JUDGMENT 1. - The Additional Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh has convicted accused Surja Ram under Section 302 IPC and imposed death sentence on him with a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. 2. D.B. Criminal Murder Reference No. 1 of 1995 relates to the confirmation of death sentence. Surja Ram has also been convicted under Section 307 I.PC. and life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2000/- have been imposed on him on that count. He has also been convicted under Section 450 I.RC. and on that count has been sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- Surja Ram has preferred appeals against his convictions. D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 265 of 1995 has been filed through counsel whereas D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 266 of 1995 has been preferred through Jail. 3. All these cases had to be considered together. They were therefore heard together and are being decided together. 4. Accused Surja Ram along with his two brothers - Raji Ram and Dalip Ram had their houses in the same compound adjacent to each other. Surja Ram resided in the middle portion of the compound whereas Raji Ram resided in the north and Dalip Ram in the south. Parents of these three brothers resided in Punjab and it appears that there was a partition of property amongst the brothers. Surja Ram and Dalip Ram had got 13 Killa of land each and Raji Ram had got 14 Killa of land. Six seven months prior to the incident Surja Ram had assaulted Raji Ram but the matter was sorted out by Chandra Pal Sarpanch. Five-six days prior to the incident, Surja Ram expressed his desire to erect a wire fencing in the compound which was protested to by Raji Ram. Surja Ram got annoyed on this. On August 7, 1990 at about 9.00 PM., the members of the family retired after having dinner. Dalip Ram and his wife were sleeping in the courtyard. Raji Ram and his two sons Ramesh and Naresh were sleeping outside the room. Raji Ram's wife Phula, his daughter Sudesh and Niko Bai sister of his father of Surja Ram, Raji Ram and Dalip Ram were sleeping in the courtyard of Raji Ram. Surja Ram's wife Imrati was also sleeping in the courtyard. Surja Ram had gone in the village after having dinner. Raji Ram's wife Phula, his daughter Sudesh and Niko Bai sister of his father of Surja Ram, Raji Ram and Dalip Ram were sleeping in the courtyard of Raji Ram. Surja Ram's wife Imrati was also sleeping in the courtyard. Surja Ram had gone in the village after having dinner. At about 12.30 in the night, Darji Ram heard cries of Sudesh and Imrati from the direction of the court yard of Raji Ram. He came out and saw in the light that Surja Ram standing with a `kassi' in his hand was assaulting Sudesh in Raji Ram's court yard. Darji Ram and Imrati challenged him on which he ran away with `kassi' in his hand leaving a shoe (Juti) on the spot. Sudesh had received severe injuries and fell down in the court-yard Niko Bai and Phula were also lying injured in the neck and bleeding. Niko had already died and Phula was about to die. On going out, these persons found that Raji Ram and his sons Naresh and Ramesh were also injured in the neck and they were lying on the cots, Raji Ram and Naresh had already died and Ramesh was about to die. Near the cots foot-steps of Surja Ram were visible. On an alarm being raised, villagers - Rawta Ram, Om Prakash, Puran Singh etc. came on the spot. Injured persons were taken in a Jeep to the Hospital at Sangaria. Report of the incident was lodged by Dalip Ram at 5.45 A.M. on August 8, 1990 in Police Station, T.B. After investigation, Surja Ram was tried on the charges under Sections 302, 307, 326, 324 and 450 I.RC. was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. 5. The learned cousnel for Surja Ram dealt with the case into two parts. One relating to the murder of Raji Ram, Naresh and Ramesh and the other relating to the murder of Niko Bai and causing injuries to Sudesh and Phula. 6. It was submitted as regards the murder of Raji Ram, Naresh and Ramesh that there was no direct evidence in the case and the prosecution had mainly relied on extra-judicial confession and circumstantial evidence which was not reliable. 6. It was submitted as regards the murder of Raji Ram, Naresh and Ramesh that there was no direct evidence in the case and the prosecution had mainly relied on extra-judicial confession and circumstantial evidence which was not reliable. It was contended that Dalip Ram the informant himself had become hostile and out of the persons who were said to have reached on the`spot immediately on an alarm being raised only Om Prakash, the maternal uncle of the complainant was examined and Rawta Ram was not examined. It was also submitted that injured witnesses - Sudesh and Phula.Devi had not seen the incident and therefore, their testimony had no value. It was further contended that Chanan Ram (PW. 6) and Om Prakash (P.W. 8), the witnesses on the point of the extra-judicial confession had turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. Chinder Singh (PW 7), the witness for recovery of `Kassi' had also turned hostile. It was also contended that the witnesses for seizure, sealing and preservation in Malkhana of the weapons and articles were also not reliable. As regards the foot print of the accused being found near the dead bodies of Raji Ram, Naresh and Ramesh it was submitted that the evidence about the mould of the foot-print having taken was also not reliable and it was further contended that there is no evidence that the `Juti' found on the spot was of the size of the foot of the accused. 7. As regards the murder of Niko Bai and injuries to Sudesh and Phula, it was contended that Dalip had not seen the actual assault on Niko Bai. There is no reliable evidence regarding the source of light in which the incident could be visible and statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Sudesh (PW. 4), was taken after considerable delay. It was also contended that in the circumstances of the case it appears that the first information report was lodged after preparation of the spot-map. 8. On the question of sentence, it was argued that the incident occurred in the year 1990 and death sentence was passed in the year 1995. It was also contended that it is not a rarest of the rare cases in which death sentence could have been imposed. 9. The learned Public Prosecutor supported the conviction and sentence. 10. 8. On the question of sentence, it was argued that the incident occurred in the year 1990 and death sentence was passed in the year 1995. It was also contended that it is not a rarest of the rare cases in which death sentence could have been imposed. 9. The learned Public Prosecutor supported the conviction and sentence. 10. In the circumstances of the case, it would be proper to deal with the murder of Niko and injuries to Sudesh and Phula because direct evidence is available about that We will deal with the murder of Raji Ram, Naresh and Ramesh later on. 11. In the First Information Report, Dalip Ram (PW. 3) had stated that at about 12.30 in the night, he woke up hearing the cries of Sudesh and Imrati and came out and saw Surja Ram assaulting Sudesh with a Kassr' in the courtyard of Raji Ram in the light of electric bulb which was on. He also stated that he himself, his brother Surja Ram's wife Imrati and his own wife challenged Surja Ram on which he ran away with `Kassi' leaving `Juti' behind. Sudesh had recieved severe injuries and fell down. Niko Bai and Phula were lying injured on the neck on their cots. Niko had already died and Phula was about to die. Surja Ram's wife Imrati and Dalip Ram's wife who were said to be present on the spot and who allegedly challenged Surja Ram were not examined. So we are left with the testimony of Dalip Ram (PW. 3), Sudesh (RW. 8) and injured witness and Phula Devi (PW. 5) an injured witness as the only eye witnesses. Out of these, Dalip Ram, Surja Ram's wife and Dalip Ram's wife could only be said to have witnessed assault on Sudesh. They have not witnessed assault on any other deceased or injured persons. Sudesh (PW. 4) and Phula Devi (PW. 5) could be the only eye witnesses in the case for whatever they have seen. 12. Dalip Ram (PW. 3) did not support the prosecution and was declared hostile. Straying away from the first information report version, he deposed that Rawta Ram, Puran Singh and Om Prakash had reached the spot before him. He also stated that he did not see Surja Ram on the spot. 12. Dalip Ram (PW. 3) did not support the prosecution and was declared hostile. Straying away from the first information report version, he deposed that Rawta Ram, Puran Singh and Om Prakash had reached the spot before him. He also stated that he did not see Surja Ram on the spot. On being confronted with the first information report, he went to the extent of saying that Police did not record his statement at all and did not enquire anything from him. He however admitted his signatures on the first information report as well as the memoranda prepared on the spot. In cross-examination, on behalf of the accused person. He also went to the extent of saying that the first information report (Ex.P/24) was lodged by Rawata Ram and he had only signed it. He also changed his version about 'Juti' found near the dead bodies and stated that that `Juti' was of deceased Raji Ram. His sympathy for Surja Ram comes out from his statement in the cross-examination that deceased Raji Ram had instituted proceedings under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against him and Surja Ram. It appears that in the quarrel between the brothers this witness was with Surja Ram and was against the deceased Raji Ram. Having lost his brother Raji Ram and Raji Ram's two sons as also Niko Bai - father's sister, this witness seems to have changed his version to save Surja Ram. 13. Sudesh (Rw. 4), daughter of deceased Raji Ram deposed that on the fateful night between 12.00 mid night and 1.00 A.M. he suddenly woke up and found that Surja Ram was giving `Kassi' blows to her mother Phula Devi and father's aunt Niko Bai. On her raising an alarm, accused attacked her with the `Kassi'. She received injuries on the neck, hands and shoulders and lost consciousness. Her uncle Dalip Ram had come on the spot before she became unconscious. An electric bulb was on in the court-yard and in that source of light, she identified the accused. She regained consciousness after two days in the Hospital and had given statement to the Police. 14. In the cross-examination, she stated that Dalip had aggrieved after the accused had run away and this is what she had told the Police. An electric bulb was on in the court-yard and in that source of light, she identified the accused. She regained consciousness after two days in the Hospital and had given statement to the Police. 14. In the cross-examination, she stated that Dalip had aggrieved after the accused had run away and this is what she had told the Police. She categorically stated that the accused hit her mother on the face and her father's aunt on the head and she had seen this with her own eyes. Thereafter the accused started giving blows to her also. She further stated that she had woken up on hearing the shouts of her mother. Her attention was drawn to the omission in her statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure about the source of light and her waking up on hearing the shouts of her mother, her answer was that she had told the Police about it and did not know why it was not recorded. Certain other omissions in her statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure about the cause of dispute and her gold earnings having fallen on the spot were also pointed out. She had admitted that witness Om Prakash was brother of her maternal-uncle and he had told her about the accused having killed her father and brothers but denied this suggestion that she had not seen the accused attacking her mother and her father's aunt and herself and was implicating the accused at the instance of her maternal uncle Om Prakash. 15. On over all reading of the testimony of this witness, there appears no reason to discard it. It is true that her statement was recorded by the Police under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after two days but she was unconscious for two days and therefore, it cannot be said that recording of her statement was delayed without any reason. Her presence and her having seen the accused assaulting her and her mother and her father's aunt cannot be said to be doubted. She has received as many as 14 injuries as per the statement of Dr. Mahaveer Prasad Agrawal (RW. Her presence and her having seen the accused assaulting her and her mother and her father's aunt cannot be said to be doubted. She has received as many as 14 injuries as per the statement of Dr. Mahaveer Prasad Agrawal (RW. 9), which were as follows : 1- dVk gqvk ?kko lkFk esa rktk [kwu lk<+s pkj bUp xquk 1@4 bUp xquk gM~Mh rd xgjk ( vkM+k ) ;g ck,Wa dku dks dkVrs gq, dku ds ihNs dh vksj xnZu ds mijh fgLls esa cka;h vksj tk jgh FkhA 2- dVk gqvk ?kko lkFk esa rktk [kwu lk<+s rhu bUp 1@4 bUp xquk ekal rd xgjk vkM+k xnZu ij cka;h vksj 3- dVk gqvk ?kko lkFk esa rktk [kwu 2 bUp xquk 3@4 bUp xquk ekWal rd xgjk vkM+k xnZu ls ihNs cka;h vksj mijh pksV ua0 2 ds uhps 4- dVk gqvk ?kko lkFk esa rktk [kwu <+kbZ bUp xquk 1@4 bUp xquk gM~Mh rd xgjk vkxs ihNs cka;h isjkbZVy {ks= esa 5- dVk gqvk ?kko lkFk esa rktk [kwu 4 bUp xquk 1@4 bUp xquk ekWal rd xgjk ckWa, dU/ks ds mij dh vksj 6- nks jxM+d ftuds fdukjs dVs gq, Fks] 6 bUp xquk fyfu;j rFkk 5 bUp xquk fyfu;j ck,Wa Ldsiyj {ks= ij 7- jxM+d ftlds fdukjs dVs gq, lk<+s rhu bUp xquk fyfu;j Nkrh ds ihNs dh vksj bUVj Ldsiqyj {ks= ij 8- jxM+d ftlds fdukjs dVs gq, lk<+s rhu bUp xquk fyfu;j nkWa, Ldsiqyj {ks= ij 9- dVk gqvk ?kko 1 bUp xquk 1@8 bUp xquk ekWal rd xgjk nk,Wa dU/ks ds ihNs dh vksj 10- dVk gqvk ?kko Ms<+ bUp xquk 1@8 bUp xquk gM~Mh rd xgjk cka;h dksguh ds mijh fgLlksa esa ihNs dh vksj 11- dVk gqvk ?kko lok rhu bUp xquk 1@4 xquk gM~Mh rd xgjk nka;h dykbZ ds lkeus dh vksj 12- dVk gqvk ?kko ftlds nk,Wa gkFk dh fjax fQaxj dh fMLVy QsysDl iwjh rjg ls dV pqdh FkhA\ 13- dVk gqvk ?kko 1 bUp xquk 1@4 bUp xquk gM~Mh rd xgjk nka;h dykbZ ds ckgj dh vksj 14- jxM+d ftlds fdukjs dVs gq, 1 bUp xquk fyfu;j nka;h dykbZ ds ihNs dh vksj 16. It is not a case of hit and run so that the victim could not have had a chance of seeing the assailant. It is not a case of hit and run so that the victim could not have had a chance of seeing the assailant. When as man as ten incised wounds with four abrasions were inflicted on the witness, it cannot be said that she did not have the chance to see the assailant. Moreover, two other persons were also injured in the same transaction one of whom had died instantaneously. As regards the source of light there could not be any doubt because right from the first information report, the source of light has been disclosed. and there is no reason to discard or disbelieve the testimony of Sudesh (RW. 4). 17. Phula Devi (Rw. 5) is the widow of deceased Raji Ram and mother of Sudesh (PW. 4). She deposed that between 12.00 mid night and 1.00 A.M. on the fateful night she suddenly woke up and saw accused Surja Ram standing and assaulting Niko Bai. Then he started assaulting her. When she raised an alarm, Sudesh woke up. She fell down and Surja Ram started assaulting her. When Surja Ram was assaulting Sudesh, the witness became unconscious and remained so for 15-20 days. She regained consciousness in the Hospital at Jaipur. She came to know of the death of her husband and two sons and the aunt of her husband at the hands of Surja Ram from village women. She also had given the source of light as the electric bulb which was on in the court-yard. She gave a graphic description in her cross-examination of the injuries inflicted on her, Sudesh and Niko Bai, so far as she had seen before becoming unconscious. The police had recorded her statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure two months after the incident and this was the main criticism of her testimony by the learned counsel for the appellant. It was contended that when she had regained consciousness 15 days after the incident, her statement was recorded after two months, during which period she was tutored by her brother Om Prakash and others. 18. The explanation for delay in recording statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to be found in the cross-examination of the witness itself. She deposed that she was in the Hospital for a month and then went to Village Kulchandra at the place of her brother Om Prakash. 18. The explanation for delay in recording statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to be found in the cross-examination of the witness itself. She deposed that she was in the Hospital for a month and then went to Village Kulchandra at the place of her brother Om Prakash. She was neither asked nor did she deposed when she returned to her own house. It is true that the police who have to be vigilant in recording the statement of an important eye witness who was injured also, immediately after she regained consciousness. But if that was not done, it cannot be said that the testimony of the witness becomes wholly unreliable. After all the witness was injured to the extent of remaining unconscious for a period of 15-20 days and had lost her husband and two young sons. It was quite natural that she would be taken to her brother's place after her being discard from the Hospital and then would return to her own house. It is not a case where a total stranger is made a witness in the case after a lapse of two months, the presence of the witness on the spot cannot be doubted because it is quite natural for her to be with her family and to sleep with them in the court-yard and when she had received injuries and was taken to the Hospital from the spot, there was absolutely no doubt that she was not a planted witness who was not on the spot at all. The only question is as to whether because of the lapse of time, she had spirned out a new case to implicate an innocent person. This also is not the case as whatever she had deposed was substantially in consonance with the earlier version noted in the first information report. Her testimony also therefore cannot be branded as unreliable. This witness also had received six incised wounds as per Dr. This also is not the case as whatever she had deposed was substantially in consonance with the earlier version noted in the first information report. Her testimony also therefore cannot be branded as unreliable. This witness also had received six incised wounds as per Dr. Mahaveer Prasad Agrawal (P.W. 9), which were as under:- 1- dVk gqvk ?kko lkFk esa rktk [kwu lok N% bUp xquk 1@2 bUp xquk 1@2 bUp xquk gM~Mh rd xgjk Vs<+k psgjs ij nka;h vksj ukd ds fczt ds mijh fgLls ls ysdj vkWa[k ds nka;h vUn:uh fdukjs ls gksrk gqvk nk,Wa xky ij tks nkfgus dku ds uhps rd tk jgk FkkA 2- dVk gqvk ?kko lkFk esa rktk [kwu lk<+s rhu bUp xquk 1@4 xquk cksu Mhi vkM+k Bks<+h ds lkeus rFkk cka;h vksj 3- dVk gqvk ?kko 3 bUp xquk 1@4 bUp xquk ekWal rd xgjk vkM+k xnZu esa lkeus nka;h vksj 4- dVk gqvk ?kko 2 bUp xquk 1@4 bUp xquk ekWal rd xgjk vkM+k mijksDr pksV ua0 3 ds uhps xnZu ij lkeus nka;h vksj 5- dVk gqvk ?kko lok nks bUp xquk 1@4 bUp xquk ekWal rd xgjk ( ck,Wa ) dU/ks ds lkeus dh vksj 6- dVk gqvk ?kko 6 bUp xquk fyfu;j xquk peM+h dh xgjkbZ rd ( vkM+k ) ck,Wa lqijk Ldsiqyj {ks= ij 19. In the incident three persons were injured out of whom one was fatally injured. It cannot be said that the person who had received six incised wounds would not have been able to see the assailant. As already stated the source of light was also established. There is nothing to disbelieve an injured eye witness that she had seen the accused Surja Ram assaulting herself and others. 20. As regards the murders of Raji Ram, Naresh and Ramesh, in the first information report, informant Dalip Ram (RW. 3) stated that after witnessing the scene in the court-yard where Niko Bai. Phula and Sudesh were assaulted, they came out and saw Raji Ram, Naresh and Ramesh were also injured. Raji Ram and Naresh had already died and Ramesh was about to die. He has also stated in the first information report that near the cots of Raji Ram, Naresh and Ramesh, Surja Ram's foot prints could be seen. On their raising an alarm, villagers - Rawta Ram, Om Prakash, Puran Singh etc. collected there and injured persons were shifted to the Hospital. He has also stated in the first information report that near the cots of Raji Ram, Naresh and Ramesh, Surja Ram's foot prints could be seen. On their raising an alarm, villagers - Rawta Ram, Om Prakash, Puran Singh etc. collected there and injured persons were shifted to the Hospital. In his statement before the Court, Dalip Ram changed his version and stated that Puran Singh, Rawta Ram and Om Prakash had already reached the spot before the could reach where Raji Ram and his two sons were lying dead. He changed the sequence also and stated that he, Puran Singh, rawta Ram and Om Prakash after seeing the dead bodies of Raji Ram and his sons entered the court- yard and saw that Niko, Phula and Sudesh were also injured. As already stated, the witness was declared hostile. He admitted to have signed the first information report but stated that Rawta Ram had lodged it. He also denied that the mould of the foot print was taken by the Police. 21. The conviction of the accused Surja Ram for the murder of Raji Ram, Naresh and Ramesh is based on the circumstantial evidence and the circumstances relied upon by the learned trial Court are the motive for the murder, foot-print of Surja Ram being found near the dead bodies, the similarity of the weapon of attack and nature of injuries inflicted on Niko Bai, Sudesh and Phula and the injuries inflicted on Raji Ram, Naresh and Ramesh and their being in the same direction blood stains being found on the clothes of the accused person and the accused having assaulted Niko Bai, Phula and Sudesh in the same premises near about the same time 22. As regards the foot-prints of Surja Ram being found near the dead bodies, Dalip Ram (RW. 3) did not stick to the version in the first information report. PW. 2 Om Prakash son of Hazari Ram admitted that mould of the foot-prints were taken by the Police but he stated that the foot prints were of the naked foot and were not of a foot-wear. Rajendra Prasad (PW. 14), the Police Officer who took the mould of the foot-prints stated that near deceased Raji Ram's cot, there were two foot-prints which were taken by him in the plaster of paris. They were handed over to the Station House Officer. Rajendra Prasad (PW. 14), the Police Officer who took the mould of the foot-prints stated that near deceased Raji Ram's cot, there were two foot-prints which were taken by him in the plaster of paris. They were handed over to the Station House Officer. He also deposed that on August 15. 1990 he took the foot-prints of accused Surja Ram in presence of Tehsildar - Mohidin Khan. Prithvi Singh (PW. 15), the Investigating Officer in his cross-examination admitted that as regards the moulds of the foot-prints having taken no separate memoranda prepared and only a mention was made in Ex.P/A, the memoranda of the spot. It was also stated by him that in the memoranda of the spot also no description or measurements of the foot-prints were given and it was also not stated as to whether the foot-prints were of naked foot or were of foot-wears. Naib Tehsildar -Mohidin Khan (PW. 16), in whose presence the sample mould of the accused Surja Ram's foot was taken, admitted that it was for the first time that moulds were taken in his presence and he did not know how much moulds were taken He also admitted that no written request was received by him and on oral instructions he had gone to witness the taking of moulds. He also admitted that he did not know from where the ` Jutis' which the accused was asked to wear before taking moulds, were brought from. In the circumstances, when the moulds were not of a naked foot, the possibility that the accused was made to wear the 'Juti' corresponding to the foot-print found on the spot cannot be ruled out. It is not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the 'Juti' which the accused Surja Ram was wearing at the time of the offence or which he used normally, was being worn by him at the time of taking the mould of his foot-prints. When the moulds are of 'Juti', it cannot be said with any amount of certainty that it was the accused alone who could be implicated on the basis of his foot-prints having found near the dead bodies. The evidence regarding the moulds is therefore, wholly unreliable. 23. As regards the other circumstances, the nature of injuries inflicted on Niko Bai, Sudesh and Phula are similar to the injuries inflicted on Raji Ram, Naresh and Ramesh. The evidence regarding the moulds is therefore, wholly unreliable. 23. As regards the other circumstances, the nature of injuries inflicted on Niko Bai, Sudesh and Phula are similar to the injuries inflicted on Raji Ram, Naresh and Ramesh. The duration of injuries shows that they could all be caused by the `Kassi', a sharp edged weapon with which accused Surja Ram had said to have been armed. The duration of the injuries as found by Dr. M.P. Agrawal (PW. 9), was the same. Six persons had retired after starting dinner at about 9.00 PM. and about mid night this incident is said to have taken place. Both the incidents clearly seem to have taken place during the same transaction in quick succession. The accused person was seen by Sudesh (RW. 4) and Phula Devi (PW. 9) assaulting Niko Bai and at about the same time or immediately thereafter the witnesses had seen the dead bodies of Raji Ram and Naresh and Ramesh fatally wounded. These were also strong circumstances against the accused to connect him with the crime. 24. The chain of all these events is so complete that no other inference than the guilt of the accused person can be drawn in the circumstances. 25. We therefore, agree with the learned Additional Sessions Judge, that accused Surja Ram alone has committed the murders of Raji Ram, Naresh, Ramesh and Niko Bai and has inflicted injuries on Sudesh and Phula Devi. The conviction therefore, deserves to be maintained. 26. As regards punishment, this is clearly the rarest of the rare cases in which death sentence only would be the adequate punishment. After all, on a small dispute of fencing his part of the property, the accused has committed murders of four persons and has severely injured two others, all of whom were closely related. The victims were attacked and killed and injured when they were totally defenceless being in sleep. The dispute was with Raji Ram, the brother of the accused but the vengeance was wrecked on his two young sons of 11 years and 13 years. An old aunt sleeping with the family was not spared and was done to death in her sleep. The brother's wife and his daughter were also mercilessly attacked and several injuries were inflicted on them. All this shows the ghastly manner in which the crime was committed. 27. An old aunt sleeping with the family was not spared and was done to death in her sleep. The brother's wife and his daughter were also mercilessly attacked and several injuries were inflicted on them. All this shows the ghastly manner in which the crime was committed. 27. In these circumstances, there is no scope for any leniency being shown to the accused-appellant. The death sentence deserves to be confirmed and is hereby confirmed. The Murder Reference is answered in the affirmative. The two appeals preferred by the accused-appellant Surja Ram deserve to be dismissed and they are hereby dismissed confirming the sentences imposed on charges under Sections 302, 307 and 450 of the Indian Penal Code. The death sentence be executed in accordance with the law. *******