VISHNU SAHAI, J. Seven persons namely Sunder, Kishun Dayal, Santoo, Om Prakash, Ram Prakash, Santosh Kumar and Rajesh Kumar were charged by the Sessions Judge, Sitapur for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 I. P. C. 323 read with Section 149 I. P. C. and 201 I. P. C. In addition Sunder, Kishun Dayal, Om Prakash, Santosh Kumar and Santoo alias Satram were charged for the offence punishable under Section 147 I. P. C. and Ram Prakash and Rajesh were charged for the offence punishable under Section 148 I. P. C. During the pendency of the trial three of them namely Sunder Lal, Kishun Dayal and Santoo died. Four of them namely Om Prakash, Ram Prakash, Santosh Kumar and Rajesh faced trial on the said charges. Ram Prakash, Santosh Kumar and Rajesh were acquitted by the Special Sessions Judge, Sitapur vide his order dated 16-2- 2001 on all the counts, but vide the said order Om Prakash was convicted and sentenced in the manner hereinafter : (i) Under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the I. P. C. to death and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000. (ii) Under Section 323 read with Section 34 I. P. C. to undergo one year R. I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and one months R. I. in default. (iii) Under Section 201 I. P. C. to undergo seven years R. I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to undergo six months R. I. Capital sentence No. 2 of 2001 arises out of the reference made by the trial Judge to this Court under Section 366 of the Cr. P. C. for confirmation of the death sentence of Om Prakash. Criminal Appeal No. 129 of 2001 has been preferred by Om Prakash against his convictions and sentences on the aforesaid three counts. He has also sent an appeal from jail viz. Criminal Appeal No. 318 of 2001. Since Capital Sentence No. 2 of 2001, Criminal Appeal No. 129 of 2001 and Criminal Appeal No. 318 of 2001 arise out of a common factual matrix and the same judgment, we are disposing them by one judgment. 2. Shortly stated the prosecution case runs as under : The informant Ram Asrey was the brother of the deceased Shivaji. Since Capital Sentence No. 2 of 2001, Criminal Appeal No. 129 of 2001 and Criminal Appeal No. 318 of 2001 arise out of a common factual matrix and the same judgment, we are disposing them by one judgment. 2. Shortly stated the prosecution case runs as under : The informant Ram Asrey was the brother of the deceased Shivaji. About seven years prior to the incident Shivaji had eloped with Suman P. W. 2, daughter of the deceased accused Sunder. At the time of the incident Ram Asrey, Shivaji and Suman were living in village Anandi Purwa, hamlet of Arwa within the limits of Police Station Sakarna, District Sitapur. Since Shivaji had eloped with Suman, Sumans father Sunder, her uncle Krishna Dayal, her brothers Om Prakash, Ram Prakash and Santosh felt humiliated and started nursing a grudge and ill will against Shivaji. On 30-9-1992, at about 3 p. m. when Shivaji, Ram Asrey and Suman were at the house situated at village Anandi Purwa, co-accused Santoo came. Both Shivaji and Santoo started consuming liquor, thereafter Shivaji went away with Santoo. About an hour later, Ram Asrey and Suman heard noise and commotion. On hearing the same they rushed. When they reached near the northern door of Santoo, which was situated approximately at a distance of half kilometre from their house, they saw that accused Sunder, Krishna Dayal and appellant Om Prakash were assaulting Shivaji with lathis and co-accused Santoo was standing there with lathi. On account of fear Ram Asrey did not intervene. However, Shivajis wife Suman did and was assaulted by Sunder and appellant Om Prakash with lathi. As a consequence of the assault, Shivaji became unconscious. Thereafter Sunder Lal and Santoo caught hold of Suman and Kishun Dayal and Om Prakash took Shivaji forcibly towards Birai Purwa on a Cycle. Suman was also taken to the said place. Near the culvert of Birai Purwa they found that co-accused Rajesh armed with Banka, co- accused Ram Prakash armed with Hansiya (sickle) and co-accused Santosh Kumar were standing there. At about 10 p. m. Shivaji, Suman and accused persons reached near Kiwani River. At that time Shivaji was made to lie down on a Dhoti. Thereafter appellant Om Prakash put up Banka on the neck of Shivaji took the Banka, which was in the hands of co-accused Rajesh and a sickle and severed the head of Shivaji. At about 10 p. m. Shivaji, Suman and accused persons reached near Kiwani River. At that time Shivaji was made to lie down on a Dhoti. Thereafter appellant Om Prakash put up Banka on the neck of Shivaji took the Banka, which was in the hands of co-accused Rajesh and a sickle and severed the head of Shivaji. As a consequence thereof, blood started oozing out. Om Prakash drank the said blood. When Suman tried to raise cries, accused persons threatened to kill her. Thereafter they cut open the stomach of Shivaji and threw his body in Kiwani river. Thereafter they washed Hansiya and Banka from the water of the river and also washed the place of the incident with the water of the river. Then the accused persons took the head of Shivaji and Suman with them. Co-accused Sunder and Santoo took Suman to Badhianpurwa. Accused persons along with Suman and head of the deceased stopped there. They kept Suman for two days in Badhianpurwa. Thereafter, they took her to her sisters house in village Jamunapur and kept her there for two days. From there, one morning on the ploy of answering the call of nature, Suman escaped and came to her house situated in village Anandi Purwa, where she was residing with her husband and Ram Asrey at the time of the incident. On 6-10-1992 while Suman was going along with Ram Asrey, S. I. , Lalla Singh, P. W. 3 of Police Station Sakran, who was going via Tanser road to Kasbapur, met them. He took Suman to the police station and recorded her statement. 3. Going backwards on the night of 30-9-1992, Ram Asrey did not lodge F. I. R. on account of fear. Next morning (morning of 1-10- 1992) he proceeded to the police station Sakran, where he lodged the F. I. R. , on the basis of which a case under Section 364 of the I. P. C. was registered against the appellant Santoo, Kishun and Sunder Lal. It is pertinent to mention that the names of accused Ram Prakash, Santosh Kumar and Rajesh came to light during the course of investigation. 4. After the F. I. R. had been lodged and the case had been registered against the appellant and others, the investigation was assigned to S. I. Rana P. W. 6. It is pertinent to mention that the names of accused Ram Prakash, Santosh Kumar and Rajesh came to light during the course of investigation. 4. After the F. I. R. had been lodged and the case had been registered against the appellant and others, the investigation was assigned to S. I. Rana P. W. 6. He recorded the statement of Ram Asrey and on his pointing out prepared site plan. Thereafter he started searching for Suman and the accused persons. On 2-10- 1992 he recorded the statement of witness Babu Ram. He searched the houses of the accused persons, but could not find them. On 3- 10-1992 he handed over the investigation to S. I. Lalla Singh. 5. We have already seen that on 6-10-1992 Suman was interrogated by S. I. Lalla Singh. On 7-10-1992 at the instance of Suman, he inspected the place where Shivaji had been killed and prepared its site plan. Thereafter he started searching for the corpse of Shivaji and took out the same from Kiwani river on 8- 10-1992. Suman identified it as that of her husband. Thereafter he sent the corpse for autopsy. 6. The evidence of Dr. Mahesh Gupta P. W. 5 shows that on 9-10- 1992 at 3. 15 p. m. he received the corpse of deceased Shivaji and immediately thereafter performed the autopsy. His evidence shows that the corpse was about one week old, the process of putrefaction had set in ; there were maggots in the body and nails and hair had become loose. His evidence shows that it was a headless corpse. A perusal of the post-mortem report prepared by Dr. Gupta shows that cut marks were present on first cervical vertebra and margins were clean cut. The autopsy report shows that the deceased died on account of ante-mortem injuries. In his statement in the trial Court Dr. Gupta said that the deceased could have died at about 10. 00 p. m. on 30-9-1992 and the injuries found on his body were attributable to sharp edged weapon like Banka and Hansiya (sickle ). 7. Injuries of Suman were medically examined on 13-10-1992 at about 3 p. m. by Dr. S. K. Verma, P. W. 4, who found on her person the following injuries : (1) Scar of healed wound carwal in shape of 2 cm x 0. 5 cm situated at side of neck (upper part ). 7. Injuries of Suman were medically examined on 13-10-1992 at about 3 p. m. by Dr. S. K. Verma, P. W. 4, who found on her person the following injuries : (1) Scar of healed wound carwal in shape of 2 cm x 0. 5 cm situated at side of neck (upper part ). (2) Sear of healed wound 1. 5 cm x 0. 5 cm situated at middle of right clavicle. (3) Contusion 10 cm x 2 cm. (sick) on outer aspect of left leg upper part. (4) Contusion 6 cm x 2 cm on back and middle part of left thigh. In the opinion of Dr. Verma said injuries were attributable to a lathi; were about two weeks old; and could be caused on 30-9-1992 at 3 p. m. 8. It is pertinent to mention that during the course of investigation (about one month and seven days after the incident) Sumans statement under Section 164 of the Cr. P. C. was recorded by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur. It may be mentioned that after the completion of the investigation accused persons were charge sheeted. 9. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions in the usual manner, where appellant and others were charged on the counts mentioned in para-1. They pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. Their defence was of denial. During trial, in all, the prosecution examined six witnesses. Two of them namely Ram Asrey P. W. 1 and Suman P. W. 2 the real brother and wife respectively of the deceased Shivaji, furnished ocular account; the former in respect of a part of the incident and the latter in respect of the whole incident. The learned trial Judge believed the evidence adduced by the prosecution viz-a-viz appellant and convicted and sentenced him in the manner stated in para-1. He, however, acquitted accused Ram Prakash, Santosh Kumar and Rajesh Kumar. As mentioned by us earlier accused Sunder, Kishun Dayal and Santoo died prior to the recording of the evidence in the trial Court. 10. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. We have also perused the depositions of the prosecution witnesses, the material exhibits tendered and proved by the prosecution, the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 of the Cr. P. C. and the impugned judgment. 10. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. We have also perused the depositions of the prosecution witnesses, the material exhibits tendered and proved by the prosecution, the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 of the Cr. P. C. and the impugned judgment. After the utmost circumspection we are of the judgment that the learned trial Judge acted correctly in finding the appellant guilty of all the three counts, but the instant case does not call for death sentence and the ends of justice would be squarely satisfied if the same is reduced to imprisonment for life. 11. The sheet-anchor of the prosecution evidence is the ocular account furnished by Ram Asrey (P. W. 1) and Suman (P. W. 2), the real brother and wife respectively of the deceased Shivaji. We have set out the prosecution story in para-2 on the basis of the recitals contained in the examination-in-chief and do not want to burden our judgment by reiterating all the details. In short, their evidence shows as under : At about 6-7 years prior to the incident the deceased Shivaji eloped with Suman. Later on he married her. On account of Suman eloping with the appellant, her father Sunder, her uncle Kishun Dayal, her brothers Om Prakash (the appellant) Ram Prakash and Santoo felt humiliated and the humiliation persisted right till the date of the incident, and to avenge it on 25-9-1992 at about 3. 00 p. m. co-accused Santoo came to the house of deceased and informant situated at village Anandi Purwa. Santoo and Shivaji started drinking. Thereafter, he took Shivaji with him. About an hour later cries and commotion were heard by Ram Asrey and Suman. Hearing them they rushed and reached near the door of Santoo, where they saw the appellant, Sunder and Kishun Dayal assaulting Shivaji with lathi. Santu was standing there. When Suman intervened Sunder and the appellant also assaulted her with lathi. Thereafter Ram Asrey came back to his house. 11-A. The evidence of Suman further shows thus : As a consequence of the assault launched on Shivaji, the latter had became unconscious. Thereafter she and Shivaji were taken by the appellant and others to Kiwani river, where the same night at about 10. Thereafter Ram Asrey came back to his house. 11-A. The evidence of Suman further shows thus : As a consequence of the assault launched on Shivaji, the latter had became unconscious. Thereafter she and Shivaji were taken by the appellant and others to Kiwani river, where the same night at about 10. 00 p. m. appellant Om Prakash after making Shivaji lie down on the ground, put up Banka on his neck; then took Banka, which was in the hands of Rajesh and Hansiya (sickle) from Ram Prakash; and severed the head of Shivaji with the said weapons. Thereafter Om Prakash drank the blood of Shivaji. Then the accused persons washed their weapons and took the head of the deceased and Suman along with them. 6-7 days later, on the ploy of answering the call of nature Suman escaped. 12. We have gone through the evidence of Ram Asrey and Suman and make no bones in observing that we find it to be implicitly reliable. In reaching this conclusion, we have borne in mind that being the real brother and the wife respectively of the deceased Shivaji, their evidence has to be evaluated with caution. We dare to say that even after doing so we find it to be credit worthy. 13. We would like to take up the evidence of both these witnesses. We begin with that of Ram Asrey. In the first place we wish to point out that he is a perfectly natural witness of the incident because the prosecution case, which we have accepted, is that on 25-9-1992 at about 3 p. m. co-accused Santoo came to his house where he had drank liquor with his brother the deceased Shivaji. It was perfectly natural for him to be at his house at the said time. We also find his evidence in respect of the incident to be acceptable. His evidence shows that an hour after Shivaji had gone away Santu, he and Suman heard cries and commotion and hearing them rushed towards northern door of Santoo, where they found appellant Om Prakash, co-accused Kishun Dayal and Sunder assaulting Shivaji with lathi. His evidence also shows that when Suman tried to intervene, appellant Om Prakash and Sunder assaulted her with lathis. In the earlier part of our judgment, we have reproduced the injuries sustained by Suman. We have seen that the evidence of Dr. His evidence also shows that when Suman tried to intervene, appellant Om Prakash and Sunder assaulted her with lathis. In the earlier part of our judgment, we have reproduced the injuries sustained by Suman. We have seen that the evidence of Dr. Verma P. W. 4, who medically examined Suman is categorically to the effect that her injuries could have been caused on 30-9-1992 at 3 p. m. with a blunt object. We see no reason for disagreeing with this evidence of Dr. Verma. 14. It is true as also emphatically urged by learned counsel for the appellant that on the corpse of the deceased, the autopsy surgeon Dr. Mahesh Gupta P. W. 5 did not find any blunt object weapon injury but it should be borne in mind that after murdering the deceased at about 10 p. m. on 30-9-1992 his corpse was thrown in river Kiwani, and eight days later i. e. on 8-10-1992 it was taken out. At that time putrefaction has set in maggots were present ; nails and hair had become loose; and it had started decaying. It is common knowledge that the state in which the corpse of the deceased was found neither contusions, nor lacerated wounds, nor abrasions would be visible. Apart from it. we cannot loose sight of the fact that the appellant had severed the neck of the deceased with Banka and Hansiya (sickle ). It may be that blunt weapon injuries may have been on the head of the deceased. In such a factual matrix the evidence of Ram Asrey cannot be castigated merely because no blunt object injuries were found on the corpse of the deceased. It should be remembered that after all Ram Asrey was brother of the deceased and brother-in-law of the appellant. We are not prepared to believe that purely on account of ill will he would have falsely implicated the appellant. 15. We see no infirmity in the evidence of Ram Asrey and accept it. 16. We now come to the evidence of Suman. So far as first part of the incident is concerned, she has furnished the same account as Ram Asrey; which account we have found to be reliable. 15. We see no infirmity in the evidence of Ram Asrey and accept it. 16. We now come to the evidence of Suman. So far as first part of the incident is concerned, she has furnished the same account as Ram Asrey; which account we have found to be reliable. If Ram Asrey and Suman have seen the first part of the incident together and furnished the same account and we find the evidence of Ram Asrey to be acceptable, it follows as a logical imperative that the evidence of Suman should also be acceptable. 17. We do not want to burden our judgment by reiterating what we have mentioned earlier while discussing Ram Asreys evidence. To put it briefly since she (Suman) was living with Shivaji, it was also natural for her to be present in the house on 25-9-1992 at about 3 p. m. when co-accused Santu came and knowing that Shivaji had gone with Santoo to have rushed on hearing commotion towards the house of Santoo. 18. We now come to the evidence of Suman in respect of that part of the incident, wherein Shivaji and she was assaulted and later on both of them were taken and Shivaji was killed. Her evidence shows that on hearing cries and commotion she and Ram Asrey rushed to the northern door of Santoo where they found that the appellant, Sunder and Kishun Dayal were assaulting Ram Asrey with lathi. When she intervened appellant and her father Sunder also assaulted her with lathis. Her evidence further shows that as a consequence of the assault Shivaji had become unconscious and thereafter she and Shivaji were taken by the appellant and others. At about 10. 00 p. m. when they had reached bank of river Kiwani Shivaji was made to lie down on the ground by the appellant. Thereafter, appellant put a Banka on his neck; took Rajeshs Banka and Ram Prakashs sickle and severed the head of Shivaji with the same. Thereafter, accused persons pierced stomach of Shivaji, and thereafter, appellant Om Prakash drank blood which oozed out as a consequence of the severing of the head of Shivaji. Then the accused persons washed their weapons and threw headless corpse of Shivaji in the river and took head of Shivaji and her with them. About a week later, on the ploy of answering the call of nature, she managed to escape. Then the accused persons washed their weapons and threw headless corpse of Shivaji in the river and took head of Shivaji and her with them. About a week later, on the ploy of answering the call of nature, she managed to escape. 19. We have no reservations in observing that we find the evidence furnished by Suman in respect of this part of the incident to be also credit worthy. Her evidence that the appellant severed the head of Shivaji with Banka and Hansiya (sickle), and thereafter the accused persons cut open the stomach of the deceased and when she tried to intervene, they assaulted her with blunt weapon, is corroborated by the evidence of autopsy surgeon Dr. Mahesh Gupta and Dr. Verma who medically examined her. Dr. Gupta stated that he found headless body and also stated that he found a cut injury on first cervical vertebra with margins clean cut. The evidence of Dr. Gupta shows that the said injury was attributable to Banka and Hansiya (sickle ). We have earlier seen that the evidence of Dr. S. K. Verma shows that he found the blunt weapon injuries on the person of Suman, which were possible of 30-9-1992. To put in short, the evidence of Suman both in respect of assault on her husband (deceased Shivaji) and in respect to that on her person, is corroborated by the medical evidence. 20. Learned Counsel for the appellant strenuously urged that no cut injury was found on the stomach of the deceased by the autopsy surgeon and this belies the claim of Suman of having seen the incident. We find no merit in the submission. It should be borne in mind that the autopsy surgeon did find the stomach of the deceased to be torn and he performed the autopsy ten days after the incident on a body, which had remained in the river for nine days wherein putrefaction had set in; maggots were present; and decay had started. In such a situation, in our judgment, it is not surprising if an incised wound was not visible to the autopsy surgeon on the stomach of the deceased. 21. It should be borne in mind that Suman is an injured witness. In such a situation, in our judgment, it is not surprising if an incised wound was not visible to the autopsy surgeon on the stomach of the deceased. 21. It should be borne in mind that Suman is an injured witness. The time-honoured role followed by this Court and the Apex Court is to give great weightage to the testimony of an injured witness because injuries ensure the presence of the witness and the only angle of enquiry which remains is whether the witness is a truthful witness or not. We have already given our reasons as to why we find Suman to be a truthful witness. It is true that on account of the appellant, who was her own brother, her father, her uncle, her brothers not reconciling with her marriage with Ram Asrey, she would have been sore with them but we are not prepared to believe that she would have gone to the extent of falsely implicating her brother on a capital charge; assigning him the role of inflicting the fatal blow and excluding the real assailant. The golden rule in criminal cases is to prefer the probable to the possible, and we have no reservation in our mind that unless the appellant was the author of fatal injuries, Suman would have not have implicated him. 22. For the said reasons in our judgment, the evidence of Suman inspires implicit confidence. 23. The golden rule in criminal cases is to prefer the probable to the possible, and we have no reservation in our mind that unless the appellant was the author of fatal injuries, Suman would have not have implicated him. 22. For the said reasons in our judgment, the evidence of Suman inspires implicit confidence. 23. As a consequence of the aforesaid discussion, we have no doubt in our minds that the learned trial Judge acted correctly in finding the appellant guilty on all the three counts namely under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the I. P. C. , 323 read with Section 34 of the I. P. C. and 201 of the I. P. C. We do not have even an iota of doubt in our minds that the sentences imposed on the appellant on the latter two counts namely 323/34 I. P. C. and 201 I. P. C. are proper and reasonable, but we do feel that the learned trial Judge erred in sentencing the appellant to death for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the I. P. C. It is true that it was the appellant armed with a Banka and Hansiya (sickle), in a most brutal manner severed the head of the deceased, and was directly responsible for his murder but the two circumstances strongly stand out in favour of the appellant so far as sentence is concerned. The first is that Suman, who was real sister of the appellant had eloped with the deceased and in rural society this is thought to be disgraceful. This according to the prosecution was the sole motive for the murder of the deceased. Unlike urban, rural people are more sensitive. When honour is lost, they think, all is lost. If the appellant, who was the own brother of Suman could not get over this humiliation, as also Sumans own father, uncle and brothers, and consequently decided to murder Sumans husband Shivaji. On account of the said emotional distress, in our view, he deserves a sentence of imprisonment for life. The Supreme Court in para-26 of the oft quoted case of Ediga Anamma v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1974 SC 799 , has observed thus: "let us crystalise the positive indicators against death sentence under Indian Law currently. Where the murder is too young or too old, the elemency of penal justice helps him. The Supreme Court in para-26 of the oft quoted case of Ediga Anamma v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1974 SC 799 , has observed thus: "let us crystalise the positive indicators against death sentence under Indian Law currently. Where the murder is too young or too old, the elemency of penal justice helps him. Where the offender suffers from socio-economic, psychic or penal compulsions insufficient to attract a legal exception or to downgrade the crime into a lesser one, judicial commutation is permissible. Other general social pressures, warranting judicial notice, with an extenuating impact may, in special cases, induce the lesser penalty. Extra-ordinary features in the judicial process, such as that the death sentence has hung over the head of the culprit excruciatingly long may persuade the Court to be compassionate. Likewise, if others involved in the crime and similarly situated have received the benefit of life imprisonment or if the offence is constructive, being under Section 302 read with Section 149, or again the accused has acted suddenly under anothers instigation, without premeditation, perhaps the Court may humanely opt for life, even like where a just cause or real suspicion of wifely infidelity pushed the criminal into the crime. On the other hand, the weapons used and the manner of their use, the horrendous features of the crime and hapless, helpless state of the victim, and the like, steel the heart of the law for a sterner sentence. We cannot obviously feed into a judicial computer all such situations since they are astrological imponderables in an imperfect and undulating society. A legal policy on life or death cannot be left for ad hoc mood or individual predilection and so we have sought to objectify to the extent possible abandoning retributive ruthlessness, amending the deterrent creed and accepting the trend against the extreme and irrevocable penalty of putting out life. " (Emphasis supplied) A perusal of the aforesaid paragraph would show that if the offender suffers from socio-compulsion and other general social pressures it would be adequate grounds for downgrading the sentence from death to life. Similar has been the view of the apex Court in oft quoted case of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 898 . In Para 204 of the said decision, quoting Dr. Similar has been the view of the apex Court in oft quoted case of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 898 . In Para 204 of the said decision, quoting Dr. Chitaley, two of the mitigating circumstances which have been referred are: " (1) That the offence was committed under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance. (2 ). . . (3 ). . . (4 ). . . (5) That in the facts and circumstances of the case the accused believed that he was morally justified in committing the offence. " In our view the ratio laid down in the said decision also warrants that sentence of the appellant be reduced to life. The second reason which has prompted us to reduce the sentence from death to life is that we find that for no fault of the appellant the death sentence has been hanging on his head for nearly seventeen months. The judgment of the trial Court shows that on 16-2-2001 the appellant was sentenced to death. In our view, he has suffered more than enough. There are no dearth of authorities to the effect that if the death sentence is hanging on the head of the accused for an agonisingly long time, it is a fit case to convert it to imprisonment for life. In this connection we would like to refer to some decisions. We begin with that of the Federal Court in the case of Piyare Dusadh and others v. Emperor, AIR (31) 1944 Federal Court 1, where death sentence was hanging on the head of the accused for over one year and the Federal Court on this consideration, converted it to transportation for life. We now come to the case of Ediga Anamma (supra ). As is manifest from Para 26 of the said judgment one of the considerations for converting the sentence from death to life is where the death sentence is hanging over the head of the culprit for excruciatingly long time. We would finally like to refer to the decision reported in 2000 (10) SCC 110 , State of U. P. v. Prem Singh, wherein the Supreme Court has also taken the view that where considerable time has elapsed, death sentence should not be imposed. We would finally like to refer to the decision reported in 2000 (10) SCC 110 , State of U. P. v. Prem Singh, wherein the Supreme Court has also taken the view that where considerable time has elapsed, death sentence should not be imposed. There are a large number of other authorities on the same point but since brevity is the order of the day, we refrain from prolixity. 24. In the result : (A) Capital Sentence Reference No. 2 of 2001 : Capital Sentence No. 2 of 2001, which arises from reference made by the trial Court for confirmation of the death sentence of the appellant is rejected. (B) Criminal Appeal No. 129 of 2001: Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. Although we uphold the conviction of the appellant on all the three counts namely under Section 302 read with Section 34, I. P. C. 323 read with Section 34 of the I. P. C. and 201 of the I. P. C. and his sentence on the second and third counts and his sentence of fine on the first count, but we convert his substantive sentence of death on the first count i. e. under Section 302 read with Section 34 I. P. C. from death to imprisonment for life. The appellant is in jail and shall serve out the sentence. (C) Criminal Appeal No. 318 of 2001: Criminal Appeal is decided in terms of our judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No. 129 of 2001. Crl. Appeal No. 2 of 2001 rejected and rest partly allowed.