Judgment :- 1. This appeal is by the accused in Sessions Case No. 27 of 1959 of the Sessions Court of Quilon. He stands convicted under S.302,326 and 333, I. P. C. and sentenced to suffer death subject to confirmation by this Court under S.302 I. P. C. and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years under S.326 I. P. C. No separate sentence was awarded under S.333. 2. The accused Padmanabhan Thankappan aged 26 is an Ezhava of Erumeli who had migfated to the Araya Colony in the Ranni Forest Range. He was giving tuition to some of the Arayas who were illiterate and an attachment arose between him and Cw.1 an Araya girl aged 19. Since the parents of the girl and the Araya Community in general resented the marriage between them they shifted to another locality nearby. After the death of the girl's parents they went back to the Araya Colony and settled there in the girl's house. The accused's aged parents were also with them. Reports were received from the forest authorities that the accused was trespassing into the forest area and clearing the forest unauthorisedly, Though he was warned on former occasions by the forest authorities including Pw. 2, the forester and the deceased Chellappan Chettiar a forest guard, he continued his acts of depredation. On the 1st of March 1959 at about 5.30 in the evening Pw. 2 proceeded to the place where the accused was reported to be committing trespass. The deceased Chellappan Chettiar and another guard who is examined as Pw. 3 were in his company. On the way they were met by Pws. 9 and 10, two Arayas who also accompanied them. When they reached the accused's place, they found him standing in the courtyard of his house. His parents were also there. Seeing the party the parents went into the house. Pw. 2 and party stood at a distance of about 20 feet to the south-east of the house. The deceased Chettiar asked the accused whether it was a fact that he was clearing the forest. The accused replied in a defiant tone that nobody was clearing the forest in that locality. Seeing the party the parents went into the house. Pw. 2 and party stood at a distance of about 20 feet to the south-east of the house. The deceased Chettiar asked the accused whether it was a fact that he was clearing the forest. The accused replied in a defiant tone that nobody was clearing the forest in that locality. When the deceased questioned him further the accused got furious & muttering that there would be no peace for him unless some of those officers were done away with, he rushed towards the deceased Chettiar with M. O.3 Malappuram knife and gave him two stabs on the left side of the chest. The accused's wife (Cw.1) intervened in an attempt to prevent any further mishaps. The accused failed to take heed of her entreaties and continued to stab. Two of the stabs missed their aim and hit the woman. The accused then rushed towards Pw. 2 and stabbed him also. The stab fell on his left arm. Pw. 2 took to his heels. He was pursued by the accused who gave him another stab on the back. While fleeing for his life Pw. 2 turned back and the accused aimed a third stab at him. Pw. 2 warded off the stab with his umbrella. Then Pw. 2 left the umbrella and his sandals there and ran for his life. Pw. 3, the other guard and Pws. 9 and 10, the Arayas who had accompanied the forest officers and were keeping at a distance had run away earlier. On the way they met the head-man of the Arayas, one Kutty and informed him of the incident. On their request Kutty removed the injured Chettiar from where he was lying. Chettiar and Pw. 2 were both taken to the Ranni Hospital. The Sub-Inspector of Police Pw. 18 on getting the information went to the Ranni Hospital and as he found Chettiar in a grave condition and not in a position to give a statement he recorded the First Information Statement from Pw. 2. The statement was recorded at 2 A. M. and is marked Ext. P-5. Chettiar was removed to the Kottayam District Hospital where he died the next morning. Pw. 2 was treated as an inpatient for 20 days after which he was discharged. 2. The statement was recorded at 2 A. M. and is marked Ext. P-5. Chettiar was removed to the Kottayam District Hospital where he died the next morning. Pw. 2 was treated as an inpatient for 20 days after which he was discharged. The day after the incident at about 10.45 A. M. the accused's wife appeared before the Ranni Police Station and complained that the forester and party had assaulted her husband and his father and when she intervened the forester had inflicted two cuts on her with a chopper. A case was registered on her information as Crime No. 24 of 1959 which was later referred as false as investigation revealed that the injuries were accidentally caused by the accused when she intervened on seeing him stabbing the deceased. The referred charge is Ext. P-28. The accused was arrested at about 3 A. M. on 5-3-1959 and M. 0. III knife which was with him was recovered. 3. The accused's plea is one of private defence. Ext. P-30 is his statement before the Committing Court. There he admitted that Pw. 2, the deceased and Pw. 3 in the company of Pws. 9 and 10 had gone to his house at the time of the incident, but denied that the deceased questioned him about trespassing into the forest area and that he stabbed Chettiar and Pw. 2. He further denied that he had cleared the forest area. In the Sessions Court he admitted the incident but gave his own version of it. He said that the deceased and party went to his house and Pw. 10 abused his father and pulled him out to the courtyard from the house. The deceased Chettiar then rushed towards him, held him by the fold of his cloth and pushed him out into the courtyard. Chettiar then throttled him. His father was also crying out at that time. Finding that the situation was dangerous he (the accused) took out his knife from his waist-band. Pw. 2 then picked up a chopper that was lying there and aimed a cut at him. Seeing this his wife ran to his help and in the attempt to ward off the blow the cuts fell on her hand and injured her. Then his wife caught hold of Pw. 2 by his shirt. It was at this juncture, that he, apprehending that they would be killed, stabbed Chettiar. Seeing this his wife ran to his help and in the attempt to ward off the blow the cuts fell on her hand and injured her. Then his wife caught hold of Pw. 2 by his shirt. It was at this juncture, that he, apprehending that they would be killed, stabbed Chettiar. Chettiar did not release the hold and he had to inflict a second stab. By this time Pw. 2 got himself released from the hold of the accused's wife and advanced towards the accused with the chopper. So he had to stab Pw. 2 also. By that time all of them ran away from the scene. He added that his union with an Araya woman was disliked by the members of the Araya community who were making all attempts to persecute him. Pw. 9 had an earlier encounter with the accused and it was he who actually cleared the forest and reported to the authorities that the accused was responsible for it. The accused also stated that at the time of the incident he was not aware that Pws. 2 and 3 and the deceased were forest officers. 4. The fact that Chettiar died in the District Hospital, Kottayam on the morning of the 2nd March 1959 as a result of the injuries sustained by him is not disputed. Ext. P-18 is the wound certificate issued by Pw. 16 who examined him and Ext. P-29 is the post-mortem certificate issued by Pw. 20 who conducted the autopsy. Ext. P-18 notes two incised injuries, one 3" x 1" penetrating the abdominal cavity and another 2 1/2" x 13/4" penetrating the thoracic cavity. There were also corresponding injuries to the lungs, spleen and other internal organs. The Medical officer gives his opinion that the injuries are sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and that the cause of death was syncope due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the injuries. 5. Pw. 2 was treated by Pw. 16 and Ext. P-19 is the wound certificate. He had three incised injuries, one on the back of the left arm, another on the left side of the chest and the third on the lateral aspect of the right forearm. Pw. 5. Pw. 2 was treated by Pw. 16 and Ext. P-19 is the wound certificate. He had three incised injuries, one on the back of the left arm, another on the left side of the chest and the third on the lateral aspect of the right forearm. Pw. 20 gives evidence that he was treated as an inpatient in the hospital for twenty days during which period he was unable to pursue his ordinary avocations in life. According to the doctor all the injuries could be caused by stabbing with M. 0.3, knife. 6. As mentioned already the accused does not deny the fact that he had an encounter with the deceased and Pw. 2 at the time specified in the charge. However he gives a different version of the circumstances leading to the incident and of the details of the incident itself. According to him the forest officers and the Arayas who accompanied them were in the aggressive and without any provocation on his part he and his aged father were attacked by them. The quarrel started by Pw. 10 entering into his house and pulling out his aged father to the courtyard. It may be mentioned that there is absolutely no evidence in support of the version of the incident as given by the accused. In Ext. P-25, the statement given to the police by the accused's wife she had a different story to tell. According to that statement when the forest officers came, the accused was outside the house tilling the soil and not inside the house as is now alleged by the accused. Again in Ext. P-25 it was stated that it was while Chettiar was beating him indiscriminately that the accused took out the knife and waved it and Chettiar was hit on his abdomen. Then Pw. 2 rushed forward with the chopper and attempted to cut the accused and the cut fell on her hand because she intervened. We have already noted that the accused's case is that it was while he was throttled by Chettiar that his wife was attached by Pw. 2. Then he took out his pen-knife and stabbed Chettiar and it was later that Pw. 2 rushed towards him and he had to stab Pw. 2 also. Even the story given by the accused's wife in Ext. 2. Then he took out his pen-knife and stabbed Chettiar and it was later that Pw. 2 rushed towards him and he had to stab Pw. 2 also. Even the story given by the accused's wife in Ext. P-25 was improved upon by her when she was examined in the court as Cw.1. Here in court she comes out for the first time with the case that her father-in-law who was engaged in cutting a jack fruit was dragged out of the house and beaten by Pw. 10. Her case in Ext. P-25 that her husband was repeatedly beaten by Chettiar was also left out in her evidence before court. When she was confronted with her earlier statement she denied having made material portions of it. 7. The prosecution version about the incident is well-established by the clear and consistent evidence of. Pw. 2 who was himself injured, witness No. 3 one of the guards who was with him and witnesses Nos. 9 and 10 who had accompanied the forest officers to the place. The accused has no case that Pws. 3, 9 and 10 were not present at the time. On the other hand his case is that they took an active part in the incident and were interested in foisting the case against him Pw. 2 swears that on 10-2-1959 he first came to know that the accused was unlawfully clearing the Reserve Forest. Then he went to the place and found that the accused had cleared an area of 10 sq. ft. He warned him to stop the trespass and reported the matter to the Range Officer. Chellappan Chettiar was also in his company at that time. The report filed by him is Ext. P-3. Pw. 8 is the range officer who directed him to take necessary steps in case the accused continued his depredations and Ext. P-4 is the endorsement to that effect made by him. On the date of incident P.W. 2 again got information that the accused was still persisting in clearing the forest area and he proceeded to the place in the company of the deceased and Pw. 3. They were met 011 the way by Pws. 9 and 10 who also accompanied them. When they reached near the house they found the accused in the courtyard. 3. They were met 011 the way by Pws. 9 and 10 who also accompanied them. When they reached near the house they found the accused in the courtyard. The accused's parents were also there and the mother got into the house while the father moved off to the western side of the house. The deceased Chettiar was at the time standing at a distance of about 20 feet from the house. Chettiar asked the accused whether he was clearing the forest. He replied no body is clearing the forest". The deceased then asked him why he was collecting men and tools if he had no intention of cutting down the forest. The accused retorted in a defiant tone "Is it not to you that I already said that nobody is clearing the forest here?" So saying he took out the malappuram knife from his waist band and rushed towards Chettiar and gave him two stabs; one on the leftside of the chest & the other on the back. While the accused attempted to stab again the accused's wife ran up and intervened & one or two stabs fell on her hand. Chettiar fell down immediately The accused then turned towards Pw. 2 & stabbed him. As he moved off to the right the stab fell on his left arm. He turned & ran & the accused stabbed him on the back. He continued to run and when he turned the accused stabbed him again. He warded off the stab with the umbrella and the stab fell on the umbrella. The umbrella was torn and his hand was injured. It was then that he felt his sandals and the umbrella at the place and ran off Pw. 3 and Pws. 9 and 10 who were with them had already left the place. He gave the First Information statement to the Sub-Inspector at 2 o'clock in the night wherein he has given substantially the same version in all its details Nothing has been brought out in his examination to indicate that he was giving a different version in court or had in any way improved upon the earlier statement. The suggestions made to him that the accused's father was inside the house at the time cutting jack fruit and he, the deceased, Pw. 3 and the Arayas assaulted the parents of the accused were denied by him. The suggestions made to him that the accused's father was inside the house at the time cutting jack fruit and he, the deceased, Pw. 3 and the Arayas assaulted the parents of the accused were denied by him. Similarly the suggestion that the accused's wife caught hold of his shirt when he attempted to cut the accused and the shirt was thus torn was also denied by him. Though the accused would say that he had not seen Pw. 2 and the deceased on former occasions and was not aware that they were forest officers in Ext. P-25 his wife has admitted that Pw. 2 as well as the deceased had visited the place on former occasions. Neither the accused nor his wife has a case that Pw. 2 was armed with any weapon. Even according to them the chopper was picked up by him at random form the place. The umbrella with the tear caused by the knife as well as the sandals worn by Pw. 2 which were abandoned by Pw. 2 were found by Pw. 11 at the place when he went to remove the deceased to the hospital. Even in Ext. P-25 Cw.1 has admitted that these belongings of PW. 2 were abandoned by him at the spot. Pw. 3 is the guard who accompanied them. His evidence fully supports that of Pw. 2. After narrating the manner in which the accused stabbed Chettiar and how the accused's wife who intervened got injuries on her hand he goes on to say how the accused rushed towards Pw. 2 who was standing 25 feet away from the place. He saw the accused giving the 1st stab to Pw. 2 and the 2nd when he attempted to run off. He saw Pw. 2 running pursued by the accused, but he does not speak about the subsequent stabs as he himself was fleeing for his life. He says that he was standing at a distance of about 30 feet from Pw. 2. In cross-examination no suggestion was put to him about the defence version of the incident. It was not even suggested that he had to do anything with the incident or that he took any part in the encounter. Absolutely nothing is brought out to discredit his evidence. Pws. 9 and 10 fully corroborate the evidence of Pws. 2 and 3. In cross-examination no suggestion was put to him about the defence version of the incident. It was not even suggested that he had to do anything with the incident or that he took any part in the encounter. Absolutely nothing is brought out to discredit his evidence. Pws. 9 and 10 fully corroborate the evidence of Pws. 2 and 3. They were following the forest officers and they witnessed the entire incident from the beginning. After seeing the attack on the deceased and Pw. 2 they ran off from the place to a distance of about a furlong, At the time of incident they did not go near the place but were standing at a distance of about 50 feet. Apart from the general suggestion that the Arayas of the place bore a grudge against the accused because of his alliance with an Araya girl nothing has been suggested to Pw. 9 as to why he should give a false version of the incident. He was not cross-examined to make out that he was not giving a true account of what he saw. The details of the defence case have also not been put to the witness. There is also nothing to indicate that he has given a different version when he was questioned by the police. No doubt, in the case of Pw. 10 it was alleged that Pw. 10 had himself cleared a portion of the forest area and complained that it was the accused who did it and the accused had assaulted the witness on that account earlier. That suggestion was denied by the witness and there is no evidence except the bald statement of the accused in support of the suggestion. The accused's case that it was this witness who started the trouble that day was not even suggested to him. In the case of this witness also there is no indication that he gave a different version of the incident when questioned by the police. Pw. 11 is the head of the Arayas to whom Pws. 2 and 3 reported about the incident immediately afterwards and whose help was sought to remove Chettiar to the hospital. In the case of this witness also there is no indication that he gave a different version of the incident when questioned by the police. Pw. 11 is the head of the Arayas to whom Pws. 2 and 3 reported about the incident immediately afterwards and whose help was sought to remove Chettiar to the hospital. He swears that on going to the place he found Chettiar lying injured at a place 20 feet away from the accused's house and that he found the shoes and the umbrella at a place about 100 feet away from where Chettiar lay. His evidence supports the prosecution case that Chettiar was attacked before he actually went to the accused's house and that Pw. 2 had to run for his life after abandoning his umbrella and shoes on the way. Pw. 13 is the brother-in-law of the accused. Immediately after the incident the accused and his wife went to his house to seek advice and spent the night with him. The accused narrated the incident to the witness and it was the witness who advised him to go and appear before the police and the accused's wife to go and report to the police as to how she sustained the injuries. He swears that though his sister told him that the forester (Pw. 2) cut her with a chopper, when the accused was questioned about it he said he was not aware how it happened. When he was confronted with his case diary notes where he is seen to have stated that the accused told him that it was while he was stabbing the deceased that his wife intervened and sustained the injuries the witness denied that he had made any such statement. The evidence discussed above has clearly established that the accused was on the aggressive and that the incident took place in the manner alleged by the prosecution. The probabilities also are in favour of the prosecution version of the incident. The accused has no case that Chettiar was armed. It is also admitted that Pw. 2 also had no weapon with him. The chopper he is alleged to have used is said to have been picked up from the courtyard. No injury of any sort was sustained by the accused. The accused has no case that Chettiar was armed. It is also admitted that Pw. 2 also had no weapon with him. The chopper he is alleged to have used is said to have been picked up from the courtyard. No injury of any sort was sustained by the accused. The injuries on the accused's wife's hand could well have been sustained in the manner alleged by the prosecution and the medical evidence is also to that effect. It was argued by the defence that the very fact that the forest officers came there with the avowed object of taking action against the accused for the trespass and the presence of Pws. 9 and 10 would indicate that they bad come in a body after making the necessary preparations to meet the accused. It is clear that the officers came only with a view to making enquires about the trespass and to take appropriate legal action. It they had come prepared it is unlikely that the accused could have taken them unawares causing the death of one, injuring another and making them all run from the place in fear of life. The learned Sessions judge was right in holding that the incident took place in the manner depicted by the prosecution witnesses. 8. The brutal nature of the attack on the deceased and the infliction of the fatal injuries on vital portions of the body clearly indicate that the accused acted with the intention of causing death. The conviction of the accused for murder has therefore only to be upheld. However in the circumstances of this case we are of the view that the extreme penalty of law is not called for There was no premeditation on the accused's part to attack the deceased. It looks as if he was upset by the sudden appearance of the forest officers who came there to question him about his unauthorised clearance of the forest land and in a sudden fit of despair or anger he launched an attack on the deceased. 9. In the result while confirming the conviction of the accused under S.302 the sentence of death imposed on him is set aside and we sentence him to rigorous imprisonment for life. The conviction under S.326 as well as the punishment of rigorous imprisonment for five years are also confirmed. The two sentences are directed to run concurrently. 9. In the result while confirming the conviction of the accused under S.302 the sentence of death imposed on him is set aside and we sentence him to rigorous imprisonment for life. The conviction under S.326 as well as the punishment of rigorous imprisonment for five years are also confirmed. The two sentences are directed to run concurrently. With the above modification the criminal appeal is dismissed, and the reference is answered as indicated above.