JUDGMENT 1. 1. The Sessions Judge, Bundi, has by his judgment dated May 1, 89, passed sentence of death as against Bherusingh, son of Kalyan Singh, by caste - Rajput, resident of Fazalpura, District - Bundi; and has submitted the proceedings to this Court, for confirmation of the death sentence. 2. The prosecution case is that on June 3,'88, at about 11 AM, Bherusingh accused murdered his wife Smt. Kajodbai; his daughters named Nand Kanwar, Manrajbai, and Hansabai; and his sons Bahadur Singh and Nathu Singh. After having committed murders of these persons, Bheru Singh accused himself went to PS - Dablana, District - Bundi, on that very day, at about 12.30 PM, and lodged a report (Ex.P. 42); and produced before the Incharge of the said police station, a blood-stained sword, by which the murders of these persons were committed by him. Durga Shankar Sharma PW 17 was the Assistant Sub-Inspector at PS - Dablana. He registered Crime No. 40 of 1988 under section 302. IPC and under sections. 4/25 of the Indian Arms Act. He seized the blood-stained sword, produced by the accused, under the seizure-memo (Ex. P. 9). The accused was arrested immediately, and the shirt and 'Dhoti' worn by him, were also seized under the seizure-memo (Ex. P. 14). Bherusingh accused had some injuries on his index-finger of left hand and on proximal part of middle finger. His injuries were, therefore, got medically examined; and injury-report (Ex.P. 18) was obtained, from the Medical-Officer Incharge of Government Primary Health Centre, Dablana. He (PW 17) proceeded to the place of incident and prepared the site-plan (Ex P. 15). The dead body of Smt. Kajodbai was lying in a house, with her head severed from the rest of her body. Near the dead body of Smt. Kajodbai, a sheath of the sword was lying, and it was seized under seizure-memo (Ex.P 16). ASI Durga Shankar prepared the inquest-reports of the dead bodies of Smt. Kajodbai, Nand Kanwar, Manrajbai, Hansabai, Bahadur Singh and Nathu Singh, and they are Exs. P. 17, P. 21, P. 23, P. 24, P. 27 & P. 34 The bloodstained clothes of these dead persons were also seized. Blood-smeared sand and plain sample sand were also seized from near the place where the dead bodies of the murdered persons were lying. The articles seized were sealed by the Investigating Officer. P. 17, P. 21, P. 23, P. 24, P. 27 & P. 34 The bloodstained clothes of these dead persons were also seized. Blood-smeared sand and plain sample sand were also seized from near the place where the dead bodies of the murdered persons were lying. The articles seized were sealed by the Investigating Officer. The seized articles were sent for chemical-examination to State Forensic Science Laboratory, and the report of the Serologist (Ex.P. 12) was obtained. 3. On June 7, 88, Narain Singh. Circle Officer, Nainwa (PW 15) made an application (Ex. P. 1) (written on June 4. 88), to the CJM, Bundi, stating therein that Bherusingh voluntarily wanted to give a confessional statement and that the same might be recorded. The accused was in judicial custody. The CJM forwarded the application to the Judicial Magistrate, Nainwa. for further necessary action. The application was taken up by the Judicial Magistrate, on June, 9, 88. He adjourned the matter to June 13, 88, and the accused was called from the judicial custody. The Judicial Magistrate explained to the accused that he was before a Magistrate and that there was no fear before him; and that he was at liberty to give or not to give a statement, and that if he would give a statement, that would be read against him in evidence. It was also made clear to him that his statement would be recorded only if he gave a voluntary statement. He was granted 24 hours' time to ponder over the matter and was sent back to judicial custody. On June 14, 1988, Bherusingh accused was again produced from the judicial custody, before the Judicial Magistrate ...Nainwa, and on enquiry from him, he told that he was prepared voluntarily to give a statement. The Judicial Magistrate thereupon put various questions to the accused and recorded his statement (Ex. P/2). 4. A Medical Board, under the Chairmanship of Dr. S.S. Bhola PW 3, with Dr. J.L. Poonglia PW 2 and Dr. Kailash PW 20 was constituted and autopsy of the dead bodies of the victims, was conducted. The postmortem reports of the victims are Exs. P/2 to P/7. 5. After necessary investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet in the Court of Judicial Magistrate - Nainwa, on July 15,'88. The Judicial Magistrate committed the case to the court of Sessions Judge Bundi. for trial. The postmortem reports of the victims are Exs. P/2 to P/7. 5. After necessary investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet in the Court of Judicial Magistrate - Nainwa, on July 15,'88. The Judicial Magistrate committed the case to the court of Sessions Judge Bundi. for trial. The Sessions Judge, Bundi, after trial, found Bherusingh guilty of offence under section 302, IPC, for murdering his wife Smt. Kajodbai and his five children, and passed the sentence of death as against the accused, and submitted the proceedings to this Court, for confirmation of the death sentence. 6. On an application submitted on behalf of the accused on August 16, 89, this Court recalled Smt. Ratanbai PW 11, for further cross-examination. Smt. Ratanbai was further examined by. Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate, who was appointed as Amicus Curiae, to represent the accused. 7. In this case, as already stated, the First Information Report of the incident was lodged by Bherusingh accused himself. In this report, it was mentioned that during Panchayat Elections, about 4-5 days before the incident, the village-people had told him that a Rajput lady of village - Fazalpura would be coopted as Panch. There was only one family of Rajputs in the village, and that was of the accused himself. The accused and his brother lived in the same house. The accused suspected that there was some foul-play. He inquired about the matter from his wife. Smt. Kajodbai; but, she refused to say anything. The accused was not satisfied with her reply, and he again interrogated her. On the night of June 2,'88, Smt. Kajodbai ultimately informed the accused that she had developed some illicit relations with Bhojak Gujar. That disturbed the mind of the accused and at about 11 AM on June 3, 88, he removed the head of Smt. Kajodbai from her body, by a sword. Therefore, he murdered his five children by sword. His brother's wife Smt. Ratanbai come forward and prevented him from doing so. But, he was desperate as his wife had betrayed him. After finishing his wife and five children, he came to the police office and produced the blood-stained sword. As the contents of the report (Ex P 42) amount to a confession made by the accused to a police station, it cannot be proved as against the accused, on account of the bar created by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. 8. As the contents of the report (Ex P 42) amount to a confession made by the accused to a police station, it cannot be proved as against the accused, on account of the bar created by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. 8. Smt. Ratanbai PW 11 is said to be an eye-witness to the incident. Smt. Ratanbai is the wife of Jorsingh PW 12, who is elder brother of the accused. Smt. Ratanbai was examined by the Sessions Judge on 1st Sept, 1988. She was also cross-examined on that date. However, on Feb, 20, 1989, the Public Prosecutor filed an application before the Sessions Judge that on account of typing error, the date of incident had been typed as 3 years prior to the recording of statement of Smt. Ratanbai, while, she had mentioned the date as 3 months prior to the recording of her statement. It was, therefore, requested that Smt. Ratanbai might be recalled. She was recalled by the Sessions Judge, and her statement was recorded on March 7, 1989, and she was further cross-examined on that date. Before this Court, an application was filed on behalf of the Bherusingh accused that Smt. Ratanbai had totally changed her version as given by her in her police statement under section 161, Cr.PC, and that due to oversight, questions relating to changed version, were not put to her during the trial. It was requested on behalf of the accused, before this Court that Smt. Ratanbai might be recalled, for recording her statement again. This Court, by its order dated Aug. 18, 1989, ordered for recalling Smt. Ratanbai; and her statement was further recorded by this Court, on Oct. 25, 1989. In her police-statement (Ex.D 3) Smt. Ratanbai had stated that at about 11 a.m. on the day of the incident, she was returning to her house from the well. Near the house of Bherusingh, she heard some cry of his son Nathu and daughter. She went towards the house of Bherusingh, Bnerusingh was rushing with a sword behind his son Nathusingh, who was rushing towards the house with Chhotu Maharaj. After some time, Bherusingh returned towards his house with the blood-stained sword. The dead bodies of Hansabai, Nand Kanwar and Raj Bahadur were lying in the chowk of the house and they had injuries on their necks. Bherusingh started killing his daughter Manraj, aged 4-5 years. After some time, Bherusingh returned towards his house with the blood-stained sword. The dead bodies of Hansabai, Nand Kanwar and Raj Bahadur were lying in the chowk of the house and they had injuries on their necks. Bherusingh started killing his daughter Manraj, aged 4-5 years. Smt. Ratanbai requested him not do so; but, Bherusingh inflicted sword-blow on Manraj, and the latter fell down oozing with blood. At that time, Jorsingh, husband of Smt. Ratanbai came there and asked her to go away, otherwise, she would also be killed. Smt. Ratanbai entered into the house of Gujars weeping. Thereafter, Bherusingh went outside the village with the sword in his hand. Smt. Ratanbai came out and saw the dead body of Smt. Kajodbai lying in the house of Bherusingh. Thus, according to the police-statement of Smt. Ratanbai, Bherusingh's elder brother's wife, she had seen Bherusingh inflicting injuries to his daughter Manraj, aged 4-5 years, by a sword. However, in her statement recorded before the Sessions Judge. Bundi, Smt. Ratanba. had deposed that when she returned to her house from the well, all had been murdered except Hansabai, daughter of Bherusingh; and that accused Bherusingh had inflicted sword.blow on Hansabai, as a result of which, Hansabai fell down and died. This statement was contrary to the police-statement of Smt. Ratanbai, because, in her police-statement, she had stated that she had seen the accused inflicting injuries by a sword, to his daughter Manraj, but, in her court-statement, she deposed that she had seen the accused inflicting the injury, to his daughter named Hansabai. The portion of the police-statement was not confronted to Smt. Ratanbai in her cross-examination, while her statement was recorded on Sept 1, 1988. As already stated, on the request of the Public Prosecutor, Smt. Ratanbai was recalled on March 7, 1989, to remove the error in her statement regarding the date of the incident. During her cross-examination March 7, 1989 also, Smt. Ratanbai was not confronted with her police-statement (Ex.D 3). She was recalled by this Court on Oct. 25, 1989. In her cross-examination, recorded by this Court on Oct. 25, 1989, Smt. Ratanabai deposed that she had got it recorded in her police-statement that the accused had murdered his daughter Manraj. During her cross-examination March 7, 1989 also, Smt. Ratanbai was not confronted with her police-statement (Ex.D 3). She was recalled by this Court on Oct. 25, 1989. In her cross-examination, recorded by this Court on Oct. 25, 1989, Smt. Ratanabai deposed that she had got it recorded in her police-statement that the accused had murdered his daughter Manraj. She had also stated before the police that the accused had inflicted a sword-blow on the neck of his daughter Hansabai, but, she does not know as to why the police did not record it in her police-statement (Ex.D 3). She further stated in the latter part of her cross-examination that she had only seen the accused inflicting sword-blow on his daughter Hansa Bai and she had not seen him inflicting sword-blow on his daughter Manraj. She does not know, how the police had record in her police-statement (Ex.D 3) about this having seen the accused inflicting a sword-blow on Manraj. She also denied to have seen Nathu Singh running away. Later on, she admitted that she had got it recorded in her police-statement that she had seen the accused running behind Nathu Singh, with a sword in his hand. She stated that she does not know as to how it was record in her statement that she had seen Nathu Singh lying cut and dead. 9. The other witnesses are Jorsingh PW 12, who is husband of Smt. Ratanbai. Jorsingh has deposed that on the day of the incident, he had gone to Village Akoda. He bad returned from Village Akoda in the noon. He had seen Bherusingh, going through the market with a sword in his hand. Bhanwar Singh PW 13 is the son of Jorsingh. He states to have seen his uncle Bherusingh going through a field, with a blood-stained sword, towards Dablana, at about 11 or 12 noon. 10. Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned Amicus Ouriae, representing the accused, urged that conviction of the accused could not be based on the testimony of Smt. Ratanbai PW 11, who is the solitary witness examined by the prosecution, as a eye-witness. It was urged that in her statement recorded before the Court, on Sept. 1, 1988, she deposed that she had seen the accused murdering Hansabai; but, in her police-statement (Ex. It was urged that in her statement recorded before the Court, on Sept. 1, 1988, she deposed that she had seen the accused murdering Hansabai; but, in her police-statement (Ex. D 3), she had stated to have seen the accused inflicting injury by sword to another daughter of of the accused named Manraj. In her statement before the court she did not state that she had seen the accused running or chasing after his son Nathu Singh. Thus, it was argued that the statement of Smt. Ratanbai is not truthful and credible to made the basis of conviction of the accused for offence under section 302, IPC. As regards Jorsingh PW 12, it was urged that admittedly, Jorsingh had gone to Village Akoda, on the day of the incident. Smt. Ratanbai stated in her cross-examination that her husband had come back to his Village Fazalpura, after an hour or one and half hours after the incident; and therefore, Jorsingh could not have seen the accused going with a sword through the market. It was further argued that admittedly were houses of other persons near the place of incident, but, the prosecution has not examined any resident of the nearby houses, in support of its case. As to the confessional statement (Ex.D 2) of the accused, it was urged that the Judicial Magistrate did not put any question to the accused regarding the circumstances leading to the incident; the statement was not properly record; and that there was no corroboration on material particulars to the statement given in the retracted confession. The learned Amicus Curiae also urged that the Sessions Judge, Bundi, in his judgment, has held that the prosecution case about the recovery of the blood stained sword from the accused, was unreliable. It was therefore, urged that conviction of the accused could not be based solely on a retracted confession. 11. As against this, the learned Public Prosecutor urged that it was the accused himself, who, after committing these six gruesome murders, went to PS-Dablana, and not only lodged a report, but also, produced the blood-stained sword before the police. The sheath of the sword was found near the dead bodies, and the same was seized by the police. 11. As against this, the learned Public Prosecutor urged that it was the accused himself, who, after committing these six gruesome murders, went to PS-Dablana, and not only lodged a report, but also, produced the blood-stained sword before the police. The sheath of the sword was found near the dead bodies, and the same was seized by the police. The various articles were sent for chemical-examination; and the Serologist reported that the clothes of the accused and the sword were stained with human blood, and that they were stained with B' group blood. The clothes of the deceased were also stained with the same group of blood. Thus, there was corroboration available to the retracted confession, made by the accused before the Judicial Magistrate-Nainwa. it was argued that there was no defect in the recording of the confession by the Judicial Magistrate. As regards the statement of Smt. Ratanbai, the learned Public Prosecutor argued that she was wife of elder brother of the accused, and that she has clearly stated of having seen the accused with a sword and committing murder. As regards Jorsingh's testimony, it was urged that village-people have no time-sense, and that the statement of Jorsingh should not be disbelieved merely because Smt. Ratanbai has stated that her husband had returned to his house from Akoda an hour or one and half hours after the incident. 12. We have given our earnest consideration to the rival contentions advanced before us. It is true that Smt. Ratanbai PW 11 has not remained consistent in her statement. In her statement recorded on Sept. 1, 88, she deposed that when she had returned to her house from the well, she had seen the accused cutting his daughter Hansabai, by a sword. However, when her statement was recorded on Oct. 25, 89, before this Court, on being recalled, she, in the first instance, stated that she had told to the police that the accused killed daughter Manraj, but, later on, she deposed that she had only seen the accused murdering his daughter Hansabai and not Manraj. The only point on which she had remained consistent is that she had seen the accused with a sword when she had returned to her house from the well. 13. We shall now proceed to deal with the confessional statement of the accused. The only point on which she had remained consistent is that she had seen the accused with a sword when she had returned to her house from the well. 13. We shall now proceed to deal with the confessional statement of the accused. As already stated, the accused was arrested at the police station itself on June 3, 88 when he him elf went to police station to lodge a report. He was soon thereafter remanded to judicial custody. It was on June 7, 88 that an application (Ex.P.l) was submitted before the CJM, Bundi, by Narain Singh, Dy,S.P. that the accused was voluntarily ready to given a confessional statement. The application was forwarded by the CJM the Judicial Magistrate, Nainwa. On June 9, 88, the Judicial Magistrate fixed the matter for June 13,'88, and ordered for issue ora production-warrant for the accused. On June 13, 88, the accused was produced from the jail, and he was ready to give a statement. However, an order had been previously passed for keeping the accused in jail separate from other persons detained in the jail. This order was revoked by the Judicial Magistrate, The Judicial Magistrate explained to the accused that he was before a Magistrate; that there was no fear to him; and that he was at liberty to give a statement or not. The accused was also warned that in case he gave a statement, it could be used against him in evidence. The accused was given 24 hours' time more to ponder before giving the statement. He was produced before the Judicial Magistrate on June 14, 88, and on that date, his statement (Ex. P. 2) was recorded by Shri Tara Chand Soni, Judicial Magistrate, Nainwa (PW 1). Certain preliminary questions were put to him. The accused was asked as to before whom he was present, to which, he replied that Shri Tara Chand Soni was a Magistrate. On being asked he replied that he had murdered his three daughters, two sons his wife; and he wanted to give a statement in that respect. He was told that he was free to give a statement or not. To this the accused replied that he had already answered on June 13. 88 that he had understood this aspect. He was further warned that in case he gave a statement in his presence, it could be used against him in evidence. He was told that he was free to give a statement or not. To this the accused replied that he had already answered on June 13. 88 that he had understood this aspect. He was further warned that in case he gave a statement in his presence, it could be used against him in evidence. He answered the question in affirmative, and also told that there was no pressure on him, Then, he gave the statement that at about midnight, Girraj, son of Kalyan Mahajan of Akoda, who was residing at Bundi, had come to him in a jeep with four other persons including Ram Vilas Mahajan. Ram Vilas Mahajan had called the accused from his house. The accused was asked if he was standing for election as a member. The accused had answered in the affirmative. The accused was then asked by Ram Vilas to accompany him to Village-Akoda and to fill up the form. The accused sat in the jeep. Girraj was also sitting in the jeep The accused thought that Girraj was opposed to him and even then how he was sitting in the jeep. The accused thought that Girraj was taken near a well outside the village. It is said that there was some altercation between the accused and Girraj at the well, The jeep was stopped there, and the accused was taken to the well. The accused was scolded there that they bad already spent Rs. 60-70 thousand and that the accused then wanted. Girraj told in relation to his associates that he had parted with Rs. 50,030/- in order to finish the accused and his family-members. The accused was told that if he wanted to be spared of his life, he should finish his family-members. The accused was warned that if he would not finish his family-members, he would be sent outside, and his condition would be worst. The accused then agreed to finish his wife and own children. Girraj told the accused that in police and in court he should state that his wife was of bad character; and that in case he named Girraj, he would be revenged. Then, he (accused) came to his village and reached his house at about 2 O'clock in the night. He thought that if he would not murder his wife and children, Girraj would get him killed and might send him anywhere. Then, he (accused) came to his village and reached his house at about 2 O'clock in the night. He thought that if he would not murder his wife and children, Girraj would get him killed and might send him anywhere. Considering this, he murdered his wife Smt. Kajodbai, and his five children at about 10-11 AM. He mentioned the names and age of his children, and also stated that he had murdered them with his own sword. First of all, he murdered his wife, and thereafter, his children. After murdering them, he straightway went to the police station and there he haded over the sword. He did not mention the name of Girraj before the police, because, Girraj had forewarned him. He had no confidence in the police. However, before the Magistrate, there was no fear to him, and therefore, he mentioned the name of Girraj before the Magistrate. 14. The accused was in the judicial custody before the application (Ex.P 1) was made by the Dy. S P., on June 7, 88. He was produced from the judicial custody on June 13, 88; and the Magistrate had forewarned him that he was not bound to give a statement and that it was his free will whether to give a statement or not. He was given 24 hours' time to ponder. It was only on June 14, 88 that after the accused was ready to give his statement after pondering and understanding whatever was told to him by the Magistrate that he gave the statement. It is improbable that after so many days the accused had any fear in his mind of the police. It cannot be said that the confessional statement was not voluntary. The Judicial Magistrate had amply forewarned the accused, and had given him time for rebleetion. We may refer to the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Henry West Muller Roberts v. State of Assam, ( 1985 (3) SCC 291 . In that case, Henry was produced before the Judicial Magistrate, at 10 AM, on Apr. 12, 75. The Judicial Magistrate had told Henry that he was a Judicial Officer; no other person was present inside the court; and that no body would harm if he showed any reluctance to confess; and that he was not bound to make any confessional statement but, if he made one, that would be used against him. 12, 75. The Judicial Magistrate had told Henry that he was a Judicial Officer; no other person was present inside the court; and that no body would harm if he showed any reluctance to confess; and that he was not bound to make any confessional statement but, if he made one, that would be used against him. After Henry told the Judicial Magistrate that his mind was clear from the time of his arrest, and that he wanted to confess out of repentance, the Judicial Magistrate gave him three hours' time for reflection, and put Henry in the custody of a peon of the CJM. When Henry was brought after three hours, the Judicial Magistrate cautioned him as above, and after being satisfied that Henry was going to confess voluntarily, he recorded his statement. The same thing was done in respect of the other accused Sunil. His Lordship Varadarajan, J., speaking for the Court, held ; "Henry had not told the Judicial Magistrate, PW 3, that he was beaten by the police for causing him to make a confessional statement. It is not possible to hold that Sunil's confessional statement, Ex. 7 was not voluntary from the mere fact that he had on a prior occasion declined to make a confessional statement. The Judicial Magistrate, PW 3, would have been well advised if he had given more time for reflection to the accused than he has done. But, it is not possible to reject the confessional statements merely because only three hours' time had been given for reflection, if they are otherwise acceptable." It was further held in the case of Henry (supra) that the confessions were no doubt retractive, but, in view of the fact that they were generally corroborated by the circumstantial evidence in ample measure, there was no satisfactory reason for not acceptance them and acting upon them. The Supreme Court agreed with the Sessions Judge that the confessional statements of Henry and Sunil were voluntary and could be acted upon, together with the circumstantial evidence, for passing a conviction. 15. The Supreme Court agreed with the Sessions Judge that the confessional statements of Henry and Sunil were voluntary and could be acted upon, together with the circumstantial evidence, for passing a conviction. 15. Similarly, in Shrilal Nageshi Pare v. State of Maharashtra, 1985 (2) SCC 341 , it was observed as under : "We wish to make it clear and this is only to repeat what is so well established that a retracted confession by an accused may form the basis of a conviction of that accused if it receives some general corroboration from other independent sources." 16. In the present case, in our view, the confessional statement given by the accused before the Judicial Magistrate - Nainwa (Ex. P 2),was voluntary. 17. We have then to see whether is general corrobation available in the case to the confessional statement. It has already been mentioned that it was the accused himself, who, after the incident, had gone to the police station. The sword (art. 1) was produced by the accused himself. It was seized by the police then and there, under the seizure memo (Ex. P/6). Apart from that, the shirt and `Dhoti' which were worn by the accused, were also seized by Durga Shankar Sharma PW 17. under seizer-memo (Ex. P/14). The clothes of the murdered persons were also seized and sealed. Durga Shankar Sharma PW 17 has stated in his cross-examination that the sword had been sealed by him and kept in a packet marked B'. The clothes, the sword and the other seized articles were sent by the police for chemical examination. Ex P/12 would go to show that the shirt and the 'Dhoti' were in a packet marked-A'; and the sword was in a packet marked 'B', Besides that, the clothes of the murdered persons were also sent. The Serologist. V.N. Mathur. in his chemical-report, stated that Exs. 1 & 2 from packet marked 'A'. Ex. 3 from packet marked 'B', Ex. 5 from packet marked D' Ex 7 from packet marked 'F' Ex. 9 from packet marked `H', Ex 11 from packet marked J'. Exs 14, 15, 16 from packet marked 'M', Exs. 17 & 18 from packet marked 'N' Ex. 19 from packet marked 'O', Exs 20 & 21 from packet marked 'P' Ex. 22 from packet marked 'Q' and Exs. 23 & 24 from packet marked 'R' were stained with human blood. Exs 14, 15, 16 from packet marked 'M', Exs. 17 & 18 from packet marked 'N' Ex. 19 from packet marked 'O', Exs 20 & 21 from packet marked 'P' Ex. 22 from packet marked 'Q' and Exs. 23 & 24 from packet marked 'R' were stained with human blood. With regard to the group of the blood, it was opined that they were stained with 'B' Group blood. It was only in relation to Ex. 4, from packet 'C' i.e., the sheath of the sword, Ex. 13 from packet marked 'L', i.e.. the hairs; and Ex. 25 from packet marked 'BB' i.e., the hair taken from the sword that the origin of the stains could not be determined, as they were not sufficient for test. This goes to show that the clothes and the sword seized from the accused were stained with human blood, and that human blood was of the same group, with which the clothes of the murdered persons were stained. This provides more than sufficient corroboration to the retracted confessional statement of the accused. We are not agreeable with the conclusion of the Sessions Judge that the recovery of the sword (art. 1) from the accused was in any way doubtful. Apart from the sword, the sheath of the sword was also seized from the place of the incident. The accused had also some injuries on his fingers when he had reached the police station and they could have been received by him when he murdered as many as six human lives. As there is sufficient corroboration to the retracted confession from important circumstantial evidence, we uphold the conviction of the accused for offence under section 302, IPC. 18. As to the confirmation of sentence of death, we may state that it was gruesome murder not only of the wife but also of five innocent children by the accused, for no rhyme or reason. For such a heinous murders of six persons, by the accused, the sentence of death was the proper sentence, as it is one of the rarest of rate cases. 19. We, therefore, dismiss DB Cr. Jail Appeal No. 161/89, filed by the accused; and do hereby confirm the conviction of the accused under section 302, IPC as also the sentence of death, awarded to him by the Sessions Judge Bundil by his judgment dated May 1, 1989.Appeal Partly Allowed. *******