from inside. Sripati ran away from that place in order to go to the police station at Mahagaon with a view to give a complaint against the accused persons. After Sripati ran away, it is the case of the prosecution, the accused followed him and when Sripati came near the house of Khadersab (P.W. 15) A-1 came from behind him armed with an axe and gave him a blow on his ear. In the meanwhile, the other two accused felled Sripati on the ground and A-1 and A-3 cut him with axes. A-2 threw a big stone on his head as a result of which Sripati received fatal injuries and died on the spot. Thereafter, all the three accused went to the house of Hirgawwa. They found Hirgawwa inside the house having bolted the door. The accused tried to force open the door, but could not succeed. So, A-1 climbed the roof, removed some slabs of the roof and got down into the house, opened the door and dragged Hirgawwa outside the house. A-3, who was outside the house, joined A-1 and both of them went on inflicting injuries on various parts of her body, till she wasdead. Khadersab (P.W. 14) who had witnessed the murder of Sripati, came to know about the murder of Hirgawwa also. He went to the house of the police patel Dattatreya Rao (P.W. 19) and informed him about the gruesome murders. On hearing the news, the police patel went to the places where the dead bodies of Sripati and Hirgawwa were lying. He found the accused near the dead body of Hirgawwa. He took A-1 to his house and detained him. Then he wrote his report Exhibit P-1 and sent it to the Police Station at Mahagaon with Sanadi Ambanna (P.W. 1). Chandrappa (P.W. 24) the then Sub-Inspector of Police of Mahagaon received the report Exhibit P-1 on 7th July, 1965 at about 3-30 p.m. from Ambanna. It may be mentioned here that although Khadersab informed the police patel that all the three accused committed the murders of the two persons and although the police patel saw all the three accused persons near the dead body of Hirgawwa, he detained A-1 only and sent the report Exhibit P-1 against A-1 only. The Sub-Inspector, after registering a case, came to the village by mid-night. The Sub-Inspector, after registering a case, came to the village by mid-night. By then, the police patel, at the instance of the Villagers, had detained the other two accused persons along with A-1. The Sub-Inspector arrested the accused persons. On the following morning, he held inquests over the two dead bodies and then sent the dead bodies to the hospital at Mahagaon for post mortem examination. The Sub-Inspector recovered the axe M.O. 1 on the information given by A-1 and M.O. 2 on the information given by A-2. By that time the Circle Inspector of Police (P.W. 25) arrived at the spot and took up further investigation. After due investigation, he placed the charge-sheet against the three accused in the Court of the Munsiff-Magistrate, Gulbarga. After holding enquiry, the second Additional Munsiff-Magistrate, Gulbarga, who had received the case on transfer, committed all the three accused to take their trial in the Court of Sessions Judge at Gulbarga. The learned Sessions-Judge framed charges under section 449 and section 302 (on two counts) read with section 34, Indian Penal Code. In respect of these charges, the appellants were tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Gulbarga. The defence of the accused was one of denial. There is hardly any doubt that Hirgawwa and her son Sripati were brutally done to death on the morning of 7th July, 1965 in the village of Jivanagi. Khadersab (P.W. 14), many others of the village, and also the police patel (P.W. 19) found the dead body of Hirgawwa in front of her house and that of Sripati in the road in front of the house of Khadersab. P.W. 24, the Sub-Inspector of Police who tame to the spot, after registering the case, on the mid-night of 7th July, 1965 saw the two dead bodies lying with number of injuries in the village. After holding inquest, on the morning of 8th July, 1965, he sent the two dead bodies for post mortem examination to the hospital at Mahagaon. Bhimarao (P.W. 23) and another police constable took the dead bodies and produced them before the Medical Officer Mahagaon at about 6 p.m. On 8th July, 1965. The Medical Officer who was in charge of the hospital at Mahagaon, directed the two police constables to take the dead, bodies to Gulbarga stating that he was unable to conduct the post-mortem examination as there was no ward-boy attached to the hospital. The Medical Officer who was in charge of the hospital at Mahagaon, directed the two police constables to take the dead, bodies to Gulbarga stating that he was unable to conduct the post-mortem examination as there was no ward-boy attached to the hospital. We may point out that the conduct of the Medical Officer in not conducting the post-mortem examination on the dead bodies, on a pretext that there was no ward-boy Is highly unsatisfactory. Anyway, the two police constables had to take the two dead bodies to Gulbarga. They produced the two dead bodies on the morning of 9th July, 1965 before Dr. Satyanarayana Rao (P.W. 12). He conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Hirgawwa and found the following injuries: “(1) Incised wound 4½” x 1½“x 2” oyer the right side of the face extending from below the right ear to the angle of the mouth. The mandible underneath was fractured. (2) Incised would 2” x 1” bone deep over the right parietal region. Bone underneath was fractured. (3) Incised wound 2” x 1½” x 1” over the left side of the neck above the cervical. (4) An incised wound 2” x 1“bone deep below the left ear. Temporal bone underneath was fractured. (5) A large wound 6” in diameter on the left side of front chest and exilla (arm-pit) exposing the ribs. The skin muscles and breast tissue over it are absent. (6) Incised wound 1” x ½” x ½” over the front of the left elbow. (7) Contusion 2” in diameter over the right side of chest. (8) Contusion 1½” in diameter over the outer aspect of the right arm. (9) Incised wound 4” x 1” bone-deep over the back of neck, the 3rd, 4th and 5th cervical bone had come out and were losely hanging with the tissues.” On dissection, he found the following internal injuries: “(1) Depressed fracture of right parietal bone 1½” x ½” ever wound No. 2 in the external injuries. (2) Fracture of mandible over the right side. (3) Dislocation of 3rd, 4th and 5th cervical vertebra. (4) Fracture of left temporal bones beneath wound No. 4 of external injury. {5) The spinal cord cut at the level of 3rd cervical vertebra.” He has stated that all the injuries were ante mortem and sufficient to cause the death of the deceased in the ordinary course of nature. (3) Dislocation of 3rd, 4th and 5th cervical vertebra. (4) Fracture of left temporal bones beneath wound No. 4 of external injury. {5) The spinal cord cut at the level of 3rd cervical vertebra.” He has stated that all the injuries were ante mortem and sufficient to cause the death of the deceased in the ordinary course of nature. He has further stated that injury No. 9 was by itself sufficient to cause the death. He was of the opinion that the death was instantaneous and it was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of multiple injuries. On examining the dead body of Sripati he found the following external injuries: “(1) Incised wound 6” x 2” x 1½” over the front of chest on the left side. Sternum (bone on chest) underneath is fractured. (2) Incised wound 3½” x 1½” x 1½” over the right side of neck and face below the ear. Mandible was fractured. underneath. (3) Incised wound 4½” x 1½” x 2” over the right side and front of neck. It has cut the blood vessels on right side of neck and also larynx and the oesophagus. (4) Incised wound 3” x 2” x 2” on the left side of neck below the ear. (5) Incised wound 2” x 1” bone deep over the back of left ear. Bone underneath was fractured. (6) Incised wound 2” x 1” bone deep over the right parietal region. Bone underneath was fractured. (7) Abrasions over the front of left leg. Wounds were all ante-mortem.” On dissecting the body, he found the following internal injuries: “(1) Compound comminuted fracture of the skull involving the right temporal and parietal bone 4” x 2“. (2) Compound comminuted fracture of the left temporal bone beneath wound No. 5 of the external injury (1½” x 1“). (3) Fracture of mandible on the right side. (4) Sternum under wound No. 1 of external injury is fractured. (5) Larynx was cut (voice-box) under wound No. 3 of external wounds. (6) Oesophagus (food tube) was cut under wound No. 3 of external injuries.” According to him, all the injuries were ante-mortem and the injuries were sufficient to cause the death in the ordinary course of nature. He has stated that injury No. 2 way by itself fatal. (5) Larynx was cut (voice-box) under wound No. 3 of external wounds. (6) Oesophagus (food tube) was cut under wound No. 3 of external injuries.” According to him, all the injuries were ante-mortem and the injuries were sufficient to cause the death in the ordinary course of nature. He has stated that injury No. 2 way by itself fatal. He has further stated that the death of Sripathi was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of multiple injuries. Post-mortem notes Exhibit P-3 in respect of Hirgawwa and Exhibit P-4 in respect of Sripati issued by this witness give the details of the condition of the two dead bodies and the injuries found on them. The evidence of the Medical Officer is not disputed and therefore there is hardly any doubt that Hirgawwa and Sripatii met with homicidal deaths on the morning of 7th July, 1965 in Jivanagi village. The question for consideration is whether the appellants in- furtherance of their common intention, murdered Hirgawwa and Sripati and whether they committed house trespass in order to commit an offence punishable with death. The charges against the appellants are sought to be established by the prosecution by direct and circumstantial evidence. The prosecution case is that there was ill-will between the parties on account of their dispute about the new rooms that had been built by Shankerappa (P.W. 17) on the site belonging to the family. The father of Shankerappa had built one room in the vacant space and after his death Shankerappa got constructed three rooms in the same open site. Out of the four rooms, one room had been let out to Fakrusab, P.W.20. The evidence in this case shows that A-1 and A-2 laid claim to the room that had been let out to Fakrusab. Four or five months prior to the murders, a panchayat was held in the village to settle the disputes between the parties. In that panchayati, it was settled that A-1 and A-2 should pay Rs. 335 to Shankerappa as price of the room and Shankerappa should give up its possession to them. As per the terms of the settlement, A-1 and A-2 paid a sum of Rs. 200 to Shankerappa and asked him to deliver possession of the room. In that panchayati, it was settled that A-1 and A-2 should pay Rs. 335 to Shankerappa as price of the room and Shankerappa should give up its possession to them. As per the terms of the settlement, A-1 and A-2 paid a sum of Rs. 200 to Shankerappa and asked him to deliver possession of the room. The evidence of Shankerappa shows that he refused to give up possession on the ground that the entire amount was, not paid to him. The evidence of Bhimarao (P.W. 5) shows that A-1 and Shankarappa approached him and A-1 complained to him that Shankarappa was not handing over possession of the room to him. When he asked Shankerappa he informed him that A-1 had not paid the full amount as per the agreement and therefore he was not giving up the possession. Bhimarao (P.W. 5) and mother panchayatdar decided that A-1 should pay the balance of the amount to Shankarappa and that Shankarappa should deliver possession immediately after the payment. According to him, both of them agreed and went away. Two days later, A-1 again approached Bhimarao and informed him that he had arranged for the money, but Shankarappa was not available, and that he had gone away to Bombay. His evidence shows that A-1 expressed his indignation at the conduct of Shankarappa in going away to Bombay without settling the dispute. It is clear from the evidence of Shankarappa and Bhimarao that Shankarappa went away to Bombay without either returning Rs. 200 received by him or by delivering possession of the room to A-1 and A-2 and on account of this A-1 and A-2 Were very much annoyed. The evidence in this case shows that A-1 and A-2 had sold their Jowar, which was essential for their maintenance in order to pay the balance of Rs. 135. When they wanted to pay that amount to Shankarappa, he went away to Bombay without receiving that amount. It is clear from the conduct of Shankarappa that he never wanted to part with the possession of the room in question. This undoubtedly enraged the accused persons and the feelings between the parties became strained. Three or four days prior to the fateful day, Hirgawwa and Sripati came from Bombay to, the village. After their arrival, A-1 quarrelled with Sripathi in connection with the delivery of possesion of the room. This undoubtedly enraged the accused persons and the feelings between the parties became strained. Three or four days prior to the fateful day, Hirgawwa and Sripati came from Bombay to, the village. After their arrival, A-1 quarrelled with Sripathi in connection with the delivery of possesion of the room. On 7th July, 1965 at about 7 of 7-30 a.m. according to the evidence of P.W. 15, Ashamma, she heard a row before Hirgawwa’s house. She came out from her house, which is close to the house of Hirgawwa and found A-2 and A-3 quarrelling with Hirgawwa and her sorr Sripati. She has stated that A-2 held Sripati and A-3 gave a blow on the neck of Sripati with the axe he was holding. Immediately she went near A-3 and snatched the axe from his hand. Thereupon A-2 left Sripati, came to her and snatched the axe from her hand and gave a blow on the cheek of Hirgawwa. Consequently, Hirgawwa sustained an injury on her cheek. Immediately according to this witness, Hirgawwa went into her house and bolted it from inside and Siripati went towards bazar. She has further stated that A-2 and A-3 followed Sripati. Her evidence finds corroboration in the evidence of P.W. 8. As to what happened in front of the house of Khadersab (P.W. 14), we have the evidence of Ambanna (P.W. 1), Bandappa (P.W. 2), Parasappa (P.W. 3) Bhimarao (P.W. 5), Khasimsab (P.W. 6), Baswanthappa (P.W. 7), Khasim (P.W. 13), Khadersab (P.W. 14) and Fatrusab (P.W. 20). Out of these 9 eye-witnesses, Bhimarao is the owner of a hotel very close to the house of Khadersab. Ambanna and Khasimsab are the Walikars of the village and Kasim is the peon of the village school situated near the house of Khadersab. The evidence of P.W. 1 is that just before the incident, he was going to the hotel of Madiwali Jaddar, which is near the hotel of Bhimarao. P.W. 2 has stated that he was going to his land by that lane. The evidence of P.W. 3 shows that at that time he was going to the house of one Mohappa Badger by the same lane. Khasimsab was returning home from Gollergeri, where he had gone in the early morning to get this wages from one Katalayya. The evidence of P.W. 7 Baswanthappa shows that he was sitting in the hotel of one Gangawwa taking tea. Khasimsab was returning home from Gollergeri, where he had gone in the early morning to get this wages from one Katalayya. The evidence of P.W. 7 Baswanthappa shows that he was sitting in the hotel of one Gangawwa taking tea. It is in evidence that that hotel was very close to the hotel of Bhimarao. Khasim has stated that he was going to bring water from a well near the scene of offence. The evidence of these witnesses in substance is that Sripati who was going in front of the house of Khadersab with an injury on his neck, was followed by A-1 from behind and was attacked with an axe and a blow was given on his neck. Sripati held the axe and tried to snatch it from the hand of A-1. By then A-2 and A-3 came there, A-3 armed with an axe in his hand. The evidence of these witnesses shows that A-3 held the hairs of Sripati and A-2 pulled his legs, as a result of which Sripati fell down. Their evidence further shows that thereafter A-1 gave 2 or 3 blows on the neck of Sripati and A-3 gave one blow on the chest with his axe. Thereafter A-2 threw a big stone on Sripati. They have Stated that Sripati received fatal injuries on his neck, head and chest, as a result of which he died on the spot instantaneously. Thereafter, according to these witnesses, the accused left the place. They stood near the place where Sripati’s dead body was lying, talking about the incident. Within half an hour, they received the news that these accused murdered Hirgawwa also in her house. Hearing the said news, P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 went to the house of the police patel and told him about the incident. The presence of these Witnesses at the spot and at the time of the incident is not seriously disputed. These are disinterested Witnesses. There is nothing to indicate that they are telling falsehood. We ate satisfied that they have given the true account of the assault on Sripati. Their evidence conclusively establishes that it is these three accused, who dealt blows on Sripati mercilessly with deadly weapons and caused his death. These are disinterested Witnesses. There is nothing to indicate that they are telling falsehood. We ate satisfied that they have given the true account of the assault on Sripati. Their evidence conclusively establishes that it is these three accused, who dealt blows on Sripati mercilessly with deadly weapons and caused his death. As regards the incident that happened in the house of Hirgawwa shortly after the murder of Sripati the prosecution have-relied on the evidence of Mehtab Bi, P.W. 8, Malkawwa, P.W. 9, Gundawwa, P.W. 10 and Gundappa, P.W. 11. Mehtab Bi, P.W. 8, is the wife of Fakrusab, P.W. 20 who, admittedly was residing in the house of Hirgawwa as a tenant at the time of the incident . The other two witnesses viz., Malkawwa and Gundawwa were residing close to the house of Hirgawwa. As stated earlier, Ashamma, P.W. 15 and Mehtab Bi P.W. 8 witnessed the incident that took place earlier in front of the house of Hirgawwa in which Sripati and Hirgawwa both sustained injuries on account of the assault by A-3. After murdering Sripati, the accused persons came back near the house of Hugawwa. Mehatab Bi, P.W. 8, has deposed that half an hour after the incident that took place in front of the house of Hirgawwa, the three accused came back near the house of Hirgawwa making enquiries as to where Hirgewwa had gone. She told them that she had not seen her and did not know where she had gone. Then accused 1 and 2 tried to force open the door of the house of Hrgawwa. Finding that the door was firmly secured from inside, A-1 climbed the roof and removed the stone slabs which had been used for the roof one by one. and then got into the house, After getting into the house he opened the door and dragged Hirgawwa outside the house. She has further deposed that thereafter A-3 beat her with the axe on her neck, as a result of which Hirgawwa fell down on the ground. After she fell down A-1 dragged her by her legs to the court-yard. Her evidence shows that at that time the entire body of Hirgawwa was trembling. She has further deposed that thereafter A-3 beat her with the axe on her neck, as a result of which Hirgawwa fell down on the ground. After she fell down A-1 dragged her by her legs to the court-yard. Her evidence shows that at that time the entire body of Hirgawwa was trembling. Seeing that,‘according to her, A-1 said that Hirgawwa was not yet dead and so saying he stood on the abdomen of Hirgawwa and inflicted injuries with the axe indiscriminately on her chest, as a result of Which Hirgawwa died at the spot. She has also stated that after Hirgawwa died A-2 and A-3 locked the door of her house and stood there. She has further stated that some time later, the police patel came there and took away A-1 leaving the other two accused there only. Her evidence is fully corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 9 Malkawwa on all material particulars. P.W. 10, Gundawwa on that morning had gone to Gollarkeri to bring corn and by the time she returned she saw A-1 removing the slabs from the roof of the house of Hirgawwa and getting into the house. Thereafter, she witnessed the gruesome murder and she has given the same version as given out by P.W. 8’ Mehtab Bi and P.W. 9, Malkawwa. Gundappa, P.W. 11 is not a resident of that locality. His evidence is that he was going that morning to take tea in the hotel of Bhimarao, P.W. 5. He came near the house of Hirgawwa on his way. Then he saw A-1 removing the stone slabs from the roof of the house of Hirgawwa and then getting into the house. What happened thereafter, his version is to the same effect as given out by the other witnesses. The learned Sessions Judge has accepted the evidence of these witnesses as trustworthy and in our opinion rightly. The presence of these witnesses at the time Hirgawwa was done to death cannot be disputed. All of them are neighbours except Gundappa, P.W. 11. The incident happened in front of the house of Hirgawwa and quite naturally these witnesses were able to see the murderous attack on Hirgawwa. The evidence of these witnesses has been read to us and we are unable to see anything in their evidence, which could discredit their testimony. All of them are neighbours except Gundappa, P.W. 11. The incident happened in front of the house of Hirgawwa and quite naturally these witnesses were able to see the murderous attack on Hirgawwa. The evidence of these witnesses has been read to us and we are unable to see anything in their evidence, which could discredit their testimony. Some wild suggestion has been made to Mehtab Bi, P.W. 8, to the effect that Sripati had developed criminal intimacy with her daughter, who was res ding in Nimboor, which is several miles away from Jivanagi and therefore P.W. 8 and her husband might have been responsible for the murders. This suggestion has been stoutly denied by the witness and no value need be attached to such a suggestion. Her evidence has been corroborated by the evidence of several other independent witnesses of the locality. The evidence of P.W. 8 and other witnesses conclusively establishes that it was the accused persons who committed the murder of Hirgawwa after dragging her out from her house. Besides this direct evidence, about the murders of Hirgawwa and Sripati, the prosecution has relied upon certain circumstances, which lend support to the prosecution case. P.W. 19, Dattatreya Rao, police patel, after the receipt of the information from P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 made his report Exhibit P-1 and detained in the first instance A-1 and later on at the instance of the eye-witnesses detained A-2 and A-3 till the arrival of the police. P.W. 19 has stated that the clothes of these three accused Were stained with blood. No doubt, in Exhibit P-1 the police patel has mentioned the name of A-1 only as the assailant of Sripathi and. Hirgawwa. Evidently, the police patel at that point of time, in spite of the fact that he came to know from P.Ws. 1 to 3 that all the three accused persons committed the murders, was anxious to save A-2 and A-3 and therefore mentioned the name of A-1 only in Exhibit P-1. But in his evidence he has come forward with the truth that he came to know from P.Ws. 1 to 3 that all the accused 1 to 3 were responsible for the murders. The non-mention of the names of A-2 and A-3 in Exhibit P-1 in no way affects the prosecution case. But in his evidence he has come forward with the truth that he came to know from P.Ws. 1 to 3 that all the accused 1 to 3 were responsible for the murders. The non-mention of the names of A-2 and A-3 in Exhibit P-1 in no way affects the prosecution case. The evidence of the eye-witnesses taken along with the evidence of the police patel establishes that shortly after the murders P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 informed the police patel that it was the three accused persons that were responsible for the murders. Chandrappa, P.W. 24, the Sub-Inspector of Police, reached the village at mid-night on 7th July, 1965. He found all the three accused persons detained by the police patel. He took them into his custody. On the morning of 8th July, 1965 he seized the shirt and doti (M.O. 4) that were on the person of A-1, the shirt and doti (M.O. 5) that were on the person of A-2 and the banian (M.O. 3) on the person of A-3, as they were stained with blood under panchnamas Exhibits P-7, P-8 and P-9 respectively. After the seizure of the clothes, P.W. 24 questioned A-1 and A-3 in the presence of panchas. On the information given by A-1 he recovered the axe M.O. 1. He noticed stains of blood on M.O. 1. He attached it under the panchanama Exhibit P-10. On the information given by A-3 the axe M.O. 3 was recovered and as it was also stained with blood, it was seized under the panchanama Exhibit P-11. Chandrappa, who was present at the time of the seizure of the clothes from the accused and also present at the time of the seizure of M.Os. 1 and 2, has sworn to these facts. The evidence of this witness, in our opinion, is trustworthy and we see no reason to reject that evidence. The clothes and the axes so seized were sent to the Chemical Examiner. The report of the Chemical Examiner, Exhibit P-16, shows that these articles contained mammalian blood. The stains, on these articles on examination by the Serologist showed that they were of human origin except those on M.O. 2. As the stains on M.O. 2 were disintegrated, the Serologist was not in a position to tell the origin of those stains. The report of the Chemical Examiner, Exhibit P-16, shows that these articles contained mammalian blood. The stains, on these articles on examination by the Serologist showed that they were of human origin except those on M.O. 2. As the stains on M.O. 2 were disintegrated, the Serologist was not in a position to tell the origin of those stains. The correctness of the reports of the Chemical Examiner and the Serologist is not disputed. These circumstances taken along with the direct evidences in this case undoubtedly establishes beyond doubt the complicity of the accused in the murders of Hir-gawwa and Sripati. Mr. M.M. Jagirdar, who argued the appeal on behalf of the appellants, was not in a position to point out to us that the evidence relied upon by the prosecution was of a doubtful nature. However, he contended that there is no satisfactory evidence that the three accused had a common intention to commit the murders of Hirgawwa and Sripati. Section 34, Indian Penal Code, embodies the common-sense principle that if two or more persons intentionally do a thing jointly it is just the same as if each of them had done it individually. The essential feature of section 34, Indian Penal Code, is the participation of the accused persons in the commission of the crime. Common intention pre-supposes prior concert. It requires a pre-arranged plan because before a man can be vicariously convicted for the criminal act of another, the act must have been done in furtherance of the common intention of them all. Whether the accused persons had common intention or not in committing the crime could be deduced from the circumstances of the case. All that is necessary is either to have direct proof of the prior concert or proof of circumstances which necessarily leads to that inference. There is no direct evidence in this case to show that these accused persons conspired together and thereafter proceeded to the house of Hirgawwa that morning to commit the murders of these two persons in furtherance of their common intention. But from the manner in which A-2 and A-3 proceeded to the house of Hirgawwa that morning, one of them armed with an axe, and from the acts of these three accused persons thereafter, the only inference that could be drawn is that they were acting in pursuance of a pre-arraned plan. But from the manner in which A-2 and A-3 proceeded to the house of Hirgawwa that morning, one of them armed with an axe, and from the acts of these three accused persons thereafter, the only inference that could be drawn is that they were acting in pursuance of a pre-arraned plan. There can be no doubt that the three accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, committed the murders of Hirgawwa and Sripati. Lastly Mr. Jagirdar urged that in the circumstances of this case, the ends of justice would be met by awarding the alternative sentence provided under section 302 Indian Penal Code. We are unable to agree with Mr. Jagirdar. Not a single extenuating circumstances was pointed out to us by Mr. Jagirdar. On the other hand, if one takes into consideration the manner in which Hirgawwa and Sripati were done to death, the acts of the accused persons could only be characterised as brutal. We, therefore, decline to interfere with the sentence passed against he accused persons. In the result, therefore, for the reasons stated above, these appeals fail and accordingly they are dismissed. The reference made by the learned Sessions Judge under section 374, Criminal Procedure Code, is accepted and the death sentences passed on the three accused persons viz., A-1 Gundappa, A-2 Nagappa and A-3 Bandappa are confirmed. S.V.S. ----- Conviction and sentence confirmed.