M. C. TRIVEDI, T. U. MEHTA, J. ( 1 ) BOTH these matters arise out of the order of conviction and sentence passed by the court of the Additional Sessions Judge Kaira at Nadiad in Sessions Case No. 102/73 of his file under secs. 302 307 and 324 I. P. C. and secs. 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. For the offence under sec. 302 the appellant-accused is sentenced to death subject to the confirmation by this court. For the offence under sec. 307 I. P. C. he is sentenced to R. I. of 10 years for the offence under sec. 324 I. P. C. to R. I. of 3 years for the offence under sec. 3 of the Explosive Substances Act to the R. I. of 10 years and for the offence under sec. 5 of the said Act to the R. I. of 5 years. The learned Judge has ordered all these substantive sentences to run concurrently. ( 2 ) SHORT facts of the case are as under. The appellant accused is serving as a sepoy in the Indian Army. He is said to have taken leave from his services from 12th April 1972 and then extended the said leave and ultimately resumed his duties on 19th July 1972 He belongs to Namnar village situated in Panchmahal District of this State and was expected to join his service somewhere on the border between India and Pakistan. ( 3 ) THE case of the prosecution is that the accused somehow obtained the possession of three live hand grenades manufactured in Pakistan and brought these bombs with him when he came on leave on 12th April 1972 It is said that the accused bore some enmity against prosecution witness Dhulabhai Gokalbhai and two other persons named Devendra Keshrisinh and Manilal Joshi It is said that in order to take his vengence against the three persons the accused before joining his military service went to Kirtistambh post office at Palanpur on 18th July 1972 and posted three unregistered parcels each to the above name three persons. Accord ing to the prosecution each of three parcels contained a live hand grenade bomb which he had brought from the border. All the three parcels contained the name of and address of the sender as Dhiraj P. Rajput A. P. C. Bhuj. Accord ing to the prosecution each of three parcels contained a live hand grenade bomb which he had brought from the border. All the three parcels contained the name of and address of the sender as Dhiraj P. Rajput A. P. C. Bhuj. When the parcel which was addressed to witness Deveodra was delivered to him he found that the sender Dhiraj P. Rajput of Bhuj was not known to him and therefore he refused to take delivery of the said parcel. When the second parcel which was addressed to Manilal Joshi was delivered to him he received the same but on opening it he found that some fumes were coming out of it and therefore he was advised to throw it away. Manilal threw away that parcel and immediately the hand grenade bomb which it contained exploded near his house. So far as these two parcels are concerned the police have filed separate cases against the accused and for the purpose of the instant case we are not concerned with these two cases. ( 4 ) IN this case the parcel was addressed to the complainant Dhulabhai GOkalbhai whose deposition is found at Ex. 18. This parcel was received at Namnar post-office and was sent for delivery to Dhulabhai on 20th 21 and 22nd July 1972 Dhulabhai however was not available on any Of these days with the result that on 22nd July 1972 Dhulabhais nephew named Babubhai took the delivery of the same. He opened this parcel in presence of the postman Bhusing Nathubhai who delivered it to him his father Ranchhodbhai and one Somabhai who is related to him as his uncle. It is said that no sooner this Babubhai opened the parcel the bomb which was put in a tin container exploded and caused injury to Babubhai and all others who were near that place. Babubhai was severely injured and was therefore taken to Balasinor hospital. At Balasinor hospital he was advised to be taken to Ahmedabad but on his way to Ahmedabad he died. He was therefore brought back to his own place. ( 5 ) IT appears that in the mean time investigation was undertaken as a result of which panchnama of inquest of the body of Babubhai was drawn on 22nd July 1972 at 6. 00 p. m. as found at Ex. He was therefore brought back to his own place. ( 5 ) IT appears that in the mean time investigation was undertaken as a result of which panchnama of inquest of the body of Babubhai was drawn on 22nd July 1972 at 6. 00 p. m. as found at Ex. 12 and the panchnama of the scene of incident was drawn on 23rd July 1972 as found at Ex. 16. On the same day one Balabhai Shambhubhai who is related to the deceased as his uncle produced the tin container in which the bomb was posted as well as the muddamal art. 9 which is a cotton bag in which that tin container was put. The police and the panchas at that time noted that this cotton bag in which the tin container was put bore three postal stamps on which there were concellation marks of a post office which was described as EXPTL. G. 8. Both these articles were attached by the police as mentioned in panchnama Ex. 17. ( 6 ) THE evidence reveals that on 22nd July 1972 Dr. Kanakray Ishwarlal Pandya of Balasinor examined all the injured persons including the deceased and on that very day at about 3. 25 p. m. Taluka Magistrate Ishwarbhai Nathabhai Patel whose deposition appears at Ex. 13 recorded the dying declaration of the deceased Babubhai. Post-mortem examination of the dead body of Babubhai was conducted by Dr. Arvind Hiralal Shah whose deposition appears at Ex. 25. He found that the deceased had received pellet injuries on various parts of his body all over his left leg genital abdominal wall left shoulder and right leg. According to the doctor Babubhai died on account of the shock resulting from multiple fractures of bones. ( 7 ) FROM the place of the incident some metal pieces of the exploded bomb were recovered by the police and the panchas. They were sent for examination and were in fact examined by witness Prabhodkumar Devendra Sengupta Ex. 9 who was at the relevant time serving as Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives at Nagpur. According to the evidence given by this witness the hand grenade bomb which was received by the deceased was manufactured at Pakistan Ordnance Factory and was capable of causing the death of a person within the range of 20 to 30 feet. 9 who was at the relevant time serving as Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives at Nagpur. According to the evidence given by this witness the hand grenade bomb which was received by the deceased was manufactured at Pakistan Ordnance Factory and was capable of causing the death of a person within the range of 20 to 30 feet. ( 8 ) DURING the course of investigation it was revealed that on 8th July 1972 i. e. after the accused came on leave he approached witness Laxmishanker Amthalal Joshi whose deposition is found at Ex. 21 and who was at that time serving as the Head Master at Verdhri High School and had sought his permission to give demonstration of physical exercises done by Military people. That permission was granted to him. It is said that thereafter the accused had gone to Visnagar at the house of one Shankerbhai Ishwarbhai. At that time one Gordhan Patel a neighbour of said Shankerbhai had invited the accused to his house for tea. The accused is said to have talked to this Gordhanbhai and his wife Nandaben about the war against Pakistan and during the course of this talk he also Showed one round and black metallic substance which was identified by him as a bomb. In order to prove these facts the prosecution has examined Gordhanbhais wife Nandaben whose deposition appears at Ex. 27. It is said that at the time when the accused showed a bomb to Nandaben prosecution witness Naginbhai whose deposition appears at Ex. 30 was the guest of Nandaben and therefore he also knew that the accused was in possession of a bomb. Being impressed by the talk of the accused this witness Naginbhai who belongs to a different village named Adajan invited the accused to be his guest. The prosecution case is that accordingly in the month of July 1972 the accused had gone to village Adajan and had stayed with witness Naginbhai for 2 to 3 days and even during these days he had shown to him a similar substance which was described by the accused as a bomb. ( 9 ) THE prosecution has produced evidence of a tailor Rajesh Chhotalal Darji Ex. 28 of Visnagar. This witness is serving at the shop of Khadi Gram Udyog Bhandar at Visnagar. He has got a brother named Babubhai. ( 9 ) THE prosecution has produced evidence of a tailor Rajesh Chhotalal Darji Ex. 28 of Visnagar. This witness is serving at the shop of Khadi Gram Udyog Bhandar at Visnagar. He has got a brother named Babubhai. The case of the prosecution is that the accused was known to Babubhai and was introduced to this witness when he visited Babubhai about 2 months before the month of July. On a day in the month of July the accused approached this witness at the shop of Khadi Bhandar at Visnagar and requested him to stitch three cloth bags. It is said that the accused had also taken a tin box with him for taking the measurements on the cloth meant for stitching the cloth bags. The witness says that the cloth bag found at art. 9 was stitched by him. He has further deposed in identity of this cloth bag that one of the threads used by him was black in colour. In fact the cloth bag found at art. 9 is found to have been stitched with a black thread. The allegation of the prosecution Is that after getting these three cloth bags stitched by this witness the accused packed the tin container the hand grenade bomb which ultimately exploded before despatching the parcel through the Kirtistambh post office at Palanpur. It is through this witness that the prosecution wants to establish the identity of the parcel which was posted from Kirtistambh post office at Palanpur and which was ultimately delivered to deceased Babubhai. ( 10 ) APART from the above evidence the prosecution has also examined during the course of the trial witness Dahyalal Shantilal who was at the relevant time serving as a peon at Kirtistambh post office at Palanpur. The deposition of this witness appears at Ex. 29. He identifies the accused and tells the court that at about 10. 00 a. m. the accused had approached him at Kirtistambh post office for despatching three unregistered parcels through post. The accused first gave these parcels to the witness for weighment. When these parcels were first given to the witness they were not sealed. The witness therefore informed the accused that they would require the seals before they could be despatched by the post office. The accused first gave these parcels to the witness for weighment. When these parcels were first given to the witness they were not sealed. The witness therefore informed the accused that they would require the seals before they could be despatched by the post office. The accused therefore demanded from the witness some lack lamp and a seal but the witness told him that these articles could not be supplied from the post office. The accused therefore left the post office and returned within 20 minutes after properly sealing the three parcels. B this time even the post-master who was in charge of that post office returned. The parcels were submitted to him but the post-master is said to have informed the accused to write down the name of the sender on each of these three parcels. The witness says that the accused accordingly wrote the name of the sender on each of these three parcels including the parcel despatched by art. 9. Thus through this witness the prosecution wants to establish that the parcel which was despatched in the cotton bag found at art. 9 from Kirtistambh post office was in fact despatched by the present accused. ( 11 ) IN support of this evidence the prosecution has further examined one more witness named Chogalal Gangaram Purohit Ex. 31. This witness is running a lodging and boarding house at Palanpur under the name of Shanker Vilas Lodging and Boarding House. He deposes that about 15 months ago the accused had visited his hotel and at that time he was dressed in military uniform. According to the witness the time was about 9. 3 a. m. He says that the accused ordered out tea and thereafter he requested him to give a small lamp to enable him to put lack seals on the three parcels which he had brought with him. According to the witness; the accused applied lack seals with the help of the lamp supplied by him. Thus according to the prosecution after the postal peon Dahyabhai informed the accused that the parcels would be accepted by the post office only after the seals were applied to them the accused went to the witness Chogalal and with the help of the lamp supplied by Chogalal he applied seals to all the parcels. Thus according to the prosecution after the postal peon Dahyabhai informed the accused that the parcels would be accepted by the post office only after the seals were applied to them the accused went to the witness Chogalal and with the help of the lamp supplied by Chogalal he applied seals to all the parcels. ( 12 ) THUS from the above referred evidence the prosecution wants to establish that the accused was in possession of hand grenade bombs and it was he who had despatched three different parcels each containing one hand grenade bomb from Kirtistambh post office at Palanpur. The prosecution further contends that one of these parcels which was addressed to the complainant Dhulabhai was despatched in the cloth bag art. 9 and was ultimately responsible for taking the life of the deceased Babubhai. ( 13 ) IN order to prove that the accused had sufficient motive to commit the murder of the complainant Dhulabhai the prosecution has also led evidence to show that at the time when the accused was about 15 years of age there was some litigation between the complainant Dhulabhai and the father of the accused with regard to some agricultural lands. It is said that during the course of this litigation the father of the accused was found hanged and murdered and for this act the complainant Dhulabhai and his mother were prosecuted. Ultimately Dhulabhai was acquitted but after this acquittal there was settlement of the dispute between the complainant and the guardians of the accused at the intervention of some well wishers. As a result of this settlement Dhulabhai paid an amount of Rs. 5500/to the accused and his brothers. The case of the prosecution is that the accused bore some grudge against Dhulabhai and wanted to take vengence against him under the suspicion that his father was murdered by him ( 14 ) THE defence raised by the accused is one of total denial. According to him the evidence of motive on which the prosecution puts reliance is not sufficient for coming to the conclusion that the accused. entertained any grudge against the complainant. It was pointed out that the incident which resulted in the murder of the father of the accused was very old and the dispute between the complainant and the father of the accused was eventually settled through the intervention of others. entertained any grudge against the complainant. It was pointed out that the incident which resulted in the murder of the father of the accused was very old and the dispute between the complainant and the father of the accused was eventually settled through the intervention of others. It was also pointed out on behalf of the accused that during the years which followed this settlement there was absolutely no incident suggesting any acrimony between the accused and the complainant and therefore it would be very hazardous to infer that the accused wanted to take any vengence against the complainant. So far as the evidence given by tailor Rajesh who is said to have stitched the cloth bag art. 9 and other two bags is concerned the contention of the defence was that this witness had a very scant opportunity to know and remember the identity of the accused and therefore even if it is believed that Rajesh is not intentionally giving false deposition the possibility of Rajesh committing an honest mistake as regards the identity of the accused cannot be ruled out. The same is the argument advanced by the defence with regard to the deposition of the postal peon Dahyabhai who was at the relevant time working at Kirtistambh post office Palanpur. In this connection Shri Thakore who appeared on behalf of the accused in these matters vehemently contended that this evidence of identity cannot be accepted as dependable in view of the fact that during the course of the investigation the investigating officer has not taken any trouble to arrange an identification parade with a view to test the evidence of identity supplied by tailor Rajesh and the postal peon Dahyabhai. It was conteaded that in absence of any such identification parade the identification made by these two witnesses of the accused at the stage of the trial cannot be relied upon. 15 So far as other two witnesses from Visnagar namely Nandaben and Naginbhai are concerned the contention of the defence is that their evidence is totally unnatural and unacceptable because if the accused really wanted to commit the murder of his three enemies by sending them the explosives he would not be foolish enough to go on showing these explosives to them. Therefore according to the defence the evidence given by these two witnesses should not be taken as natural and should therefore be discarded as of doubtful credibility. 16 The defence has of course not disputed the fact that deceased Babubhai received unregistered post parcel which was delivered to him and on the opening of the said post parcel the bomb which was sent therein exploded and caused injuries to all those who were present there. We find that the evidence led by the prosecution on this point is quite convincing and since that evidence is not disputed by the defence we do not find it necessary to narrate it in details and to discuss the same. We shall therefore presently take up for our consideration the rest of the evidence in order to see whether it is sufficient to connect the accused with the present crime. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [the Honble Court after discussing the evidence further observed:-- ] ( 15 ) IN view of this we agree with the findings of the learned trial Judge that it was the accused who was responsible for posting the bomb which exploded and which resulted in death of Babubhai. ( 16 ) THE question then is what offence the accused is found to have committed. Sec. 300 I. P. C. contains four clauses which make culpable homicide a murder if the requirements of any of them are satisfied. It says that except in cases of the exceptions provided by that section culpable homicide is murder if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death. This is the first clause of the section. Second clause says that if the act is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused the culpable homicide amounts to murder. This is the first clause of the section. Second clause says that if the act is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused the culpable homicide amounts to murder. We are not concerned in this case with the third clause but the fourth clause says that culpable homicide is murder if the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. These are three relevant clauses which arise to be considered in this case. It is obvious that if any of these three clauses applies to the facts of the present case the offence would be that of murder pure and simple because this is not found to be a case which is governed by any of the exceptions contemplated by sec. 300 I. P. C. The first two clauses which we have referred to above stipulate an intention of a particular kind while the fourth clause stipulates a knowledge of a particular kind. The question is whether the facts of this case reveal any of the intentions contemplated by first two clauses or not. The learned trial Judge has held that the offending act was committed by the accused with an intention to commit murder of the complainant. It is therefore first necessary to consider whether this finding can be justified. If that finding cannot be justified then the first question would be whether from the facts and circumstances of the case it can be said that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the act was committed by the accused with the intention of causing such bodily injury as he knew likely to cause death of the person to whom the harm is caused. This is obviously the requirement of second clause. This requirement is obviously not satisfied because in this case the harm is caused to Babubhai and the accused cannot be attributed with any intention of causing any bodily injury with the knowledge that death of Babubhai will be caused. However since both the first clauses of sec. This is obviously the requirement of second clause. This requirement is obviously not satisfied because in this case the harm is caused to Babubhai and the accused cannot be attributed with any intention of causing any bodily injury with the knowledge that death of Babubhai will be caused. However since both the first clauses of sec. 300 speak about the intention we shall first make an attempt to find out what type of intention of the accused is revealed from the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. ( 17 ) THE question whether the offender entertained a particular type of intention or not is the question which is to be answered not from any direct evidence but from the proved facts and circumstances of the case. However it should be borne in mind that intention with which an act should be found to have been committed is neither constructive nor presumptive nor attributive in its character. Though it is true that the court should not expect direct evidence of intention in every case and that a proper inference about existence of a particular intention can be made from the circumstances of the case such circumstances should be such as would enable the court to arrive at a conclusion beyond reasonable doubt that the intention in question did exist. Evidence of motive is generally found to be capable of supplying good evidence about the nature of the intention to commit a particular act. The facts collateral to the main incident such as the manner and the method by which the offence was executed possibility of the successful execution of the intended act care taken by the accused to eliminate the possible mistakes in carrying out the successful execution of the intended act-are some of the facts which are likely to throw good light upon the actual intention with which the act was done. In some cases it is possible to infer a particular type of intention even from the result which is produced by the act of the accused. But presumption of a particular intention merely from the result may not be safe in every case because the result in question might have been brought about by some extraneous circumstances beyond the contemplation of the accused. But presumption of a particular intention merely from the result may not be safe in every case because the result in question might have been brought about by some extraneous circumstances beyond the contemplation of the accused. Thus when the court is called upon to arrive at a finding as to the real intention of the accused in committing a particular offence the court is expected to consider every available circumstance and should accept only that conclusion which could be arrived at beyond reasonable doubt. ( 18 ) IF we approach the facts of the case from this angle we have to bear in mind the following facts and circumstances of the case namely (1) Nature of the evidence of notice which is produced by the prosecution in this case. (2) The fact that some type of bombs were sent not only to the complainant but also to two other persons namely Devendra and Manilal. (3) The fact that before the hand grenades were despatched by post a specimen thereof way shown by the accused to some persons at Visnagar including the witness Nandaben and Naginbhai. (4) The fact that there is no evidence to show that the bomb which took the life of the deceased was such that it would explode by a mere handling. (5) The further fact that there is no evidence to show that the accused had made any special contrivance to see that on a mere opening of the parcel the bomb would explode. (6) The fact that the parcel was not got registered. ( 19 ) WE now propose to consider the nature of the above referred facts and circumstances in order to ascertain whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused entertained any of the intentions contemplated by first two clauses of sec. 300. ( 20 ) SO far as the evidence of motive is concerned we do not find that the evidence which is produced in this connection is sufficient enough to conclude that the accused intended to cause the death of the complainant. It is an admitted fact that the father of the accused was murdered about 15 years ago when the accused was hardly 15 years of age. The matter was thereafter settled and the complainant was made to pay Rs. 5500/to the accused and other heirs of his father. It is an admitted fact that the father of the accused was murdered about 15 years ago when the accused was hardly 15 years of age. The matter was thereafter settled and the complainant was made to pay Rs. 5500/to the accused and other heirs of his father. There is absolutely no evidence to show that during the course of the 15 years which followed the relations of the accused and the complainant were in any manner acrimonious. Under the circumstances though it can be conceded without any hesitation that the accused might be bearing some grudge against the complainant it is not possible to believe that the intensity of this grudge was such that he would be induced to arrange a plan to commit his murder. . ( 21 ) IT is not disputed by the prosecution that simultaneously three parcels were despatched by the accused from Kirtistambh post office at Palanpur. As already stated by us one parcel was sent to witness Devendra and another parcel was sent to witness Manilal. Now so far as witness Devendra is concerned the motive which is attributed to the accused is that some time before the incident the accused was found teasing the females of a marriage procession and therefore witness Devendra had scolded the accused for his behaviour. Believing this to be true the question is whether the accused entertained any intention to commit the murder of this Devendra by sending an explosive bomb to him. So far as the other witness Manilal is concerned the allegation of the prosecution is that this Manilal married the woman who was previously engaged with the accused. Here also the question which would arise to be considered is whether believing this fact to be true it can be said that the accused entertained any intention to commit his murder. We find that the evidence of intention which the accused is said to have entertained in sending the hand grenade bombs to both these witnesses is not sufficient for coming to the conclusion that it was to commit their murder. Now if that is so we find that the same must be the intention of the accused in sending the third band grenade bomb to the complainant. Now if that is so we find that the same must be the intention of the accused in sending the third band grenade bomb to the complainant. Modus operandi as well as the time of sending all these three bombs to these three different persons is the same and therefore the intention which inspired the accused to send the bombs to the above referred witnesses can be presumed to be the same which he entertained in sending the third bomb to the complainant. And if that be so we find that this is another circumstance which goes to show that the accused must not have entertained any of the intentions contemplated by the first two clauses of sec. 300. ( 22 ) EVIDENCE which is led by the prosecution does not reveal that the hand grenade bomb which was sent to the address of the complainant was such as would explode by a mere handling. It is obvious that if it was the hand grenade bomb it could not explode by a mere handing because such bombs are generally carried by the soldiers on their persons and they are used at the enemies only on peculiar occasions. Therefore it would be safe to presume that this bomb could not be exploded without resorting to a peculiar contrivance for operating them. Now there is nothing in the evidence to show that the accused had packed these bombs in different parcels in such a way that the contrivance to operate them would at once become effective on opening of the parcel. The accused is serving in the military and must be knowing how to operate such hand grenade bombs. Therefore if he really entertained an intention to commit the murder of the complainant he must have taken sufficient precautions to see that exploding machinery of the bomb would be put into operation the moment the tin box in which it was put was opened. But. Therefore if he really entertained an intention to commit the murder of the complainant he must have taken sufficient precautions to see that exploding machinery of the bomb would be put into operation the moment the tin box in which it was put was opened. But. in absence of such evidence it cannot be said that the accused had taken this precaution and if once this is believed then it is difficult to jump to the conclusion that he had intended to commit the murder of the complainant because the complainant was not expected to know how the bomb was operated and it was very likely that inspite of the opening of the parcel the bomb would not explode or the complainant would escape the consequences. As a matter of fact the evidence reveals that witness Devendra did not accept the parcel and the other witness Manilal avoided the parcel after opening the same. In our opinion therefore even these facts show that it cannot be said beyond reasonable doubt that the accused entertained any intention to commit the murder of the deceased. ( 23 ) ALONG with the above discussed facts and circumstances of the case it should also be borne in mind that the parcel in question was unregistered parcel. The accused should be presumed to know that if the parcel was uaregistered it was likely to be delivered to somebody on behalf of the addressee. If the accused really entertained an intention to commit the murder of the deceased and none else he should be expected to have taken the precaution that the parcel was sent by registered post with acknowledgment due but this care he has not taken and the want of that care would be a circumstance which would indicate the nature of the intention which he entertained. ( 24 ) THUS on consideration of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case we find that though the accused has committed this offence after some prearranged plan it is not possible to say beyond reasonable doubt that he entertained any of the types of the intentions contemplated by first and second clauses of sec. ( 24 ) THUS on consideration of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case we find that though the accused has committed this offence after some prearranged plan it is not possible to say beyond reasonable doubt that he entertained any of the types of the intentions contemplated by first and second clauses of sec. 300 I. P. C. In our opinion the accused seems to be suffering from a stupid and simulated sense of bravado and his real intention behind dispatching the three parcels seems to be to scare and punish those against whom he had reasons to bear a grudge. ( 25 ) HOWEVER this would not take the case out of the perview of sec. 300 because the facts of the case clearly show that they are governed by the fourth clause of sec. 300 which contemplates the knowledge that the act of sending such a dangerous explosive was so imminently dangerous that in all probability it was likely to cause death or such bodily injury as would cause death. Under the circumstances we conclude that the case falls under the fourth clause of sec 300 and since the case is not governed by any of the three exceptions of sec. 300 the offence committed by the accused would be the one contemplated by sec. 302 I. P. C. ( 26 ) THE last question which now remains to be considered is what would be the appropriate sentence which could be passed for the offence under sec. 302 I. P. C. which is found to have been committed by the accused. The above discussion shows that the offence in question is governed by the fourth clause of sec. 300. In our. opinion there fore the sentence of imprisonment for life for the offence under sec. 302 I. P. C. would serve the ends of justice. We therefore propose to commute the sentence of death awarded by the learned Sessions Judge to the one for imprisonment for life for the offence under sec. 302 I. P. C. ( 27 ) SO far as conviction of the accused under other sections are concerned we maintain the same because we find that all these offences are proved by the prosecution. We also do not see any reason to interfore with the different sentences recorded by the learned Sessions Judge for these other offences. 302 I. P. C. ( 27 ) SO far as conviction of the accused under other sections are concerned we maintain the same because we find that all these offences are proved by the prosecution. We also do not see any reason to interfore with the different sentences recorded by the learned Sessions Judge for these other offences. ( 28 ) THE confirmation case as well as the appeal are accordingly disposed of. ( 29 ) SHRI Thakore orally requests for a leave to prefer an appeal to the Supreme Court on the ground that this is a case which is fit for appeal to the Supreme Court. we find that the case depends purely on appreciation of facts and there is nothing therein which would make it fit for appeal to the Supreme Court. The leave is therefore not granted. Sentence commuted to imprisonment for life:-- Leave to appeal refused. .