V.S.Sirpurkar, J.: By this judgment, we shall dispose of R.T.No.6 of 1998 as also C.A.No.713 of 1998. 2. The appellant Ravi, son of Marimuthu, who shall be hereinafter referred to as “the accused” has been found guilty of the offences under Secs.302, 307 and 449, I.P.C. and has been awarded death sentence by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli. R.T.No.6 of 1998 is for the purpose of confirmation of the death sentence, while the accused has appealed against the judgment of conviction and death sentence awarded against him in C.A.No.713 of 1998. 3. The following are the salient facts: The accused was a servant in the medical shop owned by the family of the complainant. Suresh for sometime, on the relevant date, i.e., on 4.6.1995, however, he was admittedly not in service. The complainant Suresh, who was examined as P.W.1 in the trial, is the grand-son of one Padmavathi who was examined as P.W.5. Padmavathi was an old lady of about 73 years and had three sons, they being Natarajan, Ramadoss and Ramachandran, P.W.6 Kamalabai is the wife of Natarajan. While this couple had three sons, viz., Suresh, the complainant herein, Sathish and Venkatesan, the second son of Padmavathi, viz., Ramadoss had a daughter viz., Shalini who, at the relevant time, was about 8 years old and the third son of Padmavathi, viz., Ramachandran had one son and one daughter, the son being Babu and the daughter being Sathya alias Santhia. This was a joint family residing jointly in a village called, Sirugambur Agraharam coming within the area of the police station at Vathalai. The family also owned a general provisions shop, besides the medical shop where the accused Ravi had worked for some time. 4. It seems that on 4.6.1995 at about 3.00 p.m., Suresh, who was in his shop, was directed by his father (son of Padmavathi) to go home and fetch paper bags which had been pasted and kept in the family house, He accordingly went to the house and heard a din, and saw that the accused was inflicting injuries on the head and right shoulder of his grand-mother, Padmavathi, by saying that she was keeping his jewel, that she was not returning it back was keeping his jewel, that she was not returning it back and that he would finish the whole family. He then saw that his younger brother Sathish, aged about 19 years, was sleeping on the cot and the accused gave two furious blows on the neck of Sathish. Immediately thereafter he also saw that the accused inflicted a blow on Shalini who is his cousin sister, which blow fell on her right shoulder and a severe injury was caused. He then also saw that his other cousin sister Sathya alias Santhia was also attacked by the accused and he dealt blows with aruval (Sickle like weapon) which resulted in her right arm being severed. Suresh was dumb founded. After this, the accused ran towards backside of the house and he attacked one Babu, an eight year old son of Ramachandran and the cousin of the complainant Suresh, dropping him dead. At that time, Suresh started crying and probably on hearing his cry, some other persons rushed in. However, the accused ran away through the plantain grove which was at the backyard of the family house, but in the process, his white colour dhoti fell down. Seeing all this, Suresh immediately arranged a car for taking the injured persons for medical help, but before that, Sathish, who was assaulted by the accused and Babu who was also assaulted by the accused with aruval. had died. Suresh thereafter without any loss of time, telephoned the police station which telephone was received by the Head Constable No.3249. The Head Constable immediately went to Sirugambur along with the constable No.3315 and took the statement of Suresh which was treated as First Information Report, Ex.P-1. 5. There is a small background to this incident. The prosecution alleges that Padmavathi used to do the business of pawnbroking. She used to lend money to some of the villagers and keep their valuables. The prosecution alleges that she had accordingly lent Rs.300 to the accused and the accused had pawned one ear stud with Padmavathi. The prosecution alleges that prior to one week of the incident, the accused had come to Padmavathi to claim back the said ear stud, but he was not prepared to pay the lent amount. He was allegedly told by Padmavathi that the amount should be paid along with interest and then only, the ear stud would be returned. The prosecution alleges that prior to one week of the incident, the accused had come to Padmavathi to claim back the said ear stud, but he was not prepared to pay the lent amount. He was allegedly told by Padmavathi that the amount should be paid along with interest and then only, the ear stud would be returned. According to the prosecution, on the fateful day, the accused again came there and demanded the ear stud, but he was not prepared to pay the amount and on being told by Padmavathi that the stud would not be returned unless the amount was paid back, he assaulted Padmavathi and other members of her family. 6. The officials in the Vathalai Police Station sent message to Musiri Police Station as Vathalai Police Station, at the relevant time, did not have the post of Police Inspector and it came under the jurisdiction of the Police Inspector at Musiri. P.W.19, Venkatraman, on receiving the message from Vathalai Police Station, sprang into action and went to the spot of the incident and executed the observation mahazar, Ex.P-2 as also the inquest mahazars, Exs.P-22 and P-23, He also drew the rough sketch, Ex.P-21. He, thereafter visited the Government Hospital at Tiruchirappalli where the injured were taking treatment and in the meantime, he recorded the statements of all the witnesses. He also seized the blood stained pillows as also the articles lying near the dead bodies of Sathish and Babu. He found the dhoti of the accused which got stuck to the thorny fence, which was on the south of Sengudi Menial Arumugam’s plantain grove. He seized that dhoti also under a seizure Mahazar. He also sent the bodies of Sathish and Babu for post-mortem and recorded the statements under Sec.161, Crl.P.C. of the witnesses including the injured witnesses, viz., Sathya alias Santhia, Shalini, Kamalabai and Padmavathi all of whom were in the Tiruchirappalli Government Hospital and were undergoing treatment there. 7. On 9.6.1995, the accused, who had fled from the spot, surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam and the Investigating Officer got the intimation of the surrender of the accused only on 12.6.1995. He gave a petition to the concerned Magistrate on 14.6.1995 for obtaining police custody of the accused. The order ultimately came to be passed only on 28.6.1995. 7. On 9.6.1995, the accused, who had fled from the spot, surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam and the Investigating Officer got the intimation of the surrender of the accused only on 12.6.1995. He gave a petition to the concerned Magistrate on 14.6.1995 for obtaining police custody of the accused. The order ultimately came to be passed only on 28.6.1995. The accused, when he was in the police custody, made a statement in the presence of the witness, P.W.11 Durairaj that he had concealed the sickle under a coconut tree near a Mariamman temple. A memo was executed in respect of the statement, vide Ex.P-7 and the accused took the police party along with panchayatdars to the spot which he had disclosed and on reaching, the accused after digging the land, produced the weapon with which he had attached the deceased and the injured persons. After the receipt of the weapon, the investigating officer sent the Clothes and bloodstained articles including the dhoti of the accused and aruval for chemical examination. He also received the post-mortem reports and injury reports and on that basis, he filed a charge sheet for the offences under Secs.448, 324, 327, 307 and 302, I.P.C. 8. After committal proceedings, charges were framed, against the accused. On the first count, it was alleged that he had committed house trespass on 4.6.1995 in the afternoon into the house of Padmavathi, door No.9/15, Sirugambur Agraharm and thus he committed the offence under Sec.449, I.P.C. On the second count, it was alleged that he had attempted to commit murder of Padmavathi, Kamalabai, Shalini and Sathya alias Santhia and thus he committed the offence under Sec.307, I.P.C. on four counts, Lastly it was alleged that he had committed the murder of Sathish and Babu and thus he was charged for the offence under Sec.302, I.P.C. on 2 counts. The accused abjured guilt. 9. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses. P.W.1 Suresh P.W.2, Venkatesan alias Radhakrishnan, P.W.3 Selvi Sathya alias Santhia, P.W.4 Selvi Shalini, P.W.5, Tmt.Padmavathi and P.W.6 Tmt.Kamalabai are the eye witnesses, out of whom, barring P.W. 1 Suresh and P.W.2 Venkatesan, the remaining four are the actually injured witnesses. The accused abjured guilt. 9. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses. P.W.1 Suresh P.W.2, Venkatesan alias Radhakrishnan, P.W.3 Selvi Sathya alias Santhia, P.W.4 Selvi Shalini, P.W.5, Tmt.Padmavathi and P.W.6 Tmt.Kamalabai are the eye witnesses, out of whom, barring P.W. 1 Suresh and P.W.2 Venkatesan, the remaining four are the actually injured witnesses. The prosecution also examined three other witnesses, viz., P.W.7 Srikanth, P.W.8 Krishnamoorthi and P.W.9 Balaji to suggest that these three independent witnesses have seen the accused running from the house of Padmavathi keeping the aruval in his hand and also the fall of dhoti from the body of the accused. P.W.10 Kaman, P.W.11 Durairaj are the witnesses on mahazars, out of whom P.W.11 Durairaj is a witness in respect of the discovery of the aruval made by the accused. P.W.1 2 Dr.Palaniyandi, P.W.17 Dr.Gurupathamohan and P.W.18 Mr.Sivakumar are the witnesses on the medical aspect, out of whom P.W.14 had conducted the post-mortem examination, while P.W.17 had spoken about the injuries suffered by the injured witnesses. P.W.18 Sivakumar is the Radiologist and has deposed regarding the fractures suffered by Sathya alias Santhia, P.W.3, and Shalini, P.W.4, P.W.19 is the Investigating Officer, while the remaining witnesses are the formal police witnesses. 10. On the basis of the evidence, the trial court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the offences with which the accused was charged and chose to award death sentence to the accused for the offence under Sec.302, I.P.C. on two counts while it ordered rigorous imprisonment for five years for the offence under Sec.449, I.P.C. and five years each for the offence under Sec.307, I.P.C. on four counts. Besides this, the accused has also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000 on account of his conviction for the offence under Sec.449, I.P.C. and Rs.5,000 each for the offence under Sec.307, I.P.C. on four counts. The trial court has also directed payment of Rs.20,000 out of the total fine amount in favour of P.W.3 Sathya alias Santhia. It is this judgment which is for consideration in the present appeal. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused has taken us through the entire evidence. His main contention is that the accused was not responsible for the murders and the murderous assault on the witnesses. It is this judgment which is for consideration in the present appeal. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused has taken us through the entire evidence. His main contention is that the accused was not responsible for the murders and the murderous assault on the witnesses. According to the counsel for the appellant, there are number of discrepancies in the evidence of the eye-witnesses which would render it unsafe to convict the accused and further to award him death sentence. Learned counsel points out that the evidence in this case is only of the interested persons viz., the relatives of the deceased. He also points out that the other independent witnesses have turned hostile and their evidence would be of no assistance, The criticism is hat the entire prosecution story depends only on the evidence of the interested witnesses and, therefore, it is inherently, weak. As regards the evidence of circumstantial nature, learned counsel attacks the discovery of the weapon as farcical and suggests that the said discovery is not at all proved. He points out that the other circumstance viz., finding of bloodstains on aruval would be of no consequence, unless the blood group has been determined as per the certificate of the chemical analyst. Lastly, learned counsel points out that the accused could not be burdened with the intention to commit murder. In short, the contention of the learned counsel is that the prosecution story was not proved. 12. Learned Public Prosecutor has, however, very strongly relied on the evidence of the eye witnesses and has suggested that there was no question of any independent witness being examined in this case. He points out that the whole incident took place in the house of the complainant and, therefore, the presence of the interested witnesses there, was most natural. He further points out that as many as 4 witnesses were injured by the accused and since the incident took place in broad day light at about 3.00 p.m., there was no possibility whatsoever of any mistaken identity. It is pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor that really speaking, barring Padmavathi, there was no enmity between any other witness and the accused. As regards the witnesses, who have turned hostile, learned Public Prosecutor suggests that merely because they have been declared hostile their whole evidence need not be thrown out of consideration. It is pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor that really speaking, barring Padmavathi, there was no enmity between any other witness and the accused. As regards the witnesses, who have turned hostile, learned Public Prosecutor suggests that merely because they have been declared hostile their whole evidence need not be thrown out of consideration. He has taken us through the evidence of the hostile witnesses also. Learned Public Prosecutor has very strongly supported the evidence of P.W.11 Durairaj as also the evidence of the Investigating officer for proving the discovery of the weapon. He has also relied very heavily on the report of the chemical analyst to suggest that the dhoti worn by the accused on that day and the aruval, which he had discovered, have been found to be stained with blood of human origin. He points out that the accused has given no explanation to these clinchingly incriminating circumstances. [Paras. 13 to 29 omitted - Ed.] 30. All this clearly establishes that the prosecution has proved the quilt beyond reasonable doubt that the accused on the fateful date at about 3 o’clock in the afternoon entered the house of the complainant Suresh and demanded the jewel, which he pawned with Padmavathi, from Padmavathi and on her refusal, he assaulted Padmavathi and inflicted blows with the sickle which he was held armed. He then assaulted Kamalabai on her face to the extent of her face got disfigures in the sense that her ear lobs was seen in a suspending condition. He thereafter inflicted some sickle blows on Sathish who was sleeping besides Padmavathi. As a result of this, Sathish died on the spot. He then assaulted Shalini on her shoulder and face, thereby causing fracture to Shalini. Ultimately he assaulted Sathya alias Santhia causing a 15 cm. long injury on her face. Her right wrist was severed from her hand. Then he ran to the backyard where he came across 8 years old Babu whom he assaulted on his head and shoulders, causing more than two injuries. He caused his instantaneous death on the spot. Ultimately he assaulted Sathya alias Santhia causing a 15 cm. long injury on her face. Her right wrist was severed from her hand. Then he ran to the backyard where he came across 8 years old Babu whom he assaulted on his head and shoulders, causing more than two injuries. He caused his instantaneous death on the spot. The prosecution has also proved that the accused at that time was wearing red colour shirt and dhoti and in the hurry to escape, his dhoti got entangled in the shrubi and fell down from the person of the accused which dhoti was ultimately seized and was found to be stained with human blood. The criminal acts of the accused are, therefore, proved beyond any reasonable doubt and in our opinion, the learned trial court which accepted the evidence has not committed any error of either law or fact and we confirm the findings regard the criminal acts on the part of the accused. [Para 31 omitted - Ed.] 32. Samething, can be said about the assault on Babu. The young child had no opportunity to utter even one word as he was also so severely assaulted on his head that it not only caused a fracture on his head, but his brain matter also came out. The ferociousness with which the accused dealt the blows suggests the intention that he had and towards which he executed his plan. There can be no dispute that the accused had chosen to commit murder of Sathish and Babu. We therefore, confirm the finding of the trial court in so far as the offence under Sec.302, I.P.C. is concerned. The accused is guilty on both the counts. We have arrived at this finding on the basis of the evidence of eye-witnesses and the injuries suffered by the two deceased persons and the medical evidence led by the prosecution in the shape of the evidence of doctors as also the post-mortem reports. We have also seen the aruval which is a sharp-edged, huge weapon of about 33 inches long. All this leaves no doubt in our mind that the accused had committed an offence on two counts-under Sec.302, I.P.C. in firstly committing the murder of Sathish and secondly of Babu. 33. We have also seen the aruval which is a sharp-edged, huge weapon of about 33 inches long. All this leaves no doubt in our mind that the accused had committed an offence on two counts-under Sec.302, I.P.C. in firstly committing the murder of Sathish and secondly of Babu. 33. Learned Sessions Judge has also held the accused guilty of the offence under Sec.307, I.P.C. on four counts, i.e., for the assault on Padmavathi, Kamalabai, Shalini and Sathya alias Santhia. We have seen the injuries suffered by these persons. True it is that Padmavathi and Kamalabai have suffered fractures. Further, two little girls have undoubtedly suffered grievous wounds which have been caused in a gruesome manner. Both the girls have suffered fractures on vital parts of their body, one of them i.e., Sathya alias Santhia has suffered severence of her right wrist. This leaves us with no doubt that the intention of the accused was to murder all the persons and that had these persons died, the accused would have been guilty of an offence under Sec.302, I.P.C. we are of the clear opinion that the finding of the trial court and award of sentence is correct. We confirm the finding regarding the offence under Sec.307, I.P.C. also. 34. Though insignificant, yet a mention must be made of the offence under Sec.449, I.P.C. There is very little which we can state about the house trespass. We confirm that finding also. In short, we confirm the judgment of the learned trial court in so far as the guilt is concerned. The question is however, of the sentence. 35. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant vociferously attacked the death sentence awarded by the trial court. The main judgment on which learned counsel relied is the judgment in Om Prakash v. State of Haryana, (1999)2 Supreme 227 . Learned counsel pointed out that in this case, there were as many as seven persons who were shot dead. They all belonged to the same family. They were all helpless persons and even the act of premeditated mind was done out of enmity. Learned counsel pointed out the observations, more particularly, in paragraphs 15 and 16 of the judgment. Learned counsel pointed out that in this case, there were as many as seven persons who were shot dead. They all belonged to the same family. They were all helpless persons and even the act of premeditated mind was done out of enmity. Learned counsel pointed out the observations, more particularly, in paragraphs 15 and 16 of the judgment. The relied on portion is as follows: “Considering the aforesaid background of the matter, the question would be whether the case of the appellant could be one of the rarest of the rare cases so that death sentence is required to be imposed. In our view, even though this is a gruesome act on the part of the appellant, yet it is a result of human mind going astray because of constant harassment of the family members of the appellant as narrated above. It could be termed as a case of retribution or act for taking revenge. No doubt, it would not be a justifiable act at all, but the accused was feeling morally justifiable on his part. Hence, it would be difficult to term it as the rarest of the rare cases. Further, this is not a crime committed because of lust for wealth or women, that is to say, murders are neither for money such as extortion, dacoity or robbery; nor even for lust and rape; it is not an act of anti-social element dealing in dangerous drugs which affects the entire moral fiber of the society and kills number of persons; nor is it crime committed for power or political ambitions or part of organised criminal activities. It is a crime committed by the accused who had a cause to feel aggrieved for injustice meted out to his family members at the hands of the family of the other party who according to him were strong enough physically as well as economically and having influence with the authority which was required to protect him.... may be that this mind got derailed of the track and went astray or beyond control because of extreme mental disturbances for the constant harassment and disputes. may be that this mind got derailed of the track and went astray or beyond control because of extreme mental disturbances for the constant harassment and disputes. Further considering the facts and circumstances, it cannot be be said that he would be a menace to the society...” No doubt, in the case in the case in he reported decision there were seven murders of a particular family of which he concerned accused was responsible for the murder of two ladies and four other male persons. It is also no doubt true that even in that case the victims were sleeping defenceless. Firing was resorted to without any provocation to wreak vengeance over the dispute in respect of a plot and in fact, the dispute had been amicably settled with the intervention of relatives and friends. It is also true that in the reported decision lot of deliberations, pre-mediation and planning had gone in the commission of the offence. Learned counsel for the defence therefore points out that even under such circumstances, the Supreme Court did not find the said case to be one of the rarest of the rare cases. 36. Law on death sentence has been settled in the judgment in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 898. A Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court had gone into the question and held that unless a case is one of the rarest of the rare cases, death sentence should not be given. Guidelines have been provided in the decision to suggest as to which case could be called to be the rarest of the rare case. In Om Prakash’s case, (1999)2 Supreme 227 , the Apex Court again considered those six conditions, naming, (1) the age of the accused. If the accused is young or old, he shall not be sentenced to death. (2) The probability that the accused would not commit criminal acts of violence as would constitute a continuing threat to society. (3) The probability that the accused can be reformed and rehabilitated. The State shall by evidence prove that the accused does not satisfy the conditions (3) and (4) above. (4) That in the facts and circumstances of the case the accused believed that he was morally justified in committing the offences. (5) That the accused acted under the duress or domination of another person. The State shall by evidence prove that the accused does not satisfy the conditions (3) and (4) above. (4) That in the facts and circumstances of the case the accused believed that he was morally justified in committing the offences. (5) That the accused acted under the duress or domination of another person. (6) That the condition of the accused showed that the was mentally defective and that the said defect impaired his capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct. In that case, the Apex Court also observed that there would be numerous other circumstances justifying the passing of the lighter sentence and equally, there would be other circumstances which would ask for the capital punishment. The Supreme Court had also observed that such situations cannot be fed into a judicial computer since such situations are astrological impounderables in an imperfect and undulating society. It was also observed that Judges should never be bloodthirsty. Hanging of murders has never been too good for them. 37. After the said decision in Bachan Singh’s case, A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 898, there are number of other judgments in which the Apex Court has been taking views, however, the common threads that are to be found in all the judgments, apart from the situations short listed in Bachan Singh’s’ case are the psychological factor as also the economical factor. The Apex Court as also other High Courts also considered as to whether such an accused would be a menace to the society, if allowed to live. Indeed, in Om Prakash’s case, (1999)2 Supreme 227 itself, the Apex Court says: “Further considering the facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that he would be a menace to the society. There is no reason to believe that he cannot be reformed or rehabilitated and he is likely to continue criminal acts of violence as would constitute a continuing threat to the society. He was working in B.S.F. as a disciplined member of the armed forces aged about 23 at the relevant time, having no criminal antecedents.” It cannot be said that the factual scenario in Om Prakash’s case, (1999)2 Supreme 227 applies on all fours. The accused there was constantly under the mental pressure that his family was being assaulted by the other family and he was constantly writing letters on that account. The accused there was constantly under the mental pressure that his family was being assaulted by the other family and he was constantly writing letters on that account. The Apex Court also found that from his letters it was suggested that the appellant there, was deeply annoyed because they were not able to do anything, while the other side had attacked the womenfolk and his sisters. It was on account of the perpetual agonies which were felt by the accused, the Apex Court had refused to treat the case as one of the rarest of the rare case, though number of persons had lost their lives in a gruesome manner. It is, perhaps, because of this, in the present case also, the case of Om Prakash was heavily relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel has pointed out that like in Om prakash’s case, the accused was a young person. He also did not have any criminal background. Learned counsel has stated that though he has served for two years in the family of the complainant, he had served for to years in the family of the complainant, there was nothing brought on record to suggest that he had in any manner misbehaved during that period. Learned counsel further points out that even if the accused is taken to have premediated, it will have to be borne in mind that the accused alone same. He did not try to take the help of anybody and perhaps, the loss of the jewel which he had pawned was constantly rankling in his mind. Learned counsel, therefore, urged that this was a case where the accused could have acted in a temporary state of mental imbalance when he started to assault. 38. Learned Public Prosecutor, however, vociferously argued that the facts in Om Prakash’s case, (1999)2 Supreme 227 were not akin to the facts of the case at all. He points out that in Om Prakash’s case, there was a great injustice done or at least the accused felt there was a great injustice done to him by the other side, while in the present case, there is no question of injustice having been committed. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that after all two young children. He points out that in Om Prakash’s case, there was a great injustice done or at least the accused felt there was a great injustice done to him by the other side, while in the present case, there is no question of injustice having been committed. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that after all two young children. Shalini and Sathya alias Santhia had done nothing and as a matter of fact, life of Sathya alias Santhia has become miserable because of the cruel and dastardly act of the accused. Learned Public Prosecutor also points out that there was virtually no reason for the accused to deal the blows on the neck of Sathish who was merely sleeping and had no idea as to what was going on. Lastly, learned Public Prosecutor points out that the assault on Babu was the most dastardly attack where a young helpless child was assaulted for no reason. Learned Public Prosecutor also points out that the accused had chosen the time to visit the house fully knowing that at about 3 o’ clock in the afternoon, there would be no menfold present in the house and it would be easy for him to perpetrate his design and that right from the beginning, the idea of the accused was to anyhow eliminate the whole family of Padmavathi. Learned Public Prosecutor invites our attention more particularly to the fact that rest of the life of Sathya alias Santhia would become miserable because her right wrist has been severed and that both Shalini and Sathy alias Santhia have suffered deep injuries on their faces, According to the learned Public Prosecutor, therefore, this was a case where the accused had shown unparallel cruelty and depravity of his mind in assaulting the helpless, defenceless women folk and had further shown the perversity of his mind by severing the limb of a small child like Sathya alias Santhia. Learned Public Prosecutor, therefore, argues that the law laid down in Om Prakash’s case, (1999)2 Supreme 227 would not be applicable to the factual situation available in the present case. 39. Learned counsel for the appellant has also relied upon one other case in Rajendra Rai v. State of Bihar, (1999)1 Supreme 362 . He points out that in this case also, the accused had committed double murder over a minor dispute of the place for tying cattle. 39. Learned counsel for the appellant has also relied upon one other case in Rajendra Rai v. State of Bihar, (1999)1 Supreme 362 . He points out that in this case also, the accused had committed double murder over a minor dispute of the place for tying cattle. Relying on the facts of the case in Rajendra Rai’s case, learned counsel says that our case is also similar inasmuch as there are only two persons who have been murdered, that too on account of a paltry dispute. Learned Public Prosecutor, however, tried to distinguish the case by suggesting that in that case, the accused had not shown depravity of mind by assaulting children and ladies as in the present case. 40. In support of his contention that the death sentence should be confirmed, learned Public Prosecutor heavily relied on the decision in Sevaka Perumal v. State of Tamil Nadu, A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 1463, where the Supreme Court had confirmed the death sentence of the accused who was accused of committing murder of young boys for gain. He pointed out that the Supreme Court had not accepted the plea raised on behalf of the accused that the accused were young breadwinners of their family and their parents to depend upon them. He invited our attention to the observation in paragraph.9 where the Supreme Court has suggested that undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law. The Apex Court observes that if the court did not protect the injured, the injured would then resort to private vengeance and it was therefore, the duty of the court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence. The Apex Court observes that if the court did not protect the injured, the injured would then resort to private vengeance and it was therefore, the duty of the court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence. Learned Public Prosecutor, therefore, argued that here is a case where the accused was taking private revenge and vengeance and in case the death sentence is not confirmed, wrong signals will go to the society an he will eventually prove to be a menace to the society, In that case, the Apex Court had also taken note of an earlier decision in Mahesh v. State of M.P., A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 1346, where the Apex Court held that a murder committed due to deep seated personal rivalry may not call for penalty of death, but an organised crime or mass murders of innocent people would call for imposition of death sentence as deterrence. 41. The other case relied on by the Public Prosecutor is Amrutlal Someshwar Joshi v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1994 S.C. 2516, where the Supreme Court upheld the death sentence of the accused who being the servant of a family, had eliminated the whole family which included an old lady and a young girl also. Public Prosecutor invited our attention to the observations in paragraph-21 which are to the following effect: “Assuming something happened between deceased No.1, the master and the accused, the servant at the time of occurrence, there was no reason as to why the accused killed him as well as deceased No.2 and even deceased No.3, a child aged about three years in such a merciless, brutal and diaboplical manner. It is obvious that only with a view to commit robbery, he committed these ghastly murders. The motive is heinous and the crime Committed is cold-blooded, cruel and diabolical.” 42. Learned Public Prosecutor lastly relied on the judgment reported in Ravji alias Ram Chandra v. State of Rajasthan, (1996)1 Supreme (Crl.) 30). This was a case where the accused had slaughtered his own family including his wife and children. He also wanted to assault his mother. Who, however, escaped the said assault, but turned hostile in favour of her son during the trial. Therefore, the Supreme Court did not accept the plea of the accused for lesser punishment. This was a case where the accused had slaughtered his own family including his wife and children. He also wanted to assault his mother. Who, however, escaped the said assault, but turned hostile in favour of her son during the trial. Therefore, the Supreme Court did not accept the plea of the accused for lesser punishment. Learned Public Prosecutor invited our attention to the observation, in paragraph-23, that: “The brutality and cruelty with which the crimes have been perpetrated cannot but shock the conscience of the society. After killing the wife and three minor children and injuring the mother he did not become remorseful and desist from committing any further crime. But, like a blood thirstily demon, in a cool and calculated manner, he went to one of the neighbour’s house and attempted to kill the wife of the neighbour while she was asleep and as such utterly helpless to give any resistance...” 43. Learned counsel for the defence immediately further pointed out that the decision in Ravji alias Ram Chandra’s case, (1996)1 Supreme (Crl.) 30, would not be applicable as the factual scenario is entirely different in this case. Learned Public Prosecutor wanted to draw support form this case only to the extent of cruelty which was shown by the accused while committing attack. In our opinion, however, facts of this case are quite distinct and separate and, therefore, inapplicable to the present case. 44. Lastly, learned Public Prosecutor relied on the decision in Shiv Ram and another, etc. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1997)2 Supreme (Crl.) 405, where the Supreme Court had confirmed the death sentence on the accused for having committed mass murders of the members of a family by causing gunshot injuries and thereafter severing the heads from the injured bodies. They paraded with those heads in the village. The total number of murders committed in this case was five and the accused had shown the extreme depravity of mind by not only stopping with committing murders of five persons of the same family, but also by exhibiting those head in the village. We do not think the factual scenario in in any way similar to the present case. The observation of the Supreme Court in this case, in paragraph-29 is as follows: “The proved facts of this case unmistakably indicate that the present case squarely falls within the ambit of”rarest of rare“case. We do not think the factual scenario in in any way similar to the present case. The observation of the Supreme Court in this case, in paragraph-29 is as follows: “The proved facts of this case unmistakably indicate that the present case squarely falls within the ambit of”rarest of rare“case. Five murders were committed in an extremely brutal, grosteous diabolical, revolting or dastardly manner which would arouse intense and extreme indignation of the community. Award of lesser punishment to these six accused persons would disintegrate the rule of law upon which the ediofic of our civilized society stands.” There can be no dispute that on the principles arrived at by the Apex Court. In this case, it would first be required to see whether there is such extreme depravity, brutality and grotesqueness which would cause shock to the judicial conscience, In short, it has to be seen, on the backdrop of all the case-laws, as to whether the act of the accused is so brutal, merciless, inhuman and punitive that he does not deserve to live in the society and whether his continuation in the society would endanger the society in any manner as has been observed in Om Prakash’s case, (1999)2 Supreme 227 . 45. In this behalf, it has to be considered the contention of the accused that he has old parents to support. It can be seen that he was only 25 years old when he committed the alleged crime. It has to be appreciated that the basis of this case is the loan taken by the accused form padmavathi which was merely for Rs.300. It seems that for that purpose, the accused had pawned one jewel with Padmavathi. For the reasons best known to them, the said jewel has not been seized by the police, nor is there any definite investigation in respect of the jewel and the transaction. In the examination of the accused, though the accused had denied the whole story including his dialogue with Padmavathi asking for the return of the jewel, it is clear that there was no serious challenge to the story of the hand loan of Rs.300 and pawning of the jewel therefor. In the examination of the accused, though the accused had denied the whole story including his dialogue with Padmavathi asking for the return of the jewel, it is clear that there was no serious challenge to the story of the hand loan of Rs.300 and pawning of the jewel therefor. In fact, there is no challenge to the version of the prosecution witnesses that Padmavathi used to do pawning business and used to give amounts to certain people in the village, So also, though the accused at one place and more particularly, in the answer to the question regarding Kamalabai’s evidence, went to the extent of saying that he had worked in the shop, there is, strictly, speaking, no serious challenge to that fact. Therefore, it is established that the accused was a petty servant in the medical show run by the family members of Padmavathi and had also taken Rs.300 as a handloan from Padmavathi by pawning a jewel with her. Padmavathi’s evidence that has come in her cross-examination clearly establishes that Ravi had pledged an ear stud weighing about one sovereign for Rs.300. Now, if the accused required Rs.300 and for that purpose, if he required to pawn an ear stud weighing about one sovereign and if he could not pay even that paltry sum back, one thing is certain that the accused comes form the poor state of the society. It may be that the accused was entertaining a feeling of injustice on account of his having to pawn his ear stud which was much more valuable than a paltry sum of Rs.300 and that too, that he had to part with the ear stud for raising the loan. The accused was perhaps feeling aggrieved that though he had served for two years in the shop without any complaint, he still had to part with his ear stud which was much more valuable than Rs.300 which he required. Perhaps it is out of this feeling of injustice and frustration, the accused sought back his ear stud which he had pawned with Padmavathi. It cannot be forgotten that he had sought back his ear stud one week prior to the incident also and perhaps, on being rebutted by Padmavathi, the accused took it into his head to do something dastardly. Even on the date when the incident took place, the accused did not straightaway start the assault. It cannot be forgotten that he had sought back his ear stud one week prior to the incident also and perhaps, on being rebutted by Padmavathi, the accused took it into his head to do something dastardly. Even on the date when the incident took place, the accused did not straightaway start the assault. He had first sought back his ear stud and when he was again rebutted, he started the assault. As regards the assault also, it has to be borne in mind that in so far as the ladies are concerned, he has hot assaulted them fatally. He remained content with the injuries that the inflicted on them alone. Perhaps, out of the feeling of his own safety, he might have dealt blows on sleeping Sathish. It was in a frenzy that the accused had acted while assaulting Sathish and even on the ladies. There can be no dispute that the accused was not at all justified in acting in the manner he did and he did the act in a cruel manner in so far as two young girls are concerned, but one fact cannot be altogether ignored that he did not go to the extent of killing any one of them. He perhaps wanted to teach a lesson to the whole family and in that frenzy, he did act in the manner he did. 46. In this behalf, the evidence of P.W.1 would be extremely relevant. In his examination-in-chief, he has also referred to the dialogue of the accused regarding the ear stud and has also described that the accused was moving in an infuriated manner. In Ex.P-1, the description of the accused is a mere telling tale that “since Ravi cut everything as if he had been mad, I stood still out of fear. As I was afraid that he would cut me also, I hid near the entrance and watch.” This has aptly described the condition of the accused whose frustration for having to pawn a ear stud which was valuable much more than Rs.300 which was the sum he took from Padmavathi. It cannot be stated that this is a crime for money. It cannot be stated that this is a crime for human avarice. It cannot be stated that this is a crime for money. It cannot be stated that this is a crime for human avarice. The crime has been undoubtedly committed in cruel manner but by a person who coming from the poor strata of the society was frustrated because of his not getting back his ear stud or on account of his not being able to arrange Rs.300 for that purpose. It can be said that the accused had done something with premeditation and in a cold-blooded manner. Perhaps, had Padmavathi given back the ear stud as demanded by the accused, the further gory and bloody scene would have been averted. It is for this reason, we feel that the accused should not be given the extreme penalty of death. 47. The accused was a young person. He has a clean character, inasmuch as the prosecution has not alleged any criminal activity against him. Even the complainant P.W.1 or any of his relations did not speak anything ill about the accused when he served with them. Therefore, it is clear that the accused unnecessarily took it to his head that he had to part with an ear stud for a platry sum of Rs.300 and that too, from a person in whose family he had served for 2 or 3 years. Though he did some acts which undoubtedly are cruel and despicable, yet it cannot be held that this is the rarest of the rare case as contemplated in Bachan Singh’s case, A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 898. The depravity and cruelty done in Om Prakash’s case, (1999)2 Supreme 227 , was much more than the act of killing seven persons more dastardly. It was a crime with premeditation and in a cold-blooded manner, but, considering that the accused was constantly rankling with the feeling of injustice and further considering that he had a clear past, the Apex Court had shown mercy to him holding that the facts in that case did not take it to the ultimate pedestal of the rarest of the rare case. We feel the scenario is somewhat similar in the present case. Here also, the accused had served with the family of Padmavathi without any complaint. He also comes from the poor state of the society and that is the socio-economical factor which we would take into consideration while considering the question of sentence against the accused. We feel the scenario is somewhat similar in the present case. Here also, the accused had served with the family of Padmavathi without any complaint. He also comes from the poor state of the society and that is the socio-economical factor which we would take into consideration while considering the question of sentence against the accused. Besides, the accused can also be said to have entertained a feeling of ultimate injustice. 48. The Public Prosecutor very seriously contended that if the accused could cut persons for a platry sum of Rs.300 then, he might prove to be a danger to the society. We do not agree. The accused after all comes from the poor strata of the society which is apparent, otherwise, it would not have been difficult for him to arrange Rs.300 and to get his ear stud back. In our opinion, this is not a case which could be said to be the rarest of the rare case. Learned Sessions Judge has relied on number of judgments of the Supreme Court, however, she has not considered the socio-economical aspect and also the psychological factor which drove the accused to do what he actually did. Learned Public Prosecutor also pointed out that in Amrutlal Someshwar Joshi’s case, A.I.R. 1994 S.C. 25, the Supreme Court had taken note of the relationship between master and servant, We feel that the facts noticed in Amrutlal Someshwar Joshi’s case are quite different. We cannot forget that in Amrutlal Someshwar Joshi’s case, the accused had decamped with the property of the master knowing all that had happened. In this case, even about the murder of Babu, we feel that it was only because of the frenzy that the accused must have felt in his extremely agitated mind out of the anxiety to leave the place as early as possible. Probably, he felt that Babu might show or cause hindrance to his escape from the house. It is probably out of that, the accused acted against him. We are not unmindful of the agony that the two little girls would have to feel for the rest of their lives as also the pains that the family would face and suffer because of the untimely death of the two young boys, however, in our opinion, all may not call for the ultimate punishment of death as law does not have retributive spirit. 49. 49. As regards the Public Prosecutor’s apprehension that the accused might prove to be a danger to the society, we feel that the prosecution has not brought any such factor to our notice which would make us to accept the view of the Public Prosecutor that the accused may prove to be a danger to the society. We only express our deep sympathy for the family which had lost two lives and the girls who would have to face a permanent tramuma. In view of what we have held, we do not accept the reference made by the trial court for confirmation of the death sentence. We do not propose to confirm the death sentence awarded, however, we express that all the other sentences awarded are appropriate including the direction of payment of compensation out of the fine money, if so collected. In so far as R.T.No.6 of 1998 is concerned. We refuse to confirm the death sentence and instead, direct that the accused shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. In so far as C.A.No.713 of 1998 is concerned, it succeeds only to the extent that we have held, that is, only in respect of the death sentence. Rest of the findings of conviction and sentence are confirmed. C.A.No.713 of 1998, with that modification, is dismissed. 50. Before we end, we must appreciate the efforts made by the learned Public Prosecutor in assisting us.