JUDGMENT : RICHARDS, J. 1. Chatur has been convicted under section 460, Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to transportation for life. When the case came before us we thought it necessary having regard to the evidence that notice should go to Chatur to show cause why the sentence should not be enhanced and the sentence of transportation for life changed into a sentence of death. This notice was duly served and Chatur has sent in a petition. In this petition he maintains his innocence and says that so far from being sentenced to death he should be released. The charge against Chatur was that he entered the house of one Mathra Teli and attempted to rob his little daughter of a hansli she was wearing round her neck. This happened at night. Mathra hearing the cries of her child went to her rescue and seized hold of the thief, who struggled with him, drew forth a knife and stabbed him in the belly. Mathra died within six days as the result of the stab. The stab was of a very serious nature. It was two inches long and penetrated right into the stomach. A portion of the large omentum was protruding from the wound. Mathra's dying declaration was recorded. 2. He knew Chatur who was resident of his own village. He states how he caught Chatur attempting to rob his daugther, how he seized hold of him and how the accused stabbed him. He also states that he raised an outcry and that Ganesh Pande, Shiv Narain Pande, Subhag and Antu Telis came and arrested the accused. Three of these persons have been examined and all of them state that on hearing, the outcry they came up and found the deceased holding Chatur inside the house and that it was immediately noticed that Mathra was wounded. The evidence then shows that the accused was tied to a tree and that a report was made. The knife was afterwards found near Mathra's cot. The accused when examined before the Magistrate stated that he had recently returned from Calcutta; that he was asked for a present by Ganesh Pande and one Kishori, and that he told them that he had nothing to give them. Three days later he gave these two persons a rupee each to go to the house of a prostitute. The accused when examined before the Magistrate stated that he had recently returned from Calcutta; that he was asked for a present by Ganesh Pande and one Kishori, and that he told them that he had nothing to give them. Three days later he gave these two persons a rupee each to go to the house of a prostitute. They told him to sit by the door of Mathra while they went to the prostitute. He sat there for some time until he heard an outcry and then Ganesh Pande and Kishori came out of the house and caught him shouting “thief, thief.” He changed this story a little later on by saying that it was Mathra Teli who came out and called “thief, thief” and that Kishori was the person who stabbed Mathra, This statement was evidently made by the accused in an attempt to explain how it was that he was caught at night beside the house of Mathra. We have not the smallest hesitation in agreeing with the learned Judge and two assessors that Chatur accused was caught thieving in the house of Mathra deceased, and that he stabbed Mathra in the belly with a knife in order, if possible, to get away. The question is, what was the offence committed by Chatur and what should his punishment be. As already pointed out, he has been convicted under section 460, Penal Code, 1860. Section 460, Penal Code, 1860, provides that where any person committing lurking house-trespass by night or housebreaking by night, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, every person jointly concerned in committing such house-trespass or house-breaking, shall be punished in the manner provided for in the section, In our opinion this section was intended to provide for the punishment of persons who are jointly concerned in the committing of the house-trespass or house-breaking altogether irrespective whether they were the persons who caused or attempted to cause death or grievous hurt. In the present case if Chatur had other comrades committing the house-trespass with him, they could be punished under section 460. It never was intended that if a person whilst he was committing a burglary happened also to commit murder, that he should be merely punished for burglary and not for murder. In the present case if Chatur had other comrades committing the house-trespass with him, they could be punished under section 460. It never was intended that if a person whilst he was committing a burglary happened also to commit murder, that he should be merely punished for burglary and not for murder. Any person who causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death commits the offence of culpable homicide. It seems to us that it is impossible to hold that when Chatur stabbed the unfortunate man in the belly with a knife, he did not at least know that he was likely by that act to cause the death of Mathra. We are satisfied that he intended to cause bodily injury which was likely to cause death. It is of course quite unnecessary to consider the exceptions mentioned in the Penal Code. We dismiss the appeal of Chatur but alter the conviction from a conviction under section 460, Penal Code, 1860 to one under section 302, Penal Code, 1860. In exercise of the powers conferred on us by section 439 the Code of Criminal Procedure, we enhance the sentence from a sentence of transportation for life to a sentence of death, and we direct that Chatur be hanged by the neck till he is dead.