( 1 ) THESE appeals are preferred by the appellants, K. T. Mohammed and T. S. Chandrashekhar alias Chandra challenging the correctness of the judgment rendered in criminal Appeal No. 70 of 1986 as well as Criminal Appeal No. 315 and 365 of 1985 on the file of the High court of Karnataka at Bangalore. ( 2 ) BOTH these appellants took their trial for offences under S. 120-B, 302 read with 34 Indian Penal Code (four counts) and 392 Indian Penal Code on the allegations that on 27. 8. 83, they entered into a criminal conspiracy, to doan illegal act, to wit, to rob and murder the deceased, Manjunatha and A. S Lokesh, viswanatha Rai and Shivappa in pursuance of that conspiracy on 28. 8. 83 between 2. 00 a. m. to 6. 00 a. m. they caused the murder of the above four persons beating them with wooden logs in furtherance of their common intention on the highway between Thirthahalli and anandapura at a place near Sankadahole and also robbed Lokesh of Rs. 1,15,000/- ( 3 ) THE facts of the case are well set out in the impugned judgment of the High court and we think that it is not necessary to reiterate the same as the learned counsel appearing for the appellants has confined his arguments only with regard to the imposition of death sentence by the high court by allowing the State appeal. ( 4 ) IT transpires from the evidence of pw-43, namely, Shankernaika who was working as Manager in Raitha Bandhu gramodyoga in which firm the deceased, lokesh and Shivappa were employed as writers, and the deceased Manjunath and viswanatha Rai were employed as Drivers, that he on 28. 8. 83 on a telephonic message from PW-1 that the lorry bearing registration No. CNS-4477 had met with an accident near Nerile and that two persons were lying dead in the cabin of the lorry, reached the scene spot. By the time he reached the place, the Sub-Inspector of Police of Thirthahally Police station (PW-62 was there. PW-43 suspecting that the two deceased persons, namely Lokesh and Manjunath might have been murdered, gave a written complaint P-48 at 2. 30 P. M. to PW-62 who registered the case in crime No. 112 of 1983 of Thirthahally Police Station. PW- 62 took up the investigation. ( 5 ) ON 28. 8. PW-43 suspecting that the two deceased persons, namely Lokesh and Manjunath might have been murdered, gave a written complaint P-48 at 2. 30 P. M. to PW-62 who registered the case in crime No. 112 of 1983 of Thirthahally Police Station. PW- 62 took up the investigation. ( 5 ) ON 28. 8. 83, PW-10 by name, H. Bangari who is the brother of the deceased, shivappa on arumour that his brother had been murdered, went to Nerile and saw the dead bodies of Lokesh and Manjunath. There, he was informed that another lorry was standing at Varamballi with two dead bodies in the cabin. He went there and saw the dead bodies of which one was of his brother Shivappa and another of viswanatha Rai in the lorry bearing registration No. CAA 2177. He went to the police station Hosanagar as that spot was within its jurisdiction and gave his complaint Exh. P-22 to the Sub-Inspector of Police, PW-61 who registered it as a case in Crime No. 110/83 of Hosanagar police station. The first information report is Exh. P-89. PW-61 took up the investigation of this case. Further investigation was taken up by PW-63. In both the complaints, the names of the culprits are shown as not known. It was only thereafter the accused were arrested on 30. 8. 83 and interrogated. As the offences had been committed at about the same place and as the accused and witnesses were common, PW-63 investigated both the cases together. After completing the investigation, PW-63 filed the charge-sheets, one in the court of judicial Magistrate, First Class, Thirthahalli relating to crime No. 112/83 and another in the court of Additional Judicial magistrate, First Class, Sager relating to crime No. 110 of 1983 of Hosanagar Police station. In both the cases, the accused were committed to the court of Session shimoga and they were numbered a sessions Case No. 11/84 and 37/83. On an application filed by the Publicprosecutor, the court after hearing both sides clubbed both the cases together and tried them. ( 6 ) THE learned Sessions Judge found the appellants guilty of the offences on the basis of circumstantial evidence with which they stood charged and convicted them thereunder. Coming to the question of sentence, after hearing the accused under Section 235 Cr. ( 6 ) THE learned Sessions Judge found the appellants guilty of the offences on the basis of circumstantial evidence with which they stood charged and convicted them thereunder. Coming to the question of sentence, after hearing the accused under Section 235 Cr. P. C and the learned counsel of both sides, sentenced each of the appellants to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 indian Penal Code, and also imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 120-B and 10 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence of robbery under Section 392 Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge after making reference to various decisions of this court such as Earabhadrappa v. State of karnataka in 1983 (2 SCR 552 and bachan Singh v. State of Punjab 1980 (2 scc 684 thought it fit, for the reasons given in its judgment, to impose only the lesser punishment provided under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, namely, the imprisonment for life but not the sentence of death. In the course of its discussion in the sentencing part of its judgment, the Trial court has made the following observation: "further, another important circumstance that will have to betaken into consideration by the court in such cases is, to see as to whether the accused are hardened criminals. It is no doubt true, that they have committed four murders in a cold-blooded way. There cannot be any doubt about it. However, the materials on record do not even remotely reflect that the accused persons had any past history with reference to their characters. The learned public Prosecutor who is present in the open Court has also submitted to the court that the materials on record, as such do not reflect any criminal tendency on the part of the accused persons with reference to the period next before the incident in question. This aspect will have to be taken into consideration by the court. It is not as if the court will have to appreciate one circumstance in isolation or in a closed jacket. The court will have to mar zshall the different circumstances together and the court is required to appreciate all those circumstances in totality and ultimately, the court will have to take the decision from a proper perspective without any prejudice or predilection. The court will have to mar zshall the different circumstances together and the court is required to appreciate all those circumstances in totality and ultimately, the court will have to take the decision from a proper perspective without any prejudice or predilection. In my opinion, the fact that there are no circumstances which would militate against the accused persons with reference to the period next before the incident in question took place is, indeed a circumstance which the court is required to take into consideration. Though, it may be permissible to say, that the court will have to look more to the criminal than to his crime, the court may have to look to the character of the criminal also. The very fact that Section 360 is introduced in the Cr. P. C. would also reflect the modern trend, though Section 360 as such does not apply to the cases like this. IF all the aforesaid circumstances marshalled herein above are appreciated in conjunction, they would indeed go to show that the test laid down in BACHAN SINGHs case is not fulfilled in the instant case. In view of that matter, this court left with no other alternative, but to impose the lesser sentence of imprisonment for life with reference to the offence of murder punishable under section 302 of the Indian penal Code. " ( 7 ) ON being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial court, both the appellants preferred Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 1986 and 315 of 1985. The State preferredcriminal Appeal No. 365 of 1985 under section 377 of Cr. P. C. on the ground that the sentence of imprisonment for life, for the offence under section 302 Indian Penal Code is inadequate and that the appellants should be awarded the extreme penalty of law, namely, the sentence of death. The High court for the reasons assigned in its judgment dismissed both the appeals preferred by the appellants and allowed the State appeal observing: after careful consideration of all circumstances, in the case, we are of the view that this is one of the rarest of rare cases and the accused in this case deserved the sentence of death. The High court for the reasons assigned in its judgment dismissed both the appeals preferred by the appellants and allowed the State appeal observing: after careful consideration of all circumstances, in the case, we are of the view that this is one of the rarest of rare cases and the accused in this case deserved the sentence of death. CRIMINAL Appeal No. 365 of 1985 is allowed, and the sentence of imprisonment for life passed on the accused by the trial court for the murders of four deceased persons is enhanced to the sentence of death and both the accused (Respondents in this appeal) shall be hanged by their neck till they are dead. " ( 8 ) HENCE these appeals are preferred by the two appellants, one against their conviction and sentence, and another against the judgment of the High court allowing the State appeal. ( 9 ) THE crucial question that arises for consideration is with regard to the punishment to be awarded to the appellants for the offence under Section 30. 2 Indian Penal Code. There is no denying the fact the offences committed by the appellants are tragic and horrendous one. The learned sessions Judge who had the opportunity of hearing the witnesses in person and noticing their demeanor, considered the totality of the circumstances inclusive of the past history of the appellants with reference to their characters and the material on record not reflecting any criminal tendency on their part, taken a lenient attitude and concluded that the ends of justice would be met by awarding the lesser punishment provided under section 302 Indian Penal Code , namely, the imprisonment for life and imposed the same by its order dated 21. 6. 85. Till the judgment of the High court rendered on 9. 12. 87, these appellants were only life convicts. ( 10 ) AFTER bestowing our anxious and painstaking consideration on the crucial question of punishment for the offence under section 302 Indian Penal Code, we are constrained to hold that in the present case, the sentence of imprisonment for life imposed by the Trial court needs no interference. Though strictly specking there is no legal bar for the High court in imposing the extreme penalty of law in appropriate cases. Though strictly specking there is no legal bar for the High court in imposing the extreme penalty of law in appropriate cases. Accordingly, we confirm the convictions recorded by the High court as well as the sentences awarded for the offences under Section 120-B and 392 indian Penal Code but set aside the sentence of death awarded by the High court under Section 302 Indian Penal Code instead restore the sentence of imprisonment for life for the conviction under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. ( 11 ) IN the result, the appeal preferred by the appellants against the validity of the judgment of the High court altering the sentence of imprisonment for life to one of death on the State appeal is allowed and the appeals preferred by the appellants canvassing the legality and correctness of their convictions are dismissed.