Chennakesav Reddy, J.-This case disclosed a deeply distressing and sorrowful story. The mounting wave of migration to the cities considered as ‘islands of privilege’ has spawned scattered colonies. One such colony in Gokhalenagar in Ramanthapur to the West of Hyderabad City. It appears, this colony is predominantly inhabited by Malayalees. The adult male members were all employed either in some private factories or in Government of India offices at Hyderabad. They normally left for work by about 8 a.m. when the colony got practically desolated and deserted but for the women-folk who engaged themselves in the usual household chores. Only the vegetable or the fruit hawkers were the sentinels of this colony and that gave ample opportunity for the marauders to visit and pillage systematically the helpless women of the colony. 2. Pennamma, the deceased in the case, was a 30 years old young Malayalam lady, of swarthy physique. She was tall 5’-4" and was noticeably decent and modest type of woman. She was married and had two children, Limcy and Blimcy. Her husband, Joseph (P.W. 6) was employed as a Supervisor in Super Foam Factory at Uppal. She lived in house No. 3-105, Gokhalenagar, with her husband, his brother (P.W. 7) and her two young children. The house was a small one consisting of three rooms in a row, almost all in equal dimensions. The front room was used more as a bed room while the central room with a door towards East was used as a common room for sitting and drawing and the last room was used as a kitchen. P.W. 1, Laxmi Devi and P.W. 3, Panchali, lived in separate houses just behind the house of Pennamma. They were neighbours and both of them lived in the same compound. P.W. 2, Shanta Kumari,, was the immediate neighbour of P.W. 1. They are also Malayalees. Their husbands were also employed too and would leave their homes on work by about 8 a.m. P.W. 4 is another Malayalee who runs a snail kirana shop in Ramanthapur near the Polytechnic College. He goes to the shop by about 8 a.m. His house is located near the temple of Ramanthapur. P.W. 5 is another Malayalee who was working in the same factory as P.W. 6, the husband of Pennamma. 3. The accused was a cooly. He was also a resident of Ramanthapur and was quite familiar with the locality. He goes to the shop by about 8 a.m. His house is located near the temple of Ramanthapur. P.W. 5 is another Malayalee who was working in the same factory as P.W. 6, the husband of Pennamma. 3. The accused was a cooly. He was also a resident of Ramanthapur and was quite familiar with the locality. On 8th November, 1976, P.W. 6 left the house at about 7-20 a.m. as usual to his factory at Uppal. P.W. 7, who was working in another factory at Uppal, had his duty on that day from 2-00 p.m. to 10-00 p.m. So he left the house at 1-30 p.m. The two children of Pennamma, Limcy and Blimcy, who were studying in Ramalaxmi’ School, came to the house at 12-45 p.m., for lunch. After taking their lunch, the children left for the school about 1-30 p.m. 4. At about noon, P.Ws. 1 and 3 were having a chat in their compound. Then P.W. 2 joined them. Five minutes thereafter the accused came on a cycle; stood near the electric pole in front of the wall of the compound and stared at them. He was then wearing a khaki knicker and a full-sleeved terelene cream coloured shirt. While they were talking among themselves, a fruit vendor came from the direction of the school with his push-cart containing custard apples. P.Ws. 1 to 3 went out of the compound and walked upto the push-cart for purchasing custard apples. When all the three of them went to the push-cart, one Saraswathi also joined them. They found the accused standing at the electric pole and staring at them. All the four women purchased 40 custard apples for Rs. 3. While they were purchasing, the accused also came upto the push-cart and purchased one or two custard apples and sat by the side of the cart eating them. The four ladies divided the forty custard apples among themselves. Saraswathi, taking her share, went to her house. Pennamma came at that stage upto the push-cart and asked P.Ws. 1 to 3 as to the rate at which they purchased the custard apples. P.W. 1 told her that they purchased 40 apples for Rs. 3. At that time Pennamma was wearing two gold bangles (M.O. 1) on one hand, two gold chains (M.O. 4) in her neck and a pair of gold ear-rings (M.O. 5). 1 to 3 as to the rate at which they purchased the custard apples. P.W. 1 told her that they purchased 40 apples for Rs. 3. At that time Pennamma was wearing two gold bangles (M.O. 1) on one hand, two gold chains (M.O. 4) in her neck and a pair of gold ear-rings (M.O. 5). Pennamma then proceeded towards the pushcart and P.Ws. 1 to 3 returned to their houses. At that time P.Ws. 1 to 3 saw the accused still sitting near the push-cart and eating the custard apple. The accused noticed on Pennamma M.Os. 1, 4 and 5. 5. At about 1-30 p.m. after returning home P.W. 2 ate a few apples and came out to throw the seeds through the kitchen door. After throwing the seeds, she went inside and then went upto the outer door. She saw the accused standing very close to the outer door of the house. Then the accused, posing himself as an electric meter reader, asked P.W. 2 as to where the electricity meter was and told her that he wanted to note the reading. P.W. 2 told the accused that the meter was installed in the kitchen room. The accused entered into the kitchen room and looked at the meter. But as the kitchen was dark P.W. 2 switched on the light to enable him to read the meter. While the accused was reading the meter, P.W. 2 came out of the house through the front door and was waiting outside. The accused called her inside and informed her that there was some defect in the switch. P.W. 2 told the accused that she was quite new to the house and she did not know anything about the defect in the switch. So saying P.W. 2 came out of the house. The accused waited in the kitchen for about 15 minutes. After waiting for about 15 minutes, the accused went out of the house at about 1-15 p.m. Later P.W. 2 entered the house and bolted the doors from inside. Shortly thereafter, she peeped through the window and saw the accused passing by the side of her house looking at it. P.W. 4 while going back to his shop after taking his lunch at about 1-30 p.m., saw the accused standing at the front door of the house of P.W. 2. Shortly thereafter, she peeped through the window and saw the accused passing by the side of her house looking at it. P.W. 4 while going back to his shop after taking his lunch at about 1-30 p.m., saw the accused standing at the front door of the house of P.W. 2. At about 3-15 or 3-20 p.m. P.W. 3 went to the back door of her house to wash the utensils. She stood at the steps of the back door and saw the accused putting the cycle near the well of the house of Pennamma and going towards western side of her house. P.W. 4 happened to pass by the side of the house of Pennamma at about 3-30 p.m. while he was going to his house on some work. He then saw the accused coming out of the southern door of Pennamma’s house and closing the door slowly. The accused then, according to P.W. 4, took the cycle, which was near the well of the house of Pennamma, and proceeded towards the bus stop at Gokhalenagar. 6. On hearing the bell of the school at about 4 p.m. P.Ws. 1 and 3 went to the school together to bring their children. The children of Pennamma ran towards their house ahead of P.Ws. 1 and 3. The house of Pennamma is at a distance of 160 feet from the school. When they came to the house of Pennamma the children of Pennamma were weeping. Seeing the children weeping, P.Ws. 1, 3 and Valasala went into the house and found Pennamma lying on the floor of the central room with her head towards kitchen. The saree was found pulled up above the knees. The blouse was also found pulled upwards and her breasts were visible. A foam pillow was found in between her thighs and towel was tied round the neck of Pennamma. The two bangles on her hand’ and the two chains in her neck were missing. One ear ring was lying on the ground by her side. They felt that she was dead and so came out of the house and started shouting. When they raised cries, people gathered. P.W. 5 who reached home from the factory by 5 p.m. found a large gathering near the house of P.W. 6 and on enquiry he came to know that Pennamma was killed. They felt that she was dead and so came out of the house and started shouting. When they raised cries, people gathered. P.W. 5 who reached home from the factory by 5 p.m. found a large gathering near the house of P.W. 6 and on enquiry he came to know that Pennamma was killed. He immediately rushed towards Uppal to bring P.W. 6. He met P.W. 6 on the way and told P.W. 6 that some one had killed’ his wife. P.Ws. 5 and 6 rushed to the house and found a number of people gathered in front of the house. P.W. 6 entered the house and found the deceased lying on her back with her hands stretched towards her head. He also found a towel tied around her neck. He also found the gold chains in her neck missing. He also found the two gold bangles on her left-hand missing. On seeing the dead body, P.W. 6 rushed to the police station and gave complaint, Exhibit P-9, to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Uppal Police Station (P.W. 15) at 6-30 p.m.. On receipt of Exhibit P-9, P.W. 15 registered a case under sections 302 and 392, Indian Penal Code and issued express F.I.Rs. to all concerned. P.W. 15 proceeded to the scene of occurrence. He saw the dead body of Pennamma in the central room of her house in Gokhalenagar, Ramanthapur. The Circle Inspector of Police, Malkajigiri, on receipt of telephonic message from P.W. 15 about the murder, rushed to the scene of offence and reached Gokhalenagar by about 7-30 p.m. He found the Sub-Inspector (P.W. 15) already present along with constables. He saw the dead body and examined the scene of offence. P.W. 18 locked the entire house and posted guards as he wanted to employ the dog squad for the detection of the culprit. By 8 a.m. on 9th November, 1976 P.W. 18 came with a dog squad and unlocked the house. P.W. 6 then checked up the other valuables in the house and found the gold baby chain, a pair of ear rings and a cash of Rs. 300 that were in the suit case were also missing. P.W. 18 held inquest over the dead body in the presence of P.W. 14 and others. Exhibit P-13 is the inquest report. He examined P.Ws. 1, 4, 6 and Valasala at the time of inquest. 300 that were in the suit case were also missing. P.W. 18 held inquest over the dead body in the presence of P.W. 14 and others. Exhibit P-13 is the inquest report. He examined P.Ws. 1, 4, 6 and Valasala at the time of inquest. He held a panchanama and seized M.Os. 3, 4, 5 and 7 under Exhibit P-14. P.W. 17 the Assistant Professor of Forensic Medicine conducted the autopsy over the dead body of Pennamma on 9th November, 1976 at 3 p.m. He opined that the death was due to asphyxia consequent to throttling. 7. On 11th December, 1976, P.W. 11 and another constable brought the accused to the police station stating that he was found near his house. The accused was having a trunk in his hand (M.O. 8). P.W. 18 arrested him immediately. When questioned in the presence of Panchayatdars, the accused made a statement leading to the recovery of M.Os. 1 and 2 from the trunk (M.O. 8). The accused also produced a sum of Rs. 55-40 ps. from his pocket. They were seized under a panchanama. He also led the panchayatdar to the shop of a Marwadi (P.W. 13) in Lalapet and pointed P.W. 13 who was sitting there in the shop and said that he had pledged the pair of gold studs with him. P.W. 13 went inside and brought out and produced the pair of gold ear studs (M.O. 6). P.W. 18 seized M.O. 6 in the presence of P.W. 12 and another under a panchanama, Exhibit P-11. The accused was then remanded to judicial custody on the next day. 8. P.W. 18 gave a requisition to the Munsif Magistrate, Hyderabad West (P.W. 16) on 14th December, 1976 for holding an identification parade of the accused. P.Ws. 2, 4 and 8 identified the accused and M.Os. 1, 2 and 6 were identified by P.Ws. 1, 2, 6 and 7. Exhibits P-19 and P-20 are the identification proceedings respectively drawn by P.W. 16. After completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused on 26th February, 1977. 9. The accused when examined under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, admitted that he worked as a cooly under P.W. 10 for ten days m the latter’s house at Ramanthapur. He also admitted that he used to go to work with a khaki knicker and banian or a shirt. 9. The accused when examined under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, admitted that he worked as a cooly under P.W. 10 for ten days m the latter’s house at Ramanthapur. He also admitted that he used to go to work with a khaki knicker and banian or a shirt. He totally denied having gone to the house of P.W. 2 or to the house of deceased on the date of occurrence. He characterised the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4 as totally false. He further stated that he was arrested by the police on 8th November, 1976 at 8-30 p.m., that he was kept in the Police Station for about one month and that the whole case was concocted by the police. 10. The learned Sessions Judge, on a consideration of the evidence, held that the following circumstances were established by the evidence on record: (1) The accused was not a stranger to the locality, Gokhalenagar. (2) On the date of occurrence he was found moving the locality wearing a khaki knicker and a white terelene bush-shirt by P.Ws. 1 to 4, on a cycle on the afternoon of the date of occurrence at about 12-05 p.m. (3) At about 1-30 p.m. the accused gained entry into the house of P.W. 2 under the pretext of reading the electricity meter and left the house at 1-45 p.m. (4) At about 3-15 p.m., P.W. 3 the immediate neighbour of the deceased, Pennamma, saw the accused putting the cycle near the well of the house of the deceased and going towards the western side of that house. (5) At 3-30 p.m. the accused was seen coming out of the southern door of the house of the deceased by P.W. 4 and going away on his cycle. (6) At about 4 p.m. he left his room hurriedly with the trunk M.O. 8. (7) He was arrested on 11th December, 1976 and was found in unexplained possession of M.Os. 1 and 2 and another article M.O. 6 which was pledged by him with P.W. 13 was seized at the instance of the accused. (8) M.Os. 1, 2 and 6 were identified by P.Ws. 2, 3, 6 and 7 as the ornaments belonging to the deceased. 11. 1 and 2 and another article M.O. 6 which was pledged by him with P.W. 13 was seized at the instance of the accused. (8) M.Os. 1, 2 and 6 were identified by P.Ws. 2, 3, 6 and 7 as the ornaments belonging to the deceased. 11. The learned Sessions Judge held that the aforesaid circumstances lead to the irresistible conclusion that the accused, and the accused alone, committed the murder and theft of the jewels M.Os. 1, 2 and 6. He accordingly convicted the accused under section 302, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life. But he awarded the lesser sentence on the ground that he has a mother, wife and children to maintain although the crime was a gruesome one. He pointed out that though the gruesome nature of the murder warrants a deterrent punishment, yet a life term would be a constant reminder for a long time and would also leave the accused with an opportunity to correct himself. The accused was also convicted under sections 379 and 380, Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years under each count. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. M.Os. 1 to 6 and 9 were ordered to be returned to P.W. 6. The accused has now preferred this appeal through jail. 12. This is a case resting purely on circumstantial evidence. In such cases, there is always the danger that conjecture or suspicion may take place of the legal proof. Therefore, it is right to recall the warning addressed by Baren Alderson to the jury in Reg. v. Hodge1, where he said: “The mind was apt to take a pleasure in adapting circumstances to one another and even in straining them a little, if need be, to force, them to form parts of one connected whole; and the more ingenious the mind of the individual, the more likely was in considering such matters, to aver-reach and mislead itself, to supply some little link that is wanting, to take for granted some fact consistent with its previous theories and necessary to render to them complete.” 13. The Supreme Court in the celebrated case of Hanumanth v. State of Madhya Pradesh2, laid down the following guiding principles in the decision of such cases: “It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a claim of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.” 14. It is, therefore, necessary to scrutinise the evidence and find out whether the circumstances are such as to show that with all human probability the crime must have been perpetrated by the accused. The accused was a cooly. It is in the evidence of P.Ws. 8 and 9, that he was sharing a room along with Sashidhar, in Amberpet near the Polytechnic college. Sashidhar was employed in a plastic company at Amberpet, P.W. 8 is the father of Sashidhar and P.W. 9 is the brother of Sashidhar, who were also staying in the room by the date of the occurrence. They have also identified the accused as the person that was sharing the room along with Sashidhar. P.W. 10 is a contractor who runs a poultry farm at Ramanthapur. According to P.W. 10, the accused was employed by him as a cooly for clearing the debris in his house and the accused then gave his name as ‘Buchi Reddy’. He found him wearing a khaki knicker and a banian at sometime and a khaki knicker and terelene shirt at some other time. It thus clear that the accused was not a stranger to Ramanthapur. 15. Now coming to the movements of the accused, on the date of the occurrence he was seen first by P.W. 4, who also runs a small kirana shop near the Polytechnic college. It thus clear that the accused was not a stranger to Ramanthapur. 15. Now coming to the movements of the accused, on the date of the occurrence he was seen first by P.W. 4, who also runs a small kirana shop near the Polytechnic college. At about 12 noon the accused was seen standing near the Ramanthapur temple by P.W. 4, who was returning from his kirana shop. According to him the accused was then heading a cycle in his hand and was then putting on a khaki knicker and a cream colour shirt. The temple is to the left side of the house of P.W. 1. At 5 past 12 noon P.Ws. 1 to 3 saw the accused standing near the electric pole in front of the wall of their compound. It is in their evidence that the accused was then staring at them for about 5 minutes. He was then wearing a khaki knicker and a full-sleeved terelene cream coloured shirt. P.Ws. 1 to 3 have further deposed that while they were purchasing custard apples from a fruit hawker, the accused also went there and purchased one or two custard apples and sat by the side of the cart eating them. At that time, the deceased, Pennamma, came and asked P.Ws. 1 to 3 as to the rate at which they purchased the custard apples. At that time the deceased was wearing two gold bangles (M.O. 1) on one hand, two gold clains (M.O. 4.) in her neck and a pair of gold ear rings (M.O. 5) . Thereafter the deceased proceeded to the push cart while P.Ws. 1 to 5 were proceeding to their house. The accused was still sitting near the push cart eating the apple. Obviously, the accused noticed the gold ornaments worn by the deceased when the deceased went to the push cart for purchasing the apples from the fruit vendor. Further, the evidence of P.W. 2, that at 1-30 p.m., the accused made enquiries from her about the electricity meter giving an impression that he was a meter reader, that P.W. 2 showed the kitchen room in which the electricity meter was fixed. The accused pretended as if he was reading the meter for some time. P.W. 2, however, did not stay, according to her, inside the house and same out of the house and stood outside. The accused pretended as if he was reading the meter for some time. P.W. 2, however, did not stay, according to her, inside the house and same out of the house and stood outside. The accused then called her and told her that there was some defect in the switch and P.W. 2 however told him that she was new to the house and did not know anything about the defect in the switch. The accused waited in the kitchen for about 15 minutes probably expecting P.W. 2 again to go inside the house. But as P.W. 2 did not go inside the house, the accused came out and went away. Thereafter P.W. 2 entered the house and bolted the doors; and windows from inside as she had some premonition of fear. At about 3 p.m. again she peeped through the window and saw the accused standing near the electric pole. 16. Then we have the evidence of P.W. 3 that at about 3-15 or 3-20 p.m. she noticed the accused from the steps of the back door of her house putting the cycle near the well adjoining the house of the deceased and going towards western side of the house. At 3-30 p.m. while P.W. 4 was returning to the house from the kirana shop on some work he saw the accused coming out of the front door of the house of the deceased and closing the doors. It is in the evidence of P.W. 4 that the accused took the cycle which was near the well and proceeded towards the bus stop. At about 4 p.m. the children of the deceased, Limcy and Blimcy, returned from the school and finding their mother lying on the floor started weeping. Finding the children weeping, P.Ws. 1 and 3 went in. They found Pennamma lying flat on the ground with a towel tied round the neck of Pennamma. The saree was found pulled up above the knees. The blouse was also found pulled upwards and her breasts exposed. A foam pillow was found in between her thighs. Two gold chains and two bangles were found missing. Naturally, P.Ws. 1 and 3 cried for help and people started gathering. 17. After the occurrence what is the conduct of the accused? According to P.Ws. The blouse was also found pulled upwards and her breasts exposed. A foam pillow was found in between her thighs. Two gold chains and two bangles were found missing. Naturally, P.Ws. 1 and 3 cried for help and people started gathering. 17. After the occurrence what is the conduct of the accused? According to P.Ws. 8 and 9, the accused returned to the room wearing a khaki knicker and a shirt at about 4 p.m. and changed his clothes, put on pants and a shirt and a sweater. He took his trunk and left the room hurriedly saying that he was going to his village. P.Ws. 1 to 4 and 8 and 9, who spoke to the movements of the accused before and after the incident are disinterested witnesses and their evidence, in our opinion, is truthful beyond doubt. 18. Then there is the recovery of M.Os. 1, 2 and 6, M.Os. 1 and 2 were recovered from the trunk M.O. 8 immediately after the arrest of the accused on 11th December, 1976. P.W. 12, the Chief Reporter in the State News Service, has spoken to the recovery of M.Os. 1 and 2 under Exhibit P-10. The accused then led the party to the shop of P.W. 13 in Lalapet and pointed out P.W. 13 as the person with whom he pledged the pair of gold ear studs. P.W. 13 brought out the ear studs and they were seized under the panchanama Exhibit P-11 in the presence of P.W. 12 and another. M.Os. 1, 2 and 6 were Identified by P.Ws. 1, 2, 6 and 7 at the identification parade. At the parade held by the Munsif Magistrate, P.W. 16, the accused was also identified by P.W. 2 as the person that entered the house on the pretext of reading the electricity meter. P.Ws. 1 and 3 could not, however, identify as they had seen him only once at the apple cart. 19. The Doctor who conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Pennamma opined that the death of the deceased was due to asphyxia due to throttling. He also found that there were a number of scratches on the body which were the result of struggle by the victim. 19. The Doctor who conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Pennamma opined that the death of the deceased was due to asphyxia due to throttling. He also found that there were a number of scratches on the body which were the result of struggle by the victim. The movements of the accused immediately before and after the occurrence particularly the evidence of P.W. 2, that she saw the accused entering the house of the deceased at 3-15 p.m. and the evidence of P.W. 4 that she saw the accused coming out of the house of the deceased at 3-30 p.m. and the recovery of M.Os. 1, 2 and 6 belonging to the deceased at the instance of the accused conclusively establish that it must be the accused, and the accused alone, that committed the heinous and horrible crime. 20. Then there remains the much vexed question: what is the appropriate sentence to be awarded for a murder of this kind? The crime is most heinous and its execution horrifying to narrate. It represents a kind of reckless, brutal and selfish hooliganism. It was perpetrated against an innocent and helpless woman. Society demands that such wicked persons should not be allowed to indulge once again in similar acts. 21. Judges are not god-men chosen to guide the people. Nor are they the chosen representatives of the people to enact laws to regulate the lives and conduct of the people. They are God-Fearing representatives of State enthroned in the temple of justice. It is their essential duty to punish the wicked and protect the innocent according to law. Personal sentiments and superstitions have no place in the performance of their duty. The sentences should fit the crimes. 22. The aim of criminal law as at present administered in our criminal Courts is both retributive and preventive. In its former aspect it is based upon the prevailing passion of retaliation-eye for eye and tooth for tooth. In the latter aspect it is based primarily upon the fundamental instinct of self-preservation. Prevention of crime may, however, be effected in three-fold manner: by (1) by imposing penalty which shall operate as fear and deterrent from committing similar crimes: (2) or by rendering physically impossible for men of known criminal tendency to repeat cm offence; (3) or by reformation of the criminal. 23. The criminal justice in this country has not been standstill. Prevention of crime may, however, be effected in three-fold manner: by (1) by imposing penalty which shall operate as fear and deterrent from committing similar crimes: (2) or by rendering physically impossible for men of known criminal tendency to repeat cm offence; (3) or by reformation of the criminal. 23. The criminal justice in this country has not been standstill. Under Criminal Procedure Code of 1898 the normal sentence for murder was death and the criminal Courts had to record reasons for not giving the death sentence under section 367(3), Criminal Procedure Code. With the amendment of section 367 (3), (Criminal Procedure Code, in 1965 the Courts were given judicial discretion to award death sentence or imprisonment for life for an offence of murder. The Code was again amended in 1973. Now under section 354(3), Criminal Procedure Code, life sentence is made the rule and the extreme penalty the exception to be resorted to for reasons to be recorded. Thus there has been a noticeable change in the law depending upon the change in values and improvement in the conditions of Society. 24. Our land is known to be a land of stoics and mystics, and dreamers and realists. True, it is also a land known for its fast growing and vast population and with a majority of them below the line of hunger and poverty. In every growing society there is as much need for the revision and reinterpretation of its rights and duties as there is in the growing child for the alteration of its clothes. It is a matter of common knowledge that murders are still committed in this country to gain an ornament like a gold nose-screw or a silver anklet worth Rs. 10 or Rs. 20 worn by an innocent small girl. Murders are also committed by the marauders on helpless women to satisfy their lust. Such being the condition of society, time is not yet ripe for the abolition of the capital sentence in this country. Society demands such wicked elements not to proliferate with impunity in perpetration of crimes on innocent children or helpless women to gain petty amount or satisfy their lust. It will be abdication of their duty imposed by law if criminal Courts deter from imposing the capital sentence even for most heinous and cold blooded crimes, on personal sentiments or superstitions. 25. It will be abdication of their duty imposed by law if criminal Courts deter from imposing the capital sentence even for most heinous and cold blooded crimes, on personal sentiments or superstitions. 25. In this case, the learned Sessions Judge, in our opinion, ought to have awarded the capital sentence having regard to the shocking and revolting nature of the crime. However, since the discretion has been exercised by the learned Sessions Judge and no appeal has been preferred by the State for enhancement, we do not feel inclined to exercise our revisional powers to interfere with the discretion of the learned Sessions Judge. We, therefore, confirm the convictions and sentences of the accused and dismiss the appeal.