Judgment

DUA, J.: In this appeal by special leave we are only concerned with the question of sentence imposed on appellants 1. 2 and 3 by the High Court. They are Ram Narain son of Manni Lal Ahir, Babulal son of Bhikhari Ahir and Nankau son of Manni Lal. Special leave was declined to the other convicts who had applied along with the present appellants.

2. Eight Persons were tried in the Court of the 1st Temporary Sessions Judge, Kanpur for the murder of one Bitta. The three appellants with whom we are now concerned were alleged to have been armed respectively with deadly weapons like gandasa, sword and ballam. They were charged under Section 148. I. P. C. with having formed an unlawful assembly along with the five co-accused with the common object of committing the murder of the deceased. They were further charged under Section 302 read with Section 149, I. P. C. for Committing the said murder.

3. At the trial evidence was Ted to show that five accused Persons had direct enmity with the deceased and about the remaining three it was admitted that Shivnath, accused, is the brother of the wife of Rameshwar accused and Jai Jai Ram and Nankau (one of the appellants here) are cousins of the accused Rameshwar and Babulal. The actual occurrence took place at 3.30 a. m. on the night between 17th and 18th April, 1966. Prosecution evidence was led to show that Rameshwar, Shivnath, Baboo alias Babua and Jailal pressed the deceased with their lathis when the three appellants along with Lallu, accused. who was armed with a lathi inflicted injuries on the deceased killing him. The trial Court came to the conclusion that all the eight accused persons had motive for killing the deceased and that they had jointly committed his murder after forming an unlawful assembly with the common object of doing so. In considering the question of sentence that Court took the view that all the accused were equally guilty of murder and it made no difference as to who actually gave the blow with the gandasa, sword or the ballam or as to who pressed the victim with lathis. The final conclusions of the trial Court may be stated in its own words:

"Considering the entire evidence on the record and the circumstances of the case, I have come to the conclusion that all the eight accused jointly committed the murder of Bitta after forming an unlawful assembly of which the common object was to commit the murder of Bitta and this offence was committed by all of them in prosecution of the said common object of the unlawful assembly formed by them. Thus all the accused are clearly guilty of the offence of rioting and murder with which they stand charged.

Coming to the question of sentence it is to he noted that all the accused are equally guilty so far as the offence of murder is concerned irrespective of the fact whether some particular accused actually gave blow of a gandasa or a sword or a ballam or pressed the victim with a lathi. As most of the accused had some cause of grievance against the deceased and because no revolting cruelty was committed on the dead body of the deceased after he had died, the lesser penalty for murder, that is life imprisonment would meet the ends of justice in this ease"

4. The eight convicted persons appealed to the High Court by three separate appeals and the complainant Mahabir preferred a criminal revision for enhancement of the sentence imposed on Nankau Ramnarain and Babula1 with whom we are concerned in this appeal. The High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the convicts and allowed the criminal revision as a result of which the sentence on the present three appellants was enhanced to one of death. After discussing the injuries caused to the deceased the High Court observed:

"From the above it is evident that each of these appellants Nankau, Ramnarain and Babulal inflicted fatal injuries on Bitta which were individually sufficient to cause his death. The murder of Bitta was cold-blooded and a premeditated one. We are accordingly of