Ranjeet Bahadur vs State of U.P.

S. K. Mookerji, J.—This appeal has been filed by Ranjeet Bahadur against the judgment and order of the Sessions Judge, Firozabad, dated 1931991 passed in Sessions Trial No. 25 of 1990 convicting and sentencing him under Section 302,1. P. C. for committing the murder of Smt. Subhasini Raniwala to death. The usual reference has also been made by the learned Sessions Judge.

We have heard both the appeal filed by Ranjeet Bahadur and also the connected Reference.

The prosecution case, according to the written report (Ext. Ka. 1,) is that the accused Ranjeet Bahadur, who had come from Nepal, was employed as domestic servant about 20 days ago from the date of the occurrence by the complainant Narendra Kumar Raniwala PW 1. It is also disclosed that on 2631990 when the complainant PW 1 Narendra Kumar Raniwala returned from his cold storge to take his dinner at about 9.00 p. m. he heard some noise (ghargharahat) of his wife which was coming from a room of his house. His son Sanjay and nephew Sudhir PW 2 were also following him. The complainant, his son and his nephew immediately rushed into the room and saw the accused Ranjeet Bahadur strangulating his wife with the aid of an elecric wire and Smt. Subhasini Raniwala the deceased was lying on the floor. It was also stated that they with some difficulties freed the deceased from the clutches of the accused but the wife of the complainant succumbed to the strangulation. The accused Ranjeet Bahadur tried to run away from the scene of occurrence. The complainant raised hue and cry and ultimately complainant''s son Sanjay, nephew Sudhir PW 2 and others apprehended the accused Ranjeet Bahadur and gave him some beating. Thereafter, Ranjeet Bahadur was taken to the Police Station North, Firozabad and PW 1 reported the matter soon after at about 9.45 p. m. The distance between, the place of occurrence from the Police Station is one furlong. On the basis of the written report Chick, First Information Report was prepared and the case was registered under Section 302, I.P.C. against the accused. The S.S.I. Sarnam Singh, the Investigating Officer, PW 8 was entrusted with investigation. He along with his police force went to the place of occurrence and prepared inquest report, civilian lash, photo lash, letter to C. M. O. and M. O. The body was ultimately sent f jr post mortem through Constables Behchu Singh and Bhola Nath PW 5. The spot inspection was also made and the site plan was also prepared which is Ext. Ka10. Cut electric wire pieces Exts. 1 to 3 were taken into possession and he prepared a recovery Memo Ext. Ka12. The recovered three pieces of electric wire with which strangulation was albged to have been done, were also sealed. Dr. R. L. Saraswat PW 6 conducted the autopsy of the deceased Smt. Subhasini Raniwala on 2731990 and prepared post mortem report which is Ext. Ka13. According to Ext Ka10 the deceased was aged about 48 years. Her body was average built, rigor mortis was also present. Eyes were congested and half opened. Following antemortem injuries were found on the body of the deceased:

(1) Ligature mark of about, 3/4 cm. wide present round the neck above the thyroid "cartilage extending up to the below of the angle of mandible on right side and up to middle of back of neck from left side. The mark is absent on the right side back of neck. The surface of mark is contused.

(2) Abrasion 4 cmx 3 cm on the front of neck just above the supraspential notch. Hyoid bone below the ligature mark is broken and all tissues below are exhynised.

On internal examination the brain, larynx, trachea both lungs, blood vessels were found congested. Bleeding was also present at the sight of ligature mark. According to the opinion of the Doctor the cause of death was due to shock, suffocation and asphyxia due to ante mortem injuries.

The post mortem was conducted at about 1000 a.m. and the duration of the death was about half day. The motive to commit the murder as disclosed in the Chick Report, First Information report and also in the statement of PW 1 was to ransack and loot.

Statements of the witnesses were recorded by the Investigating Oificer. PW 4 Ram Autar, one of the servant of the complainant, wat sent for med cal examination by the Investigating Officer who received injuries during the course of arrest of the accused. The injuries of PW 4 Ram Autar were examined by Dr. M. S. Rathore PW 7 Ext. Ka1 1 is the injury report of Ram Autar PW 4 according to which Ram Autar received the following injuries:

(1) Septic wound 1 cm x 1 cm on the ventricle part of right palm on hypothened muscles.

(2) Seabed abrasion 4 cm x 3.3 cm on the outer part of left thigh. On its upper 1/3rd part.

(3) Seabed abrasion 3 cm x 2 cm on the front and middle of the right thigh.

(4) Septic lacerated wound 1 cm x 1 cm on the left knee joint.

(5) Scabad abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm on the right knee joint.

(6) Septic wound 1 cm x 5 cm on the outer part of the left little toe.

The duration of injuries was 1.� days. It will be relevant to point out at this stage that PW Dr. M. S. Rathore in his deposition before the Court below has stated that the injuries could have" been caused at 900 p.m. on 2631990.

There is another important feature in the case. The accused Ranjeet Bahadur expressed his willingness to confess his guilt before the Magistrate. In fact an application Ext. Ka22 was moved by the Investigation Officer before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Report to this effect by the Investigating Officer is Ext. Ka8, Ext. Ka7 is the endorsement as the Magistrate, according to which the accused was in police custody and 2931990 was fixed for recording his statement under Section 164, Cr. P. C. Ext. Ka6 is the endorsement of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, which shows that the accused was produced before him and he was warned and the fact was made known to him about the result of making the confession and thereafter it was ordered that the accused be presented after lunch. The Chief Judicial Magistrate again, before recording the statement, gave a warning to the accused about his making confessional statement and it was made clear to him that such statement could be read against him and the accused was also made fully aware of the consequences of making a confessional statement. Not only this, the accused was also informed about the death penalty which might be imposed on him on the basis of confession. It was after satisfying himself that the accused was willing to make the confession voluntarily, the Chief Judicial Magistrate Sri A. K. Kakkar PW 3 recorded his statement. The endorsement to this effect is Ext. Ka9. Thereafter the above Chief Judicial Magistrate recorded the confessional statement of the accused which is Ext. Ka2. According to the above statement, it was stated by the accused that he was a domestic servant for about last 25 days in the house of the complainant. On 2631990 the accused was at the house of the complainant at about 8.00p.m. The deceased and the accused were present in the house. The deceased was wife of the complainant PW 1. It was also stated that the deceased used to get the latrine and urinal cleaned by the accused and did not give him full diet. The accused felt unhappy. It is also stated that the deceased used to talk too much and did not give proper sugar in the tea and used to provide bad food to the accused. There was a heavy electric wire in the house. The accused strangulated the deceased (Bibi Ji) with the aid of the electric wire and when he was strangulating her the complainant (Malik) arrived and got the deceased (Malkin) freed from the clutches of the accused. The accused knew it well that the deceased (Bibi Ji) would die on account of strangulating (gala chotne se) and the accused Ranjeet Bahadur wanted to murder the deceased (Bibi Ji). The complainant (Malik) apprehended the accused and took him to the Police Station. The above statement was signed by the accused Ranjeet Bahadur and his signature is Ext. Ka3.

After recording the statement of the accused the Chief Judicial Magistrate made a memorandum as required under Section 164 (4), Cr. P. C. which roads as under:

"I have explained to Ranjeet Bahadur that he is not bound to make a confession and if he does so, any confession he may make, may be read as an evidence against him and I believe that the confession was voluntarily made. It was taken in my presence and hearing and read over to the accused in Hindi and admitted by him to be correct and it contains a full and true amount of the statement made by him.

Sd/ A. K. Kakkar

29392"

This certificate is Ext. Ka5 which has been signed by the accused which is Ext. Ka5. The Investigating Officer PW 8 Sarnam Singh submitted the chargesheet against the accused after completing the necessary investigation and following the procedure in accordance with law.

It will be necessary to point out that before framing the charge, statement of the accused was recorded on 3151990 to ascertain whether he understood Hindi. Some questions were put to him which the accused replied. An endorsement to this effect that the accused had understood the questions in Hindi and could reply also in Hindi, was made by the learned Sessions Judge. Charge under Section 302 I.P.C. was framed against him on 761990 and was read over and explained in Hindi to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

The prosecution examined 8 witnesses in support of its case and its case. PW 1 is Narendra Kumar Raniwala who is an eyewitness in the case and is husband of the deceased PW 2 is Sudhir Kumar, an eye witnesses and is nephew of PW 1. PW 8 Sri A. K. Kakkar is the Chief Judicial Magistrate, who had recorded confessional statement of the accused. PW 4 is Ram Autar an injured eye witness and is a servant of PW 1. He helped in apprehending the accused when the latter tried to flee from the place of occurrence. Ram Autar had also received injuries. PW 5 is a Constable Bhola Nath who had carried the dead body for post mortem. PW 6 is Dr. R. L. Saraswat who conducted the post mortem, PW 7 is Dr. M. S. Rathore, who medically examined PW 4 Ram Autar and prepared the injury report, PW 8 is Sarnam Singh, who investigated the case and submitted the chargesheet.

The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313, Cr. P. C. on 2521991. The accused stated that on the date of the occurrence he had gone to see cinema show commencing at 3.00 p. m. after taking Rs. 10 from the deceased and also stated that only on his return, "he found Smt. Subhasini Raniwala was dead. He also denied that he had killed Smt. Subhasini Raniwala with the aid of the wire. He denied that he killed Smt. Subhasini Raniwala for ransacking the house. It is also stated that the police beat him and threatened him to be killed and, therefore, under fear he made the confession. The police also give him sweets. He has also stated that he did not know that it was a court where he confessed. He stated that he understood the Hindi less. It was also stated that on 1031990 he was turned out by the deceased but the complainant kept him in the service. He did not want to serve and when he returned from cinema house, he started weeping and was apprehended and handed over to the police. In defence he got summcned special report Ext. Kha2.

13 We have examined Ext. Kha2 which is nothing but a copy of the First Information Report. It is necessary to point out that while crossexamining PW 1 a plea of defence was suggested to the effect that the wife of PW 1 complainant was bad character and on the date of the occurrence, it was suggested that the complainant PW 1 and the accused saw the deceased in compromising situation with some one. This suggestion was denied, also suggested that the complainant PW 1 had himself murdered his wife by strangulating her after seeing her in that compromising position. This was also denied. It was also suggested to PW that the complainant with a view to shield his guilt even extend allurement by offering money to the appellant for not disclosing the fact of murder. This suggestion was also denied. PW 1 further stated that it is wrong to suggest that he had falsely implicated the accused in the present case and that he was making false statement. It shall be relevant to mention that the above suggestion put to PW 1 during his crossexamination was not even brought on record while recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr. P C We have already examined the fact stated by the accused under Section 313''Cr P C Factum of death, time and place of occurrence in which Smt. Subhasini Raniwala was murdered, have been fully established by PW 1 PW 8 and post mortem report Ext. Ka10. Further the above facts are not in dispute in the present case.

Before we discuss the eye witnesses, we propose to examine the confessional statement of the accused. We, therefore, proceed to find out whether the confessional statement given by the accused is voluntary or not. The occurrence had taken place at about 9.00 p.m. on 26 31990. The accused was apprehended by PW1 and others as stated above and was handed over to the police while he expressed his willingness to make confessional statement. In pureuance of the said willingness of the accused as stated above the investigating officer. Sarnam singh prepared an application and moved it on 2731990 Since the accused was in Police custody, the Magistrate fixed 2931990 for recording the statement of the accused. The accused was remanded to judicial custody. On 2931990 the accused was summoned from Jail and produced Chief Judicial Magistrate PW 3. The Chief Judicial Magistrate as stated above, warned the accused against making confession and made him acquainted with the consequences of a confession in the present case. He Sin have time for recording the statement of the accused after lunch This endorsement is Ext. Ka6. PW 3 the Chief Judicial Magistrate has stated in his examinationnchief that before recording the statement of the accused he warned him of the consequences of making confessional statement and after much again before recording the statement, the Chief Judicial Magistrate stated that he again warned the accused that his statement, which he was about to make would be read against him. He was also informed about all the consequences for the statement had written about it which is Ext Ka9. His statement been extensively referred to by the Court below in his judgment. After recording the confessional statement of the accused PW 3 the chief Judicial Magistrate gave a certificate which is Ext4. we have already quoted the certificate above in our judgment, The chief judicial Magistrate has also deposed in his crossexamination that no police personnel was present ether in the Court or in the chamber at the time of recording the statement. He had further stated in his crossexamination that he asked the accused as to Why he wanted to make a confession. The accused replied that since he had committed murder of Smt. Subhasini Raniwala, therefore, he wanted to make a confession. He also admitted that on the same date an application was moved by the Investigating Officer to issue a copy of the confession made by him. It is relevant to point out that the accused was brought before the Magistrate on 2731990 and the Magistrate hed 2831990 for recording his statement. Thus, sufficient time was given to the accused to think over the matter and the accused was summoned from Jail on 2931990 and was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate before lunch and his confession was recorded only after lunch. Necessary warning about the consquences of confessional statement was given to the accused repeatedly. The confessional statement was reported by the Chief Judicial Magistrate as stated by him in his crossexamination that the accused had made his statement before him without any coercion from police.

The learned Sessions Judge, after considering the entire material on record, had categorically recorded a finding that the confessional statement made by the accused was voluntary. We fully agree with the finding of the learned Sessons Judge and hold that the statement made by the appellant is wholly voluntary and there is no reason to disbelieve or discard the confessional statement of the accused. However, we are not inclined to record a conviction against the appellant on the basis of confessional statement only. In this case it may be said that the confession .was retracted while making a statement under Sec. 313 Cr. P. C. It is a settled law that where a confession was net retracted at the earliest opportunity but after a lapse of several months when the prosecution evidence was closed and during examination under Section 313, Cr. P. C. the accused first time retracted the confession, could be accepted as voluntary. However, such confession as stated above deserves to be used with great caution. We could, therefore, like to discuss the occular evidence in the present case. In case we come to the conclusion that the version of the eye witnesses are reliable then we would like to use the confession as one of the evidence for recording the conviction against the appellant. How ever before entering into the evidence deposed by the eye witnesses, it is pointed out that the occurrence took place on 2631990 at 9.00 p.m. Police Station is situated at a distance of one furlong. The First Information Report was also lodged on the same day at 21.35 p.m. The body of the deceased was received for post mortem on 2731990 at 9.45 p.m. Ext. Kha2 is a document which was summoned by the accused which is nothing but a copy of the First Information Report and there is absolutely no discrepancy regarding the date and time of the occurrence. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the First Information Report was not belated but was lodged promptly. We, therefore, affirm the finding of the court below that the First Information Report was prompt and it was not belated.

We have already narrated the contents of the First Information Report above, PW 1 is the husband of the deceased and is an eye witness. He identified the accused in the Court and had stated that the accused was employed by him about 20 days before the date of murder of his wife. The occurrence had taken place on 2631990 at about 9.00 p.m. Around 9 O''clock he was coming from his cold storage for taking his dinner at home along with his son Sanjay Raniwala and his nephew Sudhir Raniwala and at that time there was enough electric light in the compound. He also deposed that the tube light and bulbs were also lighted in his residental house. It is further stated that when they reached the door of his house, he heard muffled voice (Ghargharahat) of his wife. Thereafter PW 1 and his son rushed inside the room from where the muffled voice was coming. He saw his wife Smt. Subhasini Raniwala was lying on the floor and the accused was tightening a wire around her neck. It is also stated that by another hand, the accused was passing his palm on her nose and mouth. He along with his son and nephew tried to extricate his wife from the clutches of the accused and raised alarm but by that time his wife was dead. The accused, thereafter, tried to runaway but he was apprehended on the spot. PW 1 also stated that his servant had also come. Both Ram Autar and Brijendra Siagh employees of the PW 1 also reached the place of occurrence and the accused while attempting to flee from the scene, pushed Ram Autar PW 4 which caused injuries to him. The accused also received injuries in the process. PW 1 also stated that with a view to find out whether there was any life in his wife the wire around her neck was cut by him. He also identified the pieces of wire which were placed before him in the court. He also stated that the wire was cut into three pieces. The wires were put back in the sealed cover. After cutting the wire, it was discovered that his wife was lifeless. Thereafter PW 1 dictated the First Information Report to his nephew Pradeep Kumar Raniwala and after reading the same he affixed his signature. He also verified that the contents of the said First Information Report were correctly written. PW 1 further stated that he along with his son and other persons went to the Police Station along with the accused and the written First Information Report was lodged. He further submitted that they reached the Police Station on the same day at about 9.30 p.m. A report was, thereafter, taken down by the Munshi at the Police Station. PW 1 further stated that the motive of the accused was to ransack the house after murdering the wife of PW 1 was put to extensive crossexamination. In the crossexamination nothing substantial was elicited from him in favour of the accused. During the crossexamination PW 1 stated that when the accused attempted to flee from the scene, his servant Ram Autar tried to apprehend him and in the processs Ram Autar was injured. PW 1 clearly stated that it was an omission on his part not to mention the name of the servant Ram Autar in the First Information Report. He also said that it was also an omission not to refer to the scuffle between the accused and others including Ram Autar. We would like to add here that the omission made by PW 1 in the First Information Report as stated above is natural. The wife of PW 1 was brutally murdered and at that time he was only concerned with her and perhaps it was not possible for him to have seen the injury of Ram Autar or recorded the details of scuffle for apprehending the accused on the spot. In the crossexamination PW 1 also stated that the wire was cut by him a plier.

It is clear from the statement of PW 1 that he had arrived at the spot and discovered the occurrence only at a stage when his wife was virtually dying. He, therefore, stated in his crossexamination that when he saw his wife at the first time she was not at all making any movement and at that time her body was lying motionless. It appears that when PW 1 had arrived after hearing the gustural of the deceased, she was already dying out and moment thereafter he found that her body became motionless The suggestions put to PW 1 as stated above, were denied by PW 1 Narendra Kumar Raniwala. It is clear from the statement of PW 1 Narendra Kumar Raniwala an eye witness that he identified the accused in court and he corroborated the prosecution case. It is also clear that there was enough light in the house at the time of the occurrence. PW 1 had been the accused tightening the wife on the neck of his deceased wife. It is also clear that the accused caused injuries to Ram Autar PW 4 while attempting to flee from the place of occurrence. It is also clear that the accused was apprehended at the spot and was taken to the Police Station at 9.20 p m. on 2631990. PW 1 applied a plier to cut the wire which was tied around the neck of the deceased. The wire was made in three pieces which were also taken into possession and were sealed. The First Information Report was also proved by him. He has also assigned a motive of the crime to the accused. PW 1 has further given details regarding the murder and has explained the omission of the name of Ram Autar in the First Information Report.

We have gone through the statement of PW1 Narendra Kumar Raniwala carefully and we record a finding that PW 1 is wholly reliable and has fully corroborated the prosecution case in all material particulars.

PW 2 Sudmir kumer is another eye witness who is nephew of PW I Narendra Kumar Raniwala particulars and also the prosecution story. We also hold that PW 2 is also wholly reliable. Some mirror contradictions were pointed out which are but natural. In substance PWs 1 and 2 both eye withesses, have fully proved the prosecution story and we rely upon their statements.

The last eye witness is Ram Autar PW 4. No doubt, Ram Autar has not been named in the First Information Report but it has been clearly mentioned in the First Information Report that two other servants came on the scene of occurrence. However, PW 1 has categorically stated that Ram Autar came on the scene of occurrence and tried to apprehend the accused while he was trying to escape and in the process he received injuries. PW 1 has stated that his servants had also come. PW 4 in his deposition has also stated that he had apprehended the accused Ranjeet Bahadur when he was trying to escape and had received injures. Ram Autar was evamined by PW 7 Dr. M. S. Rathore, regarding injuries on Ram Autar PW 4, Dr. Rathore had stated that the said injuries could be caused at 9.00 p.m. on 2631990. Under the circumstances, his presence on the scene of occurrence cannot be doubted. The statement of PW 4 Ram Autar was not relied upon by the court below on the ground that the police had recorded the statement after undue delay. Even if we agree with the court below in respect of Ram Autar PW 4 there is no reason to disbelieve PW 1 and PW 2 who are reliable eye witnesses. Their evidence fully corroborates the evidence on record.

We have examined the evidence of PW 6 Dr. R. L. Saraswat who performed the autopsy. According to the post mortem report Ext. Ka10 there was a ligature mark about 3/4 cm present around that neck above the thyroid cartilage. The aforesaid Doctor clearly stated in his crosssexamination that if a wire is tied around the neck and the wire is pulled or twisted by inserting a hand if it is twisted in the process of strangulating or throttling, there would be no ligature mark on the specific area of neck from where the wife is or was twisted. Thus, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that there is a discrepancy between the medical evidence and the evidence of the eye witnesses is not tenable. No doubt, the eye witnesses have stated that the wire was put around the neck of thedeceased but an explanation has been given by the Doctor PW 6 to the effect that if the hand is put below the wire at the time of tightening the ligature mark may not appear on the entire neck. Thus the evidence of the eye witnesses of PW 1 and PW 2 is also fully corroborated by them medical evidence, post mortem report and the First Information Report. PW 6 Dr. R. L. Saraswat also submitted with reference to the three pieces of wire that the ligature mark that will appear by these wires, shall be same as has been mentioned by him in the post mortem report. It will be relevant to point out that PWs 5, 6 and 7 are witnesses of formal nature. As far as PW 8 is concerned, he is Investigating Officer in the present case. Nothing has been found against him by putting him to strict crossexamination. We have already pointed out that there was enough electric light in the room where the occurrence took place. The suggestion given to P. W. 1 that the deceased was a lady of easy virtue and had illicit relationship with some other person and the accused and P. W. 1 saw the deceased with that unknown person in compromising position and therefore, the complainant committed the murder, wholly unreliable and such plea is rejected.

We have examined the entire statement of PW 1 and confessional statement of the accused and his statement under Section 313, Cr. P. C. and we have no doubt that the suggestion made is wholly fabricated and a tissue of lie. The accused has not even stated before the Magistrate in his confessional statement regarding the allurement offerred to him nor did he say so in his statement in the court below. After reading the statements of the eye witnesses, mainly PW 1 and PW 2, we do not find any hesitation in relying upon the confessional statement recorded by the PW 3. There was no suggestion made regarding the illicit connection as stated above to PW 2.

After carefully considering the entire material on record, we hold that both PWs 1 and 2 have fully established the prosecution case which have been corroborated both by the medical evidence and first information report. The voluntary confession offered is sufficient for the purpose of conviction but in the present case we rely upon the eye witnesses PW 1 and PW 2 and in that view of the matter, we also accept the confessional statement made by the accused voluntarily. The prosecution has proved its case against the accused under Section 302 I. P. C. successfully. We, therefore, uphold the conviction of the accused under Section 302,1. P. C.

Sri Apul Misra, Advocate, holding the brief for the appellant, who is in Jail had drawn our attention to the provisions of Section 354 (3), Cr. P. C. Subsection (3) to Section 354 Cr. P. C. runs as under:

"When the conviction is for an offence punishable with death or, in the alternative, with imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of years, the judgment shall state the reasons, for the sentence awarded and, in the case of sentence of death, the special reasons for such sentence."

It is clear that in case of sentence of death, the special reasons for such sentence have to be recorded. Thus the general rule in a murder case is that a sentence of life imprisonment should be awarded but in exceptional cases for special reasons to be recorded, death sentence can also be awarded. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, Sri Apul Misra submitted that this is not a fit case where death sentence should be awarded. He further submitted that in rarest of rare cases death sentence is awarded. We have examined his contention and examined the materials on record. It is clear that the accused came from Nepal for an employment in Firozabad. His age at the time of the occurrence was 20 years. He was employed about 20 days before the occurrence by the complainant. It is also on record that the accused was removed from service once during this period by the deceased but the complainant PW 1, husband of the deceased retained him in employment. It is also on record that the accused was asked to do jobs like cleaning the latrine and also urinal. He was not given proper food. The accused also stated that the deceased used to talk too much and he could not like all these be haviour extended to him by the deceased. It has also come in evidence that the accused never committed any theft in the house neither there is any criminal antecedent against the accused, brought on record. It is clear that he had come for employment but he was certainly not very happy with the engagement in view of the behaviour of the deceased.

Learned counsel for the appellant Sri Apul Misra also submitted that the appellant is a very poor man and is a resident of Nepal and he had none to look after his case, either in subordinate court or in the High Court. In the court below he was defended by an amicus curie. In High Court Sri Sanjiv Ratan was appointed to conduct this case by Hon''ble the Chief Justice. However, in his absence we directed Sri Aput Misra to hold the brief and argue the case for the accused. It is also clear that the entire occurrence took place suddenly and there is no chance of reoccurrence of the same type of offence.

In view of the above facts and circumstances, we agree with the submission of Sri Apul Misra and hold that extreme penalty in the present case is not warranted We, have therefore, commute the death sentence against the appellant to life imprisonment.

In the result, we uphold the conviction of the appellant Ranjeet Bahadur under Section 302, I. P. C. and set aside the death sentence awarded there under by the Sessions Judge, Firozabad vide his judgment dated 1931991 and instead sentence him to imprisonment for life. Thus capital case No. 1300 of 1991 filed by Ranjeet Bahadur is partly allowed to the extent mentioned above, in respect of the sentence only the Ref. No. 4 of 1991 made by the learned Session Judge for confirmation of death sentence of Ranjeet Bahadur is rejected. The appellant is already in jail and, therefore, he will serve the sentence of life imprisonment in accordance with law.