RAM PAL SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THIS judgment shall also govern the disposal of criminal Reference No. 2 of 1988. Appellant Ramnarayan, aggrieved by the judgment dated 14. 8. 1988 of his conviction in the Court of Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur, in Sessions Trial No. 28 of 1986, No. 29 of 1986 and No. 30 of 1986, has preferred this appeal. Criminal Reference No. 2 of 1988 has been made by the learned Sessions Judge to this Court under section 366 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As the Sessions Court has imposed the sentence of death, the proceedings have been submitted to this Court for confirmation. The appellant was charged under section 302 of the I. P. C. in Sessions Trial No. 28/86, and 30/86, while he was charged for having committed offence punishable under section 307 of the I. P. C. in Sessions Trial No. 29/86. As all the three offences were committed in the same transaction, the appellant was tried in all these cases together. He has been convicted under section 302 of the I. P. C. and has been sentenced to death. He has further been sentenced to ten years R. I. for having committed offence under section 307 of the I. P. C. ( 2 ) APPELLANT Ramnarayan Gond is of 28 years of age and was employed, at the time of alleged commission of the offence, as Constable in 30th Company of the S. A. F. and was posted at Uscor Camp Pamed, Bastar. This Company consisted of deceased Asstt, Sub Inspector Maniraj Singh Chouhan, deceased Constable Ramchandra, P. W. 8 Constable Suryapal Singh, P. W. 3 Head Constable Sarjuram, P. W. 4, Constable Lachhuram, P. W. 6 and P. W. 7 Soman Ram. Deceased Maniraj Singh was the Asstt. Sub-Inspector and deceased the Ram Chandra was a Constable and injured Suryapal Singh (P. W. 8) was also a Constable in that Company. ( 3 ) THE incident is alleged to have taken place at or about 1. 35 a. m. on 8. 10. 1985 in Chowki Pamed, Bastar. The motive for the crime is said to be that in the evening of 7. 10. 1985, there was exchange of hot words between the appellant and deceased Asstt. Sub-Inspector Maniraj Singh and during this exchange of words, deceased Asstt. 35 a. m. on 8. 10. 1985 in Chowki Pamed, Bastar. The motive for the crime is said to be that in the evening of 7. 10. 1985, there was exchange of hot words between the appellant and deceased Asstt. Sub-Inspector Maniraj Singh and during this exchange of words, deceased Asstt. Sub-Inspector slapped the appellant and deceased Constable Ramchandra is alleged to have intervened and admonished the appellant that he should not behave like a madman and should not mishehave with his superior officer. The prosecution story further proceeds that the appellant was allegedly man-handled and was later confined for some time. But as he was to carry out his duties as Sentry Guard from 12 to 2 in the night of 8. 10. 1985, he was given a rifle and fifty rounds of cartridges by preceding Guard Constable on duty, Suddhuram (P. W. 6 ). ( 4 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution story, while deceased Asstt. Sub-Inspector Maniraj Singh and Constable Ramchandra were asleep, the appellant after loading his rifle shot dead both of them in cold blood and then he is alleged to have shot at Suryapal Singh, Constable (P. W. 1), but, he escaped. Constable Gunthar (P. W. 2) was also fired upon with the rifle but he also miraculously escaped. The information of the incident was given by Sarjuram, Head Constable (P. W. 3) in the Police Station where a mere intimation Ex. P-22 was registered. Asstt. Sub-Inspector Kujur (P. W. 1) of Police Station Goiapalli registered the crime No. 30 of 1985 under section 302 of the I. P. C. and also recorded the First Information Report Ex. P-21. He started investigation and arrested the appellant, whereupon the appellant is alleged to have made a statement before him which was recorded in Ex. P-3. By this statement, he led to the discovery of rifle 303 Bore, Butt No. 103, on 11. 10. 1985. Upon this information, the said rifle was recovered alongwith 44 live cartridges. The dead bodies of deceased Muniraj Singh and Ramchandra were sent for post-mortem examination to Dr. S. P. Pandey, Asstt. Surgeon (P. W. 11 ). ( 5 ) P. W. 11 Dr. 10. 1985. Upon this information, the said rifle was recovered alongwith 44 live cartridges. The dead bodies of deceased Muniraj Singh and Ramchandra were sent for post-mortem examination to Dr. S. P. Pandey, Asstt. Surgeon (P. W. 11 ). ( 5 ) P. W. 11 Dr. S. Panday conducted postmortem examination on the dead-body of Ramchandra, Constable and found that there was a bullet injury in the right parietal region 1 x 11/2 cm, inverted borders 5 cm lateral to mid-line surrounded by 61/2 x 6 cm area of charred site. There was also an exit wound in the external occipital protuberance, 3 x 31/2 cm. averted borders. According to Dr. Panday, there was a fracture of the right parietal bone 3 x 4 cm size quadrangular. Occipital bone was dislodged from suture line. Multiple fractures in occipital bone were found and there was also a heamatoma present under scalp. According to doctor, the cause of death was the instantaneous shock as a result of injury due to sudden failure of higher vital centers. Ex. P-22 is the postmortem report written and signed by him. He also seized the clothes from the dead body. ( 6 ) THEN Dr. Pandey performed the post-mortem examination on the dead-body of Maniraj Singh and found site of entry of bullet wound at the level of 6th thoracic vertebra in the left half of chest 6 cm. lateral to midline oval shaped entry inverted edges surrounded by charred area about 4 x 4 cm. Site of exit wound was 12 x 10 cm over skin of right hyphochondrim 5 cm lateral to mid line. Intestines were protruding out from the site of exit. According to doctor, the injuries upon the dead-bodies of both the deceased were ante-mortem in nature. The cause of death of Maniraj Singh was circulatory shock due to excessive bleeding. He opined that the death was homicidal in nature and the injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Ex. P-26 is the post-mortem report of Maniraj Singh. ( 7 ) PROSECUTION examined Constable P. W. 6 Suddhuram to prove the oral dying declaration made by Maniraj Singh to him. The defence of the appellant during the trial was total denial of the case of the prosecution. Ex. P-26 is the post-mortem report of Maniraj Singh. ( 7 ) PROSECUTION examined Constable P. W. 6 Suddhuram to prove the oral dying declaration made by Maniraj Singh to him. The defence of the appellant during the trial was total denial of the case of the prosecution. It is necessary to mention that when the appellant was arrested, he bad two gunshot infected wounds near the neck and the abdomen, for which he was later treated. From the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, it can be gathered that during the trial, the defence of the appellant was that be was innocent, that the alleged act was an act committed by Naxelites who are very much active in that area and it is for this reason that this S. A. F. Company was posted there. ( 8 ) LEARNED trial Judge has based conviction of the appellant upon: (i) the oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses; (ii) the statement made by the appellant before the police which led to the discovery of the rifle and 44 cartridges; (iii) the oral dying declaration made to Sarju Ram (P. W. 3) by deceased Maniraj Singh; (iv) motive for committing the crime was also proved by Gunthar (P. W. 2) and other prosecution witnesses. The learned trial Judge was of the view that looking to the cruel nature and pre-planned nature of the crime, the appellant deserves the extreme penalty of law that is the death sentence. ( 9 ) SHRI Hira Singh Chouhan, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned trial Judge has committed error in accepting the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. He further contended at the bar that the prosecution witnesses Gaunthar (P. W. 2), Sarjuram (P. W. 3), Lachhuram (P W. 4), Suddhuram (P. W. 6) and Suryapal Singh (P. W. 8) were not reliable. He challenged that the first information report (Ex. P-i) was concoction, that the appellant had no motive and that the alleged motive for committing this crime was not proved by the prosecution. He also contended that the conclusions of the learned trial Judge are based upon conjunctures. In the alternative, he contended that it was not a fit case in which the extreme penalty of law should be imposed. Shri Choudhary learned Government Advocate controverter these arguments and supported the impugned judgment. He also contended that the conclusions of the learned trial Judge are based upon conjunctures. In the alternative, he contended that it was not a fit case in which the extreme penalty of law should be imposed. Shri Choudhary learned Government Advocate controverter these arguments and supported the impugned judgment. ( 10 ) WE propose to deal with the evidence of the prosecution and then take up with regard to the sentence of death imposed upon the appellant. P. W. 2 Gunthar is a Constable of S. A. F. of 30th Battalion. According, to him, he heard two gun-shots firing, one from a distance of 50 steps and the other from a distance of 10 steps. The barrack where the deceased Ramchandra was sleeping is adjacent to the barrack of this witness. According to him, after firing in the barrack of deceased Ramchandra, the appellant came to his barrack and shot at him from a distance of about ii steps. He missed the aim and the bullet passed through his bedding and entered the ground. Subsequently, he discovered the spent lead-head of the cartridge. When he was shot at, at this very time, according to this witness, P. W. 8 Suryapal Singh shouted for the Sentry of the Camp. Will you get all of us killed? and he also shouted to come out with their rifles. This witness heard four shots. ( 11 ) P. W. 3 Sarjuram, Head Constable of the nearby Police Out-Post immediately after the firing was informed by P. W. 2 Gunthar that Maniraj Singh, A. S. I. has been shot dead by a Sentry of the Battalion. According to P. W. 2 Gunthar, it was the appellant who was on a Sentry Duty between 12 to 2 a. m. in the night of 8. 10. 1985. This witness saw the appellant in the uniform and also identified him by face. This positive identification was made by him when he was shot at by the appellant. When P. W. 8 Suryapal Singh shouted, then this witness saw the appellant running towards a Imli tree. He further identified the appellant from the back side of his body while he was running with rifle towards the turmeric tree. This positive identification was made by him when he was shot at by the appellant. When P. W. 8 Suryapal Singh shouted, then this witness saw the appellant running towards a Imli tree. He further identified the appellant from the back side of his body while he was running with rifle towards the turmeric tree. According to him though there was no source of artificial light, but the sky was clean and there was sufficient moon-light for identifying the appellant Furthermore, P. W. 8 Suryapal Singh when came to meet this witness immediately after the firing, disclosed that it was the appellant who had shot at them and fled away from the spot towards the turmeric tree. This witness was cross-examined with regard to the fact of identification of the appellant as the assailant. Nothing effective has been brought out to doubt the truthfulness of his statement. He has also proved the motive for committing the crime. ( 12 ) P. W. 3 Sarjuram, Head Constable of Police was sleeping in his residence when he heard gunshots According to him, he heard the firing at 1. 30 in the night. After the firing, he got up and looked at his watch in torch-light. The four shots were heard by him from the direction of the S. A. F. , Camp. According to this witness, he reached the spot where deceased Maniraj Singh was lying in injured condition. Maniraj Singh disclosed to Sarjuram (P. W. 3) that it was the appellant who had shot him fatally. Deceased requested this witness to take him immediately to the hospital but Maniraj Singh then fell unconscious. This witness was informed by P. W. 8 Suryapal Singh that it was the appellant who had shot dead two persons and fired at two other S. A. F. personnel. According to this witness, P. W. 2 Gunthar also disclosed to him that it was the appellant and none else who had fired these four shots. P. W. 3 Sarjuram is a Head Constable of Police. He does not belong to the S. A. F. cadre and cannot be said to have any motive for falsely implicating the appellant. In our opinion, complete reliance can be placed upon the testimony of P. W. 3 Sarjuram. ( 13 ) P. W. 4 Lachchhuram is a Constable of S. A. F. In the intervening night of 7th18th Oct. He does not belong to the S. A. F. cadre and cannot be said to have any motive for falsely implicating the appellant. In our opinion, complete reliance can be placed upon the testimony of P. W. 3 Sarjuram. ( 13 ) P. W. 4 Lachchhuram is a Constable of S. A. F. In the intervening night of 7th18th Oct. 1985, he was sleeping in the barrack near that of P. W. 3 Gunthar, who was sleeping on a cot. This witness has proved that in the intervening night of 7/8. 10. 1985, the appellant was posted on Sentry duty for the period between 12 to 2 a. m. in the night. This witness heard the sound of gun fire while he was asleep. According to this witness, the barrack in which he and Gunthar (P. W. 2) were sleeping, a shot was fired by the appellant. This witness identified the appellant at a distance of five or six steps. Immediately after the firing he heard Hawaldar in-charge P. W. 8 Suryapal Singh shouting that the Sentry on duty is shooting everyone and all the S. A. F. personnel should come out with their rifles. This witness, on direction from P. W. 8 Suryapal Singh, ran out with his rifle and it is at this very time that P. W. 2 Gunthar also arrived on the spot, armed. When they came out, Suryapal Singh (P. W. 8), told all the present that it was the appellant who has fired four rounds and has deserted the Camp. According to this witness, P. W. 3 Sarjuram, Head Constable of the Police Station arrived on the spot and to him, P. W. 2 Gunthar and P. W. 8 Suryapal Singh disclosed that it is the appellant who has fired upon deceased Ramchandra, Gunthar and Suryapal Singh. It is then that Sarjuram (P. W. 3) informed this witness that Maniraj Singh has also been shot but he is speaking. This witness also proves the motive of the crime. Nothing of importance has been brought out in his cross- examination so as to doubt the testimony of this witness. ( 14 ) SUDDHURAM (P. W. 6) is another Constable who proves the fact that his duty was over by 12 in the night in the intervening night of 7/8. 10. This witness also proves the motive of the crime. Nothing of importance has been brought out in his cross- examination so as to doubt the testimony of this witness. ( 14 ) SUDDHURAM (P. W. 6) is another Constable who proves the fact that his duty was over by 12 in the night in the intervening night of 7/8. 10. 1985 and then at 12 he handed over the duty and charge of a rifle and fifty cartridges, to the appellant. Thus, it is established by positive statement of this witness that it was the appellant who was on Sentry duty when these crimes were committed. He has identified, during the trial, the rifle as well as the pack of the cartridges which he had handed over to the appellant. After banding over the charge to the Sentry on duty, this witness went to his barrack and slept. Then, he heard the firing but he could not identify the appellant who is alleged to have fired these shots. Subsequently when he came out, P. W. 2 Gunthar, P. W. 8 Suryapal Singh, both informed him that it was the appellant who had fired the shots and has deserted the Camp with a rifle and cartridges. According to this witness, after four days of the incident, on 11. 10. 1985, the appellant was arrested in an injured condition and he had gun-shot wounds near the neck and stomach. Both these wounds, according to this witness, were infected. The fact that the appellant was on duty at the time of the incident has also been proved by Somanram (P. W. 7), the Constable of the S. A. F. This Constable was to carry on Sentry duty after the duty of the appellant was over but Somanram disclosed during the trial that the appellant never gave him the charge of the duty, rifle and the cartridges. Suddhuram (P. W. 6) and Suryapal Singh (P. W. 8) informed this witness that it was the appellant who had fired these four shots and after committing two murders, the appellant tried to kill Suryapal Singh P. W. 8. Similarly, Suryapal Singh (P. W. 8) has proved the fact that it was the appellant who was performing the duties between 12 to 2 in the night on the date of the incident. He had identified the appellant when he was fired upon. Similarly, Suryapal Singh (P. W. 8) has proved the fact that it was the appellant who was performing the duties between 12 to 2 in the night on the date of the incident. He had identified the appellant when he was fired upon. After the appellant deserted the Camp, it was this witness who counted the rifle and cartridges in the Camp and found one rifle and fifty cartridges missing. P. W. 1 Nazarius Kujru, the Investigating Officer on 9. 10. 1985 vide Ex. P-4 seized the empties and the deformed spent lead-head of cartridges - from the place of the incident. This witness has also proved the motive for commission of the crime. Undoubtedly, on perusal of the cross-examination, it becomes apparent that there are minor contradictions in his statement. In the cross-examination of these witnesses whose statements have been considered above, nothing has been shown or brought out, as to why P. W. 2 Gunthar, P. W. 3 Sarjurnm, P. W. 4 Suryapal Singh are trying to falsely implicate the appellant in this ghastly crime. The variances and contradictions are minor but not on material particulars. ( 15 ) P. W. 1 Kujur, Investigation Officer has proved the memo Ex. P-2 recorded under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, which led to the discovery of the rifle and 44 cartridges. This piece of evidence strengthens the testimony of other prosecution witnesses. Six cartridges were missing four were fired in the Camp towards deceased Maniraj Singh and Ramchandra and also towards Gunthar P. W. 2 and Suryapal Singh P. W. 8. Out of fifty cartridges, four are accounted for as their empties and lead-heads were also recovered from the spot of crimes. This fact stands further corroborated by the report Ex. P-49 prepared by the Asstt. Chemical Examiner, F. S. L. Sagar. According to this report, the seized rifle Art, A-i showed the signs of the discharge and the empties were of 303 rifle like Article A-i and the empties were fired from 303 rifle. Thus, keeping in view this expert opinion, it can be safely concluded that the appellant had fired gun-shots from the rifle seized and from that rifle which was given to him for duty. Two cartridges also stand accounted as they appear to have been fired by the appellant at his neck and stomach for committing suicide but the empties could not be recovered. Two cartridges also stand accounted as they appear to have been fired by the appellant at his neck and stomach for committing suicide but the empties could not be recovered. ( 16 ) SO far as the factum of identification of the appellant is concerned, the evidence on record cannot be brushed aside because the evidence available appears to be natural and cogent. The appellant was the Constable in the S. A. P. with aforesaid witnesses. All these witnesses had been in company of the appellant, day and night while performing their duties. It is natural for these prosecution witnesses to make a positive identification of the appellant when the crime was being committed. The co-worker who had been in the long association with these witnesses, can be identified even in a dim moonlight and even while the appellant is running away and his back is viewed by them. There remains no doubt in our mind that the author of these crimes was the appellant and none else. The story of Naxelite attack in the S. A. F. Camp appears to be completely fabricated and false. If the authors of the crimes were Naxelites, then what was necessity for the appellant to desert the duties for four days. Why he did not inform the Police and his companions of the Company with regard to the alleged Naxelite attack. Even when the appellant had the opportunity to explain his conduct, while being examined under section 319, Cr. P. C. , he failed to do so and took the plea that he has not committed any crime. ( 17 ) SUDDHURAM (P. W. 6) is the person who handed over the Sentry duty to the appellant with the arm and ammunition Sarjuram (P. W. 3) who rushed immediately after the firing, to Maniraj Singh and deceased Maniraj Singh made a positive oral dying declaration to this witness. Shri Chouhan, at the bar, challenged this oral dying declaration and contended that from the injuries which the deceased sustained, it was not possible for him to make out any oral declaration. He contended that it was not possible for him to speak and give out any oral dying declaration to P. W. 3 Sarjuram. Shri Chouhan, at the bar, challenged this oral dying declaration and contended that from the injuries which the deceased sustained, it was not possible for him to make out any oral declaration. He contended that it was not possible for him to speak and give out any oral dying declaration to P. W. 3 Sarjuram. But P. W. 10 Dr Vijay Saxena was never asked this question in the cross-examination as to whether the deceased after receiving the injuries on his thorax region, would have been in a position to speak or not. In absence of any challenge from the side of the appellant, there appears to be no reason to dishelieve the version given out by P. W. 3 Sarjuram. All the evidence when evaluated, points that it is the appellant, who is the author of these crimes. We express our general agreement with the findings and reasonings for holding the appellant guilty of the crime of committing murders of Maniraj Singh and Constable Ramchandra. P. W. 2 Gunthar, P. W. 3 Sarjuram, P. W. 4 Lachchhuran, P. W. 6 Suddhuram P. W. 7 Somanram and P. W. 8 Suryapal Singh had no axe to grind against the appellant so as to falsely implicate him in these crimes. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the charges for which the appellant was tried have been correctly found to be proved against him. We, therefore, uphold the judgment of conviction under section 302 of the I. P. C. and also under section 307 of the I. P. C. ( 18 ) THE learned trial Judge while awarding the punishment to the appellant considered the question of sentence and debated whether the death sentence should be awarded to the appellant or the sentence of imprisonment for life. Reason for choosing the extreme penalty for the appellant is given by the learned Sessions Judge in para 61 of the impugned judgment. According to him, the appellant has committed the cold blooded murders of two innocent S. A. F. personnel and misused the arms which were entrusted to him for protection. The trial Judge has further reasoned that for avenging his insult, he has committed two brutal murders while both the deceased were asleep. He has also reasoned that the crimes committed by the appellant were of cruel nature and come within the orbit of rarest of the rare cases. The trial Judge has further reasoned that for avenging his insult, he has committed two brutal murders while both the deceased were asleep. He has also reasoned that the crimes committed by the appellant were of cruel nature and come within the orbit of rarest of the rare cases. The question before us is whether to affim the death sentence as proposed by the trial Judge or to alter it to the sentence of imprisonment for life. ( 19 ) THE question which has arisen in this case before us is not a new one. Not only this country but whole of the world becomes agitated from time to time whenever the death penalty is imposed. It has to be observed that very wide discretion in the matter of punishment for all the offences is prescribed in the Penal Code. It has its origins in the impossibility of laying down standards. Since no two cases are alike, sentencing norms could not be statutorily prescribed. It has, therefore, been left to the discretionary power of the Judge. Plethora of case laws of the Apex Court are before us, throwing torch-light to choose whether to confirm the death penalty as imposed by the trial Judge or to alter the same to a lesser punishment. After the amendment of the Code of Criminal Procedure in 1973, the statutory rule is that punishment for murder is life imprisonment, death sentence being the exception. What are then these special reasons for imposing the death penalty? They are left undefined. The Courts always looked to the nature of the crime as to how heinous it was and as to how brutal or cold-blooded murder is. The cases of Jagmohan Singh and Rajendra Prasad are before us. Special reasons, said the majority judgment in Rajendra Prasad, related not to the crime but to the criminal. Death is no longer a punishment for brutal murder if there are reasonable prospects of reformation of the criminal. Undoubtedly in Rajendra Prasad, the minority opinion handed over by Sen, J. was sharply critical of this thesis. The majority view (Krishna Ayyer, J. and Desai, J) doubted the correctness of the Jagmohan Singh and Bachchan Singh, it heard arguments afresh on the constitutional validity of death penalty but it once again affirmed the decision in Jagmohan Singh, Bhagwati, J. dissenting. The majority view (Krishna Ayyer, J. and Desai, J) doubted the correctness of the Jagmohan Singh and Bachchan Singh, it heard arguments afresh on the constitutional validity of death penalty but it once again affirmed the decision in Jagmohan Singh, Bhagwati, J. dissenting. The truth is that the death penalty is not so much legal or a constitutional problem as is sociological one. In this country also, there are abolitionists and anti-abolitionists. In Britain, the capital punishment has stood abolished mainly because of the public outcry following upon the disclosure at a criminal trial that a person hanged for the murder in a previous trial was not the murderer at all. The crime may be shocking and yet criminal may not deserve death penalty. It would not be out of place to quote Rajendra Prasad v. State of U. P. : There is a divinity in every man and that none is beyond redemption. But death penalty, still on our Code, is the last step in a narrow category where, within a reasonable spell, the murderer is not likely to be cured and tend to murder others, even within the prison or immediately on release, if left alive. The patience of society must be tempered by the prudence of social security and that is the limited justification for deprivation of fundamental rights by extinguishments of the whole human being The extreme penalty can be invoked only in extreme situations. It is illegal to award capital sentence without considering the correctional possibilities inside prison. Anger, even judicial anger, solves no problems but creates many. A family feud, an altercation, a sudden passion, although attended with extra-ordinary cruelty, young and malleable age, reasonable prospect of reformation and absence of any conclusive circumstances that the assailant is a habitual murderer or given to chronic violence these catena of circumstances bearing on the offender call for the lesser sentence. The views of abolitionists and anti-abolitionists of the death sentence shall continue to be agitated whenever a death sentence is imposed or confirmed. But it has to be remembered that the hangman's noose ends the search for truth. ( 20 ) THAT apart, closure scrutiny of the reasons, given by the trial Judge for hanging the appellant to death, we are not satisfied that the trial Judge has given any special reasons in para 61 of the his judgment. But it has to be remembered that the hangman's noose ends the search for truth. ( 20 ) THAT apart, closure scrutiny of the reasons, given by the trial Judge for hanging the appellant to death, we are not satisfied that the trial Judge has given any special reasons in para 61 of the his judgment. There are mitigating circumstances present in this case. From the evidence it can be gathered that while taking their meals, deceased A. S. I. Maniraj Singh and the appellant has an exchange of hot words. Some reference was also made by the deceased Sub-Inspector with regard to the sister-in-law of the appellant. The anger of the appellant erupted on the spot and he mishehaved with his superior for which he was slapped. Anger is an emotion engrained in the human nature. Some men are capable of suppressing it and some are not. The appellant with the burning anger in his heart for taking revenge for his insult waited for more than four hours, debating the proposed action by him as a vendetta for his insult. At last, he must have concluded that he must avenge his insult by killing both of them. This crime committed by the appellant appears to have emanated for the fertile manure of anger and he, therefore, took this step, considering it to be justifiable according to his view. The feelings of anger, vendetta, vengance and revenge are ingrained in human body and brain. These feelings become predominant in a common man, when he is provoked. These senseless crimes, committed by the appellant, appear to have eminated from the anger which was caused by the insult huried against him. He could not control his basal feelings. This case does not come to be in the category of rarest of the rare cases. We are, therefore, of the opinion that this is not a fit case in which the death sentence, referred to us, should be confirmed. We, therefore, reject the Criminal Reference No. 2 of 1988 made by the learned Sessions Judge and consequently we set aside the order of sentence of death penalty imposed on the appellant and award the lesser sentence of imprisonment for life upon the appellant under section 302 of the I. P. C. Sentence of 10 years R. I. under section 307, I. P. C is also maintained. ( 21 ) WITH the aforesaid modification on the sentence, indicated hereinabove, the Criminal Reference No. 2 of 1988 is rejected and so also rejected this Criminal Appeal preferred by the appellant. Office is directed to intimate the appellant of the result of this appeal, in jail. All sentences shall run concurrently. Appeal dismissed .