Judgment Narayan Roy and M.L.Visa JJ. 1. We have heard Mr. Lala Kailash Bihari Prasad, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and Miss Radha Rani Mitra, learned counsel appearing as amicus curiae in death reference and also in the criminal appeal. 2. Death Reference No. 1/2000 and Criminal Appeal No. 41/2000 arise out of the common judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant, therefore, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The sole appellant Sattan Sah alias Sattan Ram has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing murder intentionally and knowingly of Raju alias Ravi Bhushan Prasad Shrivastava and death sentence has been awarded to him. 4. The prosecution case as disclosed in the fardbeyan, Ext. 1, lodged by Braj Bhushan Prasad @ Ranjan Kumar P.W 3, is that in the preceding night of 21.9.1992 at about 10 P.M. the informant P.W. 3 along with his friend and neighbour Vivekanand Verma P.W. 4 had gone to see Ashatajam in Balua Chowk situated in the town of Motihari. After about one hour, his brother Raju alias Ravi Bhushan Prasad Shrivastava along with Surendra Prasad P.W. 5 of Balua Chowk also reached there. However, they left the place of Ashatajam at 2.45 A.M. and proceeded for home. Raju alias Ravi Bhushan Prasad Shrivastava deceased along with Surendra Sah P.W. 5 were few steps behind from him and Vivekanand Verma P.W. 4 and Sunil Kumar (not examined) were few steps ahead. No sooner he reached at the north-east of Balua Chowk, the appellant Sattan Sah alias Sattan Ram who was standing on the left side of road, inflicted Chhura blow on the chest of the deceased. Surendra Sah P.W. 5 took the deceased injured in his lap and Sattan Sah appellant started fleeing away. The informant P.W. 3 and Sunil Kumar ran to catch the accused but the accused Sattan Sah alias Sattan Ram managed to escape after crossing the railway line. The informant came back to the place of occurrence and found his brother dead. The dead body was taken to his house where the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Motihari Town, Police Station P.W. 1 came there and recorded the fardbeyan of P.W. 3. The informant came back to the place of occurrence and found his brother dead. The dead body was taken to his house where the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Motihari Town, Police Station P.W. 1 came there and recorded the fardbeyan of P.W. 3. It is further prosecution case that the informant suspected the hands of Durga Prasad Sah, Dinesh Kumar Sah, Prem Sah, Jaga Sah, Rameshwar Prasad and Shambhu Prasad behind the incident. 5. On the basis of the fardbeyan of P.W. 3, a formal first information report was drawn up and Motihari Town P.S. Case No. 122/92 under Section 302/120B of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the appellant and others. After due investigation, chargesheet was submitted only against this appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and after taking cognizance of the offence, the case was committed to the Court of Session. 6. The defence of the appellant is total denial of the occurrence and the plea of false implication. 7. The prosecution in all examined as many as eight witnesses in support of its case. Out of them, P.W. 1, Mahendra Mishir, Assistant Sub-lnspetor of Police had recorded the fardbeyan of P.W. 3 informant and inspected the place of occurrence and had prepared the inquest report; P.W. 2 Suryadeo Singh is the Investigating Officer of the case; P.W.s 6 and 7, namely, Sajay Kumar and Sahdeo Rai are seizure witnesses of Exts. 2 and 2/1; P.W. 8 Dr. Ram Bilas Choudhary is the Civil Assistant Surgeon in Sadar Hospital Motihari who held autopsy over the dead body; P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5, namely, Braj Bhushan Prasad @ Ranjan Kumar, Vivekanand Verma and Surendra Prasad are eye-witnesses of the occurrence. 8. P.W. 3, Braj Bhushan Prasad @ Ranjan Kumar, the informant, in his evidence has stated that in the night of 20.9.1992 he had gone to Balua Chowk at 10 Oclock along with his neighbour P.W. 4 Vivekanand Verma and Sunil Kumar to visit Ashatajam. At about 3 Oclock in the night he along with his neighbours and his brother, the deceased and Surendra Prasad P.W. 5 started coming home and no sooner he along with others reached Balua Chowk, all of a sudden, the appellant Sattan Sah alias Sattan Ram gave a dagger blow on the chest of the deceased Raju and tried to flee away. He was chased to some extent but he managed to escape and thereafter he returned back to the place of occurrence where he found his brother Raju dead. The dead body was taken to the house and on information given, the police came there and recorded his fardbeyan. This witness in his evidence has clearly stated that while returning back after seeing Ashatajam, he was 5-6 steps ahead of the deceased brother and Surendra Prasad P.W. 5 and on hearing hulla, Surendra Prasad P.W. 5 cried that Sattan Sah alias Sattan Ram had given a dagger blow on the brother. He along with Vivekanand Verma P.W. 4 and Sunil Kumar turned back and saw the appellant fleeing away with dagger in his hand. On chase, he could not be caught and thus, he came back to the place of occurrence. This witness has clearly stated in his evidence that it was the appellant who had dealt a dagger blow on the chest of his brother the deceased. This witness in his evidence has also stated that there was sufficient light on the place of occurrence as tube-lights and electric bulbs were burning and he could identify the assailant Sattan Sah alias Sattan Ram in the electric light. In cross-examination this witness remained candid in saying the same version as stated in the examination-in-chief. 9. Likewise, P.W. 4 Vivekanand Verma has also deposed in the same line as that of P.W. 3. In his evidence he has stated that on the fateful night he along with the informant P.W. 3, P.W. 5 Surendra Prasad, Sunil Kumar and the deceased were returning after seeing Ashatajam and no sooner they reached Balua Chowk, he heard cries of P.W. 5 Surendra Prasad that appellant Sattan Sah alias Sattan Ram dealt a dagger blow on the chest of the deceased. He and the informant turned back and saw the appellant fleeing away with dagger in his hand. This witness specifically named the appellant as assailant. He has further stated in his evidence that the appellant was chased by P.W. 3 Braj Bhushan Prasad to some extent but he managed to escape. This witness has also stated that at the place of occurrence there was sufficient electric light and mercury tube was burning there and he could identify the appellant Sattan in the electric light. He has further stated in his evidence that the appellant was chased by P.W. 3 Braj Bhushan Prasad to some extent but he managed to escape. This witness has also stated that at the place of occurrence there was sufficient electric light and mercury tube was burning there and he could identify the appellant Sattan in the electric light. This witness has been cross-examined at length but he could not be discredited of his testimony. 10. P.W. 5 Surendra Prasad, another eye-witness, who was accompanying the deceased, in his evidence has stated that on the fateful night at about 3 Oclock he was returning after seeing Ashatajam with the deceased and P.Ws. 3 and 4 were just ahead of him and no sooner they reached near Balua Chowk, the appellant Sattan Sah all of a sudden appeared there and gave a dagger blow on the chest of the deceased and he immediately raised hulla which attracted P.Ws. 3 and 4 and they came to the place of occurrence and saw the accused-appellant fleeing away. From the evidence of P.W. 5, it is manifest that he had seen the assailant Sattan Sah giving a dagger blow on the chest of the deceased in the electric light which was burning there. It is also manifest from his evidence that he was accompanying the deceased and no sooner a Chhura blow was dealt to him, he held him in his lap and raised a hulla. This witness has further stated in his evidence that the appellant was known to him from before and he had raised hulla naming him that he dealt a dagger blow on the deceased. 11. P.W. 1 Mahendra Mishir, who visited the place of occurrence immediately after the occurrence, in his evidence has stated that he received a hear-say information on 21.9.1992 at about 3 Oclock and he accordingly made a station diary entry and went to Balua Chowk at 3.30 A.M. He has further stated in his evidence that the place of occurrence was Balua Chowk where he had found sufficient blood on pitch road and he had seized blood-stained stone-chip and prepared a seizure list. This witness has stated that he had found electric bulb and tube lights burning at the place of occurrence. This witness has stated that he had found electric bulb and tube lights burning at the place of occurrence. He has further stated in his evidence that P.W. 3 had lodged a fardbeyan before him disclosing the name of the appellant as assailant. 12. P.W. 2, Suryadeo Singh, is the Investigating Officer of the case as he took Charge of the case from Mahendra Mishir P.W. 1, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. He in his evidence has stated that in course of investigation, he recorded the statements of the witnesses in the police station and on receiving information that accused Sattan Sah alias Sattan Ram was seen near Janpur Chowk, he along with the police party proceeded to that place and there he apprehended Sattan Sah alias Sattan Ram in front of Madho Talkies situated at Janpur Chowk. On search he recovered Chaku (dagger), iron portion of which was 6" length and he accordingly prepared a seizure list. He has further stated in his evidence that he had also recovered blood-stained sleeveless Ganji of the deceased from a bush near the place of occurrence and he had also seized blood-stained earth and coaltar. 13. P.W. 8, Dr. Ram Bilas Choudhary, who held autopsy over the dead body, in his evidence has stated that on 21.9.1992 he was posted as Civil Assistant Surgeon in Sadar Hospital Motihari and on that date at 9.30 A.M. he had held autopsy over the deceased and he had found the following ante mortem injuries : "Incised wound on the left side chest just below the left clavicle 2" x 1" x chest cavity deep." On dissection chest cavity contained blood and blood clots. Upper lobe of the left lung was found punctured and both chambers of the heart were found empty. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage on account of the above-mentioned injury which was caused by a sharp cutting weapon which may be Chhura. In the opinion of the doctor, the injury found on the person of the deceased was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course. Besides the ocular evidence, documentary evidence was also led by the prosecution. Exts. 8 and 8/1 are reports of the Forensic Science Laboratory. In the opinion of the doctor, the injury found on the person of the deceased was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course. Besides the ocular evidence, documentary evidence was also led by the prosecution. Exts. 8 and 8/1 are reports of the Forensic Science Laboratory. On serological test, the Forensic Science Laboratory reported that blood-stains on Ganji cuttings, stone chips, cotton swat from dagger and shirt cuttings contained human blood of group "A". 14. The evidence of; P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5 is fully corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 and also by the evidence of the doctor P.W. 8. From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, as discussed above, we find the evidence consistent. All the eye-witnesses, namely, P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5 have consistently stated about the manner of the occurrence where they had specifically named the appellant as assailant who could be identified in electric light which was burning at the place of occurrence from before. It is true that P.Ws. 3 and 4 were not knowing the appellant from before but they could know the name of the appellant from P.W. 5 Surendra Prasad who was already known to the appellant. The evidence of the doctor fully corroborates the prosecution version of the case that the deceased had sustained dagger injury which was sufficient to cause death. We further find that the prosecution witnesses, namely, P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5 who are eye-witnesses of the occurrence are trustworthy witnesses and they have spelt out the truth, the place of occurrence and the manner of occurrence have been fully proved by the prosecution witnesses. 15. On scrutiny of the evidence with all objectivity, we find that the prosecution has proved charges against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt and in that view of the matter, the finding arrived at by the learned trial court recording the judgment of conviction appears to be well sustainable. 16. For the reasons aforementioned, therefore, we affirm the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. So far as capital punishment awarded to the appellant is concerned, we find that the death penalty has been imposed upon the appellant. The learned trial court while imposing the death penalty, however, has not recorded special reasons for such sentence, as required under sub-section (3) of section 354 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 17. So far as capital punishment awarded to the appellant is concerned, we find that the death penalty has been imposed upon the appellant. The learned trial court while imposing the death penalty, however, has not recorded special reasons for such sentence, as required under sub-section (3) of section 354 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 17. From the evidence, as discussed above, it is manifest that no motive has been proved for committing murder of the deceased by the appellant. We also do not find any aggravating evidence or mitigating circumstances to uphold the order of sentence passed against the appellant nor we find special reasons for doing so. It is true that the prosecution has proved charge levelled against the appellant for committing murder of the deceased, yet the question remains as to whether death penalty be imposed upon the appellant. 18. It is settled by various decisions of the Apex Court that capital punishment can be imposed in the rarest of the rare cases. In our considered view, we do not find it the rarest of rare cases for imposing death penalty. From the evidence, it is manifest that only one dagger blow was given to the deceased and the appellant had not attempted to repeat the blow rather it appears that after inflicting Chhura blow, the appellant started fleeing away after taking out Chhura from the person of the deceased. In such circumstances, it would be difficult for us to hold that the appellant had tried to commit murder of the deceased in a most cruel way and it was a case of cruelty of the highest degree. Capital punishment has the greatest value as deterrent for murder and other capital offences. In our opinion, to deter the appellant life imprisonment will suffice as we do not find it rarest of the rare cases. 19. in Kishori V/s. State of Delhi [(1999) 1 Supreme Court Cases 148 : 1999(1) PLJR(SC)42], the Apex Court has held that capital punishment can be imposed in the rarest of the rare cases if there are any aggravating circumstances. 20. In the case at hand, the evidence is not suggestive of the fact that there are any mitigating circumstances or there are any aggravating circumstances under which the appellant committed murder of the deceased. 21. 20. In the case at hand, the evidence is not suggestive of the fact that there are any mitigating circumstances or there are any aggravating circumstances under which the appellant committed murder of the deceased. 21. On the totality of the circumstances, we are of the opinion that is not a case where capital punishment should be imposed. While affirming the conviction of the appellant on the charges framed against him, we reduce the sentence passed against the appellant from that of capital punishment to life imprisonment. The death reference is discharged and the criminal appeal is dismissed with this modification. 22. Since Miss Radha Rani Mitra has been appointed as amicus curiae by this court vide order dated 7.2.2000, she will be entitled for legal remuneration admissible in law from Patna High Court Legal Services Authority.