Judgment :- 1. The first accused is the appellant. The facts of the case given in paragraphs 2 to 5 of the judgment of the lower court are extracted below: "The prosecution case may be briefly stated as follows:- Sankaran Nair (PW. 7) is the father of the deceased Bhaskaran Nair, PW.1 is the younger brother, and PW. 6 is the mother of the deceased. PW. 7 and his wife and children including the deceased were living in Chankoorethu house, Eravankara Muri, Thazhakkara Pakuthy. Accused 1 and 3 are sons of sisters. The 2nd accused is their companion. All the 3 accused were harbouring feelings of enmity against PW. 7 and his sons for a period of 6 or 7 months prior to the occurrence. The reason for the hatred is this. One Balarama Kurup (PW. 14) lost a sum of Rs. 12/- from his house on 1.4.1126. He told accused 1 and 2 about that theft. The said two accused suspecting one Ramakrishnan Nair (PW. 12) and one Chellappa Kurup (PW. 13) as the persons who had committed the theft, tortured them and eventually they were compelled to say that they took the amount. Thereafter accused 1 and 2 took PWs. 12 and 13 to the house of PW. 14 and decided that each of them should pay PW. 14 Rs. 14/-. PW. 10, father of Ramakrishnan Nair, paid Rs. 12/- but PW. 11, father of Chellappa Kurup, had no money with him and therefore he pledged a bronze lamp (~ ) with the 2nd accused for that amount. The amount Rs. 12/- received from PW.10 was paid to PW. 14. Subsequently the lamp was returned to PW. 11 by the 2nd accused on payment of Rs. 8/-. PW. 10 was very much aggrieved at the conduct of accused 1 and 2 and, therefore, that evening itself he went to the Nair Karayogam and represented his grievances before the executive committee. The members who were present there told PW. 10 that the matter would be considered in the general body meeting which was going to be held soon. PW. 7 was a committee member and he was present at that time. He condemned the action of accused 1 and 2 and said:- "" The accused 1 and 2 were members of the Yogam and they were present on the occasion. PW. 7 was a committee member and he was present at that time. He condemned the action of accused 1 and 2 and said:- "" The accused 1 and 2 were members of the Yogam and they were present on the occasion. They did not like the attitude taken up by PW. 7, and the 2nd accused abused him then and there. Thereafter the were maintaining a revengeful attitude towards PW. 7 and his people. Three or four days prior to the occurrence, PWs. 7, 8 and 9 had gone to one Punchamon Madhom to see two big buffaloes brought from Suchindram. When they were about to return from that place, the three accused persons came there. They began to abuse PW. 7. The 1st accused caught hold of him by his shirt and teased him, PWs. 8 and 9 interfered and pacified them. Then PWs. 7,8 and 9 proceeded homewards. When they covered a distance of about two furlongs, the 3rd accused again approached them and picked up a quarrel with PW. 7. PWs. 8 and 9 tried to conciliate them in vain. The 1st accused forcibly took the umbrella from PW. 7 and broke it. After that the 1st accused stretched the broken umbrella (MO 6) towards PW. 7 and asked him to take it. PW. 7, with considerable hesitation, took the umbrella from him and proceeded towards home along with PWs. 8 and 9. They (PWs. 8 and 9) took PW. 7 up to the road on the eastern side of his house, and thereafter they went to their respective houses. While thus going PW. 7 entrusted the umbrella to PW.8 so that PW. 7's wife and children might not know anything about that incident. "On 30.10.1126 (13.6.1951), at about 8.30 p.m, the accused persons went to the road on the northern side of the house of PW. 7, abused him and challenged him to go out for a fight, PW. 7, out of fear, did not go out, nor did he say anything in reply. The accused remained there a few minutes and left the place remarking that they had no courage to come out. After the accused left the place, PW. 2 who was living on the northern side of the road and who heard the abusive language used by the accused, came out. Then PWs. 3 and 5 also reached there. They asked PW. After the accused left the place, PW. 2 who was living on the northern side of the road and who heard the abusive language used by the accused, came out. Then PWs. 3 and 5 also reached there. They asked PW. 7, who was inside the house, what the matter was, PW. 7 came out of the house followed by PW. 1. Then they talked about the incident for sometime, and while thus talking PW. 4 came there. They advised PW.7 to move the authorities for redress. At that time the deceased Bhaskaran Nair came there from his tea-shop. He stopped there a short while inquiring into the matter and went to take his bath in the tank on the south-eastern side of the house. While the rest were talking some standing on the courtyard of the house and others on the roadside, the accused came there from the west. It was about 9.30 p.m. The accused entered the northern courtyard of the house. The 3rd accused caught hold of PW. 7 and pressed him within his grips. Then the 2nd accused made an attempt to beat on the head of PW. 7 with a stick. But before the blow fell on the head of PW. 7 his son (PW. 1) caught hold of the stick. Immediately Bhaskaran Nair came thereafter his bath. Seeing that his father was being squeezed by the 3rd accused, he caught hold of the 3rd accused saying " " At that time the 1st accused stabbed Bhaskaran Nair with the knife (M.O.1) on the upper part of his left shoulder. By that Bhaskaran Nair turned to the side just a little, whereupon the 1st accused again stabbed near his neck and left collar-cone. Bhaskaran Nair walked unsteadily a few steps, fell down and died". 2. The learned Sessions Judge found that Bhaskaran Nair died because of the stab wounds inflicted on him by the 1st accused and so this accused was convicted for the offence under S. 302 IPC. The prosecution case under S. 34 IPC relating to the common intention to kill Bhaskaran Nair was found against. The 2nd accused was convicted under Ss. 323 and 511 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. The 3rd accused was convicted under S. 323 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. The prosecution case under S. 34 IPC relating to the common intention to kill Bhaskaran Nair was found against. The 2nd accused was convicted under Ss. 323 and 511 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. The 3rd accused was convicted under S. 323 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. The 1st accused was not given the extreme penalty of law under the Indian Penal Code for the reasons stated in the judgment but he was sentenced to transportation for life. Accused 2 and 3 submitted to the decision of the lower court. The 1st accused has preferred this appeal. The State has filed the revision petition No. 192 of 1952 to enhance the sentences as against all the accused. 3. The lower court had not given the normal sentence under S. 302 to the 1st accused. The learned Sessions Judge had stated that due to certain circumstances which appeared to him to be reasonable it was sufficient to give the sentence of transportation for life. According to him, the weapon used was an ordinary knife which was in the possession of the 1st accused and he stated that the act was not done with any special brutality. There was also no premeditation or deliberation for the act. On these circumstances the learned judge was inclined to take a lenient view for the mitigation of the sentence. Though the reasons, as given, might not be sufficient to pass the lesser of the two sentences we are not inclined to interfere. What struck was that before the 1st accused stabbed Bhaskaran Nair, there must have happened something more. The deceased Bhaskaran Nair, had, besides the incised wounds, three abrasions mentioned above and these were not properly accounted for. It might be that there was some tussle before the real act. But this will not in any way reduce the gravity of the offence for the accused were the aggressors and they had no business to trespass into the compound of PW. 7 and commit all these aggressive acts. In such circumstances the observations of the Supreme Court in Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1953 SC 364 extracted below is to govern this case. "On the question of sentence, it would have been necessary for us to interfere in any event because a question of principle is involved. 7 and commit all these aggressive acts. In such circumstances the observations of the Supreme Court in Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1953 SC 364 extracted below is to govern this case. "On the question of sentence, it would have been necessary for us to interfere in any event because a question of principle is involved. In a case of murder, the death sentence should ordinarily be imposed unless the trying judge for reasons which should normally be recorded considers it proper to award the lesser penalty. But the discretion is his and if he gives reasons on which a judicial mind could properly found an appellate Court should not interfere. The power to enhance a sentence from transportation to death should very rarely be exercised and only for the strongest possible reasons. It is not enough for an appellate court to say, or think, that if left to itself it would have awarded the greater penalty because the discretion does not belong to the appellate Court but to the trial judge and the only ground on which an appellate Court can interfere is that the discretion has been improperly exercised, as for example where no reasons are given and none can be inferred from the circumstances of the case, or where the facts are so gross that no normal judicial mind would have awarded the lesser penalty". 4. We are, therefore, not giving the 1st accused the extreme penalty under the law. Accused 2 and 3 were given rigorous imprisonment for 3 months each. The 3rd accused had only caught hold of PW. 7 and the 2nd accused had only aimed a blow at the same witness. For this, rigorous imprisonment for 3 months is a sufficient punishment. We are not allowing the revision petition filed by the State. 5. In the result, the appeal and the revision petition are both dismissed. Dismissed.