JUDGMENT V. D. Bhargava, J. - This is an appeal by Sunder connected with Criminal Reference No. 24 of 1959. The appellant has been convicted under Sec. 302, I.P.C. and sentenced to death. 2. According to the prosecution Bindeshwari Singh deceased was a resident of village Birpur, police station Bara Sagwar, District Unnao. The appellant was a Singhara grower. He had sold Singharas worth Rs. 51- to Bindeshwari Singh deceased out of which a sum of Rs. 3/- was paid to the appellant and Rs. 2/- were outstanding. On the 3rd of December, 1958, in the evening the appellant is alleged to have asked for the balance from Bindeshwari Singh at the latter's door in the presence of Rameshwar Singh (P.W.1) Rameshwar Singh and Bindeshwari Singh lived in the same house though in separate portions. The deceased did not pay the amount; on the other hand, he threatened the accused. The accused also is alleged to have threatened Bindeshwari Singh. 3. The field of Bindeshwari Singh adjoined the field of Rameshwar Singh (P.W.1). On the next morning i.e. the 4th December, 1958, at about 4 a. m. Suraj Bhan Singh (P.W.2) son of P.W.1 Rameshwar Singh along with Bindeshwari Singh went to their fields to water the same from canal water. Both of them on reaching there diverted the canal water towards their fields and after some time they sat under a Bargad tree where they had a fire to warm themselves. Suraj Bhan Singh after having warmed himself for some time went to his own field and Bindeshwari Singh remained sitting under the Bargad tree. Some 10 or 15 minutes after the accused is said to have reached the tree and began to assault Bindeshwari Singh with his lathi. On the alarm being raised by Bindeshwari Singh, Suraj Bhan who was working in a neighbouring field arrived there. Other witnesses Gaya Din, Ram Pal Rajju and Sheo Bhajan who were working in their fields also arrived there. Suraj Bhan Singh had seen the accused striking Bindeshwari Singh with a lathi. After inflicting injuries on Bindeshwari Singh the appellant is said to have run away. He was chased but he entered a sugarcane field with the result that he could not be caught. Suraj Bhan Singh came to inform the father of the deceased but he was not present at the house. After inflicting injuries on Bindeshwari Singh the appellant is said to have run away. He was chased but he entered a sugarcane field with the result that he could not be caught. Suraj Bhan Singh came to inform the father of the deceased but he was not present at the house. Therefore, he informed his own father Rameshwar Singh about the said occurrence. In the meantime Sheo Bhajan was keeping watch over the dead body of Bindeshwari Singh. Rameshwar Singh wrote the first information report which was sent to the police station and thereafter the inquiry started. The accused was not found in the beginning, but he was, later on, arrested on the 6th of December, 1958, and brought in custody to the police station at about 4.40 p.m. He was interrogated by the investigating officer and then he informed him that the lathi by which he had killed Bindeshwari Singh was in a sugarcane field and on his pointing out the lathi was recovered which had blood-stained marks on it. 4. On the 7th December, 1958, the accused was sent to the Unnao Jail where he submitted that he wanted to make a confession. Thereafter he was sent to the Magistrate twice and later on his statement was recorded on the 10th of December, 1958, under Sec. 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was made clear to him that the statement was being made before a Magistrate and that the statement which the accused was giving could be taken against him in evidence. In spite of this warning he admitted before the Magistrate that he had a lathi and went to the field which was being irrigated by Bindeshwari Singh, and that he struck him with the lathi and continued to strike him till he was dead. There was nobody present at that time when he had given the beating. He struck to his statement both before the Committing Magistrate and before the Sessions Judge. Before the Committing Magistrate he had stated that he had sold Singharas to Bindeshwari Singh for Rs. 5/- but Bindeshwari .had given him only Rs. 3/- and had not given him Rs. 2/-. He had a quarrel about the same. Bindeshwari Singh had threatened him and he had also threatened Bindeshwari. Before the Committing Magistrate he had stated that he had sold Singharas to Bindeshwari Singh for Rs. 5/- but Bindeshwari .had given him only Rs. 3/- and had not given him Rs. 2/-. He had a quarrel about the same. Bindeshwari Singh had threatened him and he had also threatened Bindeshwari. He admitted that on the 4th of December, 1958 he had caused injuries to Bindeshwari Singh with a lathi and that the lathi was recovered on the 6th of December, 1958 at 5 p.m. at his pointing out. He admitted that he had made a confession on the 10th of December, 1958 before the Magistrate admitting his guilt. Similar is the statement made by him before the Sessions Judge. 5. The accused was not represented by any counsel in the beginning and therefore the Court had ordered a counsel to be engaged for him at Government expense. After the admission of the accused it is not necessary for us to discuss the evidence in detail of the witnesses. In order to prove the case the prosecution had produced 9 witnesses out of whom Suraj Bhan Singh (P.W.2) and Sheo Bhajan (P.W.7) are the only two witnesses who can be said to have been present soon after the incident and who had seen the accused beating the deceased. The other witnesses are of more or less formal nature. Rameshwar Singh (P.W.1) has given evidence about the quarrel having taken place about the non-payment of Rs. 2/- on the previous evening. Suraj Bhan Singh P.W.2 in his evidence has deposed about his going along with the deceased early in the morning and warming themselves under the Bargad tree. Later on he had gone to his own field and on the alarm of the deceased he came to the scene. Similarly Sheo Bhajan also had arrived later. There cannot be any doubt after the admission of the accused and the statement of these two witnesses that it was the accused who had been responsible for the death of the deceased. 6. In appeal also a Counsel had been provided for at the State expense. Learned counsel for the appellant has not argued the appeal on merits but has confined his arguments to the question of sentence. He has not challenged the conviction under Sec. 502, I.P.C. 7. 6. In appeal also a Counsel had been provided for at the State expense. Learned counsel for the appellant has not argued the appeal on merits but has confined his arguments to the question of sentence. He has not challenged the conviction under Sec. 502, I.P.C. 7. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is a young man of 25 years of age and he had made an honest and frank confession of his guilt. Under the circumstances he should be given the advantage of the lessor punishment. Age alone is not a consideration on which lesser punishment could be imposed. It has further been argued that there is no evidence on the record as to how the quarrel in the morning started. It may be that when the appellant and the deceased met in the morning, there was again some kind of verbal quarrel and there was some kind of provocation given to the accused on account of which he got annoyed and struck the deceased. On the other hand, it can very well be that the deceased had in his mind the threat which had been given the previous night and though he had a full night to consider the matter yet in the morning he committed this murder in a cold and calculated manner. If it was committed under the former circumstances then it was argued that the accused would be entitled to the lesser penalty, but if it was in the latter circumstances then there can be no question of any leniency being shown to the accused. The extreme penalty would be the only punishment which could be inflicted. In our opinion since the prosecution has not given the details of the incident at that time and since there are both the possibilities the accused would be entitled to the benefit of doubt in the matter of sentence as in the matter of conviction. In somewhat similar circumstances it was held in Nga Kan v. Emperor, 37 Cr. L.J. 463. "The accused, a youth of 17 or 18, had been insulted and provoked and as a result of the fighting which ensued the deceased met with his death. In somewhat similar circumstances it was held in Nga Kan v. Emperor, 37 Cr. L.J. 463. "The accused, a youth of 17 or 18, had been insulted and provoked and as a result of the fighting which ensued the deceased met with his death. It was also possible that the accused in order to live up to his reputation of being a bull want only attacked the deceased who was unarmed: "Held, that as an accused person is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt in the matter of sentence as in the matter of conviction and as there was doubt about the cause of the quarrel and the accused was only a lad of 17 or 18, the extreme penalty of the law was not called for." In the present, case also we are doubtful about the manner in which the quarrel started. Taking into consideration the youth of the accused and also the fact that he had make a frank confession and the doubt in our mind about the manger in which the fight started we think the accused should be given the benefit of doubt in the matter of sentence and we accordingly, while maintaining the conviction under Sec. 302, I.P.C., set aside the sentence of death passed upon him and convert it into that of imprisonment for life. With this modification the appeal is dismissed. 8. In accordance with our judgment in the criminal appeal the reference is rejected.