JUDGMENT

1. This is an application filed on behalf of the Local Government for revision of the sentence of transportation for life passed by the learned Sessions Tudge of Fyzabad on one Bhagwandin Lonia. The accused was found guilty of the offence of mmdormg a small boy of six for his ornaments We have heard counsel on behalf of the accused as to whether the conviction is or is not justified In our opinion the case was clearly proved Not only was there ample evidence that the accused committed the crime, hut there is on the record a long and detailed confession made by him to the Magistrate after he had been given ample time for reflection We are satisfied that the conviction was a proper conviction. In such cases it is the duty of the Judge to give reasons for not in acting the loath penalty under Section 367, Clause 5, Criminal P.C. In the present case the Judge has given the following reasons: (1) That the accused is a young lad of about 18, (2) that he may still reform, (3) that the murder was committed without premeditation.

2. As to the third finding we do not consider that it is justified by the evidence. The accused decoyed this little boy into a sugarcane field, gave him sugarcane to eat, removed his ornaments and when he cried and said that he would tell his parents he strangled him. This does not in our opinion bespeak an unpremeditated crime. As to the age of the accused he is said to have been either 18 or 19 years of age. He is an adult and has reached years of discretion. There is no law which justifies a Court in not passing a sentence of death on any person merely because he is young. All persons who can understand the nature of their act are liable to the extreme penalty of the law. Youth may be a circumstance to be taken into consideration in offences where the accused person is not fully able to understand the nature of his act, or has been influenced by older persons. But this is a case in which a youth has deliberately murdered a small boy for motives of greed, and there is no suggestion that he was prompted to the crime by any motive except his own base nature. There remains the second consideration, and this is one which should he excluded entirely in all questions where a capital sentence can be inflicted. It is not for the legislature to reform murderers. The sentence of transportation for life is imposed in cases where there are in the opinion of the Court some extenuating circumstances, and it is not necessary in the interests of the public at large that the sentence of death, which is primarily a deterrent sentence, should be inflicted. There is no question of the reform of criminals who are sentenced to transportation for life. In our opinion this was a brutal murder. We do not consider that the accused was so young that he did not understand the full nature of the act. He rendered himself liable to the full penalty prescribed by the law and we can find no extenuating circumstances. We therefore allow this application and impose the sentence of death on Bhagwandin Lonia. The order of the Court is that he be hanged by the neck till he be dead.