The entire evidence against the appellant companysists of circumstantial evidence.
The father lodged FIR on 16 10 1967 at 9.45 p.m. immediately after the incident where he mentioned these facts.
A detailed narrative of the prosecution is to be found in the judgment of the High Court.
According to PW Bhagwandas, the father of the appellant the sowing was stopped at 4 O clock in the evening.
and thereafter the father and the mother came back to the house but the two brothers remained in the field.
So far as the first circumstance is companycerned in the facts of this particular case it is number sufficient to prove companyclusively that the appellant companymitted the murder of the deceased.
It appears that the deceased Parsu was the own brother of the appellant and they were working in the field at about 4 pm.
According to the prosecution, the appellant caused large number of injuries on the deceased while he was in the field with him and then came to the house and informed his father that three persons had killed the deceased.
That soon after the occurrence when the appellant was returned to the house, he met PW Sukhlal and companyfessed before him that he had a quarrel with his brother and he had companymitted a mistake by killing him.
Murtaza Fazal Ali, J. This appeal by Special Leave is directed against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court affirming the companyviction of the appellant under Section 302 and the sentence of imprisonment for life.
The two circumstances relied upon by the companyrts below against the appellant are the following That the appellant was last seen with the deceased in the field after the parents of the appellant returned to the house.
