criminal - abatement - sections 114, 201 and 302 of indian penal code, 1860 - appeal against order convicting g under section 302 and r of abatement of foregoing offence under section 302 read with section 114 - appellants urged that dead body was not satisfactorily shown to be that of h and prosecution failed to prove that appellants were responsible for murder - although more than one and half years have elapsed since h disappeared there has been no news regarding his whereabouts - had he been alive his relations would have heard about him by this time - no evidence in rebuttal to show that dead body was that of somebody else - court below justified in concluding that dead body was that of h - very strong motive for commission of offence - plenty of corroborative evidence against g apart from r's confession - cumulative effect of evidence on record coupled with retracted confession of r leaves no room for doubt that it was g who had caused death of h - cumulative effect of all evidence on record is to show that g caused death of h - evidence on record not sufficient to prove that r had common design with g to cause murder of h - motive cannot form basis of conviction without clear and cogent evidence establishing crime - evidence on record does not establish beyond doubt that r did abet g in murder of h - r knew that h had been murdered and with view to screen g from legal punishment caused evidence of commission of that offence to disappear and also gave information respecting offence which she knew to be false - as per her confession she admitted that after murder she and g dragged dead body towards 'nala' and buried it - r guilty of offence under section 201 - conviction of r under section 302 set aside and she convicted under section 201 - conviction of g under section 302 maintained. - order32. in view of all that has been said above, i allow appeal no. 14 of 1954, filed by mt. rup devi in part. i set aside her conviction ofan offence under section 302, read with section 114, i. p. c, instead, i convict her of an offence under section 201, i. p. c., and, bearing in mind that she is only about 18 years of age and in all probability wasled astray by gokal (who was old enough to be her father), sentence her to undergo three years' rigorous imprisonment. as regards criminal appeal no. 15 of 1954, filed by gokal, i maintain his conviction of an offence under section 302, i. p. c., as well as the sentence of transportation for life inflicted upon him. he should thank his starsthat in spite of the fact that he committed a brutal and premeditated murder, he was let off with the lesser of the two penalties prescribedby law, there was, however, no point in tacking on a fine of rs. 300/- to the sentence of transportation for life. the sentence of fine is, therefore, set aside. pine, if realized, must be refunded. subject to this slight modification, gokal's appeal is rejected.