JUDGMENT K.S. Garewal, J. - Sanjay (19) and Anil (19) were tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Sonepat for the rape upon and the murder of Annu, a child of six and both of them were awarded imprisonment for seven years for her abduction along with a fine of Rs. 500/- each. They were also awarded imprisonment for life for the offence of rape along with a fine of Rs. 1000/- each and were both sentenced to death for the murder. 2. The death sentences being subject to confirmation by this Court, Murder Reference No. 1 of 200 titled The State of Haryana v. Sanjay and Anil has been forwarded to this court by Sessions Judge, Sonepat. Furthermore, both the convicts have jointly appealed against their conviction and sentence by filing Criminal Appeal 536-DB-1999. Each of them have also filed separate appeals through Jail, which are Criminal Appeal No. 549-DB-1999 and Criminal Appeal No. 550-DB-1999. The murder reference and the three criminal appeals shall be disposed of together by this common judgment. 3. The facts of this case are brief and uncomplicated. The deceased child Annu was the daughter of Mohan Singh PW9. On March 8, 1997 she had accompanied her parents to the house of her uncle (fathers brother) Arjun Singh PW10 at 7 P.M. Annu and Arjun Singhs son Leo (4) insisted on going out to play in the park behind the house, whereupon Arjun Singh took both the children to the park and left them there. At that time he noticed Sanjay, the local washerman, standing in the park with his bicycle. Sanjay was known to Arjun Singh as he used to iron their clothes operating from an empty booth near to Arjun Singhs house. After about an hour Leo returned home and informed his father Arjun Singh that Sanjay had taken Annu away on his bicycle. 4. When Annus father Mohan Singh PW9 returned home he found that his brother Arjun Singh and many other people had collected outside his house. He learnt that his daughter had been taken away by some cyclist. Thereupon Mohan Singh, his brother Arjun Singh, his nephew and other persons started looking for Annu, but they failed to find her. 4. When Annus father Mohan Singh PW9 returned home he found that his brother Arjun Singh and many other people had collected outside his house. He learnt that his daughter had been taken away by some cyclist. Thereupon Mohan Singh, his brother Arjun Singh, his nephew and other persons started looking for Annu, but they failed to find her. Consequently, Mohan Singh lodged a report with Sub Inspector Om Parkash, Incharge Police Post, Gohana Road, Sonepat at 2 A.M. on March 9, 1997, which is Ex.PA and it was on its basis of the First Information Report 167 was registered at Police Station, Sonepat at 2.50 A.M. under Section 365, Indian Penal Code and which is Ex. PA/1. The Special Report was received by the Chief Judicial Magistrate at 4 A.M. (as per the statement of UGC Balbir Singh PW3 it was delivered at 3.30 A.M.). 5. The investigation into the abduction of Mohan Singhs daughter was taken up in right earnest by Sub Inspector Om Parkash PW12. The investigator, as per his case diaries, joined the complainant alongwith some other persons of the locality in the investigation. They confirmed that Annu had been abducted by a young man on a bicycle. Leo son of Arjun Singh and a girl called Jyoti, daughter of Kamal Chaudhary, were also interrogated and both these children confirmed that Annu had been abducted by a young man on a bicycle. The investigation was also verified by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. The investigation did not make much headway until the next morning when the investigator reached the Sector 15 Gurdwara and saw that many people had gathered there. On reaching the spot the investigator found the dead body of a young girl, which Mohan Singh complainant identified to be that of his missing daughter Annu. A photographer was called by the police, whereafter a team from the Forensic Science Laboratory inspected the site and the dog squad was also pressed into service, but without any success. Thereupon, the investigator prepared the inquest report and also took into possession blood stained earth; blood-stained aak leaves were also taken into possession. The left foot of the sandal of the child was lying there and it too was taken into possession. The investigator prepared a rough site plan of the place from where the corpse was recovered. Thereupon, the investigator prepared the inquest report and also took into possession blood stained earth; blood-stained aak leaves were also taken into possession. The left foot of the sandal of the child was lying there and it too was taken into possession. The investigator prepared a rough site plan of the place from where the corpse was recovered. After that it was sent to the Civil Hospital for post mortem examination through Constable Jai Bhagwan and UGC Mohinder Singh. 6. The post mortem examination was conducted later the same afternoon by Dr. Mrs. Purnima Ahuja PW5 and Dr. Arun Garg at 3.40 P.M. and the Medical Officers found that the clothes of the dead body were blood-stained and had mud over them. There was dry grass on the scalp hair, the eyes were congested, dry and had conjunctival haemorrhages on both sides. The following injuries were observed. "1. There were multiple bruises and abrasions over the whole of the face and frontal lateral sides of the neck which were mingling with each other. The injuries were more marked over the nose on its sides chin and the front of the neck. The inquiries were reddish in colour with clotted blood over the wound. On dissection there was blood in subcutaneous tissues. 2. An incised wound 1 cm x .3 cm was present over the left cheek with clotted blood. One angle was acute while other was obtuse. 3. An incised wound with one angle acute present over the left cheek, 5 cms medial to the injury No. 2 and measuring .5 x .5 cm. 4. A lacerated wound was present over the upper lip lacerating it through and through with clotted blood over and in the wound. 5. A semi-circular bruise with abrasion in between was present over the left cheek. Some deep marks as those of teeth were seen over it. 6. Incised wound present in the inner side of the upper lip near the gums extending laterally upto the tooth 5th on each side. The front upper right inside tooth was missing. The gum cavity was lacerated freshly with blood in it. The other gums were also lacerated and have clotted blood over it. 7. 6. Incised wound present in the inner side of the upper lip near the gums extending laterally upto the tooth 5th on each side. The front upper right inside tooth was missing. The gum cavity was lacerated freshly with blood in it. The other gums were also lacerated and have clotted blood over it. 7. An incised wound was present on the inner side of the lower lip at the junction of gum and mandible cutting a (sic) deep and laterally so as the mandible can be exposed, by pulling it. The front teeth were loose, gums were lacerated with clotted blood over it. 8. There were small bruises and abrasions present over the front of the left shoulder and back of the right elbow joint which was reddish in colour and having clotted blood over them. On dissection there was infiltration of blood in the subcutaneous tissues." 7. The Medical Officers conducted detailed examination of the private parts of the body and described the injuries in detail in Ex. PJ. Two swabs were taken from the vagina and one swab was taken from the anal canal. In the opinion of the Medical Officers, cause of death was asphyxia as a result of throttling and shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries described in the post mortem report. The deceased had been sexually assaulted before her death, both vaginally as well as anally. The probable time that elapsed between injuries and death was a few minutes while time between death and post mortem was between 24 hours. Ex.PJ was the copy of the post mortem examination, which was signed by both the Medical Officers. The clothes worn by the deceased along with a sandal were also taken into possession. 8. During the investigation one Mohan Lal Kataria PW12 was also examined and he disclosed that on March 8, 1997 at 8.30 PM, when he was taking a stroll after dinner and when he reached Satya-Om Clinic two boys were seen by him on a bicycle. According to Mohan Lal Kataria, Anil was pedalling the cycle while Sanjay was sitting on the carrier with a girl child on his lap. 9. On March 11, 1997 Ram Kumar PW8 produced Sanjay and Anil before Inspector Ram Kishan PW13. At that time both the appellants had a cycle each in their possession. Both the appellants were taken to custody by Inspector Ram Kishan. 9. On March 11, 1997 Ram Kumar PW8 produced Sanjay and Anil before Inspector Ram Kishan PW13. At that time both the appellants had a cycle each in their possession. Both the appellants were taken to custody by Inspector Ram Kishan. Their cycles were also taken into possession. Later on, both Sanjay and Anil were medico-legally examined at 8.15 P.M. and 8.30 P.M. respectively by Dr. S.P. Sharma PW6 at Government Hospital, Sonepat. Neither of them had any injury on their person, but on examination there was nothing to suggest that they were incapable of performing sexual inter-course. Their respective underwear were also taken into possession and handed over to the police. 10. On March 12, 1997, both the appellants were produced before the Area Magistrate with their faces covered and an application Ex.PC was made before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat by Sub Inspector Ram Kishan for deputing an Executive Magistrate to conduct the identification parade of the accused. However, the accused declined to participate in the identification parade and their statements were recorded. Their joint statement is Ex.PC/1, thereupon the learned Magistrate recorded order Ex.PC/2 disposing of the application for identification parade as the accused had declined to join the parade. Site plan was got prepared by Patwari Ved Singh PW2 on March 19, 1997. Site plan/aks-shajra is Ex.PB. The vaginal swabs, blood-stained clothes of the deceased and the underwears of the accused were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (Haryana) Madhuban. For examination and as per report Ex.PF, human semen was detected from underwears of the two accused appellants, but the vaginal swabs and the frock of the deceased did not reveal any semen stains. 11. After completion of the investigation Sanjay and Anil were sent for trial while Sonu (juvenile) was sent to the Juvenile Court. Charges were framed against the two accused under Sections 365/34, 376/34 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code on September 11, 1997. The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 12. At the trial, prosecution examined A.S.I. Inder Singh PW1 with regard to the registration of formal F.I.R. PA/1, on the basis of statement Ex.PA forwarded to him by S.I. Parkash. Patwari Ved Singh PW2 deposed with regard to preparation of ask-shajra Ex.PB of the spot. It was prepared by him on March 19, 1997. 12. At the trial, prosecution examined A.S.I. Inder Singh PW1 with regard to the registration of formal F.I.R. PA/1, on the basis of statement Ex.PA forwarded to him by S.I. Parkash. Patwari Ved Singh PW2 deposed with regard to preparation of ask-shajra Ex.PB of the spot. It was prepared by him on March 19, 1997. UGC Balbir Singh PW3 stated that he had handed over the Special Report to the Ilaqa Magistrate without any loss of time. Dr. Neelima Shangla, CJM Sonepat, deposed regarding the presentation of an application Ex.PC by S.I. Ram Kishan for the identification parade of the accused and they declined to join the parade on March 12, 1997. Photographer Gulshan Kumar PW7 had taken the photographs Ex.P-8 to P-10 on March 9, 1997, when he visited the place of occurrence. Constable Jai Bhagwan PW8 deposed regarding conducting of post mortem examination on the dead body and the Medical Officer handing over of the parcels containing clothes of the deceased to him. Mohan Singh, father Annu deceased appeared as PW9. Arjun Singh, Mohan Singhs brother appeared as PW10. Mohan Lal Kataria appeared as PW11. The investigators S.I. Om Parkash and Inspector Ram Kishan, PW12 and PW13 respectively were also examined by the prosecution whereafter prosecution evidence was closed. 13. Accused were examined under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. They denied the prosecution evidence, which weighed against them, but gave the following statements in their defence. Statement of Sanjay :- "I am innocent. I have been falsely implicated by the police. On 9.3.1997 at about 2.00 A.M. Arjun Singh PW alongwith police party came at my house and without assigning any reason they picked me alongwith Anil and Sonu and brought all of us to Police Station and confined us there. About 4 years back Arjun Singh also suspected me because some ornaments were stolen from his house and from that date Arjun Singh was having a grudge against me. I and my other co-accused have been falsely implicated at his instance. Police had obtained our signatures on many blank papers on 9.3.1997. Police did not take us anywhere and confined us in police lock up. Police had shown us to the witnesses in the police station." Statement of Anil :- "I am innocent. I have been falsely implicated by the police. Police had obtained our signatures on many blank papers on 9.3.1997. Police did not take us anywhere and confined us in police lock up. Police had shown us to the witnesses in the police station." Statement of Anil :- "I am innocent. I have been falsely implicated by the police. On 9.3.1997 at about 2.00 AM Arjun Singh PW alongwith police party came at my house and without assigning any reason they picked me alongwith Sanjay and Sonu and brought all of us to Police Station and confined us there. Police had obtained our signatures on many blank papers on 9.3.1997. Police did not take us anywhere and confined us in police lock up. Police had shown us to the witnesses in the Police Station." 14. The accused had been called upon to enter defence, whereupon Sanjay accused produced certified copies of the statements of Ram Kumar DW as Ex. D1 and D2 and closed his evidence. 15. The learned Sessions Judge was of the opinion that the prosecution case was based entirely on the circumstantial evidence. The circumstances, which the prosecution had been able to establish were, firstly, the evidence of Arjun Singh PW10 to the effect that he had left Annu and Leo in the park, where washermans daughter namely Jyoti was also playing. At that time he had seen Sanjay accused, the neighbourhood washerman, standing there with his bicycle. The second piece of evidence relied upon by the Court was the statement of Mohan Lal Kataria PW11, who had deposed that in the night of occurrence, he had gone for a stroll after dinner and had noticed Sanjay and Anil on a bicycle, which was being pedalled by Anil while Sanjay was sitting on the carrier with Annu in his lap. Lastly, the court relied upon the fact that the accused had declined joining the identification parade as they were afraid that they would be identified by Mohan Lal Kataria. Evidence of the recovery of bicycles from the custody of Sanjay and Anil at the time of their arrest was also a factor relied upon by the court. 16. The prosecution evidence was discussed in detail. The evidence of Dr. S.P. Sharma PW6 was accepted and it was to the effect that both Sanjay and Anil were capable of performing sexual inter-course. 16. The prosecution evidence was discussed in detail. The evidence of Dr. S.P. Sharma PW6 was accepted and it was to the effect that both Sanjay and Anil were capable of performing sexual inter-course. The charges against the accused were found to be proved and they were accordingly awarded sentences which have already been described above. 17. At the very outset it deserves to be noted that this case rests almost entirely on circumstantial evidence. For circumstantial evidence to be accepted, the chain of circumstances must form a continuous link and must lead to only one hypothesis that the accused had committed the offence. If the chain is incomplete or if there can be two hypothesis, then the circumstantial evidence would be found wanting and the accused given the benefit of acquittal. 18. In the present case, circumstantial evidence is to the effect that the deceased child had been taken by her parents from their house No. 504, Sector 15, to Arjun Singhs house No. 684, Sector 14. Mohan Singh was a Govt. contractor while his brother was an insurance agent. Mohan Singh left his wife and daughter and went off for some work. When he returned home, he found his brother and many other people had collected near his house. 19. The second circumstance is that on arrival at Arjun Singhs house Annu and Arjun Singhs son Leo had insisted on going to play in the park located beyond Arjun Singhs house. When Arjun Singh left the children in the park, he noticed Sanjay present there with a bicycle. Sanjay, a washerman, used to iron clothes and was known to Arjun Singh. Arjun Singh learnt from Leo that Sanjay had taken Annu on his bicycle. 20. The third circumstance against the accused is that Mohan Lal Kataria, PW11, a resident of House No. 690, Sector 14, had set out for an evening stroll at about 8.30 PM on March 8, 1997 and when he reached Satya Om Clinic, he saw two boys on a bicycle. A third boy was following them on another bicycle. The witness also saw that the cycle was being pedalled by Anil while Sanjay was sitting on the carrier with Annu in his lap. 21. The fourth circumstance against the accused is that Annus dead body was recovered on March 9, 1997 from behind Sector 15 Gurdwara. A third boy was following them on another bicycle. The witness also saw that the cycle was being pedalled by Anil while Sanjay was sitting on the carrier with Annu in his lap. 21. The fourth circumstance against the accused is that Annus dead body was recovered on March 9, 1997 from behind Sector 15 Gurdwara. The dead body had signs of having been sexually violated as per the post mortem report conducted by Dr. Purnima Ahuja PW5. The cause of death being asphyxia as a result of throttling and shock and haemorrhage. Post mortem was conducted on March 9, 1997 at 3.40 P.M. In the opinion of the Medical Officers time between death and post mortem was less than 24 hours. This establishes that the occurrence had taken place on the evening or the night of March 8. The timing thus tallies with the prosecution case. 22. The fifth circumstance against the accused is that Mohan Lal Kataria, in cross-examination stated that when his statement was recorded by the police the accused were already in the custody of the police and he had identified the accused in custody at that time. Mr. Mohan Lal Kataria is an independent witness, who would have no reason to falsely implicate and indeed no reason has been suggested in the cross-examination. Therefore, identification by this witness of the accused in police custody, though a weak type of identification, leaves no manner of doubt that the witness had a good opportunity to see both the accused on the evening of March 8 and had identified them on the following day. 23. The sum and substance of the prosecution case is the above circumstantial evidence. What is required to be considered is whether this evidence is reliable and acceptable. In undertaking this exercise, the first point to be considered is that there was no delay on the part of Annus father Mohan Singh in reporting her disappearance to the police. Report was made through statement Ex.PA at about 2 AM on March 9, 1997. The complainant reported that he had left his daughter Annu at his brother Arjun Singhs house No. 684, Sector 14, Sonepat, at about 7.30 PM. She was wearing a frock having white and yellow stripes and at 8 PM she had gone with other children to play in the park. The complainant reported that he had left his daughter Annu at his brother Arjun Singhs house No. 684, Sector 14, Sonepat, at about 7.30 PM. She was wearing a frock having white and yellow stripes and at 8 PM she had gone with other children to play in the park. Mohan Singh also reported that his brothers son Leo had told him that Annu had been taken away by a person on a bicycle. This shows that the report had been lodged only with regard to Annus disappearance, but as the dead body had not yet been found there was no mention of either the offences under Sections 376 or 302, Indian Penal Code in the original F.I.R. Ex.PA/1. Special Report was delivered to the Magistrate by 3.30/4 A.M. 24. It may be noted that both Mohan Singh and Arjun Singh were unanimous with regard to Annu being brought to the latters house, the children going out to play in the park and Annus disappearance from the park. Furthermore, Arjun Singh testified that at the time he left the children in the park, he had noticed Sanjay standing there with a bicycle. As regards Sanjays identification, Arjun Singh stated that he was a washerman, who ironed clothes in an empty booth near Arjun Singhs hose. In cross-examination Arjun Singh further clarified that he had known Sanjay for the last eight/ten years and that Sanjay had put up a table in a vacant plot opposite his house for ironing clothes. He further stated that he had also seen Jyoti playing in the park with Annu and Leo and he knew Jyotis parents. It may be noted here that Jyoti had also been examined by the investigator and her statement was recorded in the case diaries to the effect that Annu had been abducted by a young man on a bicycle. Both Leo and Jyoti had stated to the police that this was so, but being children neither were examined by the prosecution at the trial. The case diaries were examined in order to determine what Leo and Jyoti had stated to the police and to see if their statements were any different from the prosecution case was done in terms of Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in order to discover and obtain proof of relevant facts. The case diaries were examined in order to determine what Leo and Jyoti had stated to the police and to see if their statements were any different from the prosecution case was done in terms of Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in order to discover and obtain proof of relevant facts. It was not necessary as both Leo and Jyoti were children, who were not examined at the trial, but were eye-witnesses to Annua abduction from the park by Sanjay. Mohan Singh was also cross-examined as regards Jyoti and he stated that a girl named Jyoti, daughter of a washerman was also playing in the park, but he did not go to Jyotis house to enquire about his daughter. This was probably because Jyotis house was not known to him. However, he stated that he was told that Jyotis mother also washed and ironed clothes. 25. The prosecution case draws further strength from the evidence of Mohan Lal Kataria, who gave more details about the abduction and testified that he had seen two boys on a bicycle with a girl and he identified Anil accused as the person pedalling the bicycle while Sanjay was sitting on the carrier with Annu on his lap. He later on come to know that Annus dead body had been recovered from behind the Gurdwara and when he saw it he realised that she was the same girl who was being taken away by Sanjay and Anil. 26. From the testimonies of Mohan Singh, Arjun Singh and Mohan Lal Kataria, the entire sequence of events, which led to Annus disappearance and death stand established. The chain of circumstances is as complete as it can possibly be. The deceased went to play in the park, where Sanjay was present. She was picked up by Sanjay on a bicycle in the presence of Leo and Jyoti, who though not examined at the trial, but had stated so to the police and also to Mohan Singh and Arjun Singh. Thereafter, Annu was seen sitting in Sanjays lap and being taken on a bicycle by Anil and Sanjay. On the following morning her badly mutilated dead body showing signs of extreme sexual violence was found. The defence had ample opportunity to cross-examine the above three witnesses, but failed to cause a dent in their testimony. 27. Thereafter, Annu was seen sitting in Sanjays lap and being taken on a bicycle by Anil and Sanjay. On the following morning her badly mutilated dead body showing signs of extreme sexual violence was found. The defence had ample opportunity to cross-examine the above three witnesses, but failed to cause a dent in their testimony. 27. The explanation given by Sanjay was to the effect that he had been picked up by Arjun Singh along with police at about 2 AM from his house and taken to the Police Station because Arjun Singh had about four years ago suspected him of having stolen some ornaments and he had a grudge against him on this account. The explanation given by Anil was also to the same effect, except that he did not state anything about any previous incident with Arjun Singh. The two accused thereby admitted that they were in Sonepat on the night of March 8, 1997. 28. In defence, the accused relied upon the statement of Ram Kumar dated August 6, 1999, recorded by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Court, Sonepat in case entitled State v. Sonu, wherein the witness had resiled from his statement. Cope of the statement is Ex. D1. Defence also relied upon the statement of Ram Kumar under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code recorded on March 11, 1997. Documents D1 and D2 cannot be looked into as they are merely previous statements of witnesses and are only relevant for the purpose of confronting the witness if he appeared in court. Ram Kumar was not produced as a prosecution witness, therefore, the defence cannot use his previous statements against the prosecution. Ex.D2 is the statement of Ram Kumar recorded under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code and this can only be used by the accused for the limited purpose of Section 162 Criminal Procedure Code Therefore, both the statements must be ruled out from consideration altogether. 29. The prosecution had rather successfully established its case and there can be no hesitation in holding that the charges against the accused stood fully proved. Nevertheless, it deserves to be considered whether the accused should have been sentenced to death by the trial Court and deserved to die for their heinous crime. 30. The acts of the accused were without doubt extremely barbaric. Nevertheless, it deserves to be considered whether the accused should have been sentenced to death by the trial Court and deserved to die for their heinous crime. 30. The acts of the accused were without doubt extremely barbaric. Medical evidence shows that the deceased a child of six had been ravished both vaginally and anally in a most brutal manner and had been throttled to death. They showed scant respect for human life, no regard for norms of civilised behaviour and committed an extreme type of violence, which was rare indeed. However, the State and the society, which produced such brutes must share some blame. The sickness of the mind displayed by the two accused must be the result of the social milieu in which their parents raised them. One can only guess that the school which the accused attended, if at all, also had little or no effect in shaping their character. The accused were the product of the all around sickness in society and for this reason death sentence seems to be too harsh a penalty to be imposed on them because society must share the blame for producing such maniacs and for inflicting such a horrible trauma on Mohan Singhs family. 31. There is another factor which deserves to be considered and that is the absence of any evidence to indicate which of the two accused actually committed the rape, which according to the medical evidence was ante mortem. Did both the accused commit rape or was it the juvenile Sonu who committed the act. It is also not clear whether the actual throttling of the deceased was the act of all the three of them or of any one or two of them. Vaginal and anal swabs failed to reveal any semen. Indeed no semen was detected on the clothes of the deceased, Even though human semen was detected on the underwears of the accused, yet there was no blood on the three underwears. 32. This necessarily makes the task of fixing the actual responsibility for the act for the purpose of determining imposition of death sentence a bit difficult. Death sentence should not be imposed in a mechanical manner after determining guilt. Societal factors and the actual extent of the involvement of the accused persons should also be taken into consideration. Need for promoting the reformatory objects of punishment ought not be lost sight of. Death sentence should not be imposed in a mechanical manner after determining guilt. Societal factors and the actual extent of the involvement of the accused persons should also be taken into consideration. Need for promoting the reformatory objects of punishment ought not be lost sight of. Reform necessarily precludes death sentence altogether as one cannot expect a dead man to reform. Are these two young man beyond all reform and redemption ? Do they deserve to die or is there even an iota of hope that they may realise the enormity of their barbaric act and be put on the road to reform. Such are the questions which readily spring to mind ? 33. The accused do not seem to reflect the image of hardened sex maniacs or perverts showing a pronounced predisposition towards child molestation or paedophilia. Moreover, there is nothing on the record to suggest this. If they had been a bit older and their victim a girl in her teens then this court would have shown less indulgence leading perhaps to confirmation of death sentence. In that event their individual characters would have been more dominant and deviant; the societal causes which shaped that character perhaps not so strong. Therefore, taking all the above factors into consideration and after weighing all the aspects of the case it is felt that this is not a case which requires the imposition of the extreme penalty. Accordingly, the murder reference is declined and the death sentence is hereby commuted to rigorous imprisonment for life in both the cases. Remaining sentence shall stand. Murder reference declined.