1. In this case Manna Singh, caste Thakur, Sardar Singh, caste Thakur, and Lallu Singh, caste Thakur, appealed, the first from a conviction and sentence of death passed upon him, and the second and third from convictions and sentences of transportation for life. The facts are as clear as possible. The deceased man had given offence to Sardar Singh and Lallu Singh and they bore enmity against him, and on the night of the 5th of November three servants who were sleeping within a few feet of the deceased man heard his cry for help. These three men hurried to the next room, which was lighted by a lamp quite close to the bed and made bright by moonlight also. There they saw three men all of whom were previously known to them, and each witness has described what he saw. Sardar Singh and Lallu Singh were holding the deceased man down on to the bed with their lathies. Manna Singh was striking the deceased man's neck with an axe. The three men ran away into the open and in a few minutes other people arrived. From first to last there was no doubt expressed by the three servants that the attack was committed by the three men who stood their trial. A witness, Khagga, identified the axe with which the murder was committed, and swore to it having been put into his hands to sharpen on the same day preceding the night of the murder. Mr. Shamnath Mushran has bad a difficult case to argue, but he has confined himself very properly to just the points which it was necessary to bring to our notice, and has said on behalf of these three men every-thing that the facts of the case permitted him to do, and in one respect we think that he has taken a good point in arguing that the forfeiture of property should not have been coupled with the sentences passed upon the accused men. In this we think he is right, and although the learned Judge under Section 62 of the Indian Penal Code had power to do this, it was not an appropriate case in which such order should be made, because the murder was a murder due to feelings of revenge and was not a murder committed in the course of a dacoity, or which had theft as any part of its object. We think that in such cases where theft forms part of the motive forfeiture of property may very wisely be used as one of the deterrents. Now the question before us is whether the conviction against Manna Singh 'must be affirmed or rejected, or the nature of it altered, We are of opinion that Manna Singh has no ground whatever for this appeal. His was the hand that struck the blow that killed the deceased. Nor do we think that there can be any alteration of the sentences of transportation for life passed against Sardar Singh and Lallu Singh, and, therefore, we dismiss all three appeals. But we think it proper to say that accepting as we do the evidence against all three, it is difficult to see any logical reason why Sardar Singh and Lallu Singh should not have been sentenced to death. By common agreement these three men banded themselves together and went to that house with a newly sharpened axe, intended to kill, and there is no real difference between the man who struck the blow and the men who held the deceased in position so that the blow might be effective. However, as the matter stands we confirm the death sentence passed upon Manna Singh and order it to be carried, out in accordance with law and we direct that Sardar Singh and Lallu Singh are to undergo the sentence of transportation for life. But in all three cases in which the Judge has passed the order adjudging that their property, moveable and immoveable, be forfeited, as regards that portion of the judgment we rescind that order, such rescissions to operate as from the date of the convictions. From that it follows that if in fast any property has been attached, such attachment will at once be released and the property restored to the original owners. Otherwise the convictions will stand.