Judgment 1. The Death Reference has been made to this Court under S.366(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for confirmation of the sentence passed against the accused Yashoda Kanu. He was put on trial in the court below on a charge under S.302 of the Indian Penal Code and the learned Additional Sessions Judge finding him guilty of the charge, convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to suffer death penalty. The accused was committed to the jail custody and we find that he presented an appeal as well against the judgment of conviction and the appeal has been registered as Criminal Appeal No.24 of 1987 and the Death Reference was registered as No.4 of 1986. Both the reference and the appeal have been heard together and this judgment will govern both the reference and the appeal. 2. The case against the accused arose on the statement of Amarendra Prasad, son of deceased Chchedi Sah. The case is as follows : 3. It was in the morning at about 6.15 A.M. on 11-4-1984 that Amarendra with his father Chchedi Sah was harvesting his wheat crop in village Dhanuati under police station Kataiya in the district of Gopalganj. The accused Yasoda Kanu suddenly came over and took Chchedi Sah to the southern side adjoining to the field of one Tulsi Teli. The accused abused him in filthy language, and took out a knife and pierced the same on the left side chest of Chchedi Sah and further gave a few multiple blows on the head and near the ear. Chchedi Sah dropped down dead. His son Amarendra and other villagers namely, Rama Shankar, Shivji, Bisambhar, Dharamnath, Rampati, Babu Lal Turha and Ramawatar Turha, who were also in their respective nearyby-fields, ran to the scene of occurrence. They all succeeded in catching hold of the accused Yashoda Kanu and they asked Amarendra to inform about the incident to the police. Amarendra lodged information and the police instituted a case and took up investigation. 4. Prosecution has assigned some motive also on the part of this accused Jashoda Kanu for killing Chchedi. It has been said that one Jhalku Sah of the same village Dharauti and the accused Yashoda Kanu had a partnership business in Nepal. Some dispute had arisen between them regarding their partnership. The Panchayati was convened in the village. 4. Prosecution has assigned some motive also on the part of this accused Jashoda Kanu for killing Chchedi. It has been said that one Jhalku Sah of the same village Dharauti and the accused Yashoda Kanu had a partnership business in Nepal. Some dispute had arisen between them regarding their partnership. The Panchayati was convened in the village. Chchedi Sah had acted as a Punch and he had given his Award against the accused Jasoda Kanu asking him to pay a sum of Rs.3,500.00 to Jhalku Sah. This panchayati business had taken place about five years prior to the incident of murder. Prosecution further alleges that soon after the panchayati Jasoda Kanu was not seen in the village. He had probably absconded to Nepal. It has been said that this accused Jasoda Kanu hails from different villge known as Bankata under police station Baghauchghat in the district of Deoria in Uttar Pradesh. He returned to this village Dhanauti after long five years and since he was harbouring griveance against Chchedi for unfavourable decision given in the Panchayati, he caused his death. The police officer, who has been examined as P.W.11 investigated the case, inspected the place of occurrence, sent the dead-body of Chchedi Sah for post-mortem examination and after examination of some other witnesses, submitted charge-sheet against the accused. When the police arrived in the village he found Jasoda Kanu in the custody of the villagers and arrested him and forwarded to the court for his being remnded to jail custody. 5. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses in all, out of whom P.Ws.2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 are said to be the eye witnesses of the occurrence. The other two witnesses P.Ws. 5, Dmri Sah and P.W.9 Rampati Pandey, who were also named as charge-sheet witnesses were tendered in court by the prosecution. P.W.1 has said that he was present at the police station when the statement of Amarendra was recorded. He also put his signature on the aforesaid statement as a witness to it. P.W.10 is a Medical Officer, who conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Chchedi and P.W.11 is the Investigating Officer of the case. 6. P.W.1 has said that he was present at the police station when the statement of Amarendra was recorded. He also put his signature on the aforesaid statement as a witness to it. P.W.10 is a Medical Officer, who conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Chchedi and P.W.11 is the Investigating Officer of the case. 6. The doctor P.W.10 held post-mortem examination on the same day on 11-4-1984 at about 2 P.M. and he had found the following ante-mortem injuries on the dead body : (i) Incised wound on the scalp 2" x 1/2"X muscle deep left parietal bone 2" above pina. (ii) Incised wound on the right ear 1" X 1/4" X whole thickness of the pina. (iii) Multiple incised wound on the scalp (a) 1/2" X 1/6" X bone deep. (b) 1/2" X 1/4" Muscle deep. (c) 1/2" X 1/4" X Muscle deep. (iv) penetrating wound on the left side of the chest lower portion in posterior axillary line-2" X 1/2" X cavity deep. (v) penetrating wound on the left side of the chest in fifth entercostal space posterior axillary line-1" X 1/2" X chest cavity deep. (vi) Incised wound on the left side of the chest posterior axillary line near axilla-1/2" X 1/4" X muscle deep. (vii) Incised wound on the left side of chest posterior axillary line in fourth intercostal space 1 X 1/4" muscle deep. 7. On dissection of the body, he found penetration on the left lung and pleura. The spleen and the left kidney were also penetrated and blood clots were found accumulated near the wound in the abdomen. He was of the opinion that all the injuries were possibly caused by sharp pointed weapon and the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of the victim. 8. The police officer P.W.11 had inspected the place of occurrence on the same day and had found some paddy in the field harvested. The dead body of Chchedi was found lying in a field adjoining to his own field. Copious blood was found near the dead body and as such, other objective findings indicated that the occurrence took place there in village Dhanauti, in which Chchedi Sah was done to death. 9. The dead body of Chchedi was found lying in a field adjoining to his own field. Copious blood was found near the dead body and as such, other objective findings indicated that the occurrence took place there in village Dhanauti, in which Chchedi Sah was done to death. 9. In appeal before us, the learned Advocate who has also argued in the death reference, at the very outset has conceded that it would be hard to attack the findings of the court below on the factum of murder. The evidence is that the informant P.W.2 Amarendra was with his father harvesting his field. Accused Jasoda appeared all of a sudden and called away his father Chchedi to an adjoining southern field of Tulsi Teli. He has said that he had heard asking the accused as to why he had given decision against him in the Panchayati and immediately thereafter he took out the knife from his pocket and started inflicting blows hitting on the left side of the chest and again on the two sides of the face, ears and head. Chchedi Sah had cried out for help, which attracted the attention of all other cultivators who were present in their respective field. P.Ws.3 Sheoji Prasad, has also narrated about the incident in full detail. Both the informants Amarendra and P.W.3, have been amply corroborated by all other witnesses namely, P.Ws.4, 5 and 8. The other witnesses appeared to be quite indepedent persons having no interest in the prosecution, nor any enmity with the accused. Their presence at the time of the occurrence being engaged in harvesting their crops seem to be quite natural and probable. The court below rightly accepted their evidence to hold the accused appellant Jasoda Kanu guilty of the charge. In the given circumstances, the learned counsel for the appellant could not assail the findings of the court below, rather he conceded that the prosecution in the present case has succeeded in proving the charge against the accused of the offence of committing the murder of Chchedi Sah. The learned Advocate has, however, addressed us on the question of severity of sentence and has argued that the nature of the crime committed as shown by the prosecution does not call for the extreme penalty of law imposing the sentence of death as passed by the court below. 10. The learned Advocate has, however, addressed us on the question of severity of sentence and has argued that the nature of the crime committed as shown by the prosecution does not call for the extreme penalty of law imposing the sentence of death as passed by the court below. 10. A prayer was made in the court below on behalf of the accused for showing leniency in imposing the sentence. In other words, to pass a lesser sentence in the sense, a sentence for imprisonment for life. It was contended that the accused is a bread-earner and Karta of his family and hence, looking to the financial position the sentence of imprisonment for life may be passed instead of sentencing him to suffer the penalty of death. The prayer was, however, disposed of by the court below in the following terms : "I have found that the accused has committed ghastly and cold blooded murder of Chhedi Sah who was unarmed at the time of occurrence, little knowing that he would meet his dooms day within minutes of his meeting the accused on the fateful morning. So there appears no alternative to me in the circumstances of the case towards any other punishment to the accused than the sentence of his death. Accordingly I hereby sentence the accused Yasoda Kanu to death by hanging him till death under S.302, I.P.C......." 11. The learned Additional Sessions Judge is forgetting that in a charge under S.302 of the Code imposing punishment for sufferance of imprisonment for life is now a rule and death sentence is an exception. In other words it may be said with more clarity that if sentence of imprisonment for life appears to be inadequate having regard to the crime, only then the extreme penalty of law, i.e., the sentence of death should be imposed. 12. In the instant case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not correctly recorded the operative part of the judgment in passing the sentence of death in terms of S.354 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which expressly provides what should be the language and contents of the judgment. 12. In the instant case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not correctly recorded the operative part of the judgment in passing the sentence of death in terms of S.354 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which expressly provides what should be the language and contents of the judgment. Sub-section (3) of S.354 reads as follows : "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 case of sentence of death, the special reason for such sentence." This pre-supposes that in imparting the capital sentence i.e. sentence of death, the court should have recorded special reasons for the same. Here it has only been stated in the judgment impugned that there was no scope of showing any leniency to the accused. The special reasons must relate to the criminal committing the offence - a crime which may be shocking to the conscience of the society or may be shocking on account of its cruelty or commission of it is so brutal and treacherous in manner which passes of the comprehension of a normal human thinking and in such circumstance, court may think of awarding the sentence of death. So far the present case is concerned, it is admitted position that accused called out deceased Chhedi Sah and took him to the southern side in a different field belonging to Tulsi Teli. It has also come in evidence that some altercation arose. P.W.2 Amarendara son of the deceased Cheedi Sah had said that accused was speaking in filthy language. Therefore, before such altercation arose between the parties we could not know what actually passed in between them. Quite likely on discussions and talking about the past incident of Panchayati, he acted on the spur of the moment and attacked with knife which he was carrying in his pocket. The Panchayati incident is of long past and even the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while dealing with the evidence on this point has observed in the judgment impugned that the motive for the commission of the offence, as assigned by the witnesses, did not deal and it did not attract the attention of the court, as it suggested remoteness in time. The learned Additional Sessions Judge however, held that on account of want of sufficient proof for the motive assigned by the prosecution the whole case of the prosecution cannot be brushed aside. This is a different view taken by the court in accepting the prosecution version. But at the same time the court lost sight of the fact in its final judgment while imposing sentence for sufferance of death penalty. Not only P.W.2 the son of the deceased, but other witnesses too have admitted that there was no earlier enmity between the accused and the deceased. He had gone out of the village for a pretty long time and had come on that date when he met Cheedi Sah in the field. It cannot be denied that some altercation took place when he was taken out of his own field to the field of Tulsi Teli and there, in course of abuses and counter-abuses he acted suddenly and pierced the knife and caused multiple injuries, which resulted in the death of Cheedi Sah. The offence alleged, does not appear to be so brutal in nature, nor does it speak of any treachery played in causing the death. It may even be assumed that he might have thought of causing the death because of the dissatisfaction or the animosity which he was fostering in his mind on account of the decision given by Cheedi Sah against him in the Panchayati. 13 In the circumstances, we feel that the crime committed in the present case does not warrant for imposition of extreme penalty of law. The court below, of course, in imposing the death sentence had committed further error which, may of course, be said to be technical in nature. But it was expected that in a case of such extreme culpability he should have been careful in writing out his judgment as envisaged in S.354 of the Code. Clause (5) of S.354 speaks that when a person is sentenced to death, the sentence shall direct that he be hanged by the neck till he is dead. In the instant case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed error in recording the order of sentence in stating that accused Jasoda Kanu is sentenced to death by hanging till death under S.302 of the Code. We have made this observation more so for the guidance of the court below. 14. In the instant case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed error in recording the order of sentence in stating that accused Jasoda Kanu is sentenced to death by hanging till death under S.302 of the Code. We have made this observation more so for the guidance of the court below. 14. However, in the circumstances, as discussed above, the death reference is discharged in the terms that the sentence of death as imposed by the court below is commuted to the term of imprisonment for life which in the present case will meet the ends of justice. In this situation the appeal presented by the accused from jail is also dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence to the extent that the sentence of death is commuted to imprisonment for life for the offence of committing murder of Cheedi Sah, which is an offence punishable under sec. 302 of the Code.