Judgment :- M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM, J. Govindaraj, the accused was convicted for the offences under Sections 302 and 307 I.P.C. for having caused the death of five persons and for attempt to commit murder on another person and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and seven years rigorous imprisonment respectively. Not being satisfied with the life sentence, the State has preferred C.A.1134 of 1998 seeking for enhancement of the sentence and requesting this Court to impose death sentence. The accused aggrieved by the conviction and sentence for the offences under Section 302 and 307 I.P.C., has filed C.A.No.18 of 1999. 2. The short facts leading to the conviction of the accused are as follows. (a) Govindaraj, the accused, married one Meenakshi, PW-5. Out of their wedlock, four children were born. Due to the misunderstanding, PW-5 Meenakshi left the house and joined with her parents. While she went to her parents house, she took her two male children, leaving two other female children with her husband, the accused. Anjammal, the first deceased is the sister of the accused. Rajalakshmi, another deceased is the mother of the accused. Gnanaprakasam and one Priya, the other two deceased are the children of the said Anjammal. Mahalakshmi, the 5th deceased is the daughter of the accused. PW-4 Saranyamuthu is another daughter of the accused. All these persons were living in a house in separate portions. (b) Anjammal, the first deceased, though got married to one Kasinathan, did not live with him, but had an illegal affair with one Muslim person. Through the said Muslim person, she gave birth to three children. The accused, having a feeling that Anjammal had spoiled the name of his family, was not in talking terms with his sister and his mother Rajalakshmi. The accused used to quarrel with his wife PW-5 Meenakshi frequently as he suspected her fidelity. Therefore, PW-5 along with two male children went and joined with her parents. (c) The occurrence had taken place on 19.5.1996 at about 9.00 p.m. Mahalakshmi, the 5th deceased, the daughter of the accused went to the portion of Anjammal and took food. When she came out of the house of the deceased Anjammal, the accused saw her and asked her as to why she went to the house of Anjammal despite his warnings. Mahalakshmi, the 5th deceased told her father that she went to the house of her aunt Anjammal on her own. When she came out of the house of the deceased Anjammal, the accused saw her and asked her as to why she went to the house of Anjammal despite his warnings. Mahalakshmi, the 5th deceased told her father that she went to the house of her aunt Anjammal on her own. The accused got angry and reprimanded Mahalakshmi and also beat his daughter with his hands. On seeing this, Anjammal, the first deceased came out of her house and asked the accused as to why he beat the child. The accused retaliated saying that he is the father and he has got the right to beat her. (d) In the meantime, the first deceased took the child Mahalakshmi to her house. On seeing this, the accused got infuriated and went inside his house and came out with an aruval. This was witnessed by the neighbours PW-1 Sundar and PW-2 Baskaran. Both of them tried to prevent the accused. However, the accused with the aruval, went inside the portion of Anjammal's house and began to attack the first deceased Anjammal. On receipt of injuries, she fell down. (e) The mother of the accused Rajalakshmi came from inside the house and shouted at the accused. Then the accused gave several cuts on Rajalakshmi and she also fell down. Gnanaprakasam, son of Anjammal and Priya, daughter of Anjammal were sleeping at that time. The accused attacked them also. Finally, he gave cut to his daughters Mahalakshmi 5th deceased and Saranyamuthu PW-4 with the same aruval. (f) Then, the accused came out of the house with the weapon and went to the Police Station and surrendered in the Police with the aruval. Mos.1 to 5 were recovered from the accused under Ex.P-3 mahazar. (g) PW-1 Sundar, at about 10.00 p.m. on 19.5.1996 came to the police station and gave a complaint. The same was registered in crime No.295/96 under Sections 307 and 302 I.P.C. PW-18, Inspector of Police took up investigation, went to the spot and noticed five dead bodies. PW-4 Saranyamuthu was fighting for life with injuries. She was sent to the Government Hospital, Thiruvarur. PW-18 then prepared observation mahazar Ex.P-4 and rough sketch Ex.P-19. He conducted inquest on the dead bodies and sent the dead bodies for post mortem. PW-4 Saranyamuthu was fighting for life with injuries. She was sent to the Government Hospital, Thiruvarur. PW-18 then prepared observation mahazar Ex.P-4 and rough sketch Ex.P-19. He conducted inquest on the dead bodies and sent the dead bodies for post mortem. (h) PW-7 to PW-11, the Doctors conducted post mortem and found injuries on the dead bodies and issued Post-mortem certificates Exs.P-9 to P-13 respectively. (i) PW-4 Saranyamuthu was initially admitted at Government Hospital, Thiruvarur. PW-12 Doctor noticed four injuries on her. Then, she was referred to Nagapattinam Hospital. Ultimately she was discharged. PW-12 Doctor had certified that the injuries sustained by PW-4 are grievous. Ex.P-14 is the wound certificate. (j) PW-18 Inspector of Police continued the investigation and examined the witnesses, recorded their statements and sent the material objects to Court to send them for chemical analysis. PW-19, the successor of PW-18, took up further investigation, examined the other witnesses and after completing the investigation, filed the charge sheet against the accused. (k) During the course of trial, prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-19, filed Exs.P-1 to 27 and marked Mos.1 to 39. (l) The accused, when questioned under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, pleaded that he did not participate in the occurrence. He said that when he came to the house, he found the dead bodies and on noticing the aruval nearby, he took the same and went to the police station in order to give complaint, but he was detained. (m) The trial Court on consideration of the evidence available on record, ultimately accepted the prosecution case and convicted the accused under Section 302 I.P.C. (5 counts) and under Section 307 I.P.C. for the attack made on PW-4 Saranyamuthu. 3. The appeal in C.A.1134 of 1998 has been filed by the State only in regard to the sentence contending that the sentence is inadequate and the proper sentence would be death sentence in view of the fact that the murder is brutal and the accused had committed the murder of five persons. 4. Challenging the conviction and sentence under Sections 302 and 307 I.P.C., Mr.P.M.Ansare, learned counsel appearing for the accused would submit that the evidence available on record would not be sufficient to hold that the accused is guilty of the offences under Sections 302 and 307 I.P.C. 5. 4. Challenging the conviction and sentence under Sections 302 and 307 I.P.C., Mr.P.M.Ansare, learned counsel appearing for the accused would submit that the evidence available on record would not be sufficient to hold that the accused is guilty of the offences under Sections 302 and 307 I.P.C. 5. We have heard the learned counsel on either side, gone through the memorandum of grounds and verified the materials available on record. 6. On the side of the prosecution, four eye witnesses were examined, Pws.1 to 4. PW-4 is victim Saranyamuthu, one of the daughters of the accused. PW-1 is the informant, who gave the complaint to the police. Pws.2 and 3 are neighbours. Though these four persons were examined as eye witnesses, PW-2 alone supported the prosecution case by giving all the details given in Ex.P-1 complaint. 7. Though PW-1 was treated as hostile, he admitted in his chief examination that he saw the accused going angrily with aruval to the house of his sister Anjammal. PW-3 also, though treated as hostile, would give details of portion of the occurrence. PW-4, the victim girl and daughter of the accused would state that somebody came and cut and therefore, she was treated as hostile. But, the fact remains that as per the evidence of PW-18, the accused himself went to the police station and surrendered before the Police and produced the aruval, which had been used for causing the injuries on all the deceased and on PW-4. 8. PW-7 to PW-11 the Doctors, who conducted post mortem, also would state that this weapon could have been used by the accused for causing the injuries, which are fatal. Under these circumstances, the conviction imposed upon the accused under Sections 302 I.P.C. (5 counts) and 307 I.P.C. cannot be said to be improper. 9. The learned counsel for the accused also would not press so much in respect of merits of the case, but however, he would contend that there are so many mitigating circumstances for which the proper sentence would be life alone and not death. The learned counsel for the accused relied on the decision reported in 2001 SCC (Cri) 278 (Mohamed Chaman v. State (NCT of Delhi)) in support of his contention. 10. The learned counsel for the accused relied on the decision reported in 2001 SCC (Cri) 278 (Mohamed Chaman v. State (NCT of Delhi)) in support of his contention. 10. On the other hand, the learned Additional public Prosecutor cited the decision reported in 2002 SCC (Crl) 526 (Lehna v. State of Haryana) in order to substantiate his plea that the proper sentence would be death penalty in the light of the circumstances of the case, especially when the accused committed murders of five persons, without any strong motive. 11. On going through the above judgments, we find some of the observations of the Supreme Court made in 2001 SCC (Cri) 278 are relevant for the purpose of deciding the issue in this case, which read thus, "Coming to the case in hand, the crime committed is undoubtedly serious and heinous and the conduct of the appellant is reprehensible. It reveals a dirty and perverted mind of a human being who has no control over his carnal desires. Then the question is: Whether the case can be classified as of a "rarest of rare" category justifying the severest punishment of death. Treating the case on the touchstone of the guidelines laid down in Bachan Singh ( (1980)2 SCC 684 ), Machhi Singh ( (1983)3 SCC 470 ) and other decisions and balancing the aggravating and mitigating circumstances emerging from the evidence on record, we are not persuaded to accept that the case can be appropriately called one of the "rarest of rare cases" deserving death penalty. We find it difficult to hold that the appellant is such a dangerous person that to spare his life will endanger the community. We are also not satisfied that the circumstances of the crime are such that there is no alternative but to impose death sentence even after according maximum weightage to the mitigating circumstances in favour of the offender. It is our considered view that the case is one in which a humanist approach should be taken in the matter of awarding punishment." The above observations would make it clear that unless the Court comes to the conclusion that the accused is a menace to the society or is such a dangerous person that to spare his life will endanger the entire community, death sentence cannot be imposed. 12. It is true that in this case, the accused committed murder of five persons. 12. It is true that in this case, the accused committed murder of five persons. Apart from the five murders, he also attempted to commit murder on one of his own daughters. When the murder was committed, he was in a ferocious mood. The reason for the same is that his daughter went to the house of his sister Anjammal to take food in spite of his warning that she should not go to her house. 13. It is the case of the prosecution that one of the deceased Anjammal, sister of the accused, had illegal affairs with one Muslim person by name Sait, when her husband is alive. So, the accused had the impression that Anjammal, the first deceased had spoiled the name of the family. That was the reason he advised his daughter not to go to her house. 14. When he saw his daughter coming out of the house of the first deceased, he got angry and beat her. When the first deceased came in support of his daughter and took her again into her house, he got further infuriated, went inside his house, took out the aruval and attacked the deceased. The mother of the accused came and shouted at him. Losing his control, he attacked his mother also. Then, he found two children of Anjammal sleeping and he attacked them also. Then, after attacking his own two daughters, he straight away went to the police station and surrendered with weapon. So, this shows that he lost his control completely in view of the fact that his sister had already spoiled the name of his family and was trying to spoil his daughters also. 15. While the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused said that he has to look after his wife and his other children. In the light of the above facts, we cannot conclude that the appellant/accused is a menace to the society or a dangerous person, who will endanger the entire community, if he is spared. 16. In view of the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the sentence of life would be the appropriate sentence to meet the ends of justice. Consequently, the sentence of life is liable to be confirmed and accordingly confirmed. 17. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed.