ORDER : K.T. Thomas, R.P. Sethi, JJ. Kavita, a tiny little baby of just one year and odd was made a sacrificial lamb for propitiating the gods in order to get a child for another lady who was childless. The irony is that the perpetrators had chosen Gandhi Jayanti Day for committing this heinous crime. Kavita was burnt and thrown into a water tank on the same night. Six persons were arraigned by the police for hatching a criminal conspiracy for the said murder. All the six were convicted by the trial court and all were sentenced to death. But the High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence passed on two among them (A-l Shakila and A-2 Babu Lal). In regard to the other accused, the High Court extended the benefit of doubt and acquitted them of the principal offence under Section 302 read with Section 120-B, though all of them were convicted of the offence under Section 201 of the Penal Code, 1860. As we are concerned with the conviction and sentence of A-2 Babu Lal, it is not necessary for us to mention anything regarding the other accused in greater detail. That apart, A-l Shakila has not chosen to challenge the conviction and sentence passed on her which were confirmed by the High Court. 2. The third accused Chaman is the daughter of A-1 Shakila. As she was unable to give birth to a child despite lapse of many years after marriage, her mother Shakila and the daughter might have been thinking of devices to have a child for Chaman. According to the prosecution case, the idea of sacrificing another child for pleasing the gods to enable Chaman to bear a child was injected into the minds of Shakila and Chaman by the sixth accused Tabiz Khan. Thereafter, all the six accused conspired together and evolved a scheme for it. They fixed up a child for the purpose of making that baby the sacrificial lamb for the purpose. 3. It was on the night of 2-10-1987 when the entire locality was bustling with festival activities connected with Ram Leela celebrations the little child Kavita was sleeping on a cot in the company of her grandfather (PW 7, Tale Ram). The rest of the members of the family had gone to witness the display of the celebrations. The said time was utilised for abducting the child. 4. The rest of the members of the family had gone to witness the display of the celebrations. The said time was utilised for abducting the child. 4. The present appellant Babu Lal was assigned with the task of abducting the child. He went to the place where the child was sleeping on a cot just outside the house. At a particular time the grandfather had gone out for answering the call of nature. The appellant Babu Lal had knocked away the child during that short interval. On the way, appellant Babu Lal was buttonholed by PW 3, Ram Phal but the appellant told him to mind his own business, lest, he would have to meet dire consequences. This was enough to scare PW 3 who went home and slept. The child was taken to the other members of the conspiracy. After performing some ceremonial rituals on the child she was put to bum and thereafter she was dropped in the water tank where she died of drowning. 5. We are not narrating the number of circumstances which the prosecution has projected against all the accused for bringing home the guilt of the accused. We focus on the appellant against whom the prosecution has given the evidence of PW 3 Ram Phal. 6. PW 3 Ram Phal said that he was in the midst of the Ram Leela festival and when the time neared midnight he wished to skulk away from there either because he felt sleepy or he felt it was not very attractive. While returning home he saw Babu Lal carrying the child Kavita with him. The exchange of sentences between them had been mentioned earlier. Next morning, Babu Lal came to know that the child had died in a water tank. That news gave him courage to go to the police on his own initiative to inform them regarding what he saw on the previous night. The constables advised him to disclose the details of what he saw when he would be interrogated by the investigating officer. 7. Learned counsel contended that the solitary testimony of PW 3, is insufficient to connect Babu Lal with the heinous crime like this. True, the evidence against Babu Lal is a solitary item. The constables advised him to disclose the details of what he saw when he would be interrogated by the investigating officer. 7. Learned counsel contended that the solitary testimony of PW 3, is insufficient to connect Babu Lal with the heinous crime like this. True, the evidence against Babu Lal is a solitary item. The said circumstance was sought to be interpreted like this; what Babu Lal did was simply taking the child whom he knew well or that he would have thought of restoring the child back to its parents or some such thing. There is no scope for such an interpretation. When Babu Lal was confronted by the learned trial Judge with this circumstance during examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he totally repudiated the said circumstance. He said that what PW 3 has testified was false. Why did he repudiate such a circumstance? The trial court and the High Court found that there is no infirmity or any blemish regarding the testimony of PW 3. If so, Babu Lal had taken away the child surreptitiously in the night without the notice of the elders of the child's family - it would have been for a criminal purpose. 8. Learned counsel contended that PW 3 Ram Phal is none other than the son-in-law of PW 7 Tale Ram. We have noticed that such a suggestion was put to PW 3 in cross-examination, but that was denied by PW 3. At the same time, no such suggestion was put to PW 7. Merely because a suggestion was put to PW 3 in cross-examination that he is the son-in-law of PW 7, we are unable to discredit the testimony of PW 3. 9. The question then may arise is, whether the one circumstance that Kavita was abducted by Babu Lal in the night is so strong as to connect him with the criminal conspiracy to kill the child. 9. The question then may arise is, whether the one circumstance that Kavita was abducted by Babu Lal in the night is so strong as to connect him with the criminal conspiracy to kill the child. The fact that the child was abducted in the night in a surreptitious manner, the fact that Babu Lal reacted very unpleasantly to the query put to him by PW 3 and the fact that within the shortest interval the dead body of the child was found in the water tank and the fact that burning of the child would have preceded the act of throwing her into the water tank, all these when taken together cumulatively would lead to the one conclusion that Babu Lal would have been an active participant in the conspiracy which led to the murder of the child. 10. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the conviction passed on him by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court. 11. Nonetheless, we have a different approach to Babu Lal in the matter of sentence. Learned counsel submitted that the solitary item of evidence is not sufficient to convict Babu Lal. Though, we are not inclined to accept that contention, we are unable to find what was the exact role played by Babu Lal after the child was handed over to the other conspirators. If he has finished his mission by handing over the child and the further acts were committed by the other conspirators, we feel that the role of Babu Lal need not be put into the extremely limited category of "rarest of the rare cases in which the lesser sentence is unquestionably foreclosed". We, therefore, alter the sentence of death to the next alternative of imprisonment for life. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. Appeals disposed of.