S. K. MOOKERJI, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal has been filed by Ranjeet Bahadur against the ORDER and order of the Sessions Judge, Firozabad dated 19. 3. 1991 passed in Sessions Trial No. 25 of 1990 convicting and sentencing him under section 302 I. P. C. , for committing the murder of Smt. Subhasin) Raniwala to death. The usual reference for confirmation of the death sentence has also been made by the learned Sessions Judge. ( 2 ) WE have heard both the appeal filed by Ranjeet Bahadur and also the connected Reference. The prosecution case, according to the written report Ext. Ka. 1, is that the accused Ranject Bahadur, who had come from Nepal, was employed as domestic servant about 20 days ago from the date of the occurrence by the complainant Narendra Kumar Raniwala P. W. 1. It is also disclosed that on 26. 3. 1990 when the complainant P. W. 1 Narendra Kumar Raniwala returned from his cold storage to take his dinner at about 9. 00 p. m. he heard some noise (Ghargharahat of his wife which was coming from a room of his house. His son Sanjay and nephew Sudhir P. W. 2 were also following him. The complaint his son and his nephew immediately rushed into the room and saw the accused Ranjeet Bahadur strangulating his wife with the aid of an electric wire and Smt. Subhasini Raniwala-the deceased was lying on the floor. It was also stated that they with some difficulties freed the deceased from the clutches of the accused but the wife of the complainant succumbed to the stranguiation. The accused Ranjeet Bahadur tried to run away from the scene of occurrence. The complainant raised hue and cry and ultimately complainants son Sanjay nephew Sudhir, P. W. 2 and others apprehended the accused Ranjeet Bahadur and gave him some beating. Thereafter, Ranjeet Bahadur was taken to the police station North, Firozabad and P. W. 1 reported the matter soon after at about 9. 45 P. M. The distance between the place of occurrence from the police station is one furlong. On the basis of the written report Chick First Information Report was prepared and the case was registered under section 302 I. P. C. against the accused. The S. S. I. Sarnam Singh, the Investigating Officer. P. W. 8 was entrusted with the investigation. On the basis of the written report Chick First Information Report was prepared and the case was registered under section 302 I. P. C. against the accused. The S. S. I. Sarnam Singh, the Investigating Officer. P. W. 8 was entrusted with the investigation. He along with his police force went to the place of occurrence and prepared inquest report, challan lash, Photo lash, letter to C. M. O. and M. O. The body was ultimately sent for post mortem through Constables Bachchu Singh and Bhola Nath P. W. 5. The spot inspection was also made and the site-plan was also prepared which is Ext. Ka-19. Cut electric wire pieces Exts. 1 to 3 were taken into possession and he prepared a recovery memo Ext. Ka-12. The recovered three pieces of electric wire with which strangulation was alleged to have been done, were also sealed. Dr. R. L. Saraswat P. W. 6 conducted the autopsy of the deceased Smt. Subhasini Raniwala on 27. 3. 1990 and prepared post mortem report which is Ext. Ka-10. According to Ext. Ka-10 the deceased was aged about 48 years. Her body was average built. Rigor mortis was also present. Eyes were congested and half opened. Following ante mortem injuries were found on the body of the deceased. 1. Ligature mark of about 3/4 cm. wide present round the neck above the thyroid cartilage extending up to the below of the angle of mandible on right side and up to middle of back of neck from left side. The mark is absent on the right side back of neck. The surface of mark is contused. 2. Abrasion 4 cm x 3 cm on the front of neck just above the supraspenial notch. Hyoid bone below the legature mark is broken and all tissues below are exhynised. On internal examination the brain, larynx, trachea both lungs, blood vessels were found congested. Bleeding was also present at the sight of legature mark. According to the opinion of the Doctor, the cause of death was due to shock, suffocation and asphyxia due to ante mortem injures. The post mortem was conducted at about 10. 00 A. M. and the duration of the death was about half day. The motiveto commit the murder as disclosed in the Chick Report First Information Report and also in the statement of P. W. 1 was to ransack and loot. The post mortem was conducted at about 10. 00 A. M. and the duration of the death was about half day. The motiveto commit the murder as disclosed in the Chick Report First Information Report and also in the statement of P. W. 1 was to ransack and loot. Statements of the witnesses were recorded by the Investigating Officer. P. W. 4 Ram Autar, one of the servants of the complainant, was sent for medical examination by the Investigating Officer who received injuries during the course of arrest of the accused. The injuries of P. W. 4 Ram Autar were examined by Dr. M. S. Rathore P. W. 7. Ext. Ka-11 is the injury report of Ram Autar P. W. 4 according to which Ram Autar-received the following injuries:1. Septic wound 1 cm x 1 cm on the ventral part of right palm on hypothened muscles. 2. Seabed abrasion 4 cm x 3. 3 cm on the outer part of left thigh. On its upper 1/3rd part. 3. Seabed abrasion 3 cm x 2 cm on the front and middle of the right thigh. 4. Sepite lacerated wound 1 cm x 1 cm on the left knee joint. 5. Seabed abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm on the right knee joint. 6. Septic wound 1 cm x 5 cm on the outer part of the left little toe. The duration of injuries was 1. 3/4 days. It will be relevant to point out at this stage that P. W, 7 Dr. M. S, Rathore in his deposition before the court below has stated that the injuries could have been caused at 9100 P. M. on 26. 3. 1990. 31 There is another important feature in the case. The accused Ranjeet Bahadur expressed his willingness to confess his guilt before the Magistrate. In fact an application Ext. Ka-22 was moved by the Investigating Officer before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Report to this effect by the Investigating Officer is Ext. Ka-8, Ext. Ka-7 is the endorsement as the Magistrate, according to which the accused was in police custody and 29. 3,1990 was fixed for recording his statement under section 164, Cr. P. C. Ext. Ka-22 was moved by the Investigating Officer before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Report to this effect by the Investigating Officer is Ext. Ka-8, Ext. Ka-7 is the endorsement as the Magistrate, according to which the accused was in police custody and 29. 3,1990 was fixed for recording his statement under section 164, Cr. P. C. Ext. Ka-6 the endorsement of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, which shows that the accused was produced before him and he was warned and the fact was made know to him about the result of making the confession and, thereafter, it was ordered that the accused be presented after lunch. The Chief Judicial Magistrate again, before recording the statement, gave a warning to the accused about his making confessional statement and it was made clear to him that such statement could be read against him and the accused was also made fully aware of the consequences of making a confessional statement. Not only this, the accused was also informed about the death penalty, which might be imposed on him on the basis of confession. It was after satisfying himself that the accused was willing to make the confession voluntarily, the Chief Judicial Magistrate Sri A. K. Kakkar P. W. 3 recorded his statement. The endorsement to this effect is Ext. Ka-9. Thereafter, the above Chief Judicial Magistrate recorded the confessional statement of the accused which is Ext. Ka-2. According to the above statement, it was stated by the accused that he was a domestic servant for about last 25 days in the house of the complainant. On 26. 3. 1990 the accused was at the house of the complainant at about 8. 00 P. M. The deceased and the accused were present in the house. The deceased was wife of the complainant P. W. 1. It was also stated that the deceased used to get the latrine and urinal cleaned by the accused and did not give him full diet. The accused felt unhappy. It is also stated that the deceased used to talk too much and did not give proper sugar in the tea and used to provide bad food to the accused. There was a heavy electric wire in the house. The accused felt unhappy. It is also stated that the deceased used to talk too much and did not give proper sugar in the tea and used to provide bad food to the accused. There was a heavy electric wire in the house. The accused strangulated the deceased (Bibi Ji) with the aid of the electric wire and when he was strangulating her the complainant (Malik) arrived and got the deceased (Malik) freed from the clutches of the accused. The accused knew it well that the deceased (Bibi Ii) would die on account of strangulating (Gala Ghotne Se) and the accused Ranjeet Bahadur wanted to murder the deceased (Bibi Ji ). The complainant (Malik) apprehended the accused and took him to the police station. The above statement was signed by the accused Ranjeet Bahadur and his signature is Ext. Ka-3. After recording the statement of the accused the Chief Judicial Magistrate made a memorandum as required under section 164 (4), Cr. P. C. which reads as under: ( 3 ) TI have explained to Ranjeet Bahadur that he is not bound to make a confession and if he does so, any confession he may make, may be read as evidence against him and I believe that the confession was voluntarily made. It was taken in my presence and hearing and read over to the accused in Hindi and admitted by him to be correct and it contains a full and true account of the statement made by him. ( 4 ) A. K. Kakkar 29. 3. 1991 This certificate is Ext. Ka-4 which has been signed by the accused which is Ext. Ka-5. The Investigating Officer- P. W. 8 Sarnam Singh submitted the charge-sheet against the accused after completing the necessary investigation and following the procedure in accordance with law. It will be necessary to point out that before framing the charge, statement of the accused was recorded on 31. 5. 1990 to ascertain whether he understood Hindi. Some questions were put to him which the accused replied. An endorsement to this effect that the accused had understood the questions in Hindi and could reply also in Hindi, was made by the learned Session Judge. Charge under section 302 I. P. C. was framed against him on 7,6. 1990 and was read over and explained in Hindi to the accused. An endorsement to this effect that the accused had understood the questions in Hindi and could reply also in Hindi, was made by the learned Session Judge. Charge under section 302 I. P. C. was framed against him on 7,6. 1990 and was read over and explained in Hindi to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried: ( 5 ) THE prosecution examined 8 witnesses in support of its case. P. W. 1 is Narendra Kumar raniwala who is an eye witness in the case and is husband of the deceased P. W. 2 is Sudhir Kumar, an eye witness and is nephew of P. W. 1. P. W. 3 Sri A. K. Kakkar is the Chief Judicial Magistrate, who had recorded confessional statement of the accused P. W. 4 is Ram Autar an injured eye witness and is a servant of P. W. 1. He helped in apprehending the accused when the latter tried to flee from the place of occurrence. Ram Autar had also received injuries. P. W. 5 is a Constable Bhola Nath who had carried the dead body for post mortem. P. W. 6 is Dr. R. L. Saraswat who conducted the post mortem P. W. 7 is Dr. M. S. Rathore, who medically examined P. W. 4 Ram Autar and prepared the injury report P. W. 8 is Sarnam Singh, who investigated the case and submitted the charge-sheet. ( 6 ) THE statement of the accused was recorded under section 313, Cr. P. C. on 25. 2. 1991. The accused stated that on the date of the occurrence he had gone to see cinema show commencing at 3. 00 P. M. after taking Rs. 10/- from the deceased and also stated that only on his return, he found Smt. Subhasini Raniwala was dead. He also denied that he had killed Smt. Subhasini Raniwala with the aid of the wire. He denied that he killed Smt. Subhasini Raniwala for ransacking the house. It is also stated that the police beat him and threatened him to be killed and, therefore, under fear he made the confession. The police also gave him sweets. He has also stated that he did not know that it was a court where he confessed. He stated that he understood the Hindi less. It was also stated that on 10. 3. The police also gave him sweets. He has also stated that he did not know that it was a court where he confessed. He stated that he understood the Hindi less. It was also stated that on 10. 3. 1990 he was turned out by the deceased. But the complainant kept him in the service. He did not want to serve and when he returned from cinema house, he started weeping and was apprehended and handed over to the police. In defence he got summoned special report Ext. Kha-2. ( 7 ) WE have examined Ext. Kha-2 which is nothing but a copy of the First Information Report. It is necessary to point out that while cross examining P. W. 1 a plea of defence was suggested to the effect that the wife (If P. W. 1 complainant was bad character and on the dale of the occurrence, it was suggested that the complainant P W. 1 and the accused saw the deceased in compromising situation with some one. This suggestion was denied. It was also suggested that the complainant P. W. 1 had himself murdered his wife by strangulating her after seeing her in that compromising position. This was also denied. It was also suggested to P. W. 1 that the complainant with a view to shield, his guilt even extended allurement by offering money to the appellant for not disclosing the fact of murder. This suggestion was also denied. P. W. 1 further stated that it is wrong to suggest that he had falsely implicated the accused in the present case and that he was making false statement. It shall be relevant to mention that the above suggestion put to P. W. 1 during his cross examination was not even brought on record while recording the statement of the accused under section 313, Cr. P. C. We have already examined the fact stated by the accused under section 313, Cr. P. C. Factum of death, time and place of occurrence in which Smt. Subhasini Raniwala was murdered, have been fully established by P. W. 1, P. W. 8 and post mortem report Ext. Ka-lo. Further the above facts are not in dispute in the present case. ( 8 ) BEFORE we discuss the eye witnesses, we propose to examine the confessional statement of the accused. Ka-lo. Further the above facts are not in dispute in the present case. ( 8 ) BEFORE we discuss the eye witnesses, we propose to examine the confessional statement of the accused. We, therefore, proceed to find out whether the confessional statement given by the accused is voluntary or not. The occurrence had taken place at about 9. 00 p. m. on 26. 3. 1990. The accused was apprehended by P. W. 1 and others as stated above and was handed over to the police while he expressed his willingness to make confessional statement. In pursuance of the said willingness of the accused, as stated above the Investigating Officer-Sarnam Singh prepared an application and moved it on 27. 3. 1990. Since the accused was in police custody, the Magistrate fixed 29. 3. 1990 for recording the statement of the accused. The accused was remanded to judicial custody. On 29. 3. 1990 the accused was summoned from Jail and produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate P. W. 3. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, as stated above, warned the accused against making confession and made him acquainted with the consequences of a confession in the present case. He again gave time for recording the statement of the accused after lunch. This endorsement is Ext. Ka-6. P. W. 3 the Chief Judicial Magistrate has stated in his examination-inchief that before recording the statement of the accused he warned him of the consequences of making confessional statement and after lunch again before recording the statement, the Chief Judicial Magistrate stated that he again warned the accused that his statement, which he was about to make would be read against him. He was also informed about all the consequences for the statement to be given after lunch, P. W. 3 before recording the confessional statement had written about it which is Ext. Ka-9. His statement has been extensively referred to by the court below in his ORDER. After recording the confessional statement of the accused P. W. 3 the Chief Judicial Magistrate gave a certificate which is Ext. Ka-4. We have already quoted the certificate above in our ORDER. The Chief Judicial Magistrate has also deposed in his cross-examination that no police personnel was present either in the court or in the chamber at the time of recording the statement. Ka-4. We have already quoted the certificate above in our ORDER. The Chief Judicial Magistrate has also deposed in his cross-examination that no police personnel was present either in the court or in the chamber at the time of recording the statement. He had further stated in his cross-examination that he asked the accused as to why he wanted to make a confession. The accused replied that since he had committed murder of Smt. Subhasini Raniwala, therefore, he wanted to make a confession. He also admitted that on the same date an application was moved by the Investigating officer to issue a copy of the confession made by him. It is relevant to point out that the accused was brought before the Magistrate on 27. 3. 1990 and the Magistrate fixed 29. 3. 1990 for recording his statement. Thus, sufficient time was given to the accused to think over the matter and the accused was summoned from Jail on 29. 3. 1990 and was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate before lunch and his confession was recorded only after lunch. Necessary warning about the consequences of confessional statement was given to the accused repeatedly. The confessional statement was recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate as stated by him in his cross-examination that the accused had made his statement before him without any coercion from police. ( 9 ) THE learned Sessions Judge, after considering the entire material on record, had categorically recorded a finding that the confessional statement made by the accused was voluntary. We fully agree with the finding of the learned Sessions Judge and hold that the statement made by the appellant is wholly voluntary and there is no reason to disbelieve or discard the confessional statement of the accused. However, we are not inclined, to record a conviction against the appellant on the basis of confessional statement only. In this case it may be said that the Confession was retracted while making a statement under Section 313, Cr. P. C. It is a settled law that where a confession was not retracted at the earliest opportunity but after a lapse of several months when the prosecution evidence was closed, and during examination under section 313, Cr. P. C. the accused first time retracted the confession, could be accepted as voluntary. However, such confession as stated above deserves to be used with great caution. P. C. the accused first time retracted the confession, could be accepted as voluntary. However, such confession as stated above deserves to be used with great caution. We would therefore, like to discuss the occular evidence in the present case. In case we come to the conclusion that the version of the eye witnesses are reliable then we would like to use the confession as one of the evidence for recording the conviction against the appellant. However before entering into the evidence deposed by the eye witnesses it is pointed out that the occurrence took place on 26. 3. 1990 at 9. 00 p. m. Police station is situated at a distance of one furlong. The First Information Report was also lodged on the same day at 21. 35 that is 9. 35 P. M. The body of the deceased was received (or post mortem- on 27. 3. 1990 at 9. 45 P. M. Ext. Kha-2 is a document which was summoned by the accused which is nothing but a copy of the First Information Report and there is absolutely no discrepancy regarding the date and time of the occurrence. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the First Information Report was not belated but was lodged promptly. We, therefore, affirm the finding of the court below that the First Information Report was prompt and it was not belated. ( 10 ) WE have already narrated the contents of the First Information Report above, P. W. 1 is the husband of the deceased and is an eye witness. He identified the accused in the court and had stated that the accused was employed by him about 20 days before the date of murder of his wife. The occurrence had taken place on 26. 3. 1990 at about 9. 00 P. M Around 9 0 Clock he was coming from his cold storage for taking his dinner at home along with his son Sanjay Raniwala and his Nephew Sudhir Raniwala and at that time there was enough electric light in the compound. He also deposed that the tube light and bulbs were also lighted in his residential house. It is further stated that when they reached the door of his house, he heard muffled voice (Ghargharahat) of his wife. He also deposed that the tube light and bulbs were also lighted in his residential house. It is further stated that when they reached the door of his house, he heard muffled voice (Ghargharahat) of his wife. Thereafter P. W. 1 and his son rushed inside the room from where the muffled voice was coming. He saw his wife Smt. Subhasini Raniwala was lying on the floor and the accused was tightening a wire around her neck. It is also stated that by another hand, the accused was pressing his palm on her nose and mouth. He along with his son nephew their to extricate his wife from the clutches of the accused and raised alarm but by that time his wife was dead. The accused, thereafter, tried to run away but he was apprehended on the spot. P. W. I also stated that his servants had also come. Both Ram Autar and Brijendra Singh employees of the P. W. 1 also reached the place of occurrence and the accused while attempting to flee from the scene pushed Ram Avtar P. W. 4 which caused injuries to him. The accused also received injuries in the process. P. W. 1 also stated that with a view to find out whether there was any life in his wife the wire around her neck was cut by him. He also identified the pieces of wire which were placed before him in the court. He also stated that the wire was not cut into three pieces. The wires were put back in the sealed cover. After cutting the wife, it was discovered that his wife was lifeless. Thereafter P. W. 1 dictated the First Information Report to his nephew Pradeep Kumar Raniwala and after reading the same he affixed his signature. He also verified that the contents of the said First Information Report were correctly written. P. W. 1 further stated that he along with his son and other persons went to the police station along with the accused and the written First Information Report was lodged. He further submitted that they reached the police station on the same ay at about 9. 30 P. M. A report was, therefore, taken down by the Munshi at the police station. He further submitted that they reached the police station on the same ay at about 9. 30 P. M. A report was, therefore, taken down by the Munshi at the police station. P. W. 1 further stated that the motive of the accused was to ransack the house after murdering the wife of P. W. 1 was put to extensive cross examination. In the cross-examination nothing substantial was elecited from him in favour of the accused. During the cross-examination P. W. 1 stated that when the accused attempted to flee from the scene, his servant Ram Autar tried to apprehend him and in the process Ram Autar was injured. P. W. 1 clearly stated that it was an omissian on his part not to mention the name of the servant Ram Autar in the First Information, Report. He also said that it was also an omission not to refer to the scuffle between the accused and others including Ram Autar. We would like to add here that the omission made by P. W. 1 in the First, Information Report as stated above is natural. The wife of P. W. 1 was brutally murdered and at that time he was only concerned with her and perhaps it was not possible for him to have seen the injury of Ram Autar or recorded the details of scuffle for apprehending the accused on the spot. In the cross-examination P. W. I also stated that the wire was cut by him by a plier. ( 11 ) IT is clear from the statement of P. W. 1 that he had arrived at the spot and discovered the occurrence only at a stage when his wife was virtually dying. He, therefore, stated in his cross examination that when he saw his wife at the first time she was not at all making any movement and at that time her body was lying motionless. It appears that when P. W. 1 had arrived after hearing the gutural of the deceased, she was already dying out any moment, thereafter, he found that her body became motionless. The suggestions put to P. W. 1 as stated above, were denied by P. W. 1 Narendra Kumar Raniwala. It is clear from the statement of P. W. 1 Narendra Kumar Raniwala an eye witness that he identified the accused in court and he corroborated the prosecution case. The suggestions put to P. W. 1 as stated above, were denied by P. W. 1 Narendra Kumar Raniwala. It is clear from the statement of P. W. 1 Narendra Kumar Raniwala an eye witness that he identified the accused in court and he corroborated the prosecution case. It is also clear that there was enough light in the house at the time of the occurrence. P. W. 1 had been the accused tightening the wife on the neck of his deceased wife. It is also clear that the accused caused injuries to Ram Autar P. W. 4 while attempting to nee from the place of occurrence. It is also clear that the accused was apprehended at the spot and was taken to the police station at 9. 30 P. M. on 26. 3. 1990. P. W. 1 applied a plier to cut the wire which was tied around the neck of the deceased. The wire was made in three pieces which were also taken into possession and were sealed. The First Information Report was also proved by him. He has also assigned a motive of the crime to the accused. P. W. 1 has further given details regarding the murder and has explained the omission of the name of Ram Autar in the First Information Report. We have gone through the statement of P. W. 1 Narendra Kumar Raniwala carefully and we record a finding that P. W. 1 is wholly reliable and has fully corroborated the prosecution case in all material particulars. P. W. 2 Sudhir Kumar is another eye witness who is nephew of P. W. 1 Narendra Kumar Raniwala. He has corroborated P. W. 1 in material particulars and also the prosecution story. We also hold that P. W. 2 is also wholly reliable. Some minor contradictions were pointed out which are but natural. In substance P. Ws. 1 and 2 both eye witnesses, have fully proved the prosecution story and we rely upon their statements. ( 12 ) THE last eye witness is Ram Autar P. W. 4. No doubt, Ram Autar has not been named in the First Information Report but it has been clearly mentioned in the First Information Report that two other servants came on the scene of occurrence. ( 12 ) THE last eye witness is Ram Autar P. W. 4. No doubt, Ram Autar has not been named in the First Information Report but it has been clearly mentioned in the First Information Report that two other servants came on the scene of occurrence. However, P. W. 1 has categorically stated that Ram Autar came on the scene of occurrence and tried to apprehend the accused while he was trying to escape and in the process he received injures. P. W. 1 has also stated that his servants had also come. P. W. 4 in his deposition has also stated that he had apprehended the accused Ranjeet Bahadur when he was trying to escape and had received injuries Ram Autar was examined by P. W. 7 Dr. M. S. Rathore. Regarding injuries on Ram Autar P. W. 4, Dr. Rathore had stated that the said injuries could be caused at 9. 00 P. M. on 26. 8. 1990. Under the circumstances, his presence on the scene of occurrence cannot be doubted. The statement of P. W. 4 Ram Autar was not relied upon by the court below on the ground that the police had recorded the statement after undue delay. Even if we agree with the court below in respect of Ram Autar P. W. 4, there is no reason to disbelieve P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 who are reliable eye witnesses. Their evidence fully corroborates the medical evidence on record. ( 13 ) WE have examined the evidence of P. W. 6 Dr. R. L. Saraswat who performed the autopsy. According to the post mortem report Ext. Ka-lo there was a ligature mark about 3/4 cm present around the neck above the thyroid cajlilage. The aforesaid Doctor clearly stated in his cross-examination that if a wire is tied around the neck and the wire is pulled or twisted by inserting a hand and if it is twisted in the process of strangulating or throttling, there would be no legature mark on that specific area of neck from where the wire is or was twisted. Thus, the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant that there is a discrepancy between the medical evidence and the evidence of the eye witnesses is not tenable. Thus, the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant that there is a discrepancy between the medical evidence and the evidence of the eye witnesses is not tenable. No doubt, the eye witnesses have stated that the wire was put around the neck of the deceased but an explanation has been given by the Doctor p. W. 6 to the effect that if the hand is put below the wire at the time of tightening the legature mark may not appear on the entire neck. Thus the evidence of the eye witnesses of P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 is also fully corroborated by the medical evidence, post mortem report and the First Information Report. P. W. 6 Dr. R. L. Saraswat also submitted with reference to the three pieces of wire that the legature mark that will appear by those wires, shall be same as has been mentioned by him in the post mortem report. It will be relevant to point out that P. Ws. 5, 6 and 7 are witnesses of formal nature. As far as P. W. 8 is concerned, he is Investigating Officer in the present case. Nothing has been found against him by putting him to strict cross-examination. We have already pointed out that there was enough electric light in the room where the occurrence took place. The suggestion given to P. W. 1 that the deceased was a lady of easy virtue and had illicit relationship with some other person and the accused and P. W. 1 saw the deceased with that unknown person in compromising position and therefore, the complainant committed the murder, is wholly unreliable and such plea is rejected. ( 14 ) WE have examined the entire statement of P. W. 1 and confessional statement of the accused and his statement under section 313, Cr. P. C. and we have no doubt that the suggestion made is wholly fabricated and a tissue of lie. The accused has not even stated before the Magistrate in his confessional statement regarding the allurement offered to him nor did he say so in his statement in the court below. After reading the statements of the eye witnesses, mainly P. W. 1 and P. W. 2, we do not find any hesitation in relying upon the confessional statement recorded by the P. W. 3. After reading the statements of the eye witnesses, mainly P. W. 1 and P. W. 2, we do not find any hesitation in relying upon the confessional statement recorded by the P. W. 3. There was no suggestion made regarding the illicit connections as stated above as P. W. 2. ( 15 ) AFTER carefully considering the entire material on record, we hold that both P. Ws. 1 and 2 have fully established the prosecution case which have been corroborated both by the medical evidence and First Information Report. The voluntary confession offered is sufficient for the purpose of conviction but in the present case we rely upon the eye witnesses P. Ws. 1 and 2 and in that view of the matter, we also accept the confessional statement made by the accused voluntarily. The prosecution has proved its case against the accused under section 302 I. P. C. successfully. We, therefore, uphold the conviction of the accused under section 302, I. P. C. ( 16 ) SRI Apul Misra, Advocate, holding the brief for the appellant, who is in Jail, had drawn our attention to the provisions of section 354 (3), Cr. P. C. Sub section (3) to section 354, Cr. P. C. runs as under: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 ORDER shall state the reasons for sentence awarded, and, in the case of sentence of death, the special reasons for such sentence it is clear that in case of sentence of death, the special reasons for such sentence have to be recorded. Thus the general rule in a murder case is that a sentence of life imprisonment should be awarded but in exceptional cases for special reasons to be recorded, death sentence can also be awarded. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, Sri Apul Misra submitted that this is not a fit case where death sentence should be awarded. He further submitted that in rarest of rare cases death sentence is awarded. We have examined his contention and examined the materials on record. It is clear that the accused came from Nepal for an employment in Firozabad. His age at the time of the occurrence was 20 years. He was employed about 20 days before the occurrence by the complainant. We have examined his contention and examined the materials on record. It is clear that the accused came from Nepal for an employment in Firozabad. His age at the time of the occurrence was 20 years. He was employed about 20 days before the occurrence by the complainant. It is also on record that the accused was removed from service once during this period by the deceased but the complainant P. W. 1 husband of the deceased retained him in employment. It is also on record that the accused was asked to do jobs like cleaning the latrine and also urinal. He was not given proper food. The accused also stated that the deceased used to talk too much and he could not like all these behaviour extended to him by the deceased. It has also come in evidence that the accused never committed any theft in the house neither there is any criminal antecedent against the accused, brought on record. It is clear that he had come for employment but he was certainly not very happy with the engagement in view of the behaviour of the deceased. ( 17 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant Sri Apul Misra also submitted that the appellant is a very poor man and is a resident of Nepal and he had none to look after his case, either in subordinate court or in the High Court. In the court below he was defended by an amicus curiae. In High Court Sri Sanjiv Ratan was appointed to conduct this case by Honble the Chief Justice. However, in his absence we directed Sri Apul Misra to hold the brief and argue the case for the accused. It is also clear that the entire occurrence took place suddenly and there is no chance of re-occurrence of the same type of offence. ( 18 ) IN view of the above facts and circumstances, we agree with the submission of Sri Apul Misra and hold that extreme penalty in the present case is not warranted. We, therefore, commute the death sentence against the appellant to life imprisonment. ( 19 ) IN the result, we uphold the conviction of the appellant Ranjeet Bahadur under section 302, I. P. C. and set aside the death sentence awarded there under by the Sessions Judge Firozabad vide his ORDER dated 19. 3. 199 1 and instead sentence him to imprisonment for life. ( 19 ) IN the result, we uphold the conviction of the appellant Ranjeet Bahadur under section 302, I. P. C. and set aside the death sentence awarded there under by the Sessions Judge Firozabad vide his ORDER dated 19. 3. 199 1 and instead sentence him to imprisonment for life. Thus capital case No. 1300 of 199 filed by Ranjeet Bahadur is partly allowed to the extent mentioned above, in respect of the sentence only the Refd. No. 4 of 1991 made by the learned Sessions Judge for confirmation of death sentence of Ranjeet Bahadur is rejected. The appellant is already in jail and, therefore, he will serve the sentence of life imprisonment in accordance with law. Capital case partly allowed. .