Hegde, J.- Both these appeals arise from the decision of the learned Sessions Judge, Dharwar, in Sessions Case No. 62 of 1959 on his file. Criminal Appeal No. 160 of 1960 was filed by A-1 Veerabhadrappa Kallappa Sajjan. Criminal Appeal No. 161 of 1960 was filed by A-2, Sangaya Bachaya Nirmath and A-3, Sathappa Ningappa Shelavadi. All the three accused were tried for offences under sections 302, 201 and 435 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code. They were acquitted of the offence under section 302/34, Indian Penal Code but they were convicted under the latter two provisions. For the offence under section 201/34. Indian Penal Code, each one of them was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100 in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. Similarly for the offence under section 435/34.. Indian Penal Code, they were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100 in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. The two substantive sentences were ordered to run consecutively. The prosecution case is that there was enmity between deceased Karisiddappa Menasige and A-1; therefore he (A-1) took the assistance of A-2 and A-3 and the three together murdered the deceased sometime in the morning of 21st January, 1959 and somewhere between Gadag and Arekurhatti and put the dead body of the deceased in a kabadi stack and set fire to that stack; but before they could get away from the place, the villagers apprehended them, tied them to a nearby tree, and sent information to the Police Station at Navalgund which information was received by P.W. 1 Hazratsab Mahammadsab Savanur (P.S.I.) at about 11-30 a.m. Immediately he recorded that information in the general diary of the station and rushed to the scene of occurrence in a jeep. By the time he reached the scene of occurrence the fire had been extinguished by the villagers. He got removed the dead body which was completely charred. Then he issued an F.I.R. and proceeded to investigate the case. In due time the three accused were charge-sheeted for the offences mentioned above. The prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence; no one has witnessed either the murder or the throwing of the dead body in the kabadi stack or setting fire to the same. Then he issued an F.I.R. and proceeded to investigate the case. In due time the three accused were charge-sheeted for the offences mentioned above. The prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence; no one has witnessed either the murder or the throwing of the dead body in the kabadi stack or setting fire to the same. Therefore we have to see whether the circumstances alleged by the prosecution are satisfactorily established and further whether the proved circumstances are not merely consistent with the guilt of the accused but inconsistent with their innocence. The plea of the accused is one of denial. They have not only denied the commission of the offences with which they were charged but they have also denied the several circumstances put against them excepting the fact that they were apprehended by the villagers of Arekurhatti at about 10-30 a.m. As mentioned earlier the accused were acquitted of the charge of ‘murder ‘. The State has not appealed against that order. Therefore the same has become final. We have earlier mentioned that there was enmity between A-1 and the deceased. On this point we have the evidence of P.W. 3, Ishwargouda, P.W. 6, Fakirappa and P.W. 10, Basavannappa Sangappa Sadlapur. P.W. 3 appears to be an important merchant in Gadag. He is not shown to be either interested in the deceased or immically disposed towards any one of the accused. From his evidence it is seen that there were some disputes between the deceased and A-1 as regards some money dealings. At one stage, it appears A-1 purported to sell his lorry M.O. 11 to the deceased for the debt due to him, but the lorry continued to be in possession of A-1. Over two months before this occurrence the deceased appeared to have seized that lorry forcibly and kept the same in the compound of P.W. 3. In that connection there was a panchayathi; P.Ws. 3 and 18 were the two of the panchayatdars; in that panchayathi one Somappa Sajjan a relation of A-1 agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 4,000 to the deceased towards full satisfaction of the amount due to him from A-1 on condition that the deceased released M.O. 11 to A-1; this was agreed to. Accordingly Somappa Sajjan requested P.W. 3 to make the payment in question on his behalf. But no payment in cash was made. A debit entry of Rs. 4,000 to the deceased towards full satisfaction of the amount due to him from A-1 on condition that the deceased released M.O. 11 to A-1; this was agreed to. Accordingly Somappa Sajjan requested P.W. 3 to make the payment in question on his behalf. But no payment in cash was made. A debit entry of Rs. 4,000 was made in the khatha of Somappa Sajjan in the account books of P.W. 3 and a corresponding credit entry was made in the khatha of the deceased. Somappa had promised to pay the money in question within two months but in fact he did not make the payment within the time stipulated. Finally Somappa promised to pay that amount on 21st January, 1959. In that connection the deceased had come to the shop of P.W. 3 on 19th January, 1959. The evidence of P.W. 3 on this point is corroborated by his account-book Exhibit 18 (the relevant entries are Exhibits 18 and 18 (a)). P.W. 3’s evidence in this regard is supported by the evidence of P.W. 6, Fakirappa and P.W. 18, Basavannappa. But according to P.W. 8 the lorry concerned is not M.O. 11 but some other lorry. This appears to be a mistake. But that question has nothing to do with the case. Hence the same need not detain us. We think that the evidence of P.Ws. 6 and 18 is credit-worthy. A-1 in his statement under section 342, Criminal Procedure Code, has denied that he had any dealings with the deceased. He has further denied that there was any panchayathi in that connection. There is no truth in that denial. It was urged by Sri Nesargi the learned counsel for A-1 that even according to the prosecution evidence, the disputes between A-1 and the deceased had been settled and therefore the same could not have served as a motive for murdering the deceased. From the evidence of P.Ws. 3, 6 and 18, it is seen that the panchayathi was held at the instance of the relations of A-1,A-1 does not appear to have interested himself in that panchayathi. It is not clear whether he was even present at that panchayathi. It is likely that A-1 was quiet hurt by the fact that this lorry had been forcibly seized by the deceased. What may be a slender motive to one, may be an impelling factor to another. It is not clear whether he was even present at that panchayathi. It is likely that A-1 was quiet hurt by the fact that this lorry had been forcibly seized by the deceased. What may be a slender motive to one, may be an impelling factor to another. The working of human minds varies from individual to individual. It largely depends on the temperament of the individual concerned. From what we shall see presently, A-1 appears to be a desparado having little or no regard for law, nor value for human life. We shall now proceed to consider the association of A-1, A-2 and A-3. Here we have the evidence of P.W. 2 (Muktumsab), P.W. 23 Bassangouda Somangouda Patil, P.W. 7 Abanda Ballal Sitaramayya and P.W. 14 Mohammed Sab Abdul Khader Sab. P.W. 2 is a driver of a private car. He is a resident of Gadag and he is well known to A-1. From his evidence we get to know the activities of A-1 on the 17th and 18th of January, 1959. On those days he appears to have gone about searching for A-2 and A-3. From what is stated by him the search for A-2 and A-3 appears to have been a frantic one. Both A-2 and A-3 belong to the village of Yedravi in Belgaum District. Their place is far away from Gadag as well as from Arekurhatti village. According to P.W. 2 they were ultimately picked up on the 18th. This witness is an absolutely disinterested witness. ft is not shown that he had any motive to depose falsely against the accused. From his evidence it is clear that A-1 had been going from place to place in search of A-2 and A-3. The evidence of P.W. 2 gains considerable corroboration from the evidence of P.W. 23, Basenagouda Somangouda Patil. P.W. 23 is a respectable resident of Yedravi Village. He speaks to the fact that A-1 had come to this village in a car both on the morning as well as on the evening of 18th January, 1959. He is the Police Patil of that village. Then we have the evidence of P.W. 7 Ananda Ballal, then manager of Durga Lodge at Gadag. He speaks to the fact that A-1 had come to this village in a car both on the morning as well as on the evening of 18th January, 1959. He is the Police Patil of that village. Then we have the evidence of P.W. 7 Ananda Ballal, then manager of Durga Lodge at Gadag. He says that at about 1-30 a.m. on 19th January, 1959, A-1, A-2 and A-3 came to his hotel; A-1 wanted a double room; he accordingly gave him a double room consisting of bed numbers 24 and 25; he paid him an advance of Rs. 10; A-2 and A-3 were in his hotel for a day; but before leaving his hotel the balance of Rs. 2-8-0 was paid by one of the two accused — either by A-2 or A-3 which he is not definite. The evidence of P.W. 7 is corroborated by the relevant entries in the register maintained in his hotel (Exhibit 27). P.W. 27 further says that at that time A-1 gave his name as B. F. Akki which means; he had given him a false name. This witness had nothing to do with the accused at any time and therefore he could not have had any motive to depose falsely against them. But both Sri Nesargi and Sri Albal the learned counsel appearing for the appellants disputed P.W. 7’s ability to identify the persons who are alleged to have gone to his hotel on the night intervening the 18th and 19th as their stay was a very short one. Hence they wanted the Court not to place reliance on his testimony. They further pointed out that the police did not hold any identification parade in this case and therefore the identification by P.W. 7 is bound to be a precarious one. We are not convinced by these arguments. It is seen from the evidence of P.W. 7 and P.W. I that all the three accused were taken to Durga Lodge on the 21st for purposes of identification by P.W. 7, who was questioned on that date. At that time the memory of P.W. 7 must have been quite fresh and therefore there would not have been any difficulty in identifying the persons who came to the hotel on the night of 18/19th. Then we come to the evidence of P.W. 14, Mohammadsab, the former lorry driver of A-1. At that time the memory of P.W. 7 must have been quite fresh and therefore there would not have been any difficulty in identifying the persons who came to the hotel on the night of 18/19th. Then we come to the evidence of P.W. 14, Mohammadsab, the former lorry driver of A-1. He swears that accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were in Gadag on the evening of 20th January, 1959. He further says that A-1 sent him to the shop of P.W. 3 on the 20th night to fetch the deceased but the deceased was not available; thereafter A-1 asked him to take A-2 and A-3 to his house and bring them back on the early morning of 21st January, 1959. This witness again is not shown to be interested in deposing falsely against his former master. From the evidence of P.W. 7 it appears that the three accused were together in Gadag from the midnight of 18th. From the evidence of P.W. 14 it is clearly seen that they were moving together in Gadag Town on the night of 20th and that attempt was made to get at the deceased on that night, but that attempt failed. P.W. 14 further deposes that on the early morning of 21st, he brought A-2 and A-3 from his house and left them with A-1. There is the evidence of P.W. 6 Fakirappa to show that the deceased was in P.W. 3’s shop on the night of 20th. We also get it from his evidence that on the early morning of 21st the deceased was still in his shop. He was there till about 7-30 a.m. and thereafter he suddenly disappeared. We now come to the evidence of P.W. 17 Basavannappa, the Police Beat Constable who speaks to the fact that at about 7-45 a.m. on the morning of 21st January, 1959, he saw M.O. 11 parked on the side of a road near a circle and at that time A-1 was at the steering. He further says that he asked A-1 to move on from that place and accordingly A-1 took the lorry (M.O. 11) from that place. From the evidence of P.W. 6, P.W. 14 and P.W. 17 it is clear that both the deceased and the three accused (as well as the lorry M.O. 11) were at Gadag till about 7-45 a.m. on 21st January, 1959. From the evidence of P.W. 6, P.W. 14 and P.W. 17 it is clear that both the deceased and the three accused (as well as the lorry M.O. 11) were at Gadag till about 7-45 a.m. on 21st January, 1959. When the evidence of these witnesses were put to the accused all of them stated that they were not in Gadag on that morning. They further stated that the evidence of these witnesses is false. We have no doubt that the evidence of P.Ws. 6, 14 and 17 is true. Then the scene shifts to Arekurhatti which is about 27 miles from Gadag. At about 10-30 a.m. the villagers of Arekurhatti saw a kabadi stack on fire and at about that time the three accused were trying to get away from the village by means of M.O. 11. The villagers surrounded the lorry; stoned at it; ultimately secured the three accused and tied them to a nearby tree. On this point we have the testimony of P.W. 9 Gurusiddeyya and P.W. 13 Dustagirsab. Both these witnesses have nothing to do with the deceased nor are they inimically disposed towards the accused. In fact P.W. 9 is a distant relation of A-2. As the presence of these accused in Arekurhatti could not be denied because of the predicament in which they had placed themselves, the accused in their statement under section 342, Criminal Procedure Code, came out with wholly incredible stories. A-1 stated that he had been to Arekurhatti on the night of 20th; there his lorry went out of order and therefore he was compelled to stay in that village. A-2 and A-3 stated that they had been to that village for purchasing a she-buffalo. According to all of them suddenly on the morning of 21st the villagers without any rhyme or reason got suspicious about them; caught hold of them and handed them over to the police. On the face of it these are absurd explanations. The prosecution evidence as to the securing of the accused is quite convincing. It is true that by the time the trial commenced the villagers had lost their original fervour. It is evident that in the interval other forces were working. P.W. 9 who had shown commendable civic sense on the day of occurrence appeared to have lost his zeal by the time he was examined in Court. It is true that by the time the trial commenced the villagers had lost their original fervour. It is evident that in the interval other forces were working. P.W. 9 who had shown commendable civic sense on the day of occurrence appeared to have lost his zeal by the time he was examined in Court. He indirectly tried to help the accused during the trial. But the essence of the evidence remains. . Then there is the evidence of P.W. 13 which fully supports the prosecution case. He is also a disinterested witness. Now we come to some tell-tale circumstances appearing in the case. P.W. 1 reached the scene by about noon. He found the dead body in the stack which had been set fire to. The body was removed and thereafter observation panchanamas of the scene of occurrence, the condition of the lorry M.O. 11 and the condition of the clothes of the accused were made. These panchanamas are proved by P.W. 1 who speaks in support of their contents. We shall first take up the panchanama relating to the lorry M.O. 11. This panchanama is marked as Exhibit 8 in the case. These are some of the observations found therein: "Blood has pooled on the left side of both the mudguards and near the door and so also on footboard. There were blood marks measuring 6" X 6" below the left door in zigzag manner. There are blood-stains on the tin of the left door. On opening the left door, it was seen that there were bloodstains on the tin inside the truck. A cabin measures 5’ - 8" in length and 1" 6" in breadth. The seat near the gear-box and the seat there is space for one man to sleep. In the centre of the cabin behind the seats there is a window with a new shutter and that the newly fixed shutter is lying in the body of the vehicle. Blood has pooled on the planks which are near the gear-box and in front of the seat and the blood had covered round about the iron frame after leakage from the planks. The planks which are on the upper side of the seat were also stained with blood and so also rest cushions. Blood has pooled on the planks which are near the gear-box and in front of the seat and the blood had covered round about the iron frame after leakage from the planks. The planks which are on the upper side of the seat were also stained with blood and so also rest cushions. There are big blood-stain marks of round shape measuring 6" X 6" and 3" x 3" by the side of the window........The spring seat of the front side on the left is broken. The same is newly spread on the blood-stains on the seat and in it a bone smeared with blood measuring ¼" x ¼" is found........ One country pistol below the towel in the said satchel. The barrel of the pistol measured 5¾" in length and its handle is made of wood measuring 3¼" in length and its lower part is of 1½" in breadth. The distance between the handle and the barrel is 2¼". There is a stripe below the trigger meant for holding the pistol. Both lower and upper part of the stripe is stained in blood. So also lower part of the barrel...... By the side of the hand bag there is a double cuff shirt, one with the rolled gold press buttons and there are blood-stains near the buttons of the left hand of that shirt and so also blood-stains are on the shoulder of the shirt. There are blood-stains on the button. There are blood-stains here and there on the right hand of the shirt....... One small axe measuring 2¼" in width and 5" in length and its mouth is (covered) with oil." The above recitals speak for themselves. No further comment is necessary. On analysis the blood found in the lorry was identified as human blood. Admittedly A-1 was in charge of the lorry (M.O. 11) at that time. When asked about the blood in the lorry he in a non-challant manner stated that the police must have thrown the blood in question into the lorry, after the lorry was seized. This statement5 shows the type of men we are called upon to deal with. M.O. 11 is fully drenched with blood. That is a very grave circumstance. According to the prosecution the shirt found in the lorry (M.O. 17)) is that of A-1. This statement5 shows the type of men we are called upon to deal with. M.O. 11 is fully drenched with blood. That is a very grave circumstance. According to the prosecution the shirt found in the lorry (M.O. 17)) is that of A-1. For this part of the prosecution case, support is available from the evidence of P.W. 15 Venkappa who was A-1’s washerman. It is true that P.W. 15 did not fully support the prosecution. He stated that from the mark found on M.O. 17 he could say that the shirt in question belonged to some one in the house of A-1 but did not know if it belonged to A-1 himself. The fact remains that shirt was in M.O. 11 which was owned and driven by A-1. It was blood-stained. Further it was kept rolled up on a satchel. Admittedly at the time when the villagers of Arekurhatti caught hold of A-1 he had no shirt on his person. He was wearing only a banian. The suggestion made on behalf of the prosecution is that A-1 must have removed his shirt as it was fully stained with blood and kept the same in the satchel. There is force in this suggestion. A-1 has not explained how M.O. 17 got into the satchel. A chappal (M.O. 10) was found at the scene. This fitted to the left leg of A-1. It was blood-stained. A-1 denied that it is his. But his denial must be taken with his other denials, to which reference had already been made. The panchanama prepared in connection with the seizure of the clothes of A-2 is marked as Exhibit 9. The clothes seized from him are M.Os. 28 and 29. The relevant portion of that panchanama reads thus: “We saw the blue shirt on his person. There were blood spots of the size of 1 foot in width on both the hands of that shirt and so also on both sides of the waist. There was blood-stain of the size of corn on the back portion of the shirt below 5” from the end of the shirt.......There were two blood stains on the purple bordered dhoti at a distance of 8“from the end on the person of Sangayya (A-2). At a distance of 94” from that end on the four corners of the dhoti there are blood stains. At a distance of 94” from that end on the four corners of the dhoti there are blood stains. Out of the four blood-stains, one is of the size of a tamarind seed, two are of the size of corn and the other is of match. The upper portion of the dhoti was torn and it was tied. On both sides of this portion there were blood-stains. There was blood stain 3“in length on the dhoti at a distance of 25” from the other border of that dhoti, the portion of the dhoti near the waist was stitched as it was torn. There were 3 blood-stains, one on the border of the dhoti, at a distance of 35“from other border of the dhoti.” It looks as if A-2 was more or less bathed with blood. The Chemical Examiner and the Serologist have opined that the blood found on articles 28 and 29 was human blood. The articles seized from accused No. 3 are 30 and 31. Their condition is described in Exhibit 10. It is as follows: — “The accused (A-3) had on his person an old dirty white full shirt and there was blood spot of the size of one inch on the left hand cup and from this place towards onwards at a distance of 3” there was also blood-stain of the size of 3“on the shirt at a distance of 6” from shoulder towards downwards. There were two blood-spots each of the size of 1“on the back of the shirt at a distance of 1” from the border. There were two and one small blood-stain on both sides at a distance of 2-3“from here. Besides these there were small blood-stains here and there on the shirt.......There are two blood stains of the size of corn on the dhoti at a distance of 18” from the border. There were two and one small blood-stain on both sides at a distance of 2-3“from here. Besides these there were small blood-stains here and there on the shirt.......There are two blood stains of the size of corn on the dhoti at a distance of 18” from the border. There was blood stain of the size of tamarind seed at a distance of 29“from this and at a distance of 36” from the other border of the dhoti on the waist there were blood-stains on the dhoti at 8 places in a diameter of one foot and out of them 2 blood-stains were of the size of one inch and besides these there were small blood marks on the dhoti here and there.” Here again A-3’s clothes were profusely stained with blood which on analysis was found to be human blood. Both A-2 and A-3 have denied that there were blood patches on their clothes. It is needless to dwell on their statement as prima facie it is unacceptable. The fact that these three persons were found in the lorry M.O. 11 at about 10-30 a.m. in Arekurhatti village and that the lorry and the clothes of these persons were profusely stained with blood are circumstances of great significance. Let us now examine the observations made as regards the scene of occurrence i.e., round about the place where the dead body was. As mentioned earlier the dead body was in a kabadi stack and the stack in question had been set fire to. The villagers had put out the fire but by the time they could do so the body had been extensively burnt. We have it from the evidence of P.W. 1 that there were wheel marks of the lorry going up to a point very close to the stack in question. He also saw some dripping of motor oil on that track. From this he rightly concluded that a lorry must have been driven almost up to the stack. According to the evidence of P.W. 1 from the point where the wheel marks stopped upto the stack, there were marks of dragging a dead body. He also saw some dripping of motor oil on that track. From this he rightly concluded that a lorry must have been driven almost up to the stack. According to the evidence of P.W. 1 from the point where the wheel marks stopped upto the stack, there were marks of dragging a dead body. The scene of occurrence is described in Exhibit 7 as follows: “The motor tyre mark and that of the place where motor oil is fallen is at a distance of 2’ from the land of Kulkarni Narayanrao, called as ‘Sarvu Mane land’, towards left side of the road One blood-stained piece of cloth purple in colour is lying at a distance of 14“from that place. Marks caused on account of dragging the dead body can be seen at a distance of 12’ from this place. There is a jowar stump at a distance of 6’ from this mark and its upper part is stained in blood...... The place where the dead body was burnt is at a distance of 12’ from this place.” Then we come to the dead body recovered. The panchanama prepared in this connection is Exhibit 6. According to the details mentioned in that panchanama the dead body in question was unidentifiable. But P.W. 10 Basappa, the brother of the deceased says that he was able to identify the dead body as that of his brother Karisiddappa. According to him, from the general frame of the body, the parts that remained unburnt, the unburnt portion of the clothes of the deceased, his wrist watch (M.O. 4) and his ring (M.O. 5) he was able to identify the dead body as that of his brother Karisiddappa. P.W. 10’s evidence on this point is fully supported by the evidence of the doctor P.W. 11 Krishnarao. P.W. 11 in unmistakable terms says that the body of the deceased though extensively charred, could have been identified by persons who were familiar with the deceased. Therefore there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of P.W. 10 when he says that the dead body found is that of his brother Karisiddappa. Further this evidence gains strength from the surrounding circumstances in the case. We have earlier noticed that the deceased was in Gadag on the early morning of 21st January, 1959. Thereafter he was not seen alive. Further this evidence gains strength from the surrounding circumstances in the case. We have earlier noticed that the deceased was in Gadag on the early morning of 21st January, 1959. Thereafter he was not seen alive. The disappearance of the deceased from that morning, the mysterious appearance of the accused at Arekurhatti at about 10-30 a.m. the wheel marks above referred to, the dead body in the stack which was set fire to, the pool of blood on the clothes of the accused could by no means be considered as isolated circumstances. To separate all these circumstances may be a good mental exercise but it has no relationship to facts. From the evidence of P.W. 10, the doctor and the post mortem certificate Exhibit 37 it is seen that the deceased had sustained several fractures. The injuries noticed indicated that the deceased must have been done to death. It was not quite clear whether he had received any gun-shot injury. The doctor was not in a position to say as to the cause of the death of the deceased. But from the evidence detailed above, one is not left in any doubt so to how it must have happened. The facts proved show without doubt that the accused had murdered the deceased. Evidently the learned Sessions Judge was not able to grasp the significance of the circumstances established in the case. That is unfortunate. As mentioned earlier the State has not filed any appeal against the acquittal of the accused under the ‘murder’ charge. Therefore a brutal murder goes unpunished. It was strenuously contended that however telling some of the circumstances established may be, the links made out do not complete the chain and therefore the circumstances established are insufficient to bring home the guilt to the appellants. It was urged that there is no evidence to show that the accused decoyed the deceased or that they murdered him, or that they threw the dead body into the hay-stack or set fire to the same; in the absence of these connecting links the accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt. Decisions dealing with the true requirements of circumstantial evidence are legion. Superficially viewed they speak in discordent voices. That is because, what inference should be drawn from a given set of facts is essentially a question of fact. Decisions dealing with the true requirements of circumstantial evidence are legion. Superficially viewed they speak in discordent voices. That is because, what inference should be drawn from a given set of facts is essentially a question of fact. Each decision, depending on the facts of that case is likely to lay emphasis on one or other of the several principles that beat on the appreciation of circumstantial evidence. The true rule is that the circumstances alleged must be established by satisfactory evidence as in the case of other evidence and the circumstances proved must be conclusive in character. In other words the chain of circumstances established must be so complete as to leave no reasonable doubt about the guilt of the accused. While it is true that there should be no missing links in the prosecution case, it is not the law that every one of the links must appear on the surface of the evidence adduced. Some of these links may have to be inferred from the proved facts. Those links may be termed as inferential links. In drawing those inferences or to be more accurate presumptions, a Judge of fact is required to have regard to the common course of natural events, to human conduct and their relation tothe facts of the particular case. If that is not so section 114 of the Evidence Act would become otiose, which in its turn would make the laws ineffective. Bearing in mind the above principles, we shall now have another look at the facts established. A-1 had enmity with the deceased. He frantically collected together A-2 and A-3 on the 18th. On the 19th and 20th he sheltered them. He was trying to get at the deceased on the 20th night. On the 21st morning he (the deceased) suddenly disappeared, within a few hours his body was found burning in a hay stack in Arekurhatti which is over 25 miles from Gadag. At the same time the accused were caught hold of at Arekurhatti. A-1’s lorry (M.O. 11) which was driven by him was full of blood; clothes of all the accused were almost drenched with blood. M.O. 10 which appears to be a chappal of A-1 was near the burning stack. A lorry had been driven up to the stack in question. The explanation given by the accused in respect of all these incriminating circumstances are false. M.O. 10 which appears to be a chappal of A-1 was near the burning stack. A lorry had been driven up to the stack in question. The explanation given by the accused in respect of all these incriminating circumstances are false. From all these circumstances it is reasonable to infer that the accused knowing that the deceased was killed had tried to dispose of his dead body with a view to destroy the evidence of murder. Now coming to the question of sentence we have earlier noticed that the learned Sessions Judge has ordered that the two substantive sentences should run consecutively. The maximum substantive sentence provided under section 201, Indian Penal Code is 7 years. Similarly the maximum substantive sentence provided under section 435, Indian Penal Code, is also 7 years. Therefore, the question arises whether the two sentences can be ordered to run consecutively. We may at the very outset say that we do not in the least consider that the sentences imposed on the appellants to be excessive. Had there been a true assessment of their guilt, we have no doubt that they would have had to suffer the extreme penalty of the law. But they are now the beneficiaries of improper assessment of the circumstances established. What we are now considering is whether in view of section 71 of the Indian Penal Code the two substantive sentences imposed on them can be ordered to run consecutively. In other words, we are considering the legality of the sentences imposed and not their adequacy. Section 71 of the Indian Penal Code reads: “Where anything which is an offence is made up of parts, any of which parts itself is an offence, the offender shall not be punished with the punishment of more than one of such offences, unless it be so expressly provided; Where anything is an offence falling within two or more separate definitions of any law in force for the time being by which offences are defined or punished, or Where several acts, of which one or more than one would by itself or themselves constitute an offence, constitute, when combined, a different offence, The offender shall not be punished with a more severe punishment than the Court which tries him could award for any one of such offences.” The two offences arose out of one set of facts. Both the offences were committed in the course of the same transaction. From the foregoing it is clear that the same set of facts gave rise to two distinct offences or at any rate out of the several acts committed by the appellants, if some one or more of them are taken by themselves would constitute one offence but when combined with other acts committed by them at the same time, they would constitute a different offence. The primary object of the appellants was to remove the evidence of murder. Mischief by fire was only incidental. Hence, the offences committed in this case fall within the Second or the Third paragraph of section 71. That being so the accused cannot be inflicted with a more severe punishment than could be awarded for any one of such offences. Our conclusion is supported by the decision of the Supreme Court in Puranmal v. State of Orissa1 reported in. For the reasons mentioned above, we are constrained to modify the order of the lower Court and direct that the substantive sentences imposed under sections 201 and 435, Indian Penal Code, shall run concurrently. Subject to this modification the appeals are dismissed. The accused are on bail. They shall surrender to their bail forthwith and serve the remaining portion of the sentence. Before closing this judgment, it is necessary to mention that P.W. 1’s investigation in this case was both prompt as well as thorough. S.V.S. ----- Sentence modified. Appeal dismissed.