Y.V.CHANDRACHUD, J. (for himself and Bhagwati, J.)

(1) SINCE this appeal by special leave is limited to the question of sentence, it would be enough to set out the facts tearing on the sentence.

(2) THE appellants, Dilip Kumar, Bharatsingh and Rohitsingh were tried by the Sessions Judge, Ujjain, for committing the murder of one Arun Bhargava. The learned Judge convicted Dilip Kumar under S. 302, Bharatsingh under S. 302 read with S. 34, Rohitsingh under S. 303 of the Penal Code and sentenced them to death. The High court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore bench, confirmed the conviction and sentence of Dilip Kumar and Rohitsingh. The conviction of Bharatsingh was also confirmed but the High court reduced his sentence to imprisonment for life.

(3) ON 3/05/1974 this court granted special leave to the appellants "limited to the question of application of S. 303 in the case of Rohit singh and sentences in case of all". Counsel for the appellants urged that under this order Bharatsingh is entitled to challenge the sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon him by the High court and since that cannot be done without challenging Bharatsinghs conviction under S. 302 read with S. 34, the order of conviction is also open to challenge in this appeal. There is no merit in this argument. Rohitsinghs case apart, the special leave petition filed by the appellants was not admitted on the question of conviction and leave was expressly restricted to the question of sentence only. Bharatsingh having been convicted under S. 302 read with S. 34, there is no scope for any argument as regards the sentence imposed on him. The minimum sentence for murder under S. 302 is imprisonment for life and that is the sentence which the High court has imposed on Bharatsingh.

(4) AS regards Dilip Kumar, we see no reason to reduce the sentence of death imposed on him by the Sessions court and confirmed by the High court. On 20/06/1973 at 9 p.m. the deceased Arun Bhargava was sitting in front of a hotel in Ujjain. Bharatsingh and Rohitsingh caught hold of his arms from behind and Dilip Kumar stabbed him on the chest with a big knife. As a result of the injury, the pleura, the pericardium and the right ventricle of the heart were all cut. Dilip Kumars conduct cannot be viewed with leniency and the High court was right in confirming the death sentence passed by the Sessions court. Motiveless murders are not necessarily acts of mad and unhinged people. Prosecution is often unable to collect satisfactory evidence on the motive behind the crime. That does not call for-any leniency and indeed were this so, criminals would prefer, in order to reduce the gravity of their acts, to suppress the motive leading to the crime.

(5) AS regards Rohitsingh, the main question for consideration is whether his conviction under S. 303, Penal Code, is legal. If it is, the sentence of death has to be upheld because under S. 303, Whoever, being under sentence of imprisonment for life, commits murder, shall be punished with death. The S. leaves no discretion to award a lesser sentence than death.

(6) ONE Prabhu was murdered on 24/10/1971 for which Rohitsingh was sentenced to life imprisonment on 18/05/1972 in Sessions Case No. 5 of 1972. In appeal, Rohitsingh was acquitted by the Madhya Pradesh High court, on 27/02/1974, being the very date on which the High court pronounced its judgment in the instant case. The Sessions court had no option in the matter of sentence because on 24/01/1974 when it found Rohitsingh guilty of the murder of Arun Bhargava in the instant case, he was "under sentence of imprisonment for life" imposed upon him on 18/05/1972 in Sessions Case No. 5 of 1972. But that position had undergone a material change when the High court delivered its judgment in the instant case on 27/02/1974. Precisely that very day Rohitsinghs conviction and sentence for Prabhus murder were set aside by the same bench of the High court. In fact,