T. CH. SURYA RAO, J, J. ( 1 ) THE sole accused in S. C. No. 279 of 1998 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, west Godavari at Eluru was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 I. P. C. for causing the deaths of Shaik Meera Bee (first deceased), Shaik Syeda Bee (second deceased) and Shaik Peda Meera Bee (third deceased), and was sentenced to be hanged by the neck till he is dead. In R. T. No. 2/2000 a reference has been made by the learned sessions Judge for confirmation of the death sentence. Crl. A. No. 911 /2000 has been filed by the accused challenging the conviction and sentence of death awarded by the learned Sessions Judge. ( 2 ) THE gravamen of the charge against the accused was that on 6-5-1998 in the evening at about 6 p. m. in his house in nadipallikota village, he caused the deaths of the three deceased persons by beating on their heads with a wooden beam of cot and thereafter caused incised post-mortem injuries on the first and the second deceased with a blade. ( 3 ) THE prosecution case, briefly, is as follows:- the deceased Shaik Peda Mera Bee, who is referred to hereinafter as third deceased, was a resident of Nadipallikota village, having her own house. P. W. 8 is the daughter of the third deceased. P. W. 8 had five daughters. Shaikmeera Bee, hereinafter referred to as the first deceased. Shaik Syeda bee, herein after referred to as the 2nd deceased and P. W. 9 are the daughters of p. W. 8. The first deceased was married to the accused about 12 years prior to the occurrence. They were blessed with a son and a daughter. They were residing in the house of the third deceased. The second deceased was living with P. W. 1 who is a resident of Nidadavole. P. W. 9 was residing at Bhimavaram along with her husband and children. ( 4 ) THERE were disputes between the accused and the first deceased since about six months prior to the occurrence of the offence as the accused was suspecting that his wife had illicit intimacy with one Sreenu (P. W. 12 ). The first deceased used to inform her mother (P. W. 8) about the said suspicion of the accused. ( 4 ) THERE were disputes between the accused and the first deceased since about six months prior to the occurrence of the offence as the accused was suspecting that his wife had illicit intimacy with one Sreenu (P. W. 12 ). The first deceased used to inform her mother (P. W. 8) about the said suspicion of the accused. About one month prior to the occurrence of the offence, the first deceased went to the house of her sister P. W. 9 and informed her that the accused was beating her often suspecting her fidelity and requested P. W. 9 to effect divorce between her and the accused, P. W. 9 and her husband advised that it was not proper to get divorce. Then P. W. 9 and her husband followed the first deceased to the house of the third deceased and chastised the accused. ( 5 ) ABOUT fifteen days prior to this occurrence the second deceased took the first deceased and her children and the third deceased to Nidadavole. The first deceased complained to P. W. 7 that the accused was beating her suspecting that she was moving with P. W. 12. ( 6 ) ON the date of the occurrence of the offence i. e. , on 8-5-1998, the accused went to the house of P. W. I at Nidadavole and sought divorce from his wife but she refused. Then the accused asked his wife that the house of the third deceased is to be delivered vacant possession to him. The third deceased did not agree for that. Then the accused went to the house of the third deceased seeking to settle the dispute there. The first and the second deceased also went to the house of the third deceased at nadupallikota. P. W. I also followed them later and reached at about 6 p. m. The accused and his wife were altercating for divorce. The accused beat with MO-1 on the head of his wife. As a result, his wife received head injury and fell on the ground. Then the second deceased ran into the house of the third deceased. The accused chased the second deceased and beat with MO-1 on her head. The second deceased also fell down. Then the accused also beat with mo-1 on the head of the third deceased. She also fell down. Then the second deceased ran into the house of the third deceased. The accused chased the second deceased and beat with MO-1 on her head. The second deceased also fell down. Then the accused also beat with mo-1 on the head of the third deceased. She also fell down. After seeing the attack, p. W. 1 ran away from there, being afraid of the accused. P. W. 1 went to the house of the village Administrative Officer (P. W. 12) of nadipalli and informed him about the occurrence. P. W. 12 recorded the statement of P. W. 1 in Ex. P-1, P. W. 12 accompanied p. W. 1 to the place of occurrence. P. W. 12 noticed the three dead bodies and then prepared his report. Ex. P-12. He then went to Peravali Police Station and gave ex. P-1 and Ex. P-12 to the Station Writer by about 8 p. m. ( 7 ) ON the basis of Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-12 p. W. 21 the Head Constable of Peravali police Station registered a case in cr. No. 47/98 under Section 302 I. P. C. and issued Ex. P-35. F. I. R. He despatched ex. P-35. original F. I. R. to the Court and copies to all concerned. P. W. 21 sent intimation to the S. I. of Police who was at koyyalagudem. ( 8 ) P. W. 20 the S. I. of Police Peravali on receipt of information about the registration of crime at 9. 30 p. m. proceeded to the scene of offence at 11. 30 p. m. He examined P. Ws. 1 to 3. He secured the presence of P. W. 13 and at 7 a. m. on 9-5-1998 observed the scene of offence and prepared the observation report. Ex. P-13. He seized M. Os. 1 to 15 at the scene of offence. He got photographed the three dead bodies. The photographs are marked as Exs. P-23 to P-34. ( 9 ) P. W. 17, Inspector of Police, Tanuku took up further investigation from P. W. 20 at 8-30 a. m. and held inquest over the dead body of the first deceased in the presence of p. W. 13 and prepared inquest report. Ex. P-14. During inquest, he arrested the accused at 10. 30 a. m. on 9-5-1998. He seized mo-21 blade at the instance of the accused under the cover of mediators report, Ex. P-15. Ex. P-14. During inquest, he arrested the accused at 10. 30 a. m. on 9-5-1998. He seized mo-21 blade at the instance of the accused under the cover of mediators report, Ex. P-15. P. W. 17 also held inquest over the dead body of second deceased from 12-30 p. m. to 2. 00 p. m. Ex. P-16 is the inquest report relating to the second deceased. P. W. 20 held inquest over the dead body of the third deceased, Ex. P-17 is the inquest report relating to the third deceased. ( 10 ) P. W. 18, the Civil Assistant Surgeon, community Health Centre Palakole, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the first deceased and issued Ex. P-19 post-mortem certificate. According to the doctor, the first deceased would appear to have died of shock and hemorrhage due to massive cranio cerebral injury. ( 11 ) PW-18 also conducted the postmortem examination over the dead body of the second deceased and issued Ex. P-20 post-mortem certificate. According to the doctor the second deceased also died of shock and hemorrhage due to massive cranio cerebral injury. ( 12 ) THE same Doctor conducted autopsy over the dead body of the third deceased and issued Ex. P-21 post-mortem certificate. According to P. W. 18, the third deceased also died of shock and hemorrhage due to massive cranio cerebral injury. According to the Doctor, MO-1 is likely to cause the head injuries found on the three dead bodies and the incised injuries found on the dead bodies of the first and the second deceased could have been caused by a blade like MO-21. ( 13 ) AFTER completion of investigation, p. W. 17 filed the charge-sheet. ( 14 ) IN support of its case, the prosecution examined 21 witnesses and marked Exs. P-1 to P-35. Out of them, P. Ws. 2 to 7 and 10 to 12 did not support the prosecution case. ( 15 ) THE learned Sessions Judge accepted the evidence of P. W. 1, the solitary eye-witness. He also believed the evidence of P. W. 8 and P. W. 9 and the evidence relating to the seizure of the blade MO-21, at the instance of the accused as spoken to by p. W. 13 and P. W. 17. ( 15 ) THE learned Sessions Judge accepted the evidence of P. W. 1, the solitary eye-witness. He also believed the evidence of P. W. 8 and P. W. 9 and the evidence relating to the seizure of the blade MO-21, at the instance of the accused as spoken to by p. W. 13 and P. W. 17. ( 16 ) SRI C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior Counsel appointed by the Court as legal Aid Counsel for the accused argued that the entire case of the prosecution hinges upon the sole testimony of P. W. 1 and a perusal of the evidence of P. W. 1 shows that he is not an eye-witness to the occurrence. The learned Counsel further contends that it is not a case where it can come squarely under the test of rarest of rare cases and therefore inflicting of maximum sentence of death is not warranted. The learned Public prosecutor on the other hand contends that the way in which the injuries were inflicted on the private parts of the women shows that the perpetrator has committed the offence in a diabolical manner with much vengeance and therefore the sentence of death imposed by the Court below is perfectly justified. ( 17 ) AFTER having gone through the evidence on record and having heard the contentions of the respective Counsel, the following points emerge for our determination:- (1) Whether the appellant is the person who inflicted the injuries and caused the death of the three deceased; and (2) Whether the sentence of death imposed upon the appellant is warranted under the facts and circumstances of the case. ( 18 ) THE entire edifice of the case of the prosecution is upon the sole testimony of p. W. 1. The other witnesses said to be the eye-witnesses to the occurrence and examined as P. Ws. 2 to 5 have not supported the case of the prosecution. Even the witnesses. P. Ws. 6 and 7 who were examined to prove the extra judicial confession said to have been made by the accused after having caught hold by them have not supported the case of the prosecution. Therefore, there remains the evidence of P. W. 1 alone. It is therefore to be scrutinized with much more care and caution so as to see how far it is credible and can be safely relied upon. Therefore, there remains the evidence of P. W. 1 alone. It is therefore to be scrutinized with much more care and caution so as to see how far it is credible and can be safely relied upon. ( 19 ) P. W. 1 claims himself to be the husband of the second deceased. One argument that has been advanced in this context by the learned Senior Counsel is that p. W. 1 being the husband of the second deceased, ought not to have shown the conduct which cannot be normal in the circumstances and therefore his presence at the scene of offence at the relevant time appears to be doubtful. A perusal of the evidence of this witness shows that when he tried to interfere, the accused made an attempt to assault him. He frankly admitted in the cross-examination that the second deceased was not married to him. But she was living with him. One important aspect which requires to be mentioned in this context is that he left the scene of offence for the house of the Village Administrative officer (P. W. 13) without any loss of time and got Ex. P-1 report drafted there. Not only that, after getting Ex. P-1 report drafted, both p. W. 1 and the Village Administrative officer (P. W. 13) together came back to the scene of offence and saw the three dead bodies. Had he (P. W. 1) not been the eye-witness, he would not have been in a position to lodge a report with the V. A. O. so swiftly, as he has been done in this case. In the wake of the answer given by him in the cross-examination that when he made an attempt to interfere he was threatened by the accused, we do not think that there is any merit in the contention that his conduct appears to be abnormal. His further evidence that all the three deceased came back to the house of the third deceased, has not been controverted in the cross- examination. Further, it is not as though p. W. 1 alone has come to the house of the third deceased on the fateful day. He swore to the uncontroverted fact that he followed the three deceased and they reached the house of the third deceased at 6 p. m. after the left his house, which lends assurance to his testimony. Further, it is not as though p. W. 1 alone has come to the house of the third deceased on the fateful day. He swore to the uncontroverted fact that he followed the three deceased and they reached the house of the third deceased at 6 p. m. after the left his house, which lends assurance to his testimony. As discussed above, the lodging of the report Ex. P-1 with the Village administrative Officer (P. W. 13 ). is yet another circumstance from which it can safely be concluded that the presence of this witness at the scene of offence at the relevant time is most probable. Apart from these circumstances, the evidence of P. W. 1 has not been shaken in any way in the cross- examination and it is consistent throughout. Given the relationship with the second deceased and the fact that he immediately approached the Village Administrative officer (P. W. 13) and informed him about the occurrence of the offence and the fact that he along with the Village Administrative officer (P. W. 13) came back to the scene of offence, which has been corroborated by the testimony of the Village Administrative officer (P. W. 13), would leave no room for any doubt about the presence of P. W. 1 at the scene of offence at the relevant time. The evidence of P. W. 1 inspires confidence and the Court and in view of the above reasons we have no hesitation to accept the testimony of P. W. 1, the testimony of the village Administrative Officer (P. W. 13), which is also consistent throughout, and can be safely relied upon. ( 20 ) THERE is no law, which says that the sole testimony of a witness cannot be relied upon, to base the conviction. On the other hand, it is now well settled that quality of evidence is material than the quantity of evidence. If the evidence of the sole witness is credible, conviction can certainly be based upon the same. As discussed by us supra, the evidence of P. W. 1 is quite credible and can be safely relied upon, which brings home the guilt to the accused in this case. The learned additional Sessions Judge, after having appreciated the evidence of P. W. 1, has come to a clear conclusion to the same effect. As discussed by us supra, the evidence of P. W. 1 is quite credible and can be safely relied upon, which brings home the guilt to the accused in this case. The learned additional Sessions Judge, after having appreciated the evidence of P. W. 1, has come to a clear conclusion to the same effect. After having given our anxious consideration to the testimony of P. W. 1, we are of the considered view that there are no compelling circumstances for us to come to a different conclusion than what has been arrived at by the learned Additional sessions Judge on the point of appreciation of evidence of P. W. 1. For the foregoing reasons, the conviction of the appellant for the offence of murdering three deceased is unassailable and shall have to be confirmed and accordingly we confirm the conviction of the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 302 of Indian penal Code. ( 21 ) TURNING to the question of sentence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has given the following reasons in support of his conclusion for imposing death penalty - that the appellant, firstly is a man without gratitude, as he killed the third deceased who provided him shelter; secondly he is a man taking suspicion into reality and acting disproportionately; and thirdly, that the appellant who was aged about 30 years at the time of committing the offence was fully matured, but indulged in such a diabolic act which is the highest degree of criminality and the way in which the crime has been perpetrated in this case, comes within the test of rarest of rare cases. ( 22 ) WHILE seeking to support the above conclusion of the learned Additional sessions Judge, the learned Public prosecutor seeks to place reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Uttar pradesh vs. Dharmendra Singh and another. That was a case where death sentence was awarded by the trial Court and the High court converted the same into one of imprisonment for life on the premise that the accused therein was languishing in death cell for more than three years. That was a case where death sentence was awarded by the trial Court and the High court converted the same into one of imprisonment for life on the premise that the accused therein was languishing in death cell for more than three years. The Apex court while holding that the prolonged trial or execution of death sentence beyond a reasonable period may be a ground for commuting the sentence in a given case, but it will be highly erroneous to lay down as a principle in law or draw an inference of fact that awarding of death sentence is improper in cases where the accused persons are in custody for three years or more, even though the facts of the case otherwise call for a death sentence. On fact, the Apex Court could find three strong reasons in support of the conclusion of the trial Court, which inflicted the maximum sentence of death; that it was a premeditated murder, well planned and perpetrated and the total deaths were five, including two boys who were aged 12 years. The offence was perpetrated in a brutal manner inflicting as many as 53 injuries on the five deceased. Under those circumstances, the sentence of death was rightly imposed by the trial Court, in the view of the Apex Court. ( 23 ) COUNTERING the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor, the learned senior Counsel Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy seeks to place reliance upon the two latest judgments of the Apex Court in Kishori vs. State (NCT) of Delhi and Ranadhir vs. State of west Bengal. In the former case, the incident occurred as an aftermath of the assassination of the then Prime Minister smt. Indira Gandhi. The offence was perpetrated in a frenzied manner, killing three members with a big knife by the appellant. Under the circumstances, it was held that imposition of maximum punishment of capital sentence was not warranted. In the latter case, the appellant initially wanted to kill only the mother of the complainant. But when she was seen by the father of S and grand parents, the appellant gave sweets mixed with poison to them also out of confusion and fright. In the view of the apex Court, the subsequent events of murdering the other members of the family occurred unexpectedly. But when she was seen by the father of S and grand parents, the appellant gave sweets mixed with poison to them also out of confusion and fright. In the view of the apex Court, the subsequent events of murdering the other members of the family occurred unexpectedly. Under those circumstances, the Apex Court held that it was not a fit case in which death sentence could be recorded as an appropriate sentence. ( 24 ) COMING to the facts of the instant case, as can be seen from the evidence of P. W. 1, he suspected the fidelity of his wife. Therefore, his first aim was to kill his wife. The facts further disclose that all the three deceased returned to the house of the third deceased where unfortunately the incident happened. The appellant made an attempt first against his wife, giving a blow with MO-1 on her head. When the second deceased, after having witnessed the occurrence, ran into the house of the third deceased, the appellant also attacked her and inflicted a blow upon her head with MO-1, followed by his attack on the third deceased. The series of murders thus occurred one after another. From these facts, it is legitimate to conclude that the subsequent two murders of the second and the third deceased, in this case, have been followed by the murder of the first deceased i. e. , the wife of the appellant who failed to have a compromise with the appellant and, the third deceased who refused to give possession of the house to the appellant. Therefore, in our considered view, the facts do not warrant a legitimate conclusion that it was a premeditated offence of murder. ( 25 ) THE learned Pubic Prosecutor at this juncture has invited our attention to the injuries inflicted upon the first and the second deceased apart from the two fatal blows dealt upon their heads. Those injuries seem to have been inflicted after the death of the deceased, A perusal of the charges framed in this case against the appellant shows clearly that they are post-mortem injuries. There appears to be some confusion in this regard, in this case. The Doctor who conducted the autopsy over the three dead bodies in this case, did not specifically speak anything about the post-mortem injuries. There appears to be some confusion in this regard, in this case. The Doctor who conducted the autopsy over the three dead bodies in this case, did not specifically speak anything about the post-mortem injuries. However, he was categorical while mentioning the three fatal injuries inflicted upon the three deceased as ante-mortem injuries. The Doctor remained silent as regards the other injuries said to have been inflicted upon the first and the second deceased. P. W. 1 did not speak anything about the other injuries found on the person of the two deceased said to have been inflicted with a sharp edged blade, recovered as MO-21 in this case by the investigating Officer. That by itself, in our opinion, will not take away the authenticity of the evidence of this witness as it is obvious from his evidence that he left the scene of offence for the house of the Village administrative Officer (P. W. 13) so as to report the matter to him and therefore there is every possibility of inflicting those injuries by the appellant after P. W. 1 left the scene of offence. ( 26 ) WE have already appreciated the evidence of P. W. 1 supra. Be that as it may, the inflicting of those injuries, although appear to have been done by the appellant with much vengeance in his mind by resorting to the dastardly act, in our considered view, the same will not bring the case within the four corners of the test of the rarest of rare cases. The offence in this case occurred when the compromise talks failed between the parties and as afore discussed, the first attack was upon the first deceased followed by the attack on the other two deceased. The motive behind the crime, as afore discussed, was, the suspecting fidelity of the wife of the appellant. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that it is not a case, which can be squarely brought within the four corners of the test of the rarest of rare cases. The motive behind the crime, as afore discussed, was, the suspecting fidelity of the wife of the appellant. For the above reasons, we are of the considered view that it is not a case, which can be squarely brought within the four corners of the test of the rarest of rare cases. This Court in Yerraguntk nagaiah @ Nageswara Rao vs. State of Andhra pradesh to which one of us was a party, after having considered the case law on the point and in view of the facts and circumstances of that case, held that for want of evidence to show that the incident was brutal and heinous in nature and as it was not a premeditated perpetration of crime, imposing of sentence of death was not warranted. ( 27 ) FOR the above reasons, we hold that the imposing of the maximum sentence of death in the present case is not warranted. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to convert the sentence of death imposed by the lower court on the appellant, to one of imprisonment for life. ( 28 ) IN the result, Criminal Appeal no. 911/2000 preferred by the appellant is allowed in part modifying the sentence of death into one of imprisonment for life and the Referred Trial No. 2/2000 referred by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge is answered accordingly.