GHEEWALA, J. ( 1 ) AT about 8. 30 p. m. in the town of Sikka on 13th June 1984 a young girl aged about 14 years, totally defenceless, completely unsuspecting, was sitting on the foot-steps of her fathers house in the company of her cousin Nilesh and was listening to the radio. Her father was having a flourishing practice as a doctor but she had the misfortune of being endowed with good looks as Mr. D. K. Shah, learned Counsel, appearing for the accused, tells the Court. The accused who comes from surroundings which are not quite congenial to sophisticated and cultured living, had an evil eye on her and some time prior to the incident, the accused had misbehaved with her. Dr. Vasantlal and his wife Rashmiben, as they were more cultured, sophisticated and gentle than the behaviour of the accused under the circumstances warranted only made a complaint to one Daudbhai, who was the head of the community of the accused. It appears that Daudbhai scolded the accused, and the accused was prevented from passing by that particular route. The accused seems to have been enraged as his indecent advances were repulsed by Parul and on top of it the parents of the girl had the guts and cheek to complain about his misbehaviour to the headman of the community. ( 2 ) ON that fateful day Dr. Vasantlal was away from the town and two elder brothers of Parul were studying in Baroda college. Her aunt Ranjanben and her son Nilesh were the guests of the family. The only persons present in the house were Ranjanben the aunt, Rashmiben the mother of Parul, Nilesh the son of Ranjanben and Parul the victim. The accused is alleged to have come there with a formidable weapon which we have seen from the muddamal articles, and having come there, he dragged Parul by catching hold of her wrist up to a distance of about eight feet in the court-yard of the building. He administered a lethal blow and the first blow itself went through tearing the heart-wall. When Parul bent down, another equally effective and savage blow was given on the back which ruptured the lung. Both the injuries have been deposed to by the doctor as being sufficient in the ordinary course of nature, individually as well as cumulatively to cause death. When Parul bent down, another equally effective and savage blow was given on the back which ruptured the lung. Both the injuries have been deposed to by the doctor as being sufficient in the ordinary course of nature, individually as well as cumulatively to cause death. The accused wanted to complete the work without any change of survival left for the helpless girl and, therefore, he inflicted two more blows which in deed were not fatal. After that the accused, with some purile motive, inflicted surface injuries on his person by means of the said dagger. They were of tiny dimensions but 14 in number. Thereafter he left the place but left. the dagger at the place. At the relevant time, P. S. I. Shri Solanki was on patrolling duty and was in his jeep. Rashmiben, the mother of the deceased, having been flabberghasted by the incident, rushed out of the house and rushed towards the jeep. The officer came there, lifted the lifeless body of Parul in the expectation that she might be within the reach of some medical attention and took her to the hospital where she was pronounced dead. The complaint of Rashmiben was recorded. The investigation commenced. The accused was arraigned before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar for an offence punishable under S. 302 of the Penal Code. As he had tried to inflict injuries on his person, he was also charged under S. 309 of the Penal Code. ( 3 ) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge, after appreciating the evidence, came to the conclusion that the accused was proved to have committed the crime; that the accused had done the act with an intention to bring about the death of the deceased, and he also found the aggravating circumstances as the accused was guilty of having come to the place duly armed, and as the learned Judge found that the murder was pre-meditated and it was executed in cold blood, he thought that the accused was a person whose existence should be snuffed out and he, therefore, awarded extreme penalty provided under the law. That is how the case is before us for confirming the said sentence, and the accused being aggrieved by the order of conviction, has preferred the appeal challenging his conviction. ( 4 ) MR. That is how the case is before us for confirming the said sentence, and the accused being aggrieved by the order of conviction, has preferred the appeal challenging his conviction. ( 4 ) MR. D. K. Shah, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-accused, took us minutely through every nook and corner of the record and Mr. Shah urged that while he will not be in a position to dislodge the finding of the learned Judge regarding the accused having committed the crime. Mr. Shah only addressed us mainly on the quantum of sentence. We do not for a moment suggest that Mr. Shah conceded the case but Mr. Shah, despite the fact that he made some valiant efforts, could not persuade us to reject the evidence of Rashmiben and Nilesh who have been examined as P. W. 2 (Ex. 16) and P. W. 4 (Ex. 20), respectively. There is also evidence of Nathalal (P. W. 5) Ex. 21 who is the neighbour staying just opposite to the house of Dr. Vasantlal Joshi, who had rushed to the scene of offence on hearing the furore, and while he is not actually an eye witness to the incident, he had seen the accused running away from the scene of offence and had seen the accused causing injuries to himself and also throwing away the knife. On carefully going through these pieces of evidence, we feel that there cannot be any other finding excepting the one that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has recorded in this behalf that the deceased Parul had met with her death at the hands of the accused. The evidence of Rashmiben leaves no doubt. Nilesh and Medical Expert who had performed the Post-mortem examination corroborated the story of Rashmiben and the P. S. I. , who was passing by the road in a patrolling jeep-car has also corroborated the say of Rashmiben. We have, therefore, no manner of doubt that the finding of the learned Additional Sessions Judge on this particular point of having found the accused guilty of murder of Parul requires to be confirmed without any hesitation. ( 5 ) THAT disposes of the appeal of the accused and now we address ourselves to the quantum of sentence which should be imposed upon the accused and whether there are circumstances which might persuade us to. ( 5 ) THAT disposes of the appeal of the accused and now we address ourselves to the quantum of sentence which should be imposed upon the accused and whether there are circumstances which might persuade us to. set aside the extreme penalty which has been imposed upon him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, or whether the accused requires to be sent to the gallows. ( 6 ) MR. J. U. Mehta, learned Public Prosecutor drew our attention to certain facts which, while determining the quantum of sentence, should be kept before the minds of the Court. Mr. Mehta urged that the manner of the crime, the motive for the crime, the anti-social nature of the crime, the magnitude of the crime and the personality of the victim are required to be consistently borne in mind while determining the quantum of sentence. We could not agree more with the learned Public Prosecutor. The matter in which the crime has been committed does not leave any doubt in our mind that the accused was brooding over the supposed wrong which Parul had inflicted upon him because his indecent advances were repulsed by Parul. The motive is very much pronounced. He had come with a deadly weapon and used it with telling effect. He had administered numerous blows on the girl who was in her early teens and the blows were such that there was no chance of survival left for Parul, even as the first blow was inflicted. The magnitude of the crime is such that an innocent life of a young girl who came from a respectable family and who had everything to look forward in life has been snuffed out. ( 7 ) REGARDING the anti-social nature of the criminal and the crime, we must say that for the accused it was too tall a call to expect that his advances would be favourably responded by Parul. However, one factor has been brought to our notice by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and it is this that at the time when the accused committed the crime, he was 18 years and three months old. However, one factor has been brought to our notice by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and it is this that at the time when the accused committed the crime, he was 18 years and three months old. While young age of an accused person, who has been found guilty of a brutal murder will not weigh too much with the Court in determining the quantum of sentence, we feel that in the instant case there is nothing on the record to indicate that the accused had previously embarked upon a career of crime and the present incident was only an additional and the latest incident of his criminal career. It was undoubtedly an outcome of his hot blooded passion or a debased lust which had prodded him to do this which by itself would be sufficient to hold that he is expendable and he is unfit to be called a human being. He had no respect for dignity of another human being and the only supposed wrong for which he wanted to punish Parul was that she did not respond to his indecent advances. Even his caveman ancestor would have had greater respect for the dignity of a fellow human being than what the accused has. All the same we feel that the modern trend of the decisions of the Supreme Court and the modern trends of criminology and penology enjoin upon us a duty not to snuff out his life. We are conscious that the society is likely to benefit more by obliterating his existence than by keeping him alive but in the pious and yet foredoomed-to-failure-hope of reclaiming him as a useful unit of the society, we are reluctantly compelled to keep him alive. We very much doubt as to whether the accused, after a prolonged period of imprisonment, is likely to turn a new page in his life or that after coming out of Jail he might be of a model behaviour. We questioned the accused but as he pretends to be totally innocent of the crime, there was no question of his showing any remorse. All the same we feel that the accused being only 18 years and three months of age at the relevant period, we need not be so pessimistic about his future and we can afford to take one more chance with him. All the same we feel that the accused being only 18 years and three months of age at the relevant period, we need not be so pessimistic about his future and we can afford to take one more chance with him. If after a prolonged period of incarceration he does not improve his ways and once again after coming out of the jail embarks upon a career of crime, then the law is sufficiently potent to take care of him at the relevant time. However, for this one incident, howsoever ghastly it may be, we do not feel that the life of the accused requires to be snuffed out. The modern trends of penology and the decided cases compel us to leave a judicial legacy by way of a liability on the society, but only under a pious hope that he might ultimately improve his ways and establish himself as a, if not too-useful a unit, at least a harmless individual. This liability which we are imposing on the society, of course, at a prospective date, has been found guilty of doing away with a young girl in her teens, coming from a respectable family, who in all probability, might have proved to be a useful unit of the society and an asset to the society. The crime of the accused is undoubtedly of gross proportions, and the way in which it has been executed shows the criminal mentality of the accused. Despite this, we are constrained to keep him alive only under the hope of reforming him. We, therefore, do not feel that this can be considered to be a case where the life of the accused should be taken away by the hands of law. We, therefore, while dismissing the appeal filed by the accused, set aside the sentence imposed by the learned trial Judge and order that the accused shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. ( 8 ) WHILE concluding we cannot resist the temptation of voicing our strong disapproval of some of the reasons given by the learned trial Judge. The learned trial Judge should have decided the case and decided the quantum of penalty on the known principles of judicial propriety and he should not have allowed his imaginations to run amuck. ( 8 ) WHILE concluding we cannot resist the temptation of voicing our strong disapproval of some of the reasons given by the learned trial Judge. The learned trial Judge should have decided the case and decided the quantum of penalty on the known principles of judicial propriety and he should not have allowed his imaginations to run amuck. The observation of the learned trial Judge that if the accused comes free after 14 years of incarceration, he might once again keep a bad eye on the daughter-in-law of Vasantlal is to say the least totally besides the point. Such observations may find place in a sentimental harangue or a soap-box rhetoric of a demagogue, but there is no place for the same in a judicial pronouncement and should have been scrupulously avoided. Before the Court of law the accused and the victim lose their all other identifying features excepting that one is a criminal and the other is a victim. The caste, race, creed, community etc. are not the necessary features which should be highlighted in the judgment in the way in which the learned trial Judge has done. We hope that such an exercise might not be undertaken by the learned trial Judge in future or by any other judicial officer for that matter. We, therefore, while dismissing the appeal filed by the accused also do not feel inclined to confirm the sentence of extreme penalty imposed and, therefore, order that accused shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. ( 9 ) WE may also mention that the learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Mehta was also not in agreement with some of the reasons given by the learned trial judge for imposing the extreme penalty and Mr. Mehta urged that the conclusion of the learned trial Judge whereby he has imposed the extreme penalty is sustainable on the grounds urged by him. We may also add that the illogical and riotously inferential reasoning of the learned trial Judge has not weighed with us while setting aside the extreme penalty but we have examined the question independently on the strength of the evidence recorded in the case and from the angle of modern trends of criminology and penology. Mr. We may also add that the illogical and riotously inferential reasoning of the learned trial Judge has not weighed with us while setting aside the extreme penalty but we have examined the question independently on the strength of the evidence recorded in the case and from the angle of modern trends of criminology and penology. Mr. Mehta the learned Public Prosecutor also urged that too much of attention for the criminal and too little for the victim or relatives of the victims at times would leave a sense of disgruntlement and disillusionment for the judicial process in the minds of the persons adversely affected by the crime and while we could not agree more with the learned Public Prosecutor, we cannot help it as we are required to decide the case as per the law laid down for us to follow. Sentence modified. .