JUDGMENT P. Govinda Menon, J. 1. Appellant Velayudhan stands convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Trichur for an offence under section 302 I.P.C. and he has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. Deceased Kittu Master owned a coconut garden by name " Edachali Parambu " in Edavilangu village. There were two ulkudi tenants in that property. P.W. 10, Andi is living in one of the houses with his wife and an unmarried daughter P.W. 3. The accused is said to be in terms of illicit intimacy with her. On the eastern side of the compound lives P.W. 5 Abdulrahiman. Some time before the occurrence when the deceased had gone to pick coconuts from the paramba he found that from one or two trees in the western side of the property two bunches of coconuts were missing. Every time the coconuts are picked the kudikidappukars were each given seven coconuts as ' purathenga'. Because of the theft the deceased stopped giving P.W. 10 his quota of coconuts. Deceased assessed the damage for the coconuts stolen at Rs. 25, out of which Rs. 10 was paid by P.W. 10 then and there and he promissed to pay the balance later. Deceased insisted that unless and until the balance amount was also paid no coconuts would be given. 2. On 28th February 1965 i.e., on the date of the occurrence the deceased along with his nephew P.W. 1 and the tree-climbers went over to the property to pick the nuts. P.W. 3 had gone and given information to the accused who had promised earlier to see that she was given her share. By about 1 or 1-30 p.m. the accused reached P.W. 3's house. Deceased and his coolies reached the place at about two O'clock and started plucking nuts and the nuts were collected and heaped in the courtyard of P.W. 3's house. She then took the usual seven coconuts out of the coconuts gathered. Deceased objected to this and asked her to put them back and when she hesitated pushed her by her shoulder. Seeing this the accused came out of the house and asked the deceased why he was assaulting women-folk. Deceased replied that it was a matter between him and P.W. 3 and it was none of his business to be there and interfere. P.W-1 and others tried to dissuade the accused, but he abused and threatened them. Seeing this the accused came out of the house and asked the deceased why he was assaulting women-folk. Deceased replied that it was a matter between him and P.W. 3 and it was none of his business to be there and interfere. P.W-1 and others tried to dissuade the accused, but he abused and threatened them. Then the accused suddenly went inside P. W-3's house and came out with a chopper. P.W. 1 and the climbers wrested the chopper from him and put it away. The accused again went inside and from under the caves took out M.O- 2 sickle. P.W- 1 and others were able to wrest the sickle also. When the accused again went inside the house, the deceased, P.W. 1 and others proceeded towards the eastern side of the paramba to complete the plucking of coconuts. By that time, accused came rushing up to the place with a rice pounder M.O. 1 in his hand. Seeing this P.W. 5 called out that the accused was coming. Deceased turned back when the accused struck a blow with M.O- 1 on his head. He fell down and became unconscious. He was removed to his brother's house nearby. P.W. 1 then went to the Cranganore police station and gave the first information statement Ex. P-1 on which a case was registered. The injured was taken to the hospital where P.W. 14 examined him. Suspecting fracture an X-ray photograph was taken which revealed a depressed fracture of the skull. The injured was then sent to the District Hospital, Trichur for better treatment. P.W. 15 conducted an operation on the deceased. While under treatment he succumbed to his injuries on 7th March 1965. On intimation received the Head Constable of the town police station went to the hospital and held the inquest. After the inquest P.W. 17 the doctor conducted the autopsy. In the meanwhile after registering the case, P.W. 22 the Head Constable had proceeded to the scene. He questioned the witnesses. The accused was not available and was in hiding. He was arrested at Madras on 14th March 1965. After completing the investigation the accused was charge sheeted. The plea of the accused was one of complete denial. 3. When questioned in the committing Magistrate's Court he denied having gone to P.W. 3's house and denied having beaten the deceased. The accused was not available and was in hiding. He was arrested at Madras on 14th March 1965. After completing the investigation the accused was charge sheeted. The plea of the accused was one of complete denial. 3. When questioned in the committing Magistrate's Court he denied having gone to P.W. 3's house and denied having beaten the deceased. He stated that on that day while he was passing that way deceased and his coolies beat him and he ran home. After some time when he was about to go to the police they again ran behind him to assault him and fearing trouble at their hands he left the place and went to Madras from where he was arrested. In the Sessions Court he stated that P.W- 1 and the four coolies beat him, but he did not do anything and a false case was foisted on him. No witnesses were examined on his side. 4. The medical evidence shows that the deceased sustained a serious injury on the head which caused a depressed fracture of the skull and the brain adjacent to the area was lacerated and congested. Though the doctor has not been questioned whether the injury was necessarily fatal, the doctor has stated that the cause of death was injury to the brain and could have been caused by a rice pounder like MO. 1 in court. It is a very heavy weapon and a forcible blow with it on the head would necessarily prove fatal. Whoever deals a blow with such a weapon on such vital part of the body must be credited with the intention of causing death. 5. Now the question is whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving that the injury was caused by the accused. P.Ws. 1 to 8 are the eye witnesses. P.W. 1 is the son of the paternal uncle of the deceased. He has given a detailed account of the occurrence. It was he who gave the first information statement Ex. P-1. P.Ws. 3 and 5 are the tenants of the deceased living in the two houses and P.Ws. 6 and 7 are two, out of the four tree climbers. P-W. 4 resides in the eastern compound. P.W. 2 lives a furlong and a half away, but he was passing along the property for going to the barber's place. P.W. 8 is another eye witness. 6 and 7 are two, out of the four tree climbers. P-W. 4 resides in the eastern compound. P.W. 2 lives a furlong and a half away, but he was passing along the property for going to the barber's place. P.W. 8 is another eye witness. He was not examined by the learned Public Prosecutor, but was tendered for cross-examination. The High Courts have uniformly condemned this procedure. In Veera Koravan v. Emperor A.I.R, 1929 Madras 906, relying on the decision in Queen Empress y. Ram Shai Lall (1885) I.L.R. 10 Cal. 1070 held that: "In cases where any witness known to the prosecution is able to swear to facts very material to the case, the proper procedure to follow is to ask him to give evidence on oath as to the several facts known to him, which are relevant to the case, though other witnesses might have spoken to the same facts. ' Merely tendering him for cross-examination ' is not a practice which should be encouraged especially in murder cases as it would be very unfair to the accused." The latest decision of the Punjab High Court in Chhota Singh v. State A.I.R. 1964 Punjab 120 has emphatically stated that: "There is no meaning in tendering a witness for cross-examination by public prosecutor in a criminal trial for the simple reason that when a witness has not given statement in examination-in-chief, there is nothing in relation to which he is to be cross-examined. Tendering a witness for cross-examination is almost tantamount to giving up a witness. There is nothing in law that justifies such a course." We are in respectful agreement with the above views. 6. P.Ws. 1 to 7 have given clear and consistent account of the occurrence. P.Ws. 3 and 5 live in the property and are the most competent witnesses to speak to the occurrence that took place from inside the paramba. The accused has admitted the presence of P.W. 1 and the tree climbers. P.W. 4 is the nearest neighbour and P.W. 2 has given a satisfactory explanation for his presence. None of the witnesses bear any enmity with the accused and on a careful scrutiny of their evidence we find nothing to discredit their evidence. Learned Sessions Judge has considered the evidence in detail and has given reasons why their evidence could safely be accepted. None of the witnesses bear any enmity with the accused and on a careful scrutiny of their evidence we find nothing to discredit their evidence. Learned Sessions Judge has considered the evidence in detail and has given reasons why their evidence could safely be accepted. The story of the accused that he was assaulted by all these people and he ran away and escaped is unsupported by any evidence. It is significant that after the occurrence the accused instead of going to the authorities and complaining about the assault made on him, ran away from the village and had to be searched and arrested by the Police at Madras. The evidence against the accused is overwhelming and the conviction has only to be confirmed. The reasons given by the learned Judge for awarding lesser sentence do not appeal to us, but all the same, we agree that this is not a case for the award of the extreme penalty. The murder was not pre-meditated, but was committed in a sense of frustration all on a sudden when the deceased, according to the accused, unjustifiably refused P.W- 3 her legitimate share of the coconuts and pushed her. In view of all this, we think the ends of justice would be amply met by awarding the lesser sentence. The result is that the conviction and sentence are confirmed and the appeal is dismissed.