JUDGMENT S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. While the Death Reference No. 4 of 2000 has been made under Section 366 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned 4th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi on 11th December, 2000 and sentence passed on 12th December. 2000 in Sessions Trial No. 744 of 1998. connected Criminal Appeal Nos. 19 and 106 of 2001, have been preferred by the appellants Golo Dom and Usha Loharin respectively against the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction. The learned Sessions Judge while convicted both the appellants for offence under Section 302/34 and 307/34, I.P.C. came to the conclusion that capital punishment is warranted under the facts and circumstances being rarest of the rare and, accordingly, awarded death sentences in respect to both the appellants. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant Birsu Munda, a resident of Dhaudha Bongaeen Bera, P.S. Angara, District-Ranchi, was a labourer in one Aara Mill (Saw Mill) near Hindpiri, Town Ranchi and was residing in a rented house near Namkum Railway Station. On 19th May, 1998, his wife came to him at Namkum from their native village leaving three children in native village home, namely, married daughter, Rukmini Kumari, aged about 16 years; youngest daughter Shanti Kumari. aged about seven years and the son Krishna Munda, aged six years. On the next day, a co-villager of informant, namely, Shyamdeo Oraon came to him at Namkum and told that the accused (Appellant) Golo Dom and Usha Loharin had gone to his native house, stayed there in night, murdered the daughter of informant Rukmini Devi and brutally assaulted the other daughter Shanti Kumari. After having heard the news, the informant went to his native house and saw the dead body of his daughter Rukmini Devi lying with multiple injuries. There were numerous injuries on her legs, abdomen and the entire intestine had come out. His other daughter Shanti Kumari was also fighting with life and death having sustained grievous knife injury on her neck and she was crying in pain. The son of the informant, namely, Krishna told the informant that in the earlier day evening on 19th May, 1998 at about 6 p.m., the accused-appellant Golo Dom and Usha Loharin had come there and stayed there at night after taking food. The son of the informant, namely, Krishna told the informant that in the earlier day evening on 19th May, 1998 at about 6 p.m., the accused-appellant Golo Dom and Usha Loharin had come there and stayed there at night after taking food. The son of the informant Krishna further told him that both the accused had daggers (Chhuras) in their hands and both of them gave several Chhura blows on the persons of married daughter Rukmini Devi and cut the neck of Shanti Kumari, who was still alive and crying in pain. The son of the informant Krishna concealed himself in fear beneath a cot (Khat) after rapping himself in a rag (Lethra) and from there he watched the whole occurrence. When both his sisters stopped crying, both the accused fled away. Further case of the prosecution is that the informant and appellant Golo Dom were known to each other for the last five to six years and had their family relations because of which earlier the appellant Golo Dom frequently used to come and stay in the house of the informant. The children of the informant were also known to the appellant Golo Dom. The dead body of the elder daughter Rukmini Kumari was lying at the place of occurrence and the informant had taken away his injured daughter Shanti Kumari for her medical treatment. But during the course of her treatment, Shanti Kumari also succumbed to the injuries. 3. F.I.R. was registered on 20th May. 1998 at 11.20 hrs. under Sections 302, 307, 341, 324/34, IPC against both the appellants. The police on conclusion of investigation submitted charge-sheet under Sections 302, 307, 341, 326 and 34 of the IPC against both, cognizance was taken by CJM, Ranchi against both and subsequently the case was committed to the Court of Session. 4. Altogether. 12 witnesses were examined on behalf of prosecution, Krishna Munda (PW 2), son of the informant Birsu Munda was produced as eye-witness. Muni Lal Karma @ Mani Lal Lohar (PW 1) ; Ram Das Oraon (PW 3); Birsu Munda (PW 7); Golo Devi (PW 8), wife of informant are material hearsay witnesses, apart from Ringo Kumari (PW 5) daughter of informant; Janak Kumar (PW 6) ; Paras Nath Munda (PW 9), who also supported the case of the prosecution. 5. The doctors are witnesses, namely, Dr. Ajit Kumar Choudhary (PW 11), who held the post-mortem (Exts. 5. The doctors are witnesses, namely, Dr. Ajit Kumar Choudhary (PW 11), who held the post-mortem (Exts. 3 & 4) on the body of Rukmini Devi and Dr. Chandra Kanti Birua (PW 12), who examined the injured daughter Shanti Kumari and submitted injury reports (Exts. 5 & 5/1). 6. The Counsel for the appellants made submissions on different issues, as mentioned hereunder : (i) There being absence of motive in the present case and the intention of the accused-appellants has not been stated by any of the witnesses, the Court should have examined the evidence led by prosecution with great care and caution before their acceptance. This aspect should have been taken into consideration by the Court below before imposing the sentence but has not been taken. It was accepted that in all cases, motive and intention are not required but, according to the Counsel, in the facts and circumstances of the present case and the crime as alleged, in absence of motive, the charges cannot be held to be proved. (ii) The appellants have been convicted merely on the basis of evidence of one witness, namely, Krishna (PW 2), a child witness of about six years. It should have been considered with care and caution and as such it was not safe to award death sentence on the basis of the statement of a child witness alone. Even the certificate relating to competency of child witness Krishna (PW 2) to understand the consequences has not been given by the learned Sessions Judge, which is fatal to the case. There are certain important contradictions which charges the prosecution version including self contradictory statement of Krishna (PW 2). At one place, he (PW 2) said that he was sleeping with his sisters but during cross-examination he stated that he saw the occurrence from an adjacent room. This makes the statement of P.W. 2 doubtful and it should not be relied, as a child witness can succumb to pressure and torture to give particular statement. Another example was cited that the P.W. 2 told that he woke up on hue and cry, but at the same time, his mother Golo Devi stated that she was informed by her son that he saw the occurrence when he woke up to Urinate. Another example was cited that the P.W. 2 told that he woke up on hue and cry, but at the same time, his mother Golo Devi stated that she was informed by her son that he saw the occurrence when he woke up to Urinate. The Counsel for the appellants submitted that it was not usual for any one to sleep again after witnessing an ugly Incident and then to woke up again at 5 p.m., which also creates doubt relating to occurrence, as stated by Krishna (PW 2), in his evidence that he had seen the occurrence. In normal course, it is expected that Krishna would have raised alarm, if he had seen the occurrence, immediately after the appellants fled away. Similarly, Daswa Munda who was stated to have been informed first by PW 2, was not examined, though he should have been treated as an important witness to explain the case and adverse inference against the prosecution should be drawn in absence of his examination. It was further submitted that if two views are possible, one pointing towards the guilt of the appellants and the other towards their innocence, the later should have been accepted by the learned Sessions Judge acquitting the appellants giving benefit of doubt in favour of appellants. Further case of the appellants is that the witnesses, Mani Lal Lohar (PW 1), Ram Das Oraon (PW 3); Shyamdeo Oraon (PW 4); Ringo Kumari (PW 5) ; Janak Kumhar (PW 6); Birsu Munda (PW 7 - informant) ; Golo Devi (PW 8), wife of informant : and Paras Nath Munda (PW 9) being hearsay witnesses and as no one claimed to be the eye-witness, the appellants should not have been punished on the basis of their evidence, not being corroborated with evidence of any independent eye-witness. (iii) The death sentence is harsh and uncalled for, the prosecution case cannot be considered as a rarest of the rare. 7. The first question to be considered as to whether the prosecution has been able to establish the charges levelled against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt or not. If it is answered in favour of prosecution, against the appellants, then the second question arises as to whether the case, in question, is rarest of the rare, to impose death sentence on appellants or not. 8. If it is answered in favour of prosecution, against the appellants, then the second question arises as to whether the case, in question, is rarest of the rare, to impose death sentence on appellants or not. 8. Krishna Munda (PW 2), a child, is the only eye-witness in the case who actually seen the occurrence. He stated that in the summer, on the date, at about 6 (six) in the evening, both the accused-appellants, namely, Golo Dom and Usha Loharin came to their house. At that time, he and two of his elder sisters. Rukmini and Shanti were present. Their parents were at Namkum his mother had gone to his father at Namkum and immediately thereafter accused Golo Dom and Usha Loharin came to their house and asked for tea which was supplied to them. In his examination-in-chief, he further made clear that both the accused- appellants stayed in their house in the night. They were provided with meal and bed to sleep in the night. The accused persons slept on their bed and PW 2 and his two sisters (deceased) slept in their bed. In the mid night, PW 2 woke up hearing the cry of the sisters and saw the accused Golo Dom and Usha Loharin assaulting both the sisters. There were daggers (Chhuras) in the hands of both the accused by which they were cutting his sisters. PW 2 concealed himself in a Lethra and watched the incident. Golo Dom and Usha Loharin were cutting the throat of the sisters and also gave Chhura blow on the stomach of Rukmini. His sister Rukmini died in the night, but Shanti was still alive. In cross- examination, he further stated that he told everything to Daswa Munda relating to the occurrence and narrated the incident to his father when he came in the morning P.W. 2 Identified both the accused Golo Dom and Usha Loharin and in his cross-examination stood to his statement that the accused were giving fatal blows to Rukmini and Shanti which he watched in Lantern light. During the incident at night, when both the sisters were crying, no neighbour turned up and specifically stated that a Lantern was burning which was lighted by the accused themselves. The entire occurrence was seen by him in the light of Lantern. 9. Hunilal Karmali (PW 1) is a material hearsay witness to the occurrence. During the incident at night, when both the sisters were crying, no neighbour turned up and specifically stated that a Lantern was burning which was lighted by the accused themselves. The entire occurrence was seen by him in the light of Lantern. 9. Hunilal Karmali (PW 1) is a material hearsay witness to the occurrence. He stated that he came to know from the villagers that the daughter of informant (PW 7). namely. Rukmini was killed by both the accused and the neck of the younger daughter Shanti had also been cut by them. He stated that Krishna (PW 2), the son of the informant told him that the accused after committing the crime fled away. In his examination-in-chief. PW 1 specifically stated that he had seen accused Golo Dom and Usha Loharin going to the house of informant Birsu Munda on the previous day. PW 1 also identified both the accused in the Court and proved the inquest report (Ext. 1). In his cross-examination, he stated that the incident was narrated to him by Krishna (PW 2), the son of the informant Birsu Munda. 10. Ram Das Uraon (PW 3) is a co-villager and hearsay witness to the alleged occurrence. He clearly stated that on 19th May. 1998 in the night of a Tuesday, the occurrence took place. He heard from the villagers that Rukmini had been murdered and half portion of the neck of Shanti has been cut by the accused. He came to know that the accused had actually committed the alleged offence and Shanti was still unconscious. P.W. 3 specifically stated that the accused Golo Dom used to visit frequently the house of informant Birsu Munda. In his long cross-examination, he made clear that he could come to know of the occurrence from Krishna (PW 2), the son of the informant. He has also stated that Daswa Munda had also told him of the alleged incident. 11. Shyamdeo Uraon (PW 4) is also a material and important witness, though he is an hearsay witness. He categorically stated that on 19th May. 1998, the alleged date of occurrence, this witness was at his house. In the night of alleged date of occurrence, he heard hue and cry from the house of the informant. 11. Shyamdeo Uraon (PW 4) is also a material and important witness, though he is an hearsay witness. He categorically stated that on 19th May. 1998, the alleged date of occurrence, this witness was at his house. In the night of alleged date of occurrence, he heard hue and cry from the house of the informant. When he went towards the house of Birsu Munda, he met PW 2 who told him (PW 4) that the accused Golo Dom and Usha Loharin have cut his sisters Rukmini and Shanti. At once, he (PW 4) went to the house of informant and found Rukmini Dead and Shanti Kumari lying in injured condition. He (PW 4) at once went to contact Birsu Munda (PW 7) at Namkum and gave information about the alleged occurrence. In his examination-in-chief, he has also stated that in the evening of the alleged occurrence, he had seen both the accused in the house of informant Birsu Munda and also identified both the accused in the Court. In the cross-examination, PW 4 stated that the accused Golo Dom frequently used to visit the house of the informant. Thus, he supported the entire case of the prosecution and version of Krishna (PW 2). 12. Ringo Kumari (PW 5) is sister of Rukmini and Shanti i.e. another daughter of Birsu Munda. She stated that she was working in a hotel at Namkum. On Tuesday, both the accused had come to see her in the hotel at about 2 p.m. and asked her to accompany them to their house. However, she could not go along with them. On the next date, she could come to know that the accused Golo Dom and Usha Loharin killed her sister Rukmini and attempted to murder her youngest sister Shanti Kumari. She also identified both the accused in Court. 13. Janak Kumhar (PW 6), an hearsay witness, also stated that Krishna (PW 2) told him in the next morning of the alleged occurrence that both the accused murdered Rukmini and attempted to murder Shanti by cutting her neck. Both the accused Golo Dom and Usha Loharin were seen in the house of informant Birsu Munda and he also identified both the accused in the Court. In cross-examination, he stated that the police enquired about the occurrence from him and he had seen the accused in the evening on the date of alleged occurrence. 14. Both the accused Golo Dom and Usha Loharin were seen in the house of informant Birsu Munda and he also identified both the accused in the Court. In cross-examination, he stated that the police enquired about the occurrence from him and he had seen the accused in the evening on the date of alleged occurrence. 14. Birsu Munda (PW 7) is the informant and father of deceased Rukmini and injured Shanti Kumari. He supported his version as was made in the FIR and stated that on the alleged date Le. 19th May. 1998, he was at his rented house at Namkum and was working in a Saw Mill at Ranchi. His wife came from the native home to the rented house at Namkum and he came to know the incident in the morning on 20th May. 1998 from Shyamdeo Uraon (PW 4) who told that her daughter Rukmini had been murdered and the neck of Shanti Kumari was cut by the accused. He also made clear that the PW 4 told him that PW 4 could come to know from Krishna (PW 2) that the accused Golo Dom and Usha Loharin killed Rukmini and cut the neck of Shanti Kumari. After having heard the news from P.W. 4, the informant (PW 7) rushed to his native house and saw Rukmini done to death, the youngest daughter Shanti Kumari was fighting with life and death, her neck having cut by the accused. He further made clear that the youngest daughter Shanti Kumari subsequently succumbed to neck injury and on enquiry from Krishna (PW 2), he could know the entire story of the alleged occurrence as narrated by Krishna. Thus, the informant corroborated the entire evidence of Krishna (PW 2). He also specifically stated that the accused Golo Dom and Usha Loharin used to come to his house frequently and all the children were knowing them. He identified both the accused in the Court and in his long cross-examination, stood to his version, as narrated in the FIR and stated during examination-in-chief. 15. Golo Devi (PW 8) is the wife of informant Birsu Munda and mother of deceased Rukmini and Shanti. In her examination- in-Chief, she stated that she was with her husband (informant PW 7) at Namkum and Shymadeo Uraon (PW 4) informed them about the alleged occurrence at Namkum. 15. Golo Devi (PW 8) is the wife of informant Birsu Munda and mother of deceased Rukmini and Shanti. In her examination- in-Chief, she stated that she was with her husband (informant PW 7) at Namkum and Shymadeo Uraon (PW 4) informed them about the alleged occurrence at Namkum. When she reached her native house, the son Krishna (PW 2) told her about the occurrence and also told her that the appellants had killed her daughter Rukmini and cut the neck of her youngest daughter Shanti Kumari. She also identified both the appellants in Court and stated that the appellants Golo Dom and Usha Loharin were known to them and used to visit their house and used to take meal but in spite of such treatment, the accused had taken the lives of two of her daughters. The youngest daughter died in hospital after about 3-1/2 months of the occurrence due to neck injury. 16. Similar statement made by Paras Nath Munda (PW 9) that Krishna (PW 2) told him that Rukmini had been murdered by the appellants Golo Dom and Usha Loharin and they also cut the neck of the other sister Shanti. He proved his signature given on the inquest report (Ext. 1) and also identified both the appellants in the Court. 17. Dr. AJit Kumar Choudhary (PW 11), Tutor, Department of Forensic Laboratory, R.M.C.H., Ranchi conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead- body of Rukmini Devi (deceased), aged about 16 years. He has proved the post- mortem report (Ext. He proved his signature given on the inquest report (Ext. 1) and also identified both the appellants in the Court. 17. Dr. AJit Kumar Choudhary (PW 11), Tutor, Department of Forensic Laboratory, R.M.C.H., Ranchi conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead- body of Rukmini Devi (deceased), aged about 16 years. He has proved the post- mortem report (Ext. 4) and found the following injuries, as mentioned hereunder : (i) 8 cm x 2 cm x soft tissue on left lateral neck middle part; (ii) 5 cm x 2 cm x soft tissue on left lateral neck upper part; (iii) 6 cm x 2 cm x bone on the front part of neck situated transversely cutting the soft tissues blood vessels oesophagus and third survical vertibra partially; (iv) 8 cm x 2 cm x cavity deep on left lateral chest lower part cutting the left seventh and eight ribs and the spleen; (v) 6 cm x 1 cm x cavity deep, 9 cm x 2 cm x cavity deep and 5 cm x 1 cm x cavity deep over lateral of left abdomen from which coils of intestine are protuding out ; (vi) 1 1/2 cm x 1 cm x soft tissue on back of neck lower part ; (vii) Linear cut five cm. long on the front part of the neck. There was infiltration of blood on the side of wounds and presence of blood and blood clots in the thoraciceo abdominal cavities. The other doctor, namely. Dr. Chandra Kanti Birua (PW 12) examined injured Shanti Kumari on 20th May, 1998 at 4 p.m. and found the following incised injuries on her neck ; (i) Incised wound over the interior surface of the neck at the level of the cricothyroid cartilage size-2" x 1" x upto the posterior wall of the trachea. Both the injury reports were proved and marked as Exhibits 5 and 5/1 respectively. hanti Kumari injured who was previously examined by Dr. Y.K. Choudhary, R.M.C.H., Ranchi, also found the following injuries : (1) Sharp cutting wound over cut surface of neck 2" x 1" x muscle deep. (2) Sharp cutting wound over right infralavienator region 2-1/2 x 1" x muscle deep. (3) sharp cutting wound at infraclavicular region 2-1/2" x 1" x muscle deep. (4) Sharp cutting wound over cut surface of right shoulder 3" x 1 1/2" x muscle deep. (2) Sharp cutting wound over right infralavienator region 2-1/2 x 1" x muscle deep. (3) sharp cutting wound at infraclavicular region 2-1/2" x 1" x muscle deep. (4) Sharp cutting wound over cut surface of right shoulder 3" x 1 1/2" x muscle deep. (5) Sharp cut wound over right upper arm 3" x 2" x muscle deep. (6) Sharp cut wound over left submandibular region 2" x 1" x muscle deep. The aforesaid evidence given by the doctors also corroborates the oral testimony of Krishna (PW 2) and other prosecution witnesses, as discussed above. 18. Anil Kumar Dwivedi (PW 10) was the Officer-in-Charge. Ratu Police Station who was the I.O., investigated the case against the appellants having posted as Of-ficer-in-Charge Angara P.S. He prepared inquest report of Rukmini Devi and sent Shanti Kumari for her medical treatment. He has given the description of place of occurrence in his case diary. He supported the entire case of the prosecution against the appellants and had submitted charge sheet on the basis of evidence collected by him, as recorded in the case diary. He proved the F.I.R. (Ext. 2), inquest report (Ext. 31 and accepted in his cross-examination that no motive of occurrence alleged by the PWs. His statement and the case diary also support and corroborate the evidence of the prosecution witnesses relating to the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. 19. So far as motive is concerned, it provides foundational material to connect the chain of circumstances. However, where commission of offence is established by direct evidence, the question of motive loses importances, as held by the Supreme Court in Prem Kumar v. State of Bihar, 1995 (2) PLJR (SC) 64 : 1995 (2) East Cr C 69 (SCI. In the Case of Mahendra Rai v. Mithilesh Rai, the Supreme Court held that the lack of motive and minor contradictions in evidence of prosecution witnesses cannot entitle an accused to benefit of doubt, if prosecution evidence is found credit worthy and acceptable. In this case, the evidence of prosecution witnesses is consistent. They have corroborated the evidence of Krishna (PW 2), the sole eye-witness. In their evidence the PWs had stated that they have seen the appellants going to the house of informant in the evening of the alleged date of occurrence. This is an important factor which corroborates the prosecution story. In this case, the evidence of prosecution witnesses is consistent. They have corroborated the evidence of Krishna (PW 2), the sole eye-witness. In their evidence the PWs had stated that they have seen the appellants going to the house of informant in the evening of the alleged date of occurrence. This is an important factor which corroborates the prosecution story. The medical evidence also corroborated the ocular account given by Krishna (PW 2) in regard to the nature of weapons used by the assailants in inflicting injuries on the person of the deceased. On the other hand, the defence neither examined any witness, nor took any alibi giving particular suggestions during cross-examination. This fact has been discussed in detail by the learned Sessions Judge to bring home the charges against the appellants and I find that the trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the appellants Golo Dom and Usha Loharin. 20. Now, the only question arises as to what sentence to be given in this nature of case under Section 302/34. IPC. The imprisonment for life being the law and capital punishment being an exception. 21. Murder itself is cruel. It is an henious crime. Still the normal rule to sentence life imprisonment is followed and death sentence is an exception in a given circumstance, if the act is rarest of the rare. In the case of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 898 , the Apex Court observed, as follows : "199. With great respect, we find ourselves unable to agree to this enunciation.--As we read Sections 354(3) and 235(2) and other related provisions of the Code of 1973 it is quite clear to us that for making the choice of punishment or for ascertaining the existence or absence of "special reasons" in that context, the Court must pay due regard both to the crime and the criminal. What is the relative weight to be given to the aggravating and mitigating factors, depends on the facts and circumstances of the particular Case. More often than not, these two aspects are so intertwined that it is difficult to give a separate treatment to each of them. This is so because style is the man. What is the relative weight to be given to the aggravating and mitigating factors, depends on the facts and circumstances of the particular Case. More often than not, these two aspects are so intertwined that it is difficult to give a separate treatment to each of them. This is so because style is the man. In many cases, the extremely cruel or beastly manner of the commission of murder is itself a demonstrated index of the depraved character of the perpetrator. That is why it is not desirable to consider the circumstances of the crime and the circumstances of the criminal in two separate water-tight compartments. In a sense, to kill is to be cruel and therefore all murders are cruel. But such cruelty may vary in its degree of culpability. And it is only when the culpability assumes the proportion of extreme depravity that "special reasons" can legitimately be said to exist. 200. Drawing upon the penal statutes of the States in U.S.A. framed after Fur-man v. Georgia, in general, and Indian Penal Code (Amendment) Bill passed in 1978 by the Rajya Sabha, in particular. Dr. Chitale has suggested these "aggravating circumstances"; "Aggravating circumstances: A Court may, however, in the following cases impose the penalty of Death in its discretion : (a) if the murder has been committed after previous planning and involves extreme brutality; or (b) if the murder involves exceptional depravity; or (c) if the murder is of a member of any of the armed forces of the Union or of a member of any police force or of any public servant and was committed- (i) While such member or public servant was on duty; or (ii) in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such member or public servant in the lawful discharge of his duty as such member or public servant whether at the time of murder he was such member or public servant, as the case may be, or had ceased to be such member or public servant; or (d) If the murder is of a person who had acted in the lawful discharge of his duty under Section 43 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973, or who had rendered assistance to a Magistrate or a police officer demanding his aid or requiring his assistance under Section 37 and Section 129 of the said Code." 201. 1973, or who had rendered assistance to a Magistrate or a police officer demanding his aid or requiring his assistance under Section 37 and Section 129 of the said Code." 201. Stated broadly, there can be no objection to the acceptance of these indicators but as we have indicated already, we would prefer not to fetter Judicial discretion by attempting to make an exhaustive enumeration one way or the other." 22. The aforesaid judgment has been followed in the case of Macchhl Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1983 SC 957 . 23. In the present case, no motive has been brought on the record by the prosecution. The prosecution could bring home the charges against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt. Rukmini (deceased), a girl of 16 years was done to death by the appellants and the young girl Shanti Kumari aged about seven years, her neck was cut by the appellants which caused injury and subsequently death after about 3 1/2 months. The learned Sessions Judge arrived at the canclusion to inflict the death sentence mainly on the ground that the appellants after having taken due hospitality of a guest, killed the deceased and injured the other girl who were in their teens. Sexual lust for whole occurrence was suspected by the learned Sessions Judge, though no such evidence; is on the record. The incident as narrated above cannot be stated to be the gravest case of extreme culpability and in absence of the motive, does not call for exemplary punishment of death sentence as the act cannot be termed as the rarest of the rare. 24. In the aforesaid circumstances, while the conviction of the appellants Golo Dom and Usha Loharin under Section 302/34, IPC is upheld, the award of death sentence against them is not confirmed. It is commuted to imprisonment for life. 25. The Death Reference No. 4 of 2000 stands disposed of and both the Criminal Appeal Nos. 19 of 2001 and 106 of 201 are dismissed, but with aforesaid modification of sentence.