Judgment :- 1. Varughese Lukkose, the accused in Sessions Case No. 2 of 1954 on the file of the Parur Sessions Court has been found guilty of murder and sentenced to be transported for life. Criminal Appeal 108 has been preferred against the conviction and the sentence. The State has filed Criminal Revision Petition 82 of 1954 to enhance the sentence into one of the extreme penalty of law. 2. The case against the appellant was that he caused the death of one Iype Varkki by cutting him on the head, neck and other parts of the body with a chopper. The occurrence is alleged to have been taken place at about 7 A.M. on 17.9.1953 in a paddy field belonging to the said Varkki not far away from his house. The appellant used to earn his livelihood by manual labour and he was for long working for the deceased as a farm labourer. For a time he left Varkki's service but rejoined him some two years before the occurrence. On 14.9.1953 he wanted some money from Varkki but that was refused. For two days he did not go for work though Varkki had entrusted him with some work. On the 17th morning he went to Varkki's house and Varkki directed him to attend to some work in his paddy field. He was given a spade and a chopper and he went to the field with those implements. Varkki's filed and the adjoining fields were being ploughed that morning. Not long after the appellant reached the field Varkki also went there. He found the appellant to be attending to some work other than he entrusted him with. He scolded him on account of that and said that if he does not want to do the work assigned to him he had better leave the field. To this the appellant would seem to have replied why he was being threatened. At this time Varkki was proceeding along the bund of his field to the place of ploughing and the appellant rushing towards him with the chopper brought from Varkki's house gave a cut on the right side of Varkki's face. Varkki fell down into the northern paddy field which P.W. 3 was cultivating as a lessee. The appellant jumped into the field after Varkki and inflicted 5 or 6 cuts on the latter's head and neck with the very same chopper. Varkki fell down into the northern paddy field which P.W. 3 was cultivating as a lessee. The appellant jumped into the field after Varkki and inflicted 5 or 6 cuts on the latter's head and neck with the very same chopper. P.W. 3 and P.W. 14 were at that time ploughing that filed and P.W. 3 raised a hue and cry saying that Varkki was being cut with a chopper. This brought the neighbours to the scene as also Varkki's wife. By the time the neighbours reached the spot where Varkki was lying wounded the appellant escaped with the chopper. He went straight to the house of the deceased and there shut himself up in a room still keeping the chopper in his hand. By threat of force P.W. 6 managed to secure the chopper. The appellant was still refusing to come out and P.W. 6 got into the house by making an opening through the roof and forcibly brought him out to the court-yard. He was then bound to a cocoanut tree with a cloth and coir. Varkki's wife (P.W. 2) and others meanwhile found that Varkki had died and immediately information was sent to the Perumbavoor Police Station. The Police arrived soon after and they first took the appellant into the custody. An inquest was then conducted over the dead body and later it was sent for post mortem examination. After due investigation the Police charge-sheeted a case against the appellant for murder. After the preliminary enquiry he was committed to the Sessions Court to stand his trial for murder. 3. That Iype Varkki, the husband of P.W. 2, died on the morning of 17.9.1953 as a result of injuries sustained by him with a sharp deadly instrument admits of no doubt on the evidence in the cases. The post-mortem examination showed that he had as many as 6 incised wounds and one gaping wound. These injuries are described as follows in the post-mortem certificate: "1. Incised wound 1/2" x 1/4" x 1/4" on right side of head, situated obliquely and on inch above the right ear; 2. Incised wound 1/2" x 1/4" x 1/2" obliquely on outer end of right elbow cutting the bone; 3. Incised wound on right side of face 4" x 1/2" x 1" extending 1/2" from the right ear to 1/2" from tip of the nose; 4. Incised wound 1/2" x 1/4" x 1/2" obliquely on outer end of right elbow cutting the bone; 3. Incised wound on right side of face 4" x 1/2" x 1" extending 1/2" from the right ear to 1/2" from tip of the nose; 4. Incised wound 11/2" x 1/2" x 3/4" transversely on the left shoulder exposing the bone; 5. Incised wound 2" x 1/2" on left jaw exposing the bone; 6. Chopped gaping wound 4" x 3" x 3" on left side of neck cutting the skin, muscles, main blood vessels of the left side of neck and the 4th cervical vertibra as well as a portion of the spinal cord; and 7. Incised wound 11/4" x 1/2" x 1/2" situated 1" above the upper margin of injury No. 6." According to P.W. 4, the Medical Officer, who conducted the autopsy, Varkki died on account of the syncope due to shock and haemorrhage caused by the injuries. P.W. 4 expressed the further view that injury No. 6 was in itself fatal. 4. There is also ample evidence in the case to show that it was the appellant who inflicted the injuries noticed above on Varkki and that they were caused at the time and placed alleged, and under circumstances mentioned, by the prosecution. When called upon to plead to the charge read out to him at the trial he admitted that there was an incident or a quarrel but added that he could not remember whether he committed the offence. The learned judge has grouped the witnesses who connected the appellant with the crime into three. The first group consisting of P.Ws. 3, 5 and 7 speak to the whole occurrence. The second group consisted of P.Ws. 1, 2, 9 to 12 and 14 and they saw all but the infliction of the first injury while the deceased was on the bund. The 3rd group consists of P.Ws. 6, 8,13,15 and 16. All that they saw was the appellant leaving the scene of the crime with a chopper in his hand and Iype Varkki lying dead profusely bleeding. 5. P.W. 3 was at the time of the occurrence ploughing the field into which Varkki fell as a result of the first cut he received at the hands of the appellant. It was this witness's cries that attracted the neighbours to the scene. 5. P.W. 3 was at the time of the occurrence ploughing the field into which Varkki fell as a result of the first cut he received at the hands of the appellant. It was this witness's cries that attracted the neighbours to the scene. P.W. 7 was at that time ploughing the deceased's filed. P.W. 5 is the brother-in-law of the deceased and he saw the occurrence while he was going to join P.W. 7 for ploughing. The lower court has examined the evidence of P.W. 3 in detail and pointed out that P.Ws.5 and 7 corroborate him fully. Of the next set of witnesses P.W. 14 is appellant's own brother and he has corroborated P.Ws. 3, 5 and 7 and P.Ws. 1, 2 and 9 to 12 with regard to the infliction of injuries on Varkki after he fell into the field. It is unnecessary to refer to the eye-witnesses further than to state that, like the learned Sessions Judge, we cannot find any infirmity in their evidence. We have carefully examined the testimony of all the above witnesses and in our opinion, there need be no doubt about the truth of their evidence. They prove conclusively that the injuries noticed on Varkki's body at the post-mortem examination were inflicted by the appellant and none else. The evidence of the third group of witnesses lend circumstantial corroboration to the evidence of the eye-witnesses. 6. In these circumstances it is no wonder that the learned counsel retained by the Court to represent the appellant could not find any ground to urge against the conviction. His attempt was only to see that the sentence was not enhanced pursuant to the revision filed by the State. We confirm the conviction of the appellant for the offence of murder. We are afraid the learned judge erred in thinking that the act by which Varkki's death was caused was done only with the intention of causing bodily injury likely to cause his death. We fail to see why the judge did not make himself bold to say that the act was done with the intention of causing death. 7. We are afraid the learned judge erred in thinking that the act by which Varkki's death was caused was done only with the intention of causing bodily injury likely to cause his death. We fail to see why the judge did not make himself bold to say that the act was done with the intention of causing death. 7. In passing the sentence the learned judge observes: " it seems to me that in circumstances of the case a sentence of transportation for life will meet the ends of justice especially in view of the absence of premeditation." This is all that the judgment contains to justify the imposition of the lesser penalty. When a trial judge does not pass the sentence of death he is bound to record reasons why the death sentence was not passed. Vide S.367(5), Criminal Procedure Code. To justify the imposition of the lesser penalty the trial judge must find that there are really extenuating circumstances and not merely absence of aggravating circumstances. The extreme sentence is the normal sentence for murder; the mitigated sentence is the exception. The judge should, therefore, examine whether there are reasons for abstaining from imposing the penalty of death and not whether there are reasons for imposing that penalty. Absence of pre-meditation may form a sufficient ground for imposing the lesser penalty, but where the murder is, even if not premeditated, carried out with the deliberate and persistent ferocity, the only proper sentence to be passed is one of death. Ratanlal's Law of Crimes (18th Edition), page 761 and the cases noted there under foot-note (2). 8. The prosecution case would seem to have been that the appellant harboured some animosity towards the deceased. Though the learned judge sets that out in the opening part of his judgment, in considering whether the murder was premeditated no reference is made to that at all. Instead we get the ipse dixit quoted above that there was no premeditation. Assuming there was no premeditation, the appellant's conduct inflicting 5 or 6 injuries after the deceased had fallen down as a result of the first blow was deliberate and ferocicous. The weapon used was a heavy chopper and it was on the head and the neck of Varkki that the attack was concentrated upon. Assuming there was no premeditation, the appellant's conduct inflicting 5 or 6 injuries after the deceased had fallen down as a result of the first blow was deliberate and ferocicous. The weapon used was a heavy chopper and it was on the head and the neck of Varkki that the attack was concentrated upon. We are unable to appreciate what the learned judge meant when he used the words "in the circumstances of the case" in the passage quoted earlier. That phraseology is being resorted to more often than not by Sessions Judges when it is inconvenient to state the reasons for imposing the lesser penalty. So long as death remains the normal penalty for murder it is not proper for a Sessions Judge not to award that sentence except for justifiable reasons. Sessions Judges would do well to remember that should they pass a sentence of death the matter will further be considered by the High Court before the sentence is confirmed. On the other hand, where a sentence of transportation for life is passed there are great difficulties to enhance it into a sentence of death even where that sentence ought to have been passed. 9. We have made these observations as we notice an increasing tendency on the part of Sessions Judges not to award the death penalty where such a sentence ought to be passed. However, acting on the rule that when the Sessions Court awards the lesser penalty, the High Court will not enhance the sentence unless it is satisfied that on the evidence in the case the sentence of death is the only possible sentence which could have been passed by the Sessions Court, we do not seek to enhance the sentence passed in this case. The learned Sessions Judge gives absence of premeditation as the reason, but on the facts of the case, even if the act was done without premeditation, the appellant's conduct in attacking his helpless victim after he fell down calls for extreme penalty. Nevertheless we decline to interfere with the sentence passed in the case. 10. Another aspect which we desire to point out before concluding is that the method the learned judge adopted in examining the appellant under S. 342 is open to serious exception. Nevertheless we decline to interfere with the sentence passed in the case. 10. Another aspect which we desire to point out before concluding is that the method the learned judge adopted in examining the appellant under S. 342 is open to serious exception. We had occasion to point out recently in another case that the object of the examination of an accused person under the section is to offer him a fair and proper opportunity of explaining circumstances which appear against him. The examination of an accused person is not to be conducted in the manner of questioning an hostile witness nor should it be for the purpose of making the accused admit or deny every fact proved against him in the case. The accused is to be asked what he has to say on the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence. The Judge's function is not to extract admissions, or to obtain denials of the crucial facts in the case. 11. Though the appellant has been questioned in an objectionable manner we do not find the learned judge using that examination to fasten guilt on him. We cannot, therefore, say that the examination has prejudiced him in any way. In a border-line case such examination might even lead to miscarriage of justice. 12. To conclude, the conviction of the appellant for murder and the sentence passed against him for that offence are confirmed. Criminal Appeal 108 and Criminal Revision Petition 82 are both dismissed. Dismissed.