Asar Mohammad, Ashraf Mohammad and Akhtar vs State of U.P.

Imtiyaz Murtaza, J.—This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 01.3.2008, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge/ Spl. Sessions Judge, J.P. Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 155 of 2004, whereby the appellants have been convicted u/s 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to death together with fine of rupees ten thousand each and in default of payment of fine, two years imprisonment. They have been further convicted u/s 201 I.P.C. and sentenced to two years imprisonment and fine of rupees one thousand each and in default of payment of fine further imprisonment for three months.

Brief facts of the case are that the present case commenced on a report made by village Chowkidar namely, Shababul on 24.1.2004 at the police station Dedoli informing about missing of Smt. Zahida Begum , the second wife of Akhtar and her son aged about 10 years. The report precisely mentioned that the aforesaid two persons were missing for the last two months and that their family members did not report the matter of their being missing to the police. The report aforesaid is marked as Ext. Ka 16. Consequent upon this report, the Head Constable Surendra Singh who was posted as Head Moharrir made entry of the report in G.D. No. 32 which is marked as Ext. Ka 17. Virendra Kumar Tyagi, Station officer of P.S. Dedoli, acting on the report, visited the village alongwith S.I. Mangey Ram and S.S.I Dharendra Singh and interrogated Asar Mohammad who confessed to the crime and spilled the beans that Zahida was his step mother and her son was his step brother and that after committing their murder, the dead bodies were dropped in the Septic Tank in the courtyard of the house. On his pointing out, the lid of septic Tank was removed and with the help of Mangat and Jagdish Valmiki, the dead bodies were taken out which were highly decomposed and were reduced to skeleton and were without any strip of clothing. The body of Zahida Begum was found with nylon card tied round her feet and recovery memo of Nylon cord was marked as Ex ka 18. Memo of recovery of dead bodies was prepared by Harendra Singh. S.I. Dongar Singh Verma conducted inquest and prepared report. He also processed relevant papers of dead bodies and drew site plan of the place of recovery which is marked as Ext ka 19. The dead bodies were despatched for post mortem examination. On 25.1.2004, the investigating officer recorded the statements of inquest witnesses. Accused Ashraf was arrested on 25.1.2004 and his statement was recorded the same day. On 26.1.2004, statement of Smt. Begum Bano and Akram were recorded. Accused Akhtar was arrested on 10.2.2004. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted in the court on 11.2.2004 which is marked as Ex Ka 21. The post-mortem on the dead bodies of the deceased was conducted by Dr. Kuldeep Singh. While conducting autopsy of the dead body of Zahida Begum, he noted that whole body had decomposed. No presence of hair all over the body. In Right arm, all bones were present and in left arm only Humerus bone was present. All Carpel bone and Meta-carpel bone and all phallynges were missing. He also found fracture of Hyoid bone and Hyoid cartilage. According to his opinion, cause of death was Asphyxia (fracture of Hyoid bone and Thyroid cartilage). The duration of death was more than one month.

In the autopsy conducted on the dead body of Child Islam, the doctor found that the Right humerus was absent, right radium absent, right ulna bone, right corporal bone and meta corporal bone and all phallynges of right side were absent. Left humorous bone present, left radium absent, left ulna absent left carpal bone absent left metacarpal bones were absent. All phallynges of left side absent. Both clavicle absent, both scapula absent. All right side ribs absent , Sternum absent. Second and third ribs of left side present. Right Femur bone present, Right Tebia absent, Right Fibula absent. All bones of right foot absent. Left Femur bone present, left Fibula bone present. Left Tibia absent and all bones of left foot absent. In the opinion of the doctor, cause of death was Asphyxia ( fracture of Hyoid bone).

In due course, the case came to be committed to the Court of Sessions. The sessions Judge has framed charges u/s 302 I.P.C. and 201 I.P.C. The case of the defence was of one of denial and false implication. The prosecution in order to prove its case, examined 10 witness. PW-1 Begum Bano, PW-2 Haji Iqbal, PW-3 Nawab John, PW-4 Harendra Singh, PW-5 Dr. Kuldeep Singh, PW-6 Doonger Singh Verma, PW-7 Shababul, PW-8 Jagdish, PW-9 V.K. Tyagi and PW-10 Surendra Singh.

PW-1 Begum Bano did not support the prosecution case. The precise she made before the Court. She stated that she had no intimate knowledge about Zahida nor had she arranged the marriage of Zahida with Akhtar as she belonged to Bihar while Zahida was a Bengali. She also denied knowledge about the children of Zahida or that she had any child from first marriage. However, she stated that she had heard of Zahid being missing from village people. She also stated that she came to know from village people that dead bodies of Zahida and Islam were recovered from the spetic tank situated in the court yard of Akhtar. She denied to have made any statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C before the police. This witness was declared hostile and upon being cross examined, upon a question being put to her she pleaded ignorance that Zahida wanted certain land to be transferred in the name of her son. She however conceded the factum of coming to terms with the accused persons.

PW-2 Haji Iqbal, also did not support the prosecution version. In examination in chief, he denied the fact that the dead bodies of the wife and son Islam were recovered in his presence and explained that on that day, he was not available at the village as he had gone to meet his relation. He denied to have given any statement to the police. He conceded that rapprochement was brought about between him and the accused persons.

PW-3 Nawab Jan who is a witness of Fard, deposed that he knew Asar Mohammad, Ashraf and Akhtar who were native of the same village. He denied that he wast called by the police about a year back. Asar Mohammad was apprehended by the police. He further stated that when he reached he saw the dead bodies were lying on the road. One dead body was of a child and other was of a lady. The child was of Akhtar and lady was wife of Akhtar. He denied that the bodies were taken out from septic tank in his presence. He had signed the papers. This witness was declared hostile. In the cross examination by A.D.G.C., he admitted that both the dead bodies were taken out by two valmikies. At the time when he reached there, the two Valmikis were taking out the dead bodies from inside the house of accused. He further deposed that Asar Mohammad was present alongwith police at the place of occurrence. The lid of the gutter was opened by Asar Mohammad. One cord was tied around the leg of the body and police had prepared recovery memo. He conceded the fact that he had signed the papers also. In the cross-examination he stated that his house was situated at a distance of one km. away from the house of the accused. He also stated that he had no relatives in the village of accused. He further deposed that when he reached the place of occurrence, he saw that one of dead bodies had already been taken out and the second dead body was in the process of being taken out from the pit. He also stated that he knew the accused from before. Lastly, he stated that the police had obtained his signature on blank paper.

PW-4 Harender Singh deposed that on 24.1.2004 he was posted as S.S.I. The case was investigated by V.K. Tyagi. During investigation Asar Mohammad confessed to his crime and on his pointing out, the dead bodies were recovered.. He also stated that he alongwith S.I. Dongar Singh Verma, S.I. Mangey Ram Tomer , Constable Jai Prakash Gupta , Constable Asghar Ali had accompanied V.K. Tyagi and further that Shahid Husain and Nawab Jan were called in as witnesses and they reached the house of Asar Mohammad and on his pointing out and with the help of Mangat and Jagdish Valmiki, dead bodies of Zahida and Islam were recovered. He also stated that recovery Memo was prepared by him which is marked as exhibit Ka-1.

PW-5 Dr. Kuldeep Singh conducted the autopsy of dead bodies and proved the post-mortem reports.

PW-6 Dunger had prepared the inquest report and in his presence the dead bodies were recovered on the pointing out of Asar Mohammad. He prepared inquest of Zahida and thereafter, dead body of Islam was taken out. The inquest report of Zahida Begum was proved by him which is marked exhibit Ka-4. He also prepared Chalan Lash, Photo lash, letter to C.M.O. Letter to R.I. which is exhibit Ka-5 to Ka-9. The inquest report of Islam is exhibit Ka-10. Chalan Lash, letter to C.M.O., letter to R.I. exhibit Ka-11 to Ka-15. Both the dead bodies was handed over to Constable Jitendra Gaur and Asghar Ali for post-mortem examination.

PW-7 is Shababul Chaukidar of village. He lodged the report of missing of Zahida and Islam which is exhibit Ka-16.

PW-8 Jagdish deposed that three and half year back at 4.30 P.M. Daroga had called him Mangat was also called . He alongwith Mangat got recovered the dead bodies on the pointing out of Asar Mohammad. The dead body was of wife of Akhtar and boy was son of Akhtar. Recovery memo was prepared which is exhibit Ka -1

PW-9 Virendra Kumar Tyagi was posted as Inspector. He is the Investigating Officer of the case. After investigation he submitted the charge-sheet.

PW-10 Head Constable 214 Surendra Singh prepared the G.D. Which is exhibit Ka-17.

The case of the defence was of denial and false implication. The defence however did not adduce any evidence in their defence.

The Sessions Judge after scanning the evidence recorded the verdict convicting the appellants holding that the deceased were murdered in their house and further that they did not offer any explanation about the homicidal death of the deceased. The dead bodies were recovered in a septic tank which was situated in the court yard of the house of the accused which place it has been reasoned was not accessible to outsiders.

We have heard Sri S.P.S. Raghav Senior Advocate and Sri Shahabuddin Advocate for the appellants and Sri D.R. Chaudhary Government Advocate and Sri Arunendra Singh A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.

The present case hinges on circumstantial evidence. The Apex Court in catena of decisions has propounded the law that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances.

The case relevant on the point which should be reckoned with is Padala Veera Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1991 SCC 407. In this case, the Apex Court laid down that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests:

The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established.

those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;

the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that with in all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and

the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.

Learned Counsel for the appellants has challenged the findings of the trial Court on merit. The first submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that prosecution has failed to prove motive of the crime. The deceased Zahida Begum was step mother of Asar Mohammad and Ashraf Mohammad and wife of Akhtar. The deceased Islam was step brother of Asar Mohammad and Ashraf Mohammad and son of Akhtar. The appellants had no motive to commit their murder. The prosecution did not examine any witness to prove the motive of the crime.

It is true that the prosecution did not prove any motive for the crime. There is no such principle or rule of law that where the prosecution fails to prove the motive for commission of the crime, it must necessarily end up in acquittal of the accused. The Apex court in various decisions has laid down the principle that no doubt it is a sound principle to remember that every criminal act was done with a motive but its corollary is not that no offence was committed if the prosecution failed to prove the precise motive of the accused to commit it, as it is almost an impossibility for the prosecution to unravel the full dimension of the mental disposition of an offender towards the person whom he offended. In this connection, we would refer to the decision of the Apex Court reported in 1992 SCC 482 Mulakh Raj v. Satish Kumar wherein it was observed;

Undoubtedly in cases of circumstantial evidences motive bears important significance. Motive always locks up in the mind of the accused and some time it is difficult to unlock. People do not act wholly without motive. The failure to discover the motive of an offence does not signify its non-existence. The failure to prove motive is not fatal as a matter of law. Proof of motive is never an indispensable for conviction. When facts are clear it is immaterial that no motive has been proved. Therefore, absence of proof of motive does not break the link in the chain of circumstances connecting the accused with the crime, nor militates against the prosecution case.

The next submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that in criminal case, the burden of proof is on prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. He further stated that the chain of circumstances is not complete. He also argued that PW-1 Begum Bano, Pw-2 Haji Iqbal did not support the prosecution case and they were declared hostile. PW-3 Nawab Jan was also declared hostile. Lastly he submitted that the prosecution case stands on very weak crutches.

We have given out anxious considerations to the submission advanced across the bar but we are afraid, the submissions do not seem to be loaded with any substance. The normal principle in a case based on circumstantial evidence is that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt can be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; that those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; that the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and they should be incapable of explanation on any hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with their innocence. The offence in this case took place inside the house of the appellants. In a case of this nature Apex Court in the case of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan reported in 2007 SCC 80 , observed that the initial burden to establish the case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution, but the nature and amount of evidence to be led by it to establish the charge cannot be of the same degree as is required in other cases of circumstantial evidence. The burden would be of a comparatively lighter character. In view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act there will be a corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed. The inmates of the house cannot get away by simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation on the supposed premise that the burden to establish its case lies entirely upon the prosecution and there is no duty at all on an accused to offer any explanation. The appellants did not offer any explanation as to how deceased persons died. In his statement u/s 313 Cr. P.C. they did not offer any explanation. It is true that the statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. is not a substantive evidence but it can be used for appreciating evidence led by the prosecution to accept or reject it. It is, however, not a substitute for the evidence of the prosecution.

In a case based on circumstantial evidence where no eye witness account is available, yet another principle of law that has to be kept in mind is that when an incriminating circumstance is put to the accused and the said accused either offers no explanation or offers an explanation which is found to be untrue, then the same becomes an additional link in the chain of circumstances to make it complete. The decision germane to the point Raj Kumar Prasad Tamarkar Vs. State of Bihar and Another, The distillate of the said case is where the deceased and her husband were in the bedroom and the terrace connecting the same and there was no other person and the cause of death of the deceased Usha Devi i.e.by a gun shot was not in dispute, the quintessence of what the Apex Court observed in paras 23,24 and 25 ; is that ''''Once the prosecution has been able to show that at the relevant time, the room and terrace were in exclusive occupation of the couple, the burden of proof lay upon the respondent to show under what circumstances death was caused to his wife. The onus was on him. He failed to discharge the same.

This legal position would appear from a decision of this Court in Nika Ram v. State of H.P. 1972 SCC 635 wherein it was held as under:

It is in the evidence of Girju PW that only the accused and Churi deceased resided in the house of the accused. To similar effect are the statements of Mani Ram (PW 8), who is the uncle of the accused, and Bhagat Ram, school teacher (PW 16). According to Bhagat Ram, he saw the accused and the deceased together at their house on the day of occurrence. Mani Ram (PW 8) saw the accused at his house at 3 p.m., while Poshu Ram (PW 7) saw the accused and the deceased at their house on the evening of the day of occurrence. The accused also does not deny that he was with the deceased at his house on the day of occurrence. The house of the accused, according to plan PM, consists of one residential room, one other small room and a verandah. The correctness of that plan is proved by A.R. Verma, overseer (PW 5). The fact that the accused alone was with Churi deceased in the house when she was murdered there with the khokhri and the fact that the relations of the accused with the deceased, as would be shown hereafter, were strained would, in the absence of any cogent explanation by him, point to his guilt.

In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra 2007 SCC 80 the law is stated in the following terms:

Where an accused is alleged to have committed the murder of his wife and the prosecution succeeds in leading evidence to show that shortly before the commission of crime they were seen together or the offence takes place in the dwelling home where the husband also normally resided, it has been consistently held that if the accused does not offer any explanation how the wife received injuries or offers an explanation which is found to be false, it is a strong circumstance which indicates that he is responsible for commission of the crime.

Learned Counsel for the appellants placed reliance on a decision of Apex Court in the case of Aloke Nath Dutta and Ors. v. State of West Bengal reported in (2008) 2 SCC 264, wherein paragraph 26, it was held that:

When Nandlal Singh (Pw15) pressurised Aloke Nath to hand over possession of a few rooms to him on the advice of his lawyer Bikash Pal, Aloke Nath apparently became desperate. Whether he hatched a conspiracy with the other appellants at that point of time to do away with his brother Bishwanath and dispose of his dead body so as to get the entire amount of consideration of the sale of the house, is the core question. There is no direct evidence to show that other appellants also were part of the said conspiracy. Their presence had not been noticed by any of the witnesses. No body saw them together in the house. Nobody saw Mrinal Dutta coming to the house even once. We are not oblivious of the fact that it is difficult to have direct evidence of conspiracy. But to prove conspiracy hatched to commit a heinous crime, circumstantial evidence brought on records must be such which would have no loose ends to tie.

We have scrutinised the submission of learned Counsel for the appellants and also decision of the Apex Court in the case of Aloke Nath Dutta (supra) in all its ramifications. Having gone through the decision, we must say that the said decision has been rendered in different facts and circumstances and flows from different perspective. In the said case, the Apex Court had rendered verdict acquitting other accused persons holding quintessentially that there was no direct evidence from which it could be deduced that other appellants also were part of the said conspiracy and that their presence had not been noticed by any of the witnesses and further that nobody saw them together in the house and also that no body saw Mrinal Dutta coming to the house even once. In the said decision accused were acquitted u/s 120B I.P.C. In the present case the accused persons were residing in the same house and they were very proximate relation of the deceased. Therefore, the facts of the said case cannot be imported for application to the facts of the present case.

We have carefully scanned the evidence on record. In the facts and circumstances and evidence on record, it brooks no dispute that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased died homicidal death. The doctor has clearly held that cause of death of Zahida Begum was due to Asphyxia (fracture of Hyoid bone and Thyroid cartilage) and the death of Islam was also due to Asphyxia (fracture of Hyoid bone ). The prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Another circumstance unerringly pointing to the guilt of the accused is that the dead bodies were recovered from the septic tank situated inside the house of appellant that too, on the pointing out of Asar Mohammad. PW-3 Nawab Jan and PW-8 Jagdish minced no words to say that dead bodies were recovered on the pointing of Asar Mohammad from septic tank. There is no dispute about the identity of the deceased. Yet another circumstance pointing accused finger at the appellants is that the appellants did not lodge any report about the missing of the deceased for about two months nor offered any explanation about their death in their statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. In connection with the above, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2007) 1 SCC 80 be adverted to. The Apex in paragraphs 15, 21 and 22, as held as under-

Where an offence like murder is committed in secrecy inside a house the initial burden to establish the case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution, but the nature and amount of evidence to be led by it to establish the charge cannot be of the same degree as is required in other cases of circumstantial evidence. The burden would be of a comparatively lighter character. In view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act there will be a corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed. The inmates of the house cannot get away by simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation on the supposed premise that the burden to establish its case lies entirely upon the prosecution and there is no duty at all on an accused to offer any explanation.

In a case based on circumstantial evidence where no eyewitness account is available, there is another principle of law which must be kept in mind. The principle is that when an incriminating circumstance is put to the accused and the said accused either offers no explanation or offers an explanation which is found to be untrue, then the same becomes an addition link in the chain of circumstances to make it complete.

Where an accused is alleged to have committed the murder of his wife and the prosecution succeeds in leading evidence to show that shortly before the commission of crime they were seen together or the offence takes place in the dwelling home where the husband also normally resided, it has been consistently held that if the accused does not offer an explanation how the wife received injuries or offers an explanation which is found to be false, it is a strong circumstance which indicates that he is responsible for the commission of the crime.

We are of the opinion that Sessions Judge has rightly recorded findings of conviction which we in the facts and circumstances discussed above, affirm.

Lastly, the question that arises for anxious consideration is whether imposition of death sentence to the appellant in the facts and circumstances of the case is justified?

Under the old code of criminal Procedure ample discretion was given to the courts to pass death sentence as a general proposition and the alternative sentence of life term could be awarded in exceptional circumstances, that too after advancing special reasons for making this departure from the general rule. The new Code of 1973 has entirely reversed the rule. A sentence for imprisonment for life is now the rule and capital sentence is an exception. It has also been made obligatory on the courts to record special reasons if ultimately death sentence is to be awarded. A Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1980 898 while upholding the constitutional validity of the death sentence voiced that as a legal principle death sentence is still awardable but only in rarest of rare cases when the alternative option of lesser sentence is unquestionably foreclosed.

Coming to the aspect whether penalties of death should be sustained in the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel called to advert to the guidelines laid down in stream of decisions commencing from Bachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, and thereafter reiterated in subsequent decisions namely Machhi Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab, and Devender Pal Singh Vs. State National Capital Territory of Delhi and Another, The guidelines laid down in Bachan Singh''s case (Supra) may be culled out as under:

(i)The extreme penalty of death need not be inflicted except in gravest cases of extreme culpability.

(ii) Before opting for the death penalty, the circumstances of the offender also require to be taken into consideration alongwith the circumstances of the crime. Life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is an exception. In other words, death sentence must be imposed only when life imprisonment appears to be an altogether inadequate punishment having regard to the relevant circumstances of the crime, and provided, and only provided, the option to impose sentence of imprisonment for life cannot be conscientiously exercised having regard to the nature and circumstances of the crime and all the relevant circumstances.

(iii) A balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances has to be drawn up and in doing so, the mitigating circumstances have to be accorded full weightage and just balance has to be struck between the aggravating and the mitigating circumstances before the option is exercised.

In Machchi Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab (1983) the Supreme Court expanded the "rarest of rare" formulation beyond the aggravating factors listed in Bachan Singh to cases where the "collective conscience" of a community may be shocked. But the Bench in this case underlined that full weightage must be accorded to the mitigating circumstances in a case and a just balance had to be struck between aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

We may advert to the reason recorded by the Sessions for awarding extreme penalty. The Sessions Judge observed that deceased lived alongwith accused persons about eight to ten years. During that period deceased has treated Akhtar as her husband and Asar and Ashraf as their sons and even then she was murdered alongwith her child and the dead bodies were concealed in the septic tank. The accused have committed the murder of a lady and a child and destroyed the evidence by concealing the dead bodies in the septic tank and held that case is rarest of rare and awarded death sentences.

It would be useful to refer to a recent decision of the Apex Court rendered in Des Raj v. State of Punjab (2007) 12 SCC 494. While dealing with the facts of the case the Apex Court held that the trial court and the High Court have persuaded themselves to award the death penalty by considering only the aggravating circumstances and to an extent, carried away by the fact that three died and four were injured. The mitigating circumstances have not been given their due importance. On a careful balancing of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, we find that in-spite of the gravity of the crime involving triple murder, the aggravating circumstances noticed and enumerated by the High Court do not outweigh much-less overwhelmingly the mitigating circumstances. This is not that rarest of rare case which invites death penalty.

In the perspective of the above decision and regard being had that the reasons assigned for inflicting the extreme penalty do not constitute special reasons, we are of the view that the case does not fall in the category of rarest of rare cases.

In connection with the above, another decision on the point may be referred to. The Apex Court in the case of Ram Pal v. State of U.P. 2003 (47) A.C.C. 567 for the reasons mentioned in paragraph 8 and 9 of the judgement reduced the sentence from death to life imprisonment despite the fact that 21 persons were murdered in an incident.

Compassion in sentencing is also a key factor. It allows the scars to heal. Longevity of incarceration may make them see reason. Passage of time may make them ponder over the crime they had committed. This might arouse in them a feeling of remorse and repentance.

Considering the over all circumstances of the case this case does not fall within the category of rarest of rare case and it cannot be said that imprisonment for lesser sentence of life term stood altogether foreclosed and we are of the view that a sentence of imprisonment for life to the appellants would meet the ends of justice.

We therefore, reduce the sentence of death of the appellants to imprisonment for life.

Reference aforesaid is rejected. The appeal is partly allowed. In consequence the conviction recorded by the Sessions Judge is maintained but in the facts and circumstances and for reasons recorded above, the sentence of death awarded to the appellant by the learned Sessions Judge is commuted to imprisonment for life.