Narendra Nath Sen Gupta, C.J.

[1] Sona Mea appealed to this Court against his conviction under Section 302, I.P.C. by the Sessions Judge of Agartala, sentencing him to transportation for life. The appeal was dismissed and a notice was issued upon Sona Mea by this Court, in exercise of its revisional powers under Section 439, Cr.P.C., to show cause why his sentence should not be enhanced to one of capital punishment.

[2] Cause has accordingly been shown.

[3] At the hearing of the matter, Sona Mea was represented by one of the senior Advocates of this Court. The State Advocate appeared in support of the rule.

[4] The following points were put forward on behalf of the accused who filed a written statement:

(1) That the only witnesses against the convict were the wife and the two sons of the deceased. Of these the first named had a grudge against the convict and her two sons were tutored to implicate him falsely.

(2) That the wife of the deceased, Nur Chehara had herself murdered her husband and implicated the convict with the help of her sons in order to save herself.

(3) That the convict did not get facilities for producing witnesses to prove the alibi set up by him in defence.

[5] Although the first two points were discussed generally at the hearing of the appeal it is desirable to make some further comments thereon.

[6] It has been stated by the convict in his written statement that the deceased was an old man of 75 & his wife Nur Chehara P.W. 2 was aged about 30 years and had a bad character: that they were in the habit of quarrelling with each other and Noor Chehara had on two occasions attempted to murder her husband by throwing him under the Dhenki and on each occasion he was saved by the intervention of the. convict and Abdul Hashim and that on each occasion of the quarrel between the husband and the wife the convict had managed to bring about a settlement: That for the reasons referred to above Noor Chehara had a grudge against the convict and that on account of such grudge, Noor Chehara had falsely implicated the convict with the help of her own after murdering her own husband.

[7] As was already noted in the appellate judgment, this defence was not taken by the convict himself but was suggested to the witness for the prosecution, on his behalf, Noor Chehara and Abdul Gani, her sons, flatly denied the allegations., Abdul Odud Munshi P.W. 5 and his son Abdul Hashim P.W. 6 the nearest neighbours of the deceased would normally be the persons to know if there was any difference between the deceased and his wife. The former denied the existence of any such ill feeling. No question was asked to the latter about this point, although according to the written statement of the convict Abdul Hashim, was said to have saved the life of Pohorchand from attacks of Noor Chehara with the help of the present convict on two occasions. There is no other witness to prove the story of ill feelings alleged in defence. The story of Noor Chehara having murdered her husband has not been proved and is improbable.

[8] So far as the allegation of the sons of Noor Chehara being tutored witnesses, this Court does not consider this a credible story.

[9] The learned Sessions Judge and the assessors saw the minor sons of Noor Chehara & appear to have relied on them. They must have been found to be intelligent and dependable in spite of their age being tender. This Court also did not find any material indicating any tutoring as alleged. Besides the evidence of the other witnesses who came to the place of occurrence and were told of the details of the occurrence soon after the happenings shows that there was no time for manipulation or tutoring of the witnesses for getting up a false case for the purpose of implicating the convict falsely.

[10] On an anxious consideration of the allegations of the convict Sona Mea this Court is clearly of opinion that the first two points raised are unsubstantial and unacceptable.

[11] On the third point it appears that a lis