JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) IN this appeal, the appellant Ummilal has challenged his conviction under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing the murders of Faggobai and Sureshkumar on 20-10-1977 for which he was sentenced to death. There is also Cr. Reference No. 2/79 made by the Additional sessions Judge Seoni for confirmation of the death sentence awarded to the appellant. Both the appeal and the reference will be disposed of by the Judgment in this appeal (Cr. A. No. 112/79) ( 2. ) THE prosecution case is this : Deceased Faggobai was the wife and deceased Suresbkumar the son of Hariprasad (P. W. 2 ). They lived in different portions of the same house. Their mother Mst. Parbatbai lives with Hariprasad (P. W. 2 ). The two brothers have 7 hectares of land in village Nagdabar which was partitioned between them. There was, however, a dispute between the two brothers over the distribution of the land. On 20-10-1977, at about noon, Hariprasad (P. W. 2), with his wife, was doing agricultural operations in the field. His mother was also present there. The appellant objected to the grazing of the cattle by Hariprasad (P. W. 2) over the med which resulted in grappling. Their mother and Rohni (P. W. 3) separated them. The appellant then returned back to his house and dealt repeated blows with knife on mst. Faggobai and thereafter on Sureshkumar aged 9 years. Sureshkumar fell down near his mother Faggobai and died, while Faggobai, in spite of her being seriously injured, was alive. Khilai (P. W. 4) and Balloo (P. W. 14) witnessed the knife assault by the appellant on Mst. Faggobai and Sureshkumar. ( 3. ) HARIPRASAD (P. W. 2) and others, after knowing of the incident, came to the place of the incident. Sunderlal (P. W. 1), son of the village Kotwar, was deputed to go to the police station where he lodged the F. I. R. Ex. P- l at 2 p m. the same day after covering a distance of 8 kilometres. On this report, marg intimation Ex. P-22 was recorded in respect of Sureshkumar. Mst. Faggobai was removed to the hospital where Dr. B. C. Jain (P. W. 15) examined her on 20-10-1977 and found six incised wounds on her person which were fresh and could be caused by sharp cutting object. On this report, marg intimation Ex. P-22 was recorded in respect of Sureshkumar. Mst. Faggobai was removed to the hospital where Dr. B. C. Jain (P. W. 15) examined her on 20-10-1977 and found six incised wounds on her person which were fresh and could be caused by sharp cutting object. Injuries 2 and 3 were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Ex. P-23-A is his report. ( 4. ) SINCE the condition of Faggobai was serious, Naib-Tahsildar s. K Bhalawi (P. W. 9) recorded her dying declaration Ex. P-17. Before recording the dying declaration, he got her examined by Dr. Jain (P. W. 15)who certified that she was in a fit condition to make a statement. After recording of the dying declaration had finished, Shri Bhalawi obtained a certificate from Dr. Jain that she was fit throughout the period of recording of the dying declaration. On the advice of Dr. Jain, Faggobai was referred to Medical college Jabalpur. She was admitted in the Medical College Jabalpur on 20-10-1977 at 8. 25 p m. for treatment of the multiple stab injuries over her chest and abdomen. Dr. Gupta performed operation on her on 21-10-1977, but Faggobai died at 6 a. m. on 27-10-1977. (See Exhibits P-37, P. 37-A and p-37-B ). Intimation about her death was sent as per Ex. P-10. ( 5. ) INQUEST was held over the dead body of Faggobai on 27-10-1977 as per inquest report Ex. P-9. ( 6. ) DR. A. C. Nagpal (P. W. 7) performed the autopsy on the dead body of Faggobai on 27-10-77 and as per post mortem report Ex. P-ll-A, found number of external injuries on her body. On dissection, he found the following injuries: (i) In external injury No. 4, the drainage was going to the abdominal cavity and the wound was going transversely with the cut of the same size in the soft tissues and the peritonium. There were 5 stitched wounds in the terminal ilium in 3 region of the size of 1/4" each. (ii) On exploration of injury No. 5, clean cutting of soft tissues was found as also the pleura. The direction of the wound was slightly downwards. (iii) In the stomuch, there were 4 stitched wounds, one was 1 1/2" in size, two were 1/2" in size and the fourth was 1/4" in size. (ii) On exploration of injury No. 5, clean cutting of soft tissues was found as also the pleura. The direction of the wound was slightly downwards. (iii) In the stomuch, there were 4 stitched wounds, one was 1 1/2" in size, two were 1/2" in size and the fourth was 1/4" in size. (iv) At the left edge of the liver, there was a wound with partial healing, 1/2" in size. (v) On the superior surface of the liver, there was a nick, 1/2" in size. (vi) In the anterior part of the liver, there was a transverse wound 1/4" in size. The three wounds found on the liver were in the process of healing and were sealed. (vii) There was fracture of 4th rib in the mammary line, which corresponded to the external injury No. 1. (viii) There was fracture of 10th rib also which corresponded to the external injury No. 5. All the injuries were ante mortemin nature and were caused by some penetrating object like knife. Death occurred due to haemorrhage and shock on account of cumulative effect of all the injuries. The time between death and the post mortem examination was within 24 hours. The internal injuries to the stomach, liver and ilium were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. ( 7. ) AN inquest was held over the dead body of Sureshkumar on 20-10-1977 as per inquest report Ex. P-27. ( 8. ) DR. L. M. Paradker (P. W. 8) performed the autopsy on the dead body of Sureshkumar on 21-10-77 at 8-30 a. m. and as per report Ex. P-13-A, found number of punctured wounds on the body. On dissection, he found the following internal injuries : (i) External injuries 1 and 2 had caused cut to underlying ribs at casto condral junction of 4th and 5th ribs at mid clavicular line of 5th rib. (ii) External injury No 3 had caused punctured wound to liver. It was through and through its thickness from front to back at the left lobe of the liver causing internal haemorrhage in the abdominal cavity and blood clots clinging to its punctured entry and exit ends. Liver was ruptured along the side of punctured mark. About one litre of blood was collected from the abdominal cavity. It was through and through its thickness from front to back at the left lobe of the liver causing internal haemorrhage in the abdominal cavity and blood clots clinging to its punctured entry and exit ends. Liver was ruptured along the side of punctured mark. About one litre of blood was collected from the abdominal cavity. (iii) External injury No. 4 had caused one punctured wound at small gut away from the mesentery of 1/4" breadth like button hole through which digested matter was coming out. (iv) External injury No. 5 had caused one punctured wound of small gut of some type as by injury No. 4. (v) External injury No. 7 had caused cut in the parietal bone of the skull through and through cutting the durameter1/2" X 1/8" X1/8" of parietal lobe. Blood clots were present at the cut end of all the injuries. According to Dr. Paradker, all the punctured wounds had sharp angles and had clean cut edges. The injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Death must have been instantaneous. In the opinion of Dr. Paradker, death occurred due to shock as a result of injuries to the liver causing internal haemorrhage and injury to the brain. ( 9. ) ON 20-10-1977, Dr. Paradker (P. W. 6) examined the appellant ummilal and as per report Ex. P-14, found 5 abrasions on his person. There was also an abrasion. All these injuries were simple in nature and they could have been caused by some hard and blunt object. ( 10. ) PIECES of the doors of the house of Hariprasad (P. W. 2) were seized as per seizure memo Ex. P-3. An iron Katar and its sheath were seized from mst. Geetabai, wife of the appellant, as per seizure memos Exhibits P-4 and p-5. A gamchha was seized from Mst. Parbat as per seizure memo Ex. P-6. Blood-stained earth was seized as per seizure memo Ex. P-28. Blood-stained earth of the place where the dead body of Sureshkumar was lying was also seized as per seizure memo Ex. P-29. Blood-stained earth from the place where mst. Faggo had fallen down unconscious in the lane was seized as per seizure memo Ex. P-30. Ordinary earth from the lane was seized as per seizure memo ex. P-31. P-28. Blood-stained earth of the place where the dead body of Sureshkumar was lying was also seized as per seizure memo Ex. P-29. Blood-stained earth from the place where mst. Faggo had fallen down unconscious in the lane was seized as per seizure memo Ex. P-30. Ordinary earth from the lane was seized as per seizure memo ex. P-31. From inside the house of Hariprasad (P. W. 2), blood-stained earth was seized as per seizure memo Ex. P-32, and ordinary earth as per seizure memo Ex. P. 33. A Kathri was seized from inside the bouse of Hariprasad as per seizure memo Ex. P-34. Blood stained earth was seized from the front of the door of Hariprasad as per seizure memo Ex. P. 35. ( 11. ) EX. P-39, report of the Chemical Examiner, shows that the clothes of the two deceased persons and Katar seized from Mst. Geetabai were stained with blood. There is, however, no report of the Serologist in this case. ( 12. ) THE appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication due to enmity. ( 13. ) THE points for decision in this appeal are: (i) Whether Mst. Faggobai and Sureshkumar are dead and whether they met with homicidal deaths ? (ii) Whether the appellant had attacked Mst. Faggobai and Sureshkumar with Katar or knife resulting in their deaths ? (iii) Whether some unknown person killed these two persons and the appellant has been falsely implicated ? ( 14. ) WE have heard Shri Rajendrasingh and Sari R. C. Rai Advocates for the appellant and Shri A. G. Telang, Deputy Government Advocate for the state. We are of the view that conviction of the appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is well merited. ( 15. ) SHRI Rajendrasingh did not dispute that Faggobai and Sureshkumar are dead. In fact, their dead bodies were seen by more than one person. . Hariprasad (P. W 2) is the husband of Faggobai and father of Sureshkumar. He had seen their dead bodies. Inquests were held over their dead bodies as per inquest reports Exhibits P-9 and P-27. The evidence of Dr. Nagpal (P. W. 7) who performed the post mortem examination on the dead body of faggobai shows that there were number of external injuries on her person which could be caused by penetrating object like knife. Besides, there were number of internal injuries. The evidence of Dr. Nagpal (P. W. 7) who performed the post mortem examination on the dead body of faggobai shows that there were number of external injuries on her person which could be caused by penetrating object like knife. Besides, there were number of internal injuries. Death occurred due to haemorrhage and shock because of the cumulative effect of all the injuries. The injuries to stomach, liver and ilium were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Similarly, the evidence of Dr. Paradker (P. W. 8) who performed the autopsy on the dead body of Sureshkumar, indicated the presence of number of punctured wounds on his person with number of internal injuries. Injuries Nos. 3 and 7 were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. These injuries could be caused by a sharp object like Bichhua or Katar. Death-occurred due to the injuries to liver and brain. We are, therefore, convinced and it was not disputed before us that Faggobai and Sureshkumar are dead and that their deaths were homicidal. ( 16. ) WE will now scrutinise the prosecution evidence, but before we do so, we will like to keep in view the following observations from Kashmirasingh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, A I R 1952 S C 159. "where the murder committed is a particularly cruel and revolting one, it is necessary to examine the evidence with more than ordinary care, lest the shocking nature of the crime might induce an instinctive reaction against a dispassionate judicial scrutiny of the facts and law. " ( 17. ) SUNDERLAL (P. W. 1) is a relation of Hariprasad (P. W. 2 ). He lives at a distance of about 15 paces from the house of Hariprasad. He stated that on 30-10-1977, at noon time, Khilai (P. W. 4) and Roopsingh informed him that the murder of the wife and son of Hariprasad (P. W. 2) had taken place and that he should go to the police station to lodge a report. He found mst. Faggobai lying injured in the lane, white Sureshkumar with injuries on his person, was dead He went to the Lakhnadon police station and lodged the F. I. R. Ex. P- l. This report was lodged within 2 hours of the incident, but Sunderlal, while admitting that he had lodged the report Ex. He found mst. Faggobai lying injured in the lane, white Sureshkumar with injuries on his person, was dead He went to the Lakhnadon police station and lodged the F. I. R. Ex. P- l. This report was lodged within 2 hours of the incident, but Sunderlal, while admitting that he had lodged the report Ex. P-1, disowned important portions of this report wherein he had named the appellant as being responsible for the deaths of Faggobai ard Sureshkumar He admitted that khilai (P. W. 4), Balloo (P. W. 14), and Roopsingh had asked him to lodge a report, but they did not name the assailant. It is apparent that he was suppressing what was conveyed to him by Khilai and others. If it were not so, then in Ex. P-1, the name of the appellant as being responsible for the double murders could not have come. However, the evidence of Sunderlal (P W. 1), as it stands, conclusively established that Khilai and Balloo both had asked him to lodge a report. F. I. R. is not substantive evidence, but could be used to contradict or corroborate the maker. Since Sunderlal did not depose about the hand that brought about the two murders, the F. I. R. Ex. P-1 could not be used against the appellant. ( 18. ) HARIPRASAD (P. W. 2) is the brother of the appellant. He stated that he learnt about the deaths of his wife and son, but none told him about the name of the assailant. He stated that in the Lakhnadon hospital, his wife was unconscious and none had recorded her dying declarations. He was declared hostile and confronted with his earlier statement Ex. P-2 which he disowned. It is apparent that the brotherly instinct prevailed over him to suppress the truth and to shield his own brother, the appellant. ( 19. ) ROHNI (P. W. 3) saw the appellant and Hariprasad (P. W. 2) fighting in the field at about 11 a. m. Their mother then intervened and separated them. About an hour afterwards, Khilai (P. W. 4) came to the field and informed that the appellant bad killed the wife and son of Hariprasad (P. W. 2 ). This fact was repeated by him in cross-examination para 19. He was positive that it was Khilai alone who had informed him that the appellant had killed the wife and son of Hariprasad. This fact was repeated by him in cross-examination para 19. He was positive that it was Khilai alone who had informed him that the appellant had killed the wife and son of Hariprasad. His attention was drawn to certain contradictions and omissions, but they are not on vital points It is sought to be introduced by Hariprasad (P. W. 2) and others that the murderer could be the ex-husband of Faggobai. Hariprasad (P. W. 2) made statement to confirm this defence, but Rohni (P. W. 3) has given a complete lie to this defence, because be is positive that since 8 years, the ex-husband of Faggobai had not visited the village. In answer to Q. No. 29, he stated that the ex-husband of Faggobai and his associates never asserted that they would either take away Faggobai or kill her. ( 20. ) THE evidence of Rohni (P. W. 3) brings out two proved circumstances : firstly that it was Khilai (P. W. 4) who informed Hariprasad immediately after the occurrence that the appellant had killed his wife and son; and secondly, the defence sought to be introduced that the ex-husband of mst. Faggobai could be the murderer, is totally negatived by him. We believe rohni (P. W. 3) who appears to be an independent witness, that immediately after the occurrence, Khilai (P. W. 4) had conveyed the information to Hariprasad (P. W. 2) naming the appellant as the murderer of his wife and son. ( 21. ) KHILAI (P. W. 4) is an eye witness. He lives at a distance of 50 paces from the house of Hariprasad. He saw from the open lane that the appellant was attacking Faggobai with a Bichhua. At that time a Muslim woman was sitting. Thereafter, the appellant went inside the room, caught hold of the throat of Sureshkumar and attacked him with a Bichhua. He could not, however, see how many Bichhua strokes were given on Sureshkumar, but he saw Sureshkumar coming running into the lane followed by the appellant with a Bichhua in his hand. At that time, Balloo (P. W. 14) was with him. In para 7, he stated that Sureshkumar fell down in the lane near his mother faggobai who was then alive. He stated that he had called Hariprasad. At that time, Balloo (P. W. 14) was with him. In para 7, he stated that Sureshkumar fell down in the lane near his mother faggobai who was then alive. He stated that he had called Hariprasad. In para 15, he stated that he had not gone to the field to inform Hariprasad, but he had informed them near the Khirka. Whether he had informed at the khirka or at the field is not a material contradiction. In para 16, he stated that he had informed Sunderlal (P. W. 1) that the appellant had attacked faggobai and Sureshkumar. This corroborated Sunderlal that he had received information from Khilai (P. W. 4 ). His evidence indicated that Sunderlal (P. W. 1) was deliberately suppressing the name of the assailant, though he was told about it immediately after the occurrence. ( 22. ) THE evidence of Khilai (P. W. 4) was sought to be discredited on the ground that he did not go to intervene or did not cry out, but this is natural because seeing a person with a dangerous weapon in his hand and attacking his own kith and kin, an on looker will naturally get frightened and will not gather courage to intervene for fear of being attacked by the appellant. He is positive that Balloo (P. W. 14) was also witnessing the occurrence. We have perused his evidence and find it absolutely convincing. Omissions and contradictions from his earlier statement Ex. D-2 are not on vital points and do not discredit his eye witness account. We believe Khilai (P. W. 4) and hold that he is an eye witness of truth. His evidence conclusively connected the appellant with the knife attack on Mst. Faggobai and Sureshkumar. ( 23. ) MST. Surajo (P. W. 5), a Muslim woman who was sitting with mst. Faggobai, turned hostile and was confronted with her statement Ex. P-7 which she disowned. In para. 14, she stated that she had told Kalai, Bhavsingh and Khilai that she had heard the weeping sound of a woman. In answer to q No. 17 she stated that Khilai was present in the village, which means that khilai, a neighbour, could be an eye witness to the incident as he was present in the village. In para. 14, she stated that she had told Kalai, Bhavsingh and Khilai that she had heard the weeping sound of a woman. In answer to q No. 17 she stated that Khilai was present in the village, which means that khilai, a neighbour, could be an eye witness to the incident as he was present in the village. Her hostile attitude was clear from the fact that though Faggobai and Sureshkumar had sustained numerous injuries, she denied in answer to q No. 4 that she had seen no injuries on their person. The evidence of Mst. Surajo, a hostile witness, negatived the suggestion that Khilai (P. W. 4) was not in the village on the date of occurrence. ( 24. ) THE evidence of Devendrakumar Patwari (P. W. 10) shows that Balloo was at a short distance from the place where Faggobai and Sureshkumar had fallen. Though he stated that Khilai (P. W. 4) had not told him that he had seen the Marpit, yet he is positive that Balloo disclosed to him that he had seen the appellant attacking Faggobai. From his evidence, it appears that Khilai was not present when he had drawn the spot map Ex. P-l9. But that will not discredit the position of Khilai (P. W. 4) as an eye witness in view of other evidence establishing his presence as an eye witness. Even then the index of the spot map Ex. P-19 shows the presence of Khilai who had run after hearing the cries of Mst. Faggobai. Thus the evidence of Devendrakumar Patwari does not negative the presence of Khilai as an eye witness, though he was not contacted at the time of preparation of the spot map and also confirmed Ballo (P. W. 14) to be an eye witness. ( 25. ) HEAD Constable Washishtha Muni (P. W. 12) confirmed that he had written the report Ex. P-l at the instance of Sunderlal (P. W. 1 ). His evidence confirmed that Sunderlal (P. W. 1) was suppressing a part of the report lodged by him. ( 26. ) BALLOO (P. W. 14) is an eye witness who saw the appellant dealing bichhua blows to Faggobai. He then stated that the appellant went near sureshkumar who was standing in the room, caught hold of his throat and dealt knife blows on him. Even after Sureshkumar had fallen down, the appellant continued assaulting him. ( 26. ) BALLOO (P. W. 14) is an eye witness who saw the appellant dealing bichhua blows to Faggobai. He then stated that the appellant went near sureshkumar who was standing in the room, caught hold of his throat and dealt knife blows on him. Even after Sureshkumar had fallen down, the appellant continued assaulting him. He stated that he was sitting with Khilai (P. W. 4) and Bhavsingh. Omissions from Ex. D-3 are not, in any way, inconsistent with his main version of an eye witness. He explained that he did not intervene because of fear which was natural, because the appellant was armed with a knife and was attacking his own relations. We find Balloo (P. W. 14) to be an independent witness and in his evidence, there is absolutely no infirmity to cast even a shadow of doubt on the presence of Khilai (P. W. 4) and his account as an eye witness. ( 27. ) THERE is another piece of prosecution evidence which fully connected the appellant with the attack on Faggobai and Sureshkumar; it is the dying declaration Ex. P-17 which was recorded by S. K. Bhalavi (P. W. 9) in the presence of Dr. B. C. Jain (P. W. 15) who gave certificates at portions A to A and D to D in the dying declaration which shows that before the dying declaration was recorded, he had examined Faggobai and certified that she was in a fit condition to make a statement. Similarly, after recording of the dying declaration was finished, he certified that Faggobai was throughout fit to make statement. ( 28. ) OUR attention was drawn to the manner of writing of the dying declaration. We have perused Ex. P-17, but find nothing suspicious in the manner of recording the dying declaration. Though the prosecution witnesses have introduced that Faggobai was unconscious and unfit to make statement, the certificate of Dr. Jain (P. W. 15) on Ex. P-16 shows that she was in a fit condition to make a statement. The certificate of Dr. Jain fully established that Faggobai was fully conscious and was in a fit condition throughout to make statement. ( 29. ) THE evidence of Shri Bhalavi (P. W. 9) who recorded the dying declaration Ex. P-17, established beyond doubt that Faggobai was in a fit condition to make the dying declaration. The certificate of Dr. Jain fully established that Faggobai was fully conscious and was in a fit condition throughout to make statement. ( 29. ) THE evidence of Shri Bhalavi (P. W. 9) who recorded the dying declaration Ex. P-17, established beyond doubt that Faggobai was in a fit condition to make the dying declaration. Thus the evidence of Shri Malavi, naib Tahsildar and Dr. Jain fully established that Faggobai gave the dying declaration in a fit condition. ( 30. ) IT was suggested that persons were near about Faggobai and had accompanied her upto the police station and thus possibility of tutoring could not be excluded. Shri Bhalavi, in para 7, stated that inside the room where the dying declaration was recorded, except him and the doctor, no other person was present. Persons who came inside the room when the dying declaration was being recorded, were hospital employees. We find no material to hold that the dying declaration is either concocted or tutored. It will be too much to hold that Sunderlal (P. W. 1) and Hariprasad (P. W. 2) who had accompanied Faggobai to the hospital, would falsely implicate their own brother and would tutor Faggobai to the extent. We are convinced that the dying declaration is truthful and is also corroborated by the eye witness account of Khilai (P. W. 4) and Balloo (P. W. 14 ). See Gurphekan and others v. State of U. P. , AIR 1972 S C 1172. We reject the suggestion that the dying declaration is a suspicious document and accept it as the truthful narration of the incident given by Faggobai while she was throughout fit and conscious. ( 31. ) IN his examination, the appellant disowned everything. He stated that the prosecution witnesses were implicating him due to enmity, but we have found nothing to indicate that the eye witnesses Khilai (P. W. 4) and balloo (P. W. 14) have any animus against the appellant. We further find the defence suggestion that Faggobai was killed by her ex-husband entirely baseless. Even this defence, if accepted, could not explain why Sureshkumar, child of 10 years, would be killed by the ex-husband. We are, therefore, fully convinced that the appellant had dealt bichhua blows on Faggobai and sureshkumar. ( 32. ) REGARDING minor discrepancies or omissions as stated above, they are not on vital points, and relate to details and are natural. Even this defence, if accepted, could not explain why Sureshkumar, child of 10 years, would be killed by the ex-husband. We are, therefore, fully convinced that the appellant had dealt bichhua blows on Faggobai and sureshkumar. ( 32. ) REGARDING minor discrepancies or omissions as stated above, they are not on vital points, and relate to details and are natural. In State of assam v. Krishnarao and another, AIR 1973 S C 28. it is held as under : ". . . the minor discrepancies with respect to the size or the height of the peepholes from where three different persons tried to peep and see what was happening in the office or, omission on the part of the prosecution to show how the accused persons came to Noronhas office, become wholly inconsequential. These are details which, unless the witnesses are tutored, do ordinarily vary in minor particulars, and, in the normal course of things, are found generally to be stated differently by different observers. In our view, strictly speaking, these differences or variations are indications of the truth rather than of falsehood of the version given by the prosecution witnesses. " ( 33. ) AS per seizure memos Exhibits P-4 and P-5, the katar and its sheath were seized at the instance of the wife of the appellant. On chemical analysis, the katar was found stained with blood. Though there is no report of the serologist, this fact could be taken into account along with other circumstances the prosecution evidence is corroborated by the evidence of Dr. Nagpal (P. W. 7) who performed the post mortem examination on the dead body of faggobai and saw numerous external and internal injuries on her person. The injuries were ante-mortem in nature and were caused by penetrating object like knife. They were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. ( 34. ) THE evidence of Dr. Paradker (P. W. 8) shows that Sureshkumar had sustained number of punctured wounds, some of which were on vital parts of the body. Injuries 3 and 7 were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and they could be caused by a weapon like knife. Besides this, there is the evidence of Dr. B. C. Jain (P. W. 15) and Dr. B. K. Pansey (P. W. 20) who had treated Faggobai initially. Injuries 3 and 7 were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and they could be caused by a weapon like knife. Besides this, there is the evidence of Dr. B. C. Jain (P. W. 15) and Dr. B. K. Pansey (P. W. 20) who had treated Faggobai initially. They also stated that the injuries could be caused by sharp cutting weapon. Thus the eye witness account that the appellant had attacked his victims by knife or bichhua is corroborated by the medical evidence also. ( 35. ) DR. Paradker (P. W. 8) had also examined the appellant on 20-10-1977 and found number of abrasions on his person which could be caused either during struggle or in wielding a dagger. The appellant has offered no explanation as to how he sustained these injuries on the day of incident. ( 36. ) SHRI Rajendrasingh, Advocate for the appellant contended that the appellant was upset because of the earlier quarrel with his brother who being elder, slapped him and, therefore, the appellant committed the offence in a state of mental imbalance. This argument has no force, because the quarrel had finished at the field due to the intervention of his mother. Thereafter, the appellant returned home. This must have cooled him down and the effect, if any, of the earlier quarrel, must have vanished from his mind. The appellant picked up a knife, attacked Mst. Faggobai and thereafter her son which shows that the act of the appellant was calculated and deliberate. There is no material of any kind to sustain the suggestion that the appellant bad acted because of mental imbalance. ( 37. ) WE are, therefore, convinced that the appellant had attacked mst. Faggobai and her son Sureshkumar with a dagger or Bichhua. The use of bichhua, repetition of the strokes and location of injuries on vital parts of the body causing numerous external and internal injuries some of which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, indicated the intention of the appellant in finishing off his victims. In the aforesaid circumstances, we are in agreement with the Additional Sessions Judge that the appellant was responsible for causing the deaths of Mst. Faggobai and Sureshkumar and he was rightly convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 38. In the aforesaid circumstances, we are in agreement with the Additional Sessions Judge that the appellant was responsible for causing the deaths of Mst. Faggobai and Sureshkumar and he was rightly convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 38. ) IN regard to infliction of death sentence, Shri Rajendrasingh, relying on Ram Poojan and others v. State of U. P. , A I R 1973 S C 2418. contended that the fact of compromise between the fighting parties could be taken into account in determining the quantum of sentence. The facts of the case are not applicable to our case, because the attack did not take place on Hariprasad (P. W. 2) who was one of the fighting parties, but it took place on two persons, wife and son of Hariprasad, away from the scene of offence and totally unconnected with the earlier incident. Thus the appellant launched a determined attack on two innocent persons. ( 39. ) SHRI Rajendrasingh relied on Sirangan v. Tamil Nadu, AIR 1978 SC 274 . In this case, the appellant was young in age and was a mental case who was provoked by some trivial and went into tantrums. In our case, the appellant is not a mental case and the two victims had given him absolutely no provocation of any kind. Namuram Bora v. State of Assam and Nagaland, AIR 1975 SC 762 . is again a case of mental imbalance. In this case the appellant was suffering from disorder since after he suffered a dog-bite. This is not the case with us. We are convinced that the appellant is not a mental case or a cause of mental imbalance. The appellant deliberately attacked two innocent persons which indicated that his act was cold and calculated. The motive for the attack appears to be that the appellant wanted to wipe out the family of his brother Hariprasad (P. W. 2)including his only son who could perpetuate his line. ( 40. ) WE will now discuss some of the principles relevant for confirmation of the death sentence. It Mangalsingh v. State of U. P, AIR 1975 S C 76. the Supreme Court confirmed the death sentence after taking into account the fact that the injuries were caused on the face and neck with a gandusa and the number of injuries showed the brutal nature of the assault. ( 41. It Mangalsingh v. State of U. P, AIR 1975 S C 76. the Supreme Court confirmed the death sentence after taking into account the fact that the injuries were caused on the face and neck with a gandusa and the number of injuries showed the brutal nature of the assault. ( 41. ) NAMURAM Bora v. State of Assam and Nagaland does not help the appellant, because in this case, the appellant who in his examination under section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code had stated that he was suffering from mental disorder since after he suffered a dog bite, it was, therefore, taken that the appellant had committed the act as a result of some mental imbalance. It is pertinent to state that the appellant nowhere stated that he was insane. ( 42. ) SHIVMOHANSINGH v. State Delhi Administration, A I R 1977 S C 949. it is held that the heinousness of crime is a relevant factor in the choice of sentence. It is also mentioned that brutal features of the crime and the hapless state of the victim steal the heart of law to impose the sterner sentence. ( 43. ) IN Ramesh Ramdas Teli v. The State of Maharashtra, A I R 1975 S C 345. it is held as under : "we find no extenuating circumstance to reduce the sentence. The deceased had done no harm to the appellant. The appellant is apparently a desperate character who would not stop at killing rather than be caught in an attempt to steal after breaking into a house. We do not think that anything less than a death sentence is deserved by him. " Also see Magharsingh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1973 S C 1320. ( 44. ) IN State of M. P. v. Kailashi alias Kailasfmarain, 1977 J L J Note 19. it is held as under: "this is not a case where the offences were committed either in an unbalanced or in an unsound state of mind. This Court has found that the accused acted in a most cruel and atrocious manner. Without any reason whatsoever, he shot dead his own real brother when he was returning on a cycle. He then went to the house of Balloram (P. W. 2) and fired at him. This Court has found that the accused acted in a most cruel and atrocious manner. Without any reason whatsoever, he shot dead his own real brother when he was returning on a cycle. He then went to the house of Balloram (P. W. 2) and fired at him. He did not stop there and after extending a threat to kill everyone in the house, he went to the house of Hallo (P. W. 1) and shot dead his wife and his innocent boys, one of whom was having his milk and bread. He then went to the house of Lalla (P. W. 13) and wanted to shoot at Narayan (P. W. 18) and as he was not there, he fired at Shyam Babu (P W. 14) who fortunately survived because of the timely intervention by his father lalla (P. W. 13) who was also hit. All these circumstances lead to one and the only one conclusion that he treated the innocent unfortunate victims not even as unwanted animals and put an end to their precious lives leaving the survivors to mourn the loss throughout their remaining lives. " (The Italics is ours ). ( 45. ) IN view of the law as laid down above, we are convinced that the appellants atrocious act resulted in the loss of two lives, one of whom was a young boy aged 10 years. The appellant used dangerous weapon like dagger or Bichhua on these two innocent persons. He thus committed cold blooded murders and we find absolutely no extenuating circumstances in favour of the appellant. Extreme penalty of death on the facts and circumstances of the case appears essential. The death reference deserves to be accepted. ( 46. ) FOR the reasons given above, Cr. Reference No. 2/79 (State of M. P. v. Ummilal) is accepted. Cr. Appeal No. 112/79 (Ummilal v. State of M. P.)fails and is hereby dismissed. Conviction of the appellant Ummilal under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the murders of Faggobai and Sureshkumar is confirmed. The sentence of death is also confirmed. Death sentence confirmed.