JUDGMENT P. Govinda Menon, J. 1. The appellant Krishnan Nair has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of Ernakulam for the murder of Narayanan Nair alias Kuttappan Nair and his younger brother Gopalakrishnan Nair alias Balan Nair on the evening of 29-2-64 and he has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life for the murder of Narayanan Nair and to suffer death for the murder of Balan Nair. 2. The scene of occurrence in this case is in front of a grocery shop in Memuri village in Moovattupuzha taluk. The grocery shop was originally conducted by P.W. 11 Pachu Nair, a relation of the accused. Sometime before the occurrence the business was taken over by the accused. The shop building had a charthu (lean to) and it is stated that this was abutting into the adjoining compound belonging to deceased Narayanan Nair. Deceased Narayanan Nair had permitted Pachu Nair to put up this shed and every year the thatching was said to have been done with his permission. When Pachu Nair was running the business, deceased Narayanan Nair had kept some cement bags inside the shop room. When the accused took over the business he asked Narayanan Nair to remove the cement bags and finally on one occasion he threatened Narayanan Nair that in case the cement bags were not removed, he would be forced to the necessity of throwing them on the road. Deceased Narayanan Nair then told him that if he would not permit the cement bags to be kept there he would not allow the accused to use the charthu. This led to unpleasantness between them. 3. While so on 29-2-64 deceased came to know that the accused was attempting to thatch the charthu. So he went to the place and objected to the shed being thatched. Accused said that he would thatch the shed. Narayanan Nair then retorted by saying that he would demolish it. Deceased then asked Damodaran Nair to thatch. Saying that he cannot do it, deceased gave a blow to the accused. Then the accused caught hold of Narayanan Nair and pressing his neck under his left arm pit whipped out his dagger and stabbed him on his back. On receipt of the stab, Narayanan Nair fell down on the road. The accused again inflicted one more stab, but missing the aim it fell on Damodaran Nair's left elbow. Then the accused caught hold of Narayanan Nair and pressing his neck under his left arm pit whipped out his dagger and stabbed him on his back. On receipt of the stab, Narayanan Nair fell down on the road. The accused again inflicted one more stab, but missing the aim it fell on Damodaran Nair's left elbow. Injured Narayanan Nair then attempted to rise when the accused again inflicted further stabs on his abdomen. He fell down again and in that lying posture the accused dealt one more stab which hit him on the lower part of his right thigh. Seeing this Narayanan Nair's younger brother deceased Balan Nair came running to the place and caught hold of the accused from behind to prevent him from inflicting further injuries. He tried to wrest the knife from the hand of the accused and sustained injuries on his hand. He then let go his hold of the accused and the accused dealt a violent stab on his abdomen. The accused then made good his escape with the weapon in his hand. Narayanan Nair died on the spot. P.W. 3 who had witnessed the last stages of the attack came and seeing the condition of Balan Nair, went to fetch a car. Before he returned the injured was removed to the Pambakkada dispensary. First aid was rendered and he was sent to the General Hospital, Ernakulam. On the same day at about 8-30 p. m. P. W. 3 laid the first information report before P.W. 26 the Head Constable who was then in charge of Moovattupuzha police station. A case was registered. The dying declaration of Balan Nair was recorded by P.W. 29 the Additional First Class Magistrate, Ernakulam. 4. P.W. 26 proceeded to the scene of occurrence and the same night by about twelve he reached the place. The next morning inquest was held over the dead body of Narayanan Nair. By then under the orders of D.S.P., P.W. 27 the Sub Inspector of Pothanikkad came and took over the investigation as the Sub Inspector of Moovattupuzha, the Circle Inspector and others were away in connection with the disturbance at Keerithode. Enquiries were made about the accused but he was not available. By then under the orders of D.S.P., P.W. 27 the Sub Inspector of Pothanikkad came and took over the investigation as the Sub Inspector of Moovattupuzha, the Circle Inspector and others were away in connection with the disturbance at Keerithode. Enquiries were made about the accused but he was not available. On the 9th the Sub Inspector arrested the accused and questioned him and on information furnished by him M. O. 1 dagger was recovered from Nelikulam Mala, a forest area, near the accused's house. The knife had been secreted underneath a fallen tree and from the place where it was concealed the accused produced the same before the Inspector. In the meanwhile on 1-3-64 Balan Nair also succumbed to his injuries at the hospital. P.W. 21 the Head Constable of Ernakulam North Station held the inquest. After the inquest P.W. 9 the R. M. O. conducted the autopsy. After completing the investigation the accused was charge sheeted along with Damodaran Nair for the offence of murder. Damodaran Nair was discharged by the committing Magistrate. 5. In the committing Magistrate's court all the eye witnesses P. Ws. 1 to 5 were examined and when questioned on the evidence of the witnesses about the quarrel between himself and deceased Narayanan Nair regarding the thatching of the shed the accused stated that he had nothing to say. When questioned about his stabbing Narayanan Nair and Balan Nair, he denied having stabbed them. In the sessions court he made a long statement. He stated that when he was engaged in the work of thatching, deceased along with his younger brother Balan Nair came and obstructed and when he told them that he was only doing what had been done in the previous years, deceased Narayanan Nair dealt a blow on him with a stick which hit him on his head and when he tried to enter into the shop one more blow was dealt on his head and on receipt of the blow he fell down and when he got up from there he was caught by deceased Narayanan Nair and deceased Balan Nair. One more blow was given by Narayanan Nair and then he was pushed down and all of them fell down. One more blow was given by Narayanan Nair and then he was pushed down and all of them fell down. On getting up they again caught him saying that he would be finished, & apprehending danger to his life he took out a knife which he had with him and waved it against the assailants and he does not know who all were injured. He admitted the cement incident but denied that there was any quarrel over it. He claimed possession of the place where the shed was situated. As far as the recovery of M. O. 1 was concerned even though he admitted that he was taken to the spot wherefrom the recovery was made the knife was not actually taken by him from under the trunk of the tree. In support of his plea of private defence the coaccused Damodaran Nair was examined as D.W. 1. 6. The fact that an encounter took place in front of the grocery shop in the course of which Narayanan Nair received serious injuries and died on the spot and Balan Nair received a serious injury on the abdomen and died at the hospital on 2-3-64 is not disputed. P.W. 7 the Assistant Surgeon attached to the Primary Health Centre, Ramamangalam conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Narayanan Nair and issued the post mortem certificate Ext. P. A. He had as many as 7 injuries of which injuries Nos. 1 to 4 were the serious injuries. They are: (1) incised wound 1"x 1/2"x 3" below the right nipple; (2) incised wound 1 1/2"x 1/4" at the upper part and 1/4" wide at the lower part over the right thigh; (3) incised wound 1"x 1/2" on the left side of the chest 3" below the left axillae and (4) incised wound 3/4"x1/2" over the left lumbar region of the back. Injuries 1, 3 and 4 were penetrating injuries. On dissection it was found that the right dome of the diaphram, the left lung, liver and the kidney were injured. On the right thigh the incised wound was directed antroposteriorly with laceration of muscles. Femural vain is cut through lengthwise. Cause of death, according to the doctor, is shock and haemorrhage. Injuries 1, 3 and 4 were penetrating injuries. On dissection it was found that the right dome of the diaphram, the left lung, liver and the kidney were injured. On the right thigh the incised wound was directed antroposteriorly with laceration of muscles. Femural vain is cut through lengthwise. Cause of death, according to the doctor, is shock and haemorrhage. All these injuries had been inflicted on vital portions of the body and the doctor has stated that after sustaining these injuries victim would have survived only for about half an hour. The doctor when examined stated that injury No 2 is necessarily fatal but he was not asked anything about the nature of injuries Nos. 1, 3 and 4. Being penetrating injuries which had cut the diaphram, the left lung and the kidney there can be no doubt that they were injuries which are sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. If a man stabs another indiscriminately on vital portions of his body injuring the internal organs and the victim dies by the consequent shock and haemorrhage, the offence committed is murder, because the assailant in such a case must at least be attributed with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause death and he cannot be heard to say that he did not intend what was the likely result of his act. P. W. 9 the R. M. O. of the Ernakulam General Hospital conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Balan Nair and issued Ext. P. 9 post mortem certificate. He had sustained 6 injuries of which injury No. 1 was the serious injury. It was an oblique penetrating wound 2 1/2" x 1" on the right hypochondrium, intestines omentum and stomach were protruding. According to the doctor it was a necessarily fatal injury. From the serious nature of the injuries sustained by Narayanan Nair and Balan Nair and the weapon seen to have been used, intention to cause death is manifest. Whoever has caused these injuries would, therefore, be guilty of the offence of murder unless his act would come within any one of the exceptions in the Penal Code. 7. Now the question that arises for decision is whether the injuries were inflicted by the accused and under what circumstances were they inflicted. P. Ws. 1 to 5 are the occurrence witnesses. 7. Now the question that arises for decision is whether the injuries were inflicted by the accused and under what circumstances were they inflicted. P. Ws. 1 to 5 are the occurrence witnesses. P. W. 1 is the wife of deceased Narayanan Nair. She stated that when she was in her house she was attracted to the scene on hearing the altercation between her husband and the accused about the thatching of the shed and she has given a detailed account of the incident from start to finish. It is true that she was not prepared to admit that the actual quarrel started because her husband gave a blow to the accused, but that alone is no reason to doubt her entire evidence. It was also stated that she falsely assigned a part to Damodaran Nair that he pushed the deceased, while P.W. 2 who was present at the place when the quarrel started does not speak of Damodaran Nair doing anything to the deceased. It might be that Damodaran Nair was only trying to stop the deceased advancing towards the accused which has been exaggerated into a push by P.W. 1. But for these natural prevarications, usually found in witnesses closely related to the deceased there is nothing to cast any doubt on the truth of her testimony, particularly when her evidence is in the main corroborated by the disinterested witness like P.W. 2. The incident admittedly did take place near her house and she is, therefore, the most natural witness who could have been present to witness the incident. 8. P. W. 2 is a boy aged 18. He had gone to the shop of the accused to purchase kerosine oil. When he reached there the accused was just closing his shop. He was asked to wait there, the accused promising to return soon. After a short while the accused came with P.W. 5 and Damodaran Nair with palm leaves and they at once started thatching the shop. It was at this juncture that the deceased came and objected to the thatching. The accused insisted on doing it and the deceased beat the accused. The accused then caught the deceased and bringing him under his armpit stabbed him on his back. On receipt of the stab, deceased Narayanan Nair fell down. Then one more stab was given which hit Damodaran Nair. The accused insisted on doing it and the deceased beat the accused. The accused then caught the deceased and bringing him under his armpit stabbed him on his back. On receipt of the stab, deceased Narayanan Nair fell down. Then one more stab was given which hit Damodaran Nair. The witness stated that he got frightened and ran away from the place. He is a thoroughly disinterested witness with no axe to grind against the accused. The learned Sessions Judge who had seen and heard the boy giving evidence was very much impressed with his evidence and has chosen to believe him. Learned counsel has not succeeded in pointing out any circumstances in the evidence of this witness to throw any the Slightest doubt on the truth of his testimony. We feel no doubt that his evidence is true and can safely be accepted. The boy's evidence substantially corroborates the evidence of P.W. 1 and the account of the occurrence as given by the deceased in his dying declaration. His evidence shows that deceased Balan Nair was never at the scene at the time when the quarrel started, and that the belated story put forward by the accused is not true. 9. Then we have the evidence of P.W. 3, the brother inlaw of the deceased Narayanan Nair. He stated that on that day when he was in his house he heard "some passers by speaking about the quarrel between the deceased and the accused and so he rushed up to see what the matter was and saw the accused stabbing Narayanan Nair on the abdomen and when he fell down, again stabbing him on his thigh. He further stated that at that time deceased Balan Nair came running from the north and caught hold of the accused from behind and the accused wriggled out and stabbed Balan Nair. After the occurrence he went in search of a car and before he returned to the place Balan Nair was taken to the Pampakkada Hospital. He then proceeded to the police station and laid the first information statement Ext. P 1. Except stating that his house is 3/4th of a furlong away and he could not have reached the place and witnessed the occurrence nothing further has been stated to discredit his evidence. He then proceeded to the police station and laid the first information statement Ext. P 1. Except stating that his house is 3/4th of a furlong away and he could not have reached the place and witnessed the occurrence nothing further has been stated to discredit his evidence. His evidence is clear and consistent and without any avoidable delay he had come forward with this case in Ext. P1. Merely because he happens to be a relation of the deceased is no reason to reject his otherwise cogent testimony. 10. Two other witnesses were examined, P. Ws. 4 & 5. P. W. 4 is a witness who was present from the very beginning. At the time when he was questioned by the police and in the committing Magistrate's court he supported the prosecution case, but in the sessions court he stated that he had not seen the stabbing. When confronted with his statement in the committing Magistrate's Court he stated that what he deposed there is false. His deposition before the committing Magistrate was marked as Ext. P2 in the case. Learned Judge has made use of Ext. P. 2 as substantive evidence under S.288 Cr. P. C., but a scrutiny of the deposition shows that no order had been passed admitting the deposition under S.288 Cr. P.C. and no notice was given to the accused that the deposition made by the witness in the committing Magistrate's court is going to be used as substantive evidence. Under such circumstances it cannot be said that the conditions required by S.288 have been satisfied so as to entitle the court to treat Ext. P2 as substantive evidence. The necessity of strict compliance of these conditions has been explained by the Supreme Court in Tara Singh v. The State (1951 Supreme Court Reports, Vol. II, P. 729 at p. 745) in the following words: "Of course the witness can be cross examined about the previous statement and that cross examination can be used to destroy his testimony in the sessions court. If that serves the purpose of the prosecution, then nothing more is required, but if the prosecution wishes to go further and use the previous testimony as substantive evidence, then it must, in my opinion, confront the witness with those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him. If that serves the purpose of the prosecution, then nothing more is required, but if the prosecution wishes to go further and use the previous testimony as substantive evidence, then it must, in my opinion, confront the witness with those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him. Then only can the matter be brought in as substantive evidence under S.288." The question once again came up for consideration of the Supreme Court in Bhagwan Singh v. The State of Punjab (1952 Supreme Court Reports, Vol. III P. 812) and there the practice of merely putting in the prior deposition of the witness without giving him an opportunity of explaining the statements which are proposed to be treated as substantive evidence was condemned. In dealing with this matter, it was observed as follows at page 822: "There can be no hard and fast rule. All that is required is that the witness must be treated fairly and be afforded a reasonable opportunity of explaining the contradictions after his attention has been drawn to them in a fair and reasonable manner." Viewed in the light of these principles we are of opinion that Ext. P2 cannot be used as substantive evidence. Even if that be so, it would not make any difference, because the evidence of Pws. 1 to 3 is sufficient to afford a basis for finding the accused guilty and the mere fact that inadmissible evidence was also called in aid would not affect the result of the case. Similarly, Pw. 5 was also treated as hostile and cross examined and his deposition in the committing Magistrate's Court has been marked as Ext. P3. But the learned Judge has placed no reliance on his evidence and nothing further need be stated about him. 11. Apart from the evidence of Pws. 1 to 3 there is also the dying declaration Ext. P. 15 recorded by Pw. 19 the Additional First Class Magistrate. There deceased Balan Nair has referred to the dispute about thatching of the charthu, the attempt made by the accused to thatch it, his brother Narayanan Nair going and objecting, the accused stabbing him with a dagger, his going and catching hold of the accused and the accused stabbing him. 19 the Additional First Class Magistrate. There deceased Balan Nair has referred to the dispute about thatching of the charthu, the attempt made by the accused to thatch it, his brother Narayanan Nair going and objecting, the accused stabbing him with a dagger, his going and catching hold of the accused and the accused stabbing him. We have carefully scrutinised the statement and we find no circumstance to doubt that his statement is not a truthful version as to the circumstances of the death of the deponent and his brother. This dying declaration Ext. P.15 was pressed into service by the learned counsel for the accused in support of his case that Balan Nair was also at the scene from the very beginning and had been lending a helping hand to his brother. It is true that in one place in Ext. P15 Balan Nair had stated that the thatching was obstructed by them, meaning both himself and his brother Narayanan Nair, but in the latter part of the statement the matter has been placed beyond all possibility of doubt and there he has stated in very clear terms that it wars on hearing the hubbub that he ran to the place and by the time he readied there 3 or 4 stabs were inflicted on Narayanan Nair and he had fallen on the ground. 12. Coming to the case of the accused, there can be no doubt that his case is not true. If really he was beaten by the deceased with a stick he would have sustained serious injuries and would certainly have gone to the doctor or complained to the authorities. On the other hand, what we see is that he went in hiding and after his arrest on being questioned the bloodstained dagger was recovered from the place where it had been secreted. When the dagger was sent for analysis it was found to contain human blood. The accused was sent for medical examination and no visible injuries were noticed on his body. In the committing Magistrate's court when he was confronted with the evidence of Pws. 1 to 5 and when he got an opportunity of telling the court what really had happened he did not come forward with his present case of being assaulted by the two deceased persons and his using the knife in self defence. He denied having stabbed the deceased. 13. 1 to 5 and when he got an opportunity of telling the court what really had happened he did not come forward with his present case of being assaulted by the two deceased persons and his using the knife in self defence. He denied having stabbed the deceased. 13. The further question is what, if any, is the offence committed. Learned counsel for the defence was well justified in his submission that the view taken by the learned Judge about the title to the plot where the charthu stands is not correct. We are not concerned with the title to the property. The onus is always on the prosecution to prove that the shed was in the possession of deceased Narayanan Nair and that he was justified in objecting to the accused thatching it. Whoever be the owner of the exact site, the shed had admittedly been put up and was in the possession of Pachu Nair. His rights were transferred to the accused and the accused had actually come into possession of the same. If that is not so, deceased Narayanan Nair would not have agreed to remove the cement bags kept there and would have then and there claimed rights to the shed. So long as the charthu is in his possession accused had every right to thatch the shed and deceased Narayanan Nair has no right to go and prevent the accused from doing what he is legally entitled to do. Deceased Narayanan Nair was also not justified in beating the accused. He was, therefore, in the aggressive and the accused initially had the right of private defence. If the prosecution version is accepted as we have done, then no question of complete exoneration arises. Exception 2 to S.300 would apply only if in exercising the right of private defence death is caused without premeditation and without any intention of doing more harm than is necessary for the purpose of his defence. Even though we cannot agree with the learned Judge that the accused purposely armed himself with the dagger M. O. 1 to attack the deceased, the accused has done more harm than was necessary for the purpose of his defence. After the accused was beaten by the deceased, the accused brought him under his armpit and when Narayanan Nair was in that helpless position inflicted the first stab on his back. After the accused was beaten by the deceased, the accused brought him under his armpit and when Narayanan Nair was in that helpless position inflicted the first stab on his back. Narayanan Nair then fell down and when he was attempting to rise, the accused again stabbed him and when he fell down, the accused administered the last stab on his thigh and with that the victim died on the spot. So the accused cannot claim benefit of exception 2. Exception 4 also has no application. It may be that the quarrel was sudden, but the accused has certainly taken undue advantage and acted in a cruel and unusual manner. 14. Learned Judge, however, has not considered whether the act of the accused would fall under exception 1 to S.300. Exception 1 reads: "Culpable homicide, is not murder if the offender whilst deprived of the power of self control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident." So the provocation has to be not only sudden but also grave, and the gravity of the provocation is to be judged by the fact whether or not the offender is deprived of the power of self control. The provocation must be such as will upset not merely a hasty, hot tempered and hypersensitive person but would upset a person of ordinary sense and calmness. The court has to consider whether a reasonable person placed in the same position as the accused was, would have reacted under that provocation in the manner in which the accused did. What may amount to grave and sudden provocation is a question of fact to be decided on the particular facts of each case. 15. As stated already, deceased Narayanan Nair was the aggressor. He went and prevented the accused from thatching the shed which he was legally entitled to do, and when the accused did not heed to his words, the deceased beat him which was quite unexpected. The act of the deceased was thus highly provocative, and the provocation thus offered was both grave and sudden and was well calculated to enrage the accused and deprive him of the power of self control. 16. We may refer to Illustration (f). It says: "(f) Z strikes B. B is by this provocation excited to violent rage. The act of the deceased was thus highly provocative, and the provocation thus offered was both grave and sudden and was well calculated to enrage the accused and deprive him of the power of self control. 16. We may refer to Illustration (f). It says: "(f) Z strikes B. B is by this provocation excited to violent rage. A, a bystander intending to take advantage of B's rage, and to cause him to kill Z puts a knife into B's hands for that purpose. B kills Z with the knife. Here B may have committed only culpable homicide but A is guilty of murder." There are also decided cases which have held that in such circumstances Exception 1 would apply. Reference may be made to the decisions in Nagalu v. Emperor ( AIR 1928 Mad. 136 ); Thirupathuran v. Emperor ( AIR 1934 Mad. 722 ) and Ghulam Mohammed v. Rex ( AIR 1950 All. 91 ). 17. Learned State Prosecutor raised an argument that the mode of resentment must bear a reasonable relationship to the provocation if the offence is to be reduced to one under S.304, I.P.C., and that even if there was grave and sudden provocation the accused was not justified in this case in persistently stabbing till the victim was killed. This aspect of the question was considered in detail in a recent case by the Allahabad High Court in Akhtar v. State ( AIR 1964 All. 262 ). Their Lordships stated: "But, once his power of self control has been lost, it would be futile to expect him to retain such a degree of control over himself as to exercise a choice over the weapon used by him for an attack or to show that his "mode of resentment" bore 'a reasonable relationship to the provocation", which operated upon him. Indeed, if the offender were shown to display reasonableness or deliberateness or to exercise control over himself even after he had received a provocation which was grave and sudden, and before the act which caused the death, he could not be held to be really deprived of the power of self control, and such a person could not get the benefit of exception 1 to S.300 I.P.C." It was again stated: "The mode in which an offender has exhibited his anger after loss of self control may be taken into account in awarding sentence, but to require that mode to be reasonable even after the offender has been proved to have lost control over himself would not, in our opinion, be itself reasonable. At any rate, the language of exception 1 to S.300 Indian Penal Code does not require the imposition of a test of reasonableness of conduct upon an accused person even after loss of self control and before an opportunity for "reason to regain dominion over the mind," to borrow the phrase of Lord Goddard, C. J., in Rex v. Duffy, 1949 (1) All ER 932. In so far as provisos to exception 1 to S.300 I.P.C. imply standards of reasonable conduct, it may be observed that they also relate to what may or may not be considered sufficient provocation, or in other words, these I provisos are concerned with conditions of situations which may exist prior to loss of self control. In the situations given in the provisos, the provocations would fall outside the purview of what could reasonably or legally constitute sufficient provocation." We are in respectful agreement with this view. 18. Whether the accused had time to cool down and whether the further acts could be traced to a spirit of revenge is a question of fact. We find no evidence from which we could reasonably deduce that there was any time for cooling down or any opportunity for deliberation between the provocation and the sudden acts of the appellant by which he caused the death of Narayanan Nair. We feel that taking the totality of facts and circumstances, the appellant's action would have taken place while he was under the stress of grave and sudden provocation. 19. We feel that taking the totality of facts and circumstances, the appellant's action would have taken place while he was under the stress of grave and sudden provocation. 19. We may also observe that when the evidence in a case leaves room for doubt as to whether the accused had committed murder or the lesser offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder the benefit of that doubt should be given to the accused. We are, therefore, of opinion that as far as the death of Narayanan Nair is concerned the accused should have been convicted for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, an offence under S.304, I.P.C. and we alter the conviction accordingly. As far as the death of Balan Nair is concerned, there was no justification whatsoever. Hearing the cries of his brother, Balan Nair came running and caught hold of the accused from behind to prevent him from the murderous attack on the deceased Narayanan Nair. The accused freed himself and inflicted a deadly stab injury on him. The offence, is therefore, clearly one of murder punishable under S.302, I.P.C. 20. Coming to the question of sentence the learned Sessions Judge has awarded death sentence to the accused for the murder of Balan Nair. Learned counsel made an impassioned appeal that in view of the fact that the accused had committed murder in a moment of extreme excitement and in a fit of rage without any motive or premeditation and only one stab was given, capital sentence is not called for. Though there was no justification for the attack on Balan Nair it cannot be denied that the accused was still in a state of frenzy and even though his act would not come within exception 1 to S.300, in the circumstances of the case we feel that the interests of justice would be sufficiently met by awarding the lesser sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life. In the result, while confirming the conviction for the murder of Balan Nair the sentence is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for life. His conviction under S.302 I.P.C. for the murder of Narayanan Nair is altered to one under S.304 I.P.C. and he is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years. The sentences would run concurrently. With this modification the appeal is dismissed. The reference is rejected.