Sreedharan Satheesan Vs. State of Kerala - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/724033
SubjectCriminal
CourtKerala High Court
Decided OnFeb-09-1995
Case NumberCrl. A. No. 363 of 1991
Judge B.M. Thulasidas and; V. Narayanan Nambiar, JJ.
Reported in1995(2)ALT(Cri)598; 1995CriLJ1782
ActsIndian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 300, 302 and 304
AppellantSreedharan Satheesan
RespondentState of Kerala
Appellant Advocate Sasthamangalam and; G. Gopalakrishnan Nair, Advs.
Respondent Advocate K. Revikumar, P.P.
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Cases ReferredState of Haryana v. Manoj Kumar
Excerpt:
- - not being satisfied with this, the accused drove the vehicle in such a way that the tyres of the lorry ran over the middle portion of the body which resulted in crush injuries.v. narayanan nambiar, j.1. a minor dispute regarding payment of rs. 500/- between two drivers resulted in the death of one and the prosecution of the other for murder, which ultimately led to his conviction and sentence to undergo imprisonment for life under section 302, ipc.2. the facts exposed by the prosecution through p.ws. 1 to 17 are briefly stated below : deceased sathyaseelan and accused satheesan are drivers by profession. the deceased was employed in ksrtc during the relevant time. the accused was the driver of a mini lorry named 'kavitha' bearing registration no. kct 3324 owned by p.w. 9, sabeeda devi. on 1-12-1988, the ksrtc bus driven by the deceased collided with the lorry driven by the accused causing minor damage to the lorry. p.w. 10 was the conductor of the ksrtc bus at the time of the accident. the deceased and the accused belonged to the same locality and were neighbours and so the matter was not reported to the police as the dispute was settled between the two drivers. as per the agreement, half the amount required for repairing the lorry was to be met by the deceased. it is stated that the accused informed the deceased that the repairs did cost rs. 1,000/- and he demanded half of the said amount from the deceased. the deceased found it difficult to make payment of that amount.3. the shop owned by one vijayan is situated at a place called keezhattingal junction. it was the practice of p.w. 1, the deceased and a few others to meet there during evenings and to play cards. on 15-12-1988, as usual, they were playing cards in the said shop from 7 p.m. onwards. at about 7-30 p.m., the accused came to the shop driving his lorry and parked the same in front of the shop. the accused called the deceased and got him out of the room. both of them started discussion regarding the payment of rs. 500/- for the repair of the mini lorry belonging to the accused. the deceased was not in a position to make. payment then, but the accused insisted for payment forthwith. in spite of the insistance when payment was not forthcoming, the accused threatened the deceased that he will have to face the consequences if the amount is not paid immediately. thereupon, the deceased retorted that the accused cannot do anything in the matter. on hearing this, the accused got into his lorry and switched on the engine and the headlights, reversed it for few feet and look the lorry forward at a high velocity and caused it to knock down the deceased. as a matter of fact, the deceased was knocked down and he was thrown to a distance of about five metres. the accused drove the vehicle in such a way that the left tyre of the lorry ran over the deceased which crushed his thigh and pelvic region. hearing the alarm raised by the deceased, p.w. 1 and others rushed to the spot. p.w. 1 asked the deceased as to what happened to him to which the deceased replied that the accused 'killed him'. the deceased was immediately removed to the hospital by p.ws. 1 and 8, the nephew of the deceased. p.w. 14, dr. t. s. angel examined him and after five minutes, the deceased breathed his last. then p.w. 1, after informing the wife and children of the deceased about the death of the deceased, went to the kadakkavoor police station and gave ext. p1 statement to p.w. 15, sub inspector of police who registered crime no. 165/88 under section 302, ipc. ext. p1(a) is the first information report. later, the investigation was taken over by p.w. 17, circle inspector of police. p.w. 17 conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased on 16-12-1988 and prepared ext. p12 report. he also took into custody m.o. 1 shirt, m.o. 2 kaili and m.o. 8 black twine which were found on the body of the deceased. autopsy was conducted by p.w. 16, dr. s. mahesh kumar and issued ext. p11 certificate. ext. p9 scene mahazar was prepared by p.w. 17. p.w. 12, the village officer, prepared ext. p8 plan. motor vehicle inspector (p.w. 11) inspected the lorry driven by the accused and issued ext. p6 certificate. later, investigation was completed by p.w. 17 who laid the charge sheet.4. having denied the charge, the accused was tried by the court of sessions, trivandrum. the defence taken up by the accused is one of total denial. no evidence was adduced on his side.5. the questions for consideration in this appeal are :1. did sathyaseelan die due to the in juries caused on account of the running over of the mini lorry at 7-30 p.m. on 15-12-1988?2. who was responsible for causing the injuries?3. offence committed and the punishment to be imposed.6. point no. 1:-did sathyaseelan die due to the injuries caused on account of the running over of the mini lorry at 7-30 p.m. on 15-12-1988? it is in evidence that deceased sathyaseelan was playing cards along with p.w. 1 and a few others in the shop room of one vijayan at keezhattingal junction from 7 p.m. on the date of the occurrence. from the evidence of p.w. 1, it is also revealed that the accused came in front of the shop of vijayan and requested the deceased to come to the road situated in front of the shop. p.w. 1 has also given evidence that he heard the sound of a lorry being started and taken off which was followed by the alarm raised by the deceased. he rushed out of the room and saw sathyaseelan lying injured on the road. p.w. 2 is an eye witness to the occurrence who has actually witnessed the running over of the mini lorry on the body of deceased sathyaseelan. the evidence of p.w. 5 also throws light on this question. 7. p.w. 14, who examined sathyaseelan and issued ext. p. 10 certificate has noted the following injuries on the body of the deceased :' 1. abrasion 2 x 1 cm right side of forehead.2. abrasion lower lip.3. extensive abrasion with laceration left hand and tyre markings over left forearm.4. swelling with extensive abrasion upper part of the right thigh and over iliac crest.5. tyre markings going in an oblique direction from upper 2/3rd of left thigh towards inner side of left knee.6. abrasion - right knee.7. abrasion - right elbow.'he could also find visible tyre marks over the left forearm and also tyre marking going in an oblique direction from upper part of the left thigh. he also opined that the injuries noted in ext. p10, found on the injuries could have been caused as a result of running over of a mini lorry.8. the evidence of p.w. 16 who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased, who issued ext. p11 post-mortem certificate also is very much in support of the prosecution case. he has noted the following injuries on the body of the deceased :'1. contusion upper part of (r) thigh with abrasions 10 cm x 2 1/2 cm over the upper part of (r) thigh.2. deformity over the left iliac region - depression with abrasions overlying it.3. abrasions over the outer aspect of right elbow.4. depressed wound 2 cm over the left side of forehead.5. irregular contusion marks over (l) forearm? tyre marks.6. abrasions over the dorsum of (l) hand and wrist with loss of skin completely 5 cm x 2 1/2 cm.7. irregular patterned contusion over the outer aspect of (l) thigh? tyre marks.8. scrotum swollen and contused, resticles are not palpable.9. fracture of (l) hemipelvis with cropitus.10. depressed contusion marks over the (r) chest wall.'on internal examination, he had found multiple fracture of lower ribs of left side. urinary bladder is crushed. there were tyre markings on the pubic aspect. scrotum was completely crushed. there was fracture of pelvis. he also noted tyre marks on the body of the deceased. the death, according to p.w. 16, was caused by fracture of pelvis and crush injuries of testes leading to shock.9. from the above evidence, one could safely conclude that deceased sathyaseelan died as he was run over by a vehicle on the fateful day.10. point no. 2 :- who was responsible for causing injuries : -the case of the prosecution is that the injuries sustained on the body of sathyaseelan which led to his death were caused by the accused. the motive alleged by the prosecution is the unwillingness on the part of the deceased to pay rs. 500/- as cost of the repair charges of the mini lorry. going by the evidence of p.w. 10, the conductor of the ksrtc bus driven by the deceased on 1-12-1988, we are of opinion that the motive is proved by the prosecution. the evidence of p.w. 1 also gives credance to the evidence tendered by p.w. 10 regarding the motive.11. p.ws. 2 to 5 are the eye witnesses of whom p.ws. 3 and 4 turned hostile. so, we will consider the evidence of p.ws. 1, 2 and 5 and see whether the prosecution was successful in proving the case against the accused and as a matter of fact, it was the accused who was responsible for causing injuries on the body of the deceased, which resulted in his death.12. p.w. 1, though not an eye witness to the actual occurrence, speaks of matters which happened before the actual occurrence and subsequent to the ruling over of the vehicle on the body of the deceased. at the relevant time, p.w. 1 who was an ex-military was working as a security guard in the state bank of travancore. both the accused and the deceased were his friends. his presence at the scene cannot be disputed as it was his practice to be present there at the shop of vijayan on almost all evenings to play cards. he has identified the deceased by his voice. after the deceased had gone out of the room, he heard an alarm which he recognised to be the cry in distress of a man who is in danger. before this, he had also heard the exchange of words between the deceased and the accused. the cry in disress was preceded by the sound of the engine of the mini lorry. sensing that there was something unpleasant gong on outside, p.w. 1 along with others rushed to the road and found the deceased lying in a pool of blow on the road with crush injuries. on being questioned by p.w. 1, he replied that it was the accused who was responsible for the injuries sustained by him. the evidence of p.w. 2, who reached to the scene at the time of the incident, has also thrown light to the prosecution case. p.w. 3, though hostile, on certain points corroborated the evidence of p.ws. 1 and p.w. 5, who occasionally cleans the lorry, was inside the cabin at the time of the incident. he has narrated the incident with all details in a convincing manner. on consideration of the evidence of p.ws. 1, 2, 3 and 5, it is proved beyond doubt that the accused was the driver of the mini lorry 'kavitha' and it was he who was responsible, for inflicting the injuries found on the body of deceased sathyaseelan. p.w. 9, owner of the lorry, has also testified that the accused was in control of the vehicle in his capacity as the driver during the relevant day also.13. the existence of a street light close to the scene of occurrence was described in ext. p9 scene mahazar and ext. p8 plan. p.w. 2 has deposed that the street light had been lit at the time of the occurrence. this aspect also is not seen to have challenged in the cross-examination.14. the first information statement was given by p.w. 1 within three hours of the occurrence. because of the proximity of time, it cannot be argued that p.w. 1 has occasion to concoct a false story in order to implicate the accused in the case. the dying declaration of the deceased made to p.w. 1 which is acceptable, goes a long way to prove that the accused was responsible for the incident which resulted in causing injuries on the body of the deceased. putting all these facts together the only conclusion possible is that it was the accused who caused the injuries on the body of the deceased which ultimately resulted in his death.15. point no. 3 :- offence committed and the punishment to be imposed :- it is vehemently contended by counsel for the appellant that the offence, if any, committed by the accused will not come under section 302 of the indian penal code, but it will embrace only the provisions of section 304, ipc. as already stated, the court below convicted the accused under section 302, ipc and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. according to counsel for the appellant, the accused had no intention to kill the deceased and in the circumstances it can only be gathered that his intention was to cause bodily injury on the deceased. in the absence of the evidence to cause death, counsel argued, that a lesser punishment, as provided in section 304, ipc, is called for. we are unable to agree with this submission. the evidence in the case unmistakingly shows that the accused not only intended to cause bodily injury on the deceased, but his intention was to kill him. the accused reversed the lorry for a distance of about five feet, put the headlights on and rushed towards the deceased at great speed knocking him down to a distance of about five metres. necessarily this could have caused some injury on the body of the deceased. not being satisfied with this, the accused drove the vehicle in such a way that the tyres of the lorry ran over the middle portion of the body which resulted in crush injuries. from these facts, it is fully established that the accused intentionally caused such bodily injuries so as to cause death of sathyaseelan. as such, he committed an offence of murder within the meaning of section 300, ipc liable to be punished for an offence under section 302, ipc.16. a similar question was considered by the supreme court in state of haryana v. manoj kumar air 1994 sc 147. the accused therein who was driving a car knocked down a motorcyclist which ultimately resulted in his death. he was convicted for an offence under section 302, ipc by the sessions judge, but the high court set aside the conviction and sentence and the accused was acquitted. the supreme court allowed the appeal, reversed the judgment of the high court and ordered the accused to undergo imprisonment for life as he was found guilty for an offence under section 302, ipc. the contention that the accused can be convicted only for an offence under section 304, ipc was specifically adverted by the supreme court and repelled.17. so, in our view, the conviction of the accused under section 302, ipc is proper and the punishment to undergo imprisonment for life cannot be said to be excessive for the offence proved.18. in the result, we confirm the conviction and sentence passed by the court below and dismiss the appeal.
Judgment:

V. Narayanan Nambiar, J.

1. A minor dispute regarding payment of Rs. 500/- between two drivers resulted in the death of one and the prosecution of the other for murder, which ultimately led to his conviction and sentence to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302, IPC.

2. The facts exposed by the prosecution through P.Ws. 1 to 17 are briefly stated below : Deceased Sathyaseelan and accused Satheesan are drivers by profession. The deceased was employed in KSRTC during the relevant time. The accused was the driver of a mini lorry named 'Kavitha' bearing registration No. KCT 3324 owned by P.W. 9, Sabeeda Devi. On 1-12-1988, the KSRTC bus driven by the deceased collided with the lorry driven by the accused causing minor damage to the lorry. P.W. 10 was the conductor of the KSRTC bus at the time of the accident. The deceased and the accused belonged to the same locality and were neighbours and so the matter was not reported to the police as the dispute was settled between the two drivers. As per the agreement, half the amount required for repairing the lorry was to be met by the deceased. It is stated that the accused informed the deceased that the repairs did cost Rs. 1,000/- and he demanded half of the said amount from the deceased. The deceased found it difficult to make payment of that amount.

3. The shop owned by one Vijayan is situated at a place called Keezhattingal junction. It was the practice of P.W. 1, the deceased and a few others to meet there during evenings and to play cards. On 15-12-1988, as usual, they were playing cards in the said shop from 7 p.m. onwards. At about 7-30 p.m., the accused came to the shop driving his lorry and parked the same in front of the shop. The accused called the deceased and got him out of the room. Both of them started discussion regarding the payment of Rs. 500/- for the repair of the mini lorry belonging to the accused. The deceased was not in a position to make. payment then, but the accused insisted for payment forthwith. In spite of the insistance when payment was not forthcoming, the accused threatened the deceased that he will have to face the consequences if the amount is not paid immediately. Thereupon, the deceased retorted that the accused cannot do anything in the matter. On hearing this, the accused got into his lorry and switched on the engine and the headlights, reversed it for few feet and look the lorry forward at a high velocity and caused it to knock down the deceased. As a matter of fact, the deceased was knocked down and he was thrown to a distance of about five metres. The accused drove the vehicle in such a way that the left tyre of the lorry ran over the deceased which crushed his thigh and pelvic region. Hearing the alarm raised by the deceased, P.W. 1 and others rushed to the spot. P.W. 1 asked the deceased as to what happened to him to which the deceased replied that the accused 'killed him'. The deceased was immediately removed to the hospital by P.Ws. 1 and 8, the nephew of the deceased. P.W. 14, Dr. T. S. Angel examined him and after five minutes, the deceased breathed his last. Then P.W. 1, after informing the wife and children of the deceased about the death of the deceased, went to the Kadakkavoor police station and gave Ext. P1 statement to P.W. 15, Sub Inspector of Police who registered Crime No. 165/88 under Section 302, IPC. Ext. P1(a) is the First Information Report. Later, the investigation was taken over by P.W. 17, Circle Inspector of Police. P.W. 17 conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased on 16-12-1988 and prepared Ext. P12 report. He also took into custody M.O. 1 shirt, M.O. 2 Kaili and M.O. 8 black twine which were found on the body of the deceased. Autopsy was conducted by P.W. 16, Dr. S. Mahesh Kumar and issued Ext. P11 certificate. Ext. P9 scene mahazar was prepared by P.W. 17. P.W. 12, the village officer, prepared Ext. P8 plan. Motor Vehicle Inspector (P.W. 11) inspected the lorry driven by the accused and issued Ext. P6 certificate. Later, investigation was completed by P.W. 17 who laid the charge sheet.

4. Having denied the charge, the accused was tried by the Court of Sessions, Trivandrum. The defence taken up by the accused is one of total denial. No evidence was adduced on his side.

5. The questions for consideration in this appeal are :

1. Did Sathyaseelan die due to the in juries caused on account of the running over of the mini lorry at 7-30 p.m. on 15-12-1988?

2. Who was responsible for causing the injuries?

3. Offence committed and the punishment to be imposed.

6. Point No. 1:-Did Sathyaseelan die due to the injuries caused on account of the running over of the mini lorry at 7-30 p.m. on 15-12-1988? It is in evidence that deceased Sathyaseelan was playing cards along with P.W. 1 and a few others in the shop room of one Vijayan at Keezhattingal junction from 7 p.m. on the date of the occurrence. From the evidence of P.W. 1, it is also revealed that the accused came in front of the shop of Vijayan and requested the deceased to come to the road situated in front of the shop. P.W. 1 has also given evidence that he heard the sound of a lorry being started and taken off which was followed by the alarm raised by the deceased. He rushed out of the room and saw Sathyaseelan lying injured on the road. P.W. 2 is an eye witness to the occurrence who has actually witnessed the running over of the mini lorry on the body of deceased Sathyaseelan. The evidence of P.W. 5 also throws light on this question.

7. P.W. 14, who examined Sathyaseelan and issued Ext. P. 10 certificate has noted the following injuries on the body of the deceased :

' 1. Abrasion 2 x 1 cm right side of forehead.

2. Abrasion lower lip.

3. Extensive Abrasion with laceration left hand and tyre markings over left forearm.

4. Swelling with extensive abrasion upper part of the right thigh and over iliac crest.

5. Tyre markings going in an oblique direction from upper 2/3rd of left thigh towards inner side of left knee.

6. Abrasion - right knee.

7. Abrasion - right elbow.'

He could also find visible tyre marks over the left forearm and also tyre marking going in an oblique direction from upper part of the left thigh. He also opined that the injuries noted in Ext. P10, found on the injuries could have been caused as a result of running over of a mini lorry.

8. The evidence of P.W. 16 who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased, who issued Ext. P11 post-mortem certificate also is very much in support of the prosecution case. He has noted the following injuries on the body of the deceased :

'1. Contusion upper part of (R) thigh with abrasions 10 cm x 2 1/2 cm over the upper part of (R) thigh.

2. Deformity over the left iliac region - Depression with abrasions overlying it.

3. Abrasions over the outer aspect of right elbow.

4. Depressed wound 2 cm over the left side of forehead.

5. Irregular contusion marks over (L) forearm? Tyre marks.

6. Abrasions over the dorsum of (L) hand and wrist with loss of skin completely 5 cm x 2 1/2 cm.

7. Irregular patterned contusion over the outer aspect of (L) thigh? Tyre marks.

8. Scrotum swollen and contused, resticles are not palpable.

9. Fracture of (L) hemipelvis with cropitus.

10. Depressed contusion marks over the (R) chest wall.'

On internal examination, he had found multiple fracture of lower ribs of left side. Urinary bladder is crushed. There were tyre markings on the pubic aspect. Scrotum was completely crushed. There was fracture of pelvis. He also noted tyre marks on the body of the deceased. The death, according to P.W. 16, was caused by fracture of pelvis and crush injuries of testes leading to shock.

9. From the above evidence, one could safely conclude that deceased Sathyaseelan died as he was run over by a vehicle on the fateful day.

10. Point No. 2 :- Who was responsible for causing injuries : -The case of the prosecution is that the injuries sustained on the body of Sathyaseelan which led to his death were caused by the accused. The motive alleged by the prosecution is the unwillingness on the part of the deceased to pay Rs. 500/- as cost of the repair charges of the mini lorry. Going by the evidence of P.W. 10, the conductor of the KSRTC bus driven by the deceased on 1-12-1988, we are of opinion that the motive is proved by the prosecution. The evidence of P.W. 1 also gives credance to the evidence tendered by P.W. 10 regarding the motive.

11. P.Ws. 2 to 5 are the eye witnesses of whom P.Ws. 3 and 4 turned hostile. So, we will consider the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 5 and see whether the prosecution was successful in proving the case against the accused and as a matter of fact, it was the accused who was responsible for causing injuries on the body of the deceased, which resulted in his death.

12. P.W. 1, though not an eye witness to the actual occurrence, speaks of matters which happened before the actual occurrence and subsequent to the ruling over of the vehicle on the body of the deceased. At the relevant time, P.W. 1 who was an ex-military was working as a security guard in the State Bank of Travancore. Both the accused and the deceased were his friends. His presence at the scene cannot be disputed as it was his practice to be present there at the shop of Vijayan on almost all evenings to play cards. He has identified the deceased by his voice. After the deceased had gone out of the room, he heard an alarm which he recognised to be the cry in distress of a man who is in danger. Before this, he had also heard the exchange of words between the deceased and the accused. The cry in disress was preceded by the sound of the engine of the mini lorry. Sensing that there was something unpleasant gong on outside, P.W. 1 along with others rushed to the road and found the deceased lying in a pool of blow on the road with crush injuries. On being questioned by P.W. 1, he replied that it was the accused who was responsible for the injuries sustained by him. The evidence of P.W. 2, who reached to the scene at the time of the incident, has also thrown light to the prosecution case. P.W. 3, though hostile, on certain points corroborated the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and P.W. 5, who occasionally cleans the lorry, was inside the cabin at the time of the incident. He has narrated the incident with all details in a convincing manner. On consideration of the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 5, it is proved beyond doubt that the accused was the driver of the mini lorry 'Kavitha' and it was he who was responsible, for inflicting the injuries found on the body of deceased Sathyaseelan. P.W. 9, owner of the lorry, has also testified that the accused was in control of the vehicle in his capacity as the driver during the relevant day also.

13. The existence of a street light close to the scene of occurrence was described in Ext. P9 scene mahazar and Ext. P8 plan. P.W. 2 has deposed that the street light had been lit at the time of the occurrence. This aspect also is not seen to have challenged in the cross-examination.

14. The First Information statement was given by P.W. 1 within three hours of the occurrence. Because of the proximity of time, it cannot be argued that P.W. 1 has occasion to concoct a false story in order to implicate the accused in the case. The dying declaration of the deceased made to P.W. 1 which is acceptable, goes a long way to prove that the accused was responsible for the incident which resulted in causing injuries on the body of the deceased. Putting all these facts together the only conclusion possible is that it was the accused who caused the injuries on the body of the deceased which ultimately resulted in his death.

15. Point No. 3 :- Offence committed and the punishment to be imposed :- It is vehemently contended by counsel for the appellant that the offence, if any, committed by the accused will not come under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, but it will embrace only the provisions of Section 304, IPC. As already stated, the court below convicted the accused under Section 302, IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. According to counsel for the appellant, the accused had no intention to kill the deceased and in the circumstances it can only be gathered that his intention was to cause bodily injury on the deceased. In the absence of the evidence to cause death, counsel argued, that a lesser punishment, as provided in Section 304, IPC, is called for. We are unable to agree with this submission. The evidence in the case unmistakingly shows that the accused not only intended to cause bodily injury on the deceased, but his intention was to kill him. The accused reversed the lorry for a distance of about five feet, put the headlights on and rushed towards the deceased at great speed knocking him down to a distance of about five metres. Necessarily this could have caused some injury on the body of the deceased. Not being satisfied with this, the accused drove the vehicle in such a way that the tyres of the lorry ran over the middle portion of the body which resulted in crush injuries. From these facts, it is fully established that the accused intentionally caused such bodily injuries so as to cause death of Sathyaseelan. As such, he committed an offence of murder within the meaning of Section 300, IPC liable to be punished for an offence under Section 302, IPC.

16. A similar question was considered by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Manoj Kumar AIR 1994 SC 147. The accused therein who was driving a car knocked down a motorcyclist which ultimately resulted in his death. He was convicted for an offence under Section 302, IPC by the Sessions Judge, but the High Court set aside the conviction and sentence and the accused was acquitted. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, reversed the judgment of the High Court and ordered the accused to undergo imprisonment for life as he was found guilty for an offence under Section 302, IPC. The contention that the accused can be convicted only for an offence under Section 304, IPC was specifically adverted by the Supreme Court and repelled.

17. So, in our view, the conviction of the accused under Section 302, IPC is proper and the punishment to undergo imprisonment for life cannot be said to be excessive for the offence proved.

18. In the result, we confirm the conviction and sentence passed by the court below and dismiss the appeal.