BEHERA, J.

( 1 ) THE three appellants stand convicted under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the Codet) for having committed the murder of Pabitra Patel owing to previous land dispute between the parties by intentionally causing his death by, the use of dangerous instruments, such as, Kudalis and lathi, on November 10, 1978, at Kuturma - Tahabeldhipa in the district of Sundargarh, in furtherance of their common intention and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of twelve years.

( 2 ) AS the sentence imposed on each of the appellants is illegal and on his conviction for the offence of murder, an accused is either to be sentenced to death or to undergo imprisonment for life and no lesser punishment can be imposed, this Court, at the stage of hearing the appeal, has issued notices to the appellants to show cause as to why the sentences passed against them should not be enhanced. The learned counsel for both the sides are agreed that in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court, this Court can enhance the sentences although it was open to the State to prefer an appeal under section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Surprisingly, the State has chosen not to prefer one A5 to the revisional jurisdiction of this Court in this regard, reference may be made to the cases- reported in Nadir Khan v. The State (Delhi Administration)1 Eknath Shankarrao Mukkawar v. State of Maharashtra2 and State v. Babaji Sahoo and another3. We are, indeed, surprised as to how the learned Sessions Judge has imposed a sentence lesser than imprisonment for life after convicting the three appellants in a case of murder in flagrant violation of the provisions made under section 302 of the Code. Such illegal and careless act on the part of a Sessions Judge betrays his ignorance of the sentencing schemes.

( 3 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for both the sides both on the merits of the appeal and on the question of enhancement of the sentences passed against the appellants.

( 4 ) IT is amply borne out from the ocular testimony and the medical evidence that the deceased had died a homicidal death. This part of the prosecution a case has not been challenged by the defence. It would also be seen from the medical evidence that P. W. 5, the son of the deceased, did have some injuries on his person and so, too, the appellant Kumar Naik. This would give an indication of their presence on the spot and would probabilise the evidence of P. W. 5 that he had witnessed the occurrence.

( 5 ) P. WS. 5, 7 and 8 had been examined as the witnesses to the occurrence. Of them, P. Ws. 7 and 8 did not support the case of the prosecution for which they were put leading questions under section 154 of the Evidence Act and were confronted with some incriminating statements made in the course of investigation, which they, no doubt, denied to have made, but had duly been proved through the evidence of the Investigating Officer (P. W. 10 ). There can be no doubt that P. Ws. 7 and 8 had suppressed the truth at the trial by giving a go-by to the statements previously made by them under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There thus remains for consideration only the evidence of P. W. 5 who is no other person than the son of the deceased and would thus be a highly interested person for a successful termination of the trial against the appellants and that of his mother (P. W. 6) who had seen the appellants returning from the side of the scene of occurrence with a Kudali and a lathi with them.

( 6 ) SPEAKING about the occurrence, P. W. 5 had testified thus: About one and a half years back in the month of Kartik, on a Friday, at 12 noon, the occurrence took place. On that day morning I along with my father holding two kudalis went to our ban for working in the red-pipper field. After finishing the work, we returned our borne. My father was holding both the Kudalis. By then on the nearby land, of the accused R