VISHNU SAHAI, J. For committing murders of his wife Vidya and four daughters, Madhu, Neetu, Kiran and Suman, Chandra Jeet Yadav was charged by the Sessions Judge, Lucknow on five separate counts under Section 302 IPC. The learned Sessions Judge vide his order dated 20-5-2003, passed in Sessions Trial No. 1157 of 2000, found Chandra Jeet Yadav guilty for committing the murders of the aforesaid persons and sentenced him to death. 2. Capital Sentence No. 2 of 2003 arises from is the reference made by the Sessions Judge, Lucknow under Section 366 (1) Cr. P. C. for confirmation of the death sentence of Chandra Jeet Yadav. Criminal Appeal No. 840 of 2003 has been preferred by Chandra Jeet Yadav against his aforesaid conviction and sentence. 3. Since both Capital Sentence No. 2 of 2003 and Criminal Appeal No. 840 of 2003 arise out of a common factual matrix and impugned judgment, we are disposing them off by one judgment. 4. Shortly stated, the prosecution case runs as under: Appellant Chandra Jeet Yadav was the husband of the deceased Vidya and the father of the deceased Neetu, Kiran, Madhu and Suman. At the time of the incident he was employed as a traffic constable and was living in a two room quarter, (quarter No. 561) alongwith the five deceased persons, his son Pankaj PW 1, his daughter Purnima PW 2 and another son Ankit in Reserve Police Lines, Lucknow. The appellant suspected the fidelity of Vidya and on some occasions, prior to the incident had beaten her. On the night of 31-3-2000-1-4-2000 in the front room of the appellants quarter Purnima, Neetu, Kiran and Suman slept and in the room which was at the rear, the appellant, Vidya, Madhu, Pankaj and Ankit slept. Electric light was burning in both the rooms. Sometimes between 3. 00 a. m. to 6. 00 a. m. Pankaj and Purnima woke up on hearing the cries of their mother Vidya. They saw the appellant assaulting their mother Vidya with a farsa. When Purnima rushed to save her mother the appellant pushed her. Neetu, Kiran, Madhu and Suman also rushed to save to their mother and implored the appellant not to assault her, but the appellant did not listen to them and assaulted them. As a consequence of the assault, Vidya, Neetu, Kiran and Madhu died on the spot and Suman was precariously injured. At about 6. Neetu, Kiran, Madhu and Suman also rushed to save to their mother and implored the appellant not to assault her, but the appellant did not listen to them and assaulted them. As a consequence of the assault, Vidya, Neetu, Kiran and Madhu died on the spot and Suman was precariously injured. At about 6. 00 a. m. , Pankaj slipped out from the quarter and told S. I. Ranveer Singh PW 3, who was present in front of the office (Aadesh Kaksh) that the previous night the appellant had murdered his mother Vidya, his sisters Neetu, Kiran and Madhu and injured Suman. On the information, SI Ranveer Singh informed the officials of Police Lines and telephoned A. P. Singh PW 4, Reserve Inspector Police Lines. Thereafter, SI Ranveer Singh and Reserve Inspector A. P. Singh proceeded to Quarter No. 561, wherein the incident had taken place. After receiving information on wireless at about 7. 00 a. m. , S. I. Harish Chandra Singh alongwith two constables also reached the appellants quarter. They found that the appellant had locked it from inside and the corpse of the four deceased persons, namely, Vidya, Kiran, Madhu and Neetu were lying. They also found that Suman was lying in a precariously injured condition. They asked the appellant to open the door, but he refused. They thereafter, broke open the main-door and entered inside the house. In the meantime, the appellant had hid in the bathroom and had bolted the door from inside. After great persuasion he opened the door. There was a blood stained farsa in his hand. Seeing Suman precariously injured they sent her to hospital. Thereafter, SI Ranveer Singh went to Kotwali Mahanagar and lodged his FIR. 5. The evidence of Head Moharrir Ranjan Kumar PW 7 shows that on 1-4-2000 at 7. 05 a. m. SI Ranveer Singh came to Kotwali Mahanagar and lodged his FIR. The chik FIR was also prepared. Its perusal shows that the distance between the place of the incident and Police Station Kotwali Mahanagar was 1-1/2 kilometers and a case under Section 302/307 IPC was registered against the appellant. 6. The evidence of SHO Moin Ahmad PW 10, in short, shows : The FIR was lodged in his presence. He thereafter, left for the place of the incident and found that the appellant was present in his quarter. 6. The evidence of SHO Moin Ahmad PW 10, in short, shows : The FIR was lodged in his presence. He thereafter, left for the place of the incident and found that the appellant was present in his quarter. He seized the farsa, which was in the hands of the appellant under a recovery memo and arrested him. He thereafter, directed SI Harish Chandra Singh PW 9 to perform the inquest on the corpse of the four deceased persons Vidya, Neetu, Kiran and Madhu. He inspected the place of the incident and recorded the statements of Pankaj and Purnima and prepared the site- plan. From the place of the incident he seized blood-stained articles like mattress, bed-sheet, guilt blanket etc. under a recovery memo. On 5-4-2000 he learnt that Suman was dead. Thereafter, inquest on her corpse was performed. He did some other investigation also, but since, in our view, a reference to it is not necessary for the decision of these matters we are not adverting to them. On 7-5-2000, after completing the investigation, he submitted the charge-sheet against the appellant. 7. Going backwards, the autopsy on the corpse of the deceased Madhu, Kiran and Suman was conducted by Dr. A. Dayal PW 5. On 1-4-2000 at 4. 35 p. m. Dr. Dayal performed the autopsy on the corpse of Madhu and found on it the following ante-mortem injuries: (i) Incised wound 10 cm x 3 cm x vertebrae deep present on left side neck 3 cm below left ear. (ii) Incised wound 7 cm x 2 cm x bone deep present on back of the neck at the level of C6 vertebrae. (iii) Incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep present on top of the left shoulder. (iv) Incised wound 3 cm x 2 cm x muscle deep present on outer aspect of the left upper arm (sic) 4 cm below top of left shoulder. (v) Incised wound 2. 5 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep present on back 2nd mid of left (sic) margins of the above injuries are sharp, clean cut and well defined on opening. Echyomosis present. (Sic) all the injuries noted above. Oesaphagus, trachea, C6 vertebrae and spinal cord cut through and through. Major vessels of left side neck cut through and through. On 1-4-2000 at 4. 20 p. m. Dr. Echyomosis present. (Sic) all the injuries noted above. Oesaphagus, trachea, C6 vertebrae and spinal cord cut through and through. Major vessels of left side neck cut through and through. On 1-4-2000 at 4. 20 p. m. Dr. Dayal performed the autopsy on the corpse of Kiran and found on it the following ante-mortem injuries: (i) Incised wound 9 cm x 1 cm x vertebrae deep present on the left side neck 5 cm below left ear. (ii) Incised wound through and through present as face of little and ring finger which is missing. Margins of the above injuries sharp, clean cut and well defined C3 vertebrae and spinal cord and major vessels left side neck cut underneath injury No. 1. On opening echyomosis present underneath both the injuries. On 2-4-2000 at 1. 00 p. m. Dr. Dayal performed the autopsy on the corpse of Suman and found on it the following ante-mortem injuries. (i) Stitched wound 14 cm long with 12 stitches on right side of face extending from below medial margin of eye-brow to right side of neck. (ii) Stitched wound 3 cm long alongwith 2 stitches on forehead. (iii) Stitched wound 8 cm alongwith 6 stitches extending from margin of upper and lower lip toward neck. (iv) Stitched wound 4 cm long on left side of neck. (v) Abrasion 3 x 2 cm contusion on right shoulder joint. (vi) Abraded contusion 5 cm long on right side of chest on (sic) side. (vii) Contusion 5 cm x 4 cm present on right temporal (sic) 5 cm above right ear. (viii) Mandible and maxilla fractured. In his deposition in the trial Court Dr. Dayal stated that the injuries of the aforesaid three persons could have been caused on the night of 31-3-2000-1-4-2000, sometimes between 3. 00 a. m. to 6. 00 a. m. He further stated therein that the injuries of the deceased Madhu and Kiran were attributable to the farsa shown to him and injuries No. 1 to 4 suffered by Suman were attributable to the said farsa and 5 to 7 to a blunt weapon like blunt portion of farsa. It is also pertinent to mention that Dr. Dayal stated that the three deceased persons died on account of the ante-mortem injuries suffered by them. 8. The autopsy on the corpse of deceased Vidya and Neetu was performed on 1-4-2000 at 4. 15 p. m. and 4. It is also pertinent to mention that Dr. Dayal stated that the three deceased persons died on account of the ante-mortem injuries suffered by them. 8. The autopsy on the corpse of deceased Vidya and Neetu was performed on 1-4-2000 at 4. 15 p. m. and 4. 45 p. m. respectively by Dr. Rakesh Rawat PW 6. On the person of Vidya, Dr. Rawat found the following ante-mortem injuries: (i) Incised wound 9 cm x 3 cm present in right side of face just behind the right angle of (sic) 3 cm below lobule of left ear underlying mandible cut. (ii) Incised wound 7 cm x 2 cm present on right side of neck 2 cm below right mandible line. (iii) Incised wound 8 cm x 2 cm x vertebrae deep present on right side of neck just below the injury No. 2. Margins of the above injuries (sic) sharp, clean cut and well defined. (iv) Contusion 9 cm x 6 cm present on (sic) of the left shoulder. (v) Contusion 15 cm x 9 cm present on (sic) aspect of left thigh 10 cm below left (sic ). (vi) Swelling 10 cm x 6 cm present on outer aspect of left wrist. Underlying radius fractured, covered by plaster. (vii) Stitched wound 4 cm long with 3 (sic) present 9 cm above left eye-brow. On opening blood present underneath all injuries. Beneath neck pharynx, trachea, C1 vertebrae and spinal cord cut. On the person of Neetu, Dr. Rawat found the following ante-mortem injuries: (i) Incised wound 10 cm x 2 cm x brain deep present on left side of (sic) 7 cm above left ear. (ii) Incised wound 10 cm x 4 cm present on front of neck, depth upto vertebrae column. In the opinion of Dr. Rawat the injuries on the deceased persons could have been caused on the night of 31-3-2000-1-4-2000 sometimes between 3. 00 a. m. to 6. 00 a. m. In his statement in the trial Court, Dr. Rawat stated that the injuries of Neetu were attributable to the farsa shown to him and ante-mortem injuries No. 4 and 5 suffered by Vidya were attributable to a blunt object and the remaining injuries suffered by her to the farsa shown to him. Dr. Rawat also stated that the death of the deceased persons was on account of the ante-mortem injuries suffered by them. 9. Dr. Rawat also stated that the death of the deceased persons was on account of the ante-mortem injuries suffered by them. 9. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions in the usual manner, where the appellant was charged on five separate counts, for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. He pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. His defence was of denial. During trial, in all the prosecution examined ten witnesses. Two of them, namely, Pankaj PW 1 and Purnima PW 2 were examined as eye-witnesses. One Court witness, namely, Dr. Harjeet Singh, Professor of Psychiatris, King Georges Medical College, Lucknow, was examined as CW 1 on the point whether appellant Chandra Jeet Yadav was insane at the time of the incident and the benefit of plea of insanity contained in Section 84 IPC could be given to him. 10. The learned trial Judge did not conclude that the appellant was insane at the time of committing the offence. He relied upon the evidence of the two eye-witnesses and convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner stated in paragraph 1. As mentioned in the said paragraph, Capital Sentence No. 2 of 2003 arises out of the reference made by the learned Sessions Judge under Section 366 (i) Cr. P. C for confirmation of the death sentence imposed on the appellant and Criminal Appeal No. 840 of 2003 has been preferred by the appellant against his aforesaid conviction and sentence. As mentioned in paragraph 3, since both Capital Sentence No. 2 of 2003 and Criminal Appeal No. 840 of 2003 arise out of a common factual matrix and impugned judgment, we are disposing them off by one judgment. 11. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through : the depositions of the prosecution witnesses, the material exhibits tendered and proved by the prosecution, the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. the evidence of Dr. Harjeet Singh CW 1; and the impugned judgment. 11. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through : the depositions of the prosecution witnesses, the material exhibits tendered and proved by the prosecution, the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. the evidence of Dr. Harjeet Singh CW 1; and the impugned judgment. In our judgment, the reference made by the Sessions Judge for confirmation of the death sentence of the appellant, giving rise to Capital Sentence No. 2 of 2003, deserves to be rejected and Criminal Appeal No. 840 of 2003 deserves to be partly allowed inasmuch as the instant case does not fall in the category of rarest of rare and a sentence of imprisonment for life would meet the ends of justice. 12. It would become manifest from the above that the learned Sessions Judge has based the conviction of the appellant on the ocular account furnished by his son Pankaj PW 1 and his daughter Purnima PW 2. We have gone through their evidence and find it to be implicitly credible. We now propose furnishing our reasons for reaching the said conclusion. 13. We would like to take up the evidence of Pankaj PW 1 and Purnima PW 2 together. In short, their evidence shows: The appellant was their father. Deceased Vidya was their mother. Deceased Neetu, Kiran, Madhu and Suman were their sisters. At the time of the incident, the appellant was employed as a traffic constable and was living in Quarter No. 561 in Police Lines, Lucknow. The quarter comprised of two rooms, an outer room and a rear room. On the night of the incident, Purnima PW 2, Neetu, Kiran and Suman were sleeping in the outer room. The appellant, Pankaj PW 1, Ankit, Vidya and Madhu were sleeping in the rear room. Electric light was burning in both the rooms. Sometimes between 3. 00 a. m. to 6. 00 a. m. they heard the cries of their mother. They saw in electric light that their mother was being assaulted by the appellant with a pharsa. When Purnima rushed to the rescue of her mother the appellant pushed her. Madhu, Kiran, Suman and Neetu also rushed to the rescue of their mother and asked the appellant not to assault her but the appellant did not pay any heed to them and instead assaulted them with pharsa. When Purnima rushed to the rescue of her mother the appellant pushed her. Madhu, Kiran, Suman and Neetu also rushed to the rescue of their mother and asked the appellant not to assault her but the appellant did not pay any heed to them and instead assaulted them with pharsa. In the meantime, Pankaj slipped out from the quarter and informed to SI Ranveer Singh PW 3 about the incident, who followed by other police personnel came to their quarter. They asked the appellant to open the main-door, but when the appellant refused to open it they broke it open. On entering inside they found that the appellant was hiding in his bathroom, which he had bolted from inside. On great persuasion, he opened the latch and came out. Since Suman was precariously injured, she was sent for medical examination. 14. We have gone through the evidence of Pankaj PW 1 and Purnima PW 2 and make no bones in observing that we find it to be implicitly truthful. In the first place, since Pankaj is the son of the appellant, Purnima is his daughter, deceased Vidya was their mother, and the other deceased were their sisters, it was natural for them to be sleeping alongwith the deceased persons and the appellant in the quarter of the latter. Since it was a small quarter, having only two rooms, it was natural for them to have woken up on hearing the cries of their mother when the appellant assaulted her with a pharsa. In the circumstances, we find them to be perfectly natural witnesses of the incident. Secondly, the manner of assault as furnished by them is corroborated by the medical evidence. We have earlier seen that three of the deceased persons Madhu, Kiran and Neetu suffered incised wounds, which in the opinion of the autopsy surgeon, could have been caused on the date and time of the incident with a pharsa. We have also seen that in addition to incised wounds. Suman and Vidya sustained some blunt weapon injuries and the evidence of both the autopsy surgeons is that the said injuries could be caused from the blunt side of pharsa. 15. It is significant to mention that although Pankaj PW 1 and Purnima PW 2 were extensively cross- examined, but nothing could be extracted their from which could impair their credibility vis-a-vis the substratum of the prosecution case. 15. It is significant to mention that although Pankaj PW 1 and Purnima PW 2 were extensively cross- examined, but nothing could be extracted their from which could impair their credibility vis-a-vis the substratum of the prosecution case. It is true that Pankaj at the time of the incident was aged about 10 years and is a child witness, but the learned trial Judge was conscious of this fact and after being satisfied on the basis of a preliminary examination conducted by him (it is a part of his statement) that he was possessed of sufficient understanding examined him on oath. We have examined the questions put by the learned trial Judge to Pankaj and the answers given by him to them and we do not even have an iota of doubt in our minds that he was possessed of sufficient understanding. 16. It should be borne in mind that Pankaj PW 1 and Purnima PW 2, were the son and daughter respectively of the appellant and nothing has been extracted from their cross-examination or has been brought out from the evidence of other witnesses, to show that they had any rancor or ill-will against the appellant. In our judgment, in the absence of the same, they would not have falsely implicated the appellant, who was their own father. In our view, the circumstance that the own son and daughter of the appellant are deposing against him seals his fate so far as his involvement in the five murders is concerned. 17. Assurance to the ocular account furnished by Pankaj and Purnima is also forthcoming by two other circumstances, firstly the prompt FIR of the incident (the incident took place between 3. 00 a. m. to 6. 00 a. m. on the night of 31-3-2000-1-4-2000 and the FIR was lodged on 1-4-2000 at 7. 17. Assurance to the ocular account furnished by Pankaj and Purnima is also forthcoming by two other circumstances, firstly the prompt FIR of the incident (the incident took place between 3. 00 a. m. to 6. 00 a. m. on the night of 31-3-2000-1-4-2000 and the FIR was lodged on 1-4-2000 at 7. 05 a. m. at Police Station Kotwali Mahanagar, which was situated at a distance of 1-1/2 kilometers from the place of the incident) which was lodged by SI Ranveer Singh on the basis of information furnished by Pankaj and wherein there is a categorical averment that the appellant with a pharsa, the previous night, had committed the murders of Vidya, Madhu, Kiran and Neetu and had grievously injured Suman and secondly, immediately after the lodging of the FIR when SI Ranveer Singh PW 3, SI A. P. Singh PW 4 and the Investigating Officer SHO Moin Ahmad, PW 10 came on the place of the incident, they found the appellant inside his quarter, broke open the main- door of the quarter, thereafter, on their persuasion, the appellant, who was hiding in the bathroom, unlatched the bolt and came out with a pharsa in his hand, and thereafter, the said pharsa was seized from the hands of the appellant. It is pertinent to mention that SHO Moin Ahmad seized it under a recovery memo and sent it to Forensic Science Laboratory, where blood was found on it. 18. For the said reasons, in our view, there is not even an iota of doubt that it was the appellant who committed the five gruesome murders, namely, of his wife Vidya and his daughters Madhu, Suman, Kiran and Neetu. 19. We have no doubt in our mind that the learned trial Judge acted correctly in not giving the appellant the benefit of the plea of insanity, contained in Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. The said section reads thus: "act of a person of unsound mind.-Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. " 20. The said section reads thus: "act of a person of unsound mind.-Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. " 20. A perusal of Section 84 would make it manifest that a person would only be entitled to its benefit if it can be established that at the time of doing the act, on account of unsoundness of mind he was incapable of comprehending the nature of the act or what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law. 21. In the instant case, the learned trial Judge has rightly held that there was no evidence to indicate that the appellant was insane at the time of the incident. It is pertinent to mention that neither Pankaj PW 1 nor Purnima PW 2 have stated in their examination-in-chief that their father was insane at the time of the incident. Although in cross-examination Purnima was asked "whether her father over suffered from any mental ailment" she replied in the negative. It is true that in his cross-examination Pankaj was asked "whether his father had become insane some years before the incident" but he replied in the negative. It is pertinent to mention that in cross-examination neither it was put to Pankaj nor to Purnima that their father was insane at the time of the incident. 22. In our view, the evidence of Dr. Harjeet Singh CW 1, Professor of Psychiatris, King Georges Medical College, Lucknow also does not help the appellant. It is pertinent to mention that his evidence shows that he twice observed the appellant, firstly between 21-9-2000 to 9-10-2000 and secondly 9-1-2001 to 24-1- 2001. It is true that his evidence shows that during the said periods the appellant was suffering from schizophrenia. However, we make no bones in observing that he candidly stated that he was not in a position to state from when he was suffering from the said disease and whether on 31-3-2000 (the date of the incident) he was suffering from it. 23. However, we make no bones in observing that he candidly stated that he was not in a position to state from when he was suffering from the said disease and whether on 31-3-2000 (the date of the incident) he was suffering from it. 23. Another circumstance which shows that the appellant was not insane at the time of the incident is that the evidence on record shows that right till the date of the incident, he performed his duties as a Traffic Constable. In our view, had he been insane he would not have been performing his duties. 24. It is true that Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that the burden on the accused to prove that his case falls within any of the general exceptions under the Indian Penal Code (XLV of 1860) is not so onerous as that on the prosecution and whereas the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt the accused discharges his burden under the said section if from a preponderance of probabilities he can show that his case falls under a general exception in IPC (XLV of 1860 ). However, in our view, in the instant case the appellant has not been able to establish by a preponderance of probabilities that he was insane at the time of the incident and was unable to comprehend what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law. 25. For the said reasons, as also for the reasons contained in paragraphs 25 to 35 of the impugned judgment, in our view, the learned trial Judge was justified in not giving the appellant the benefit of plea of insanity. 26. This leaves us with only one question, namely, whether the learned trial Judge was justified in sentencing the appellant to death. We make no bones in observing that on the first blush we felt that since the appellant had murdered his wife and four innocent daughters, the gravity of the crime committed by him warranted no interference in the matter of sentence. However, on a deeper reflection we thought that the instant case does not fall in the category of rarest of rare, warranting only the imposition of death sentence. 27. In our view, a sentence of imprisonment for life would meet the ends of justice. However, on a deeper reflection we thought that the instant case does not fall in the category of rarest of rare, warranting only the imposition of death sentence. 27. In our view, a sentence of imprisonment for life would meet the ends of justice. Our reason for concluding that the appellant deserves a sentence of imprisonment for life is to be found in the evidence of Pankaj PW 1 and Purnima PW 2, the son and daughter respectively of the appellant. Their evidence shows that the appellant suspected the fidelity of his wife (deceased Vidya) and was perhaps convicted that she was a woman of easy virtues. Pankaj PW 1 in his examination-in-chief, on being asked "why do you think your father assaulted your mother" replied "my father was telling my mother that her character was not good; she was bringing a bad name to him, and I will kill you". Purnima PW 2 when being asked in her examination-in-chief "when you woke up what did you see" replied my father was assaulting mother with a pharsa, was abusing her, and was telling her that since she did not listen to him he would kill her". In her cross- examination, on being asked "whether her father was saying something while assaulting her mother", she replied "when he was assaulting my mother he was abusing her and saying that she was characterless; she brought a bad name, and he would kill her. " In our judgment, on the basis of the said evidence, it can be safely inferred that the appellant murdered. Vidya because he suspected her fidelity and was convinced that she was a woman of loose character. 28. We are not oblivious to the fact that the appellant also killed his four innocent daughters but the evidence on record shows that he was so much mentally surcharged on account of infidelity of Vidya that when her daughters rushed to her rescue and asked him not to kill her he did not have the necessary mental composure of comprehending that her daughters were not at fault and he should not kill them. From the evidence on record it appears that the appellant had such a pronounced hatred for Vidya on account of her bad character that his daughters also became the victims of his wrath, when they rushed to her rescue. 29. From the evidence on record it appears that the appellant had such a pronounced hatred for Vidya on account of her bad character that his daughters also became the victims of his wrath, when they rushed to her rescue. 29. For the said reasons, in our judgment, the appellant does not deserve the sentence of death and a sentence of imprisonment for life would, instead, meet the ends of justice. We are fortified in our view by three decisions of the Supreme Court. The first decision was rendered by it in the case of Ediga Anamma v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1974 Supreme Court 799, wherein in paragraph 26 V. R. Krishna Iyer, J. speaking for the Court held that a reasonable suspicion of wifely infidelity would be a just ground for reducing the sentence from death to imprisonment for life. The second decision was rendered in the case of Shaikh Ayub v. State of Maharashtra, 1998 Crl. LJ 1656. In that case, the appellant was convicted for committing the murders of his wife and five children. The trial Court had sentenced him to death and the High Court had confirmed his death sentence, but the Supreme Court in paragraph 9, after observing that the evidence disclosed that the appellant had some suspicion regarding the character of his wife and circumstances indicated that he had killed his wife and children on account of unhappiness and frustration and not on account of criminal tendencies, reduced the sentence of appellant from death to imprisonment for life. The third decision was rendered in the case of "bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, 1980 SCC (Cri) 580", wherein the Supreme Court considered the circumstance that the offence was committed under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance to be a mitigating circumstance, warranting the imposition of sentence of imprisonment for life, rather than death (see paras 206 and 207 ). 30. We would be failing in our fairness if before proceeding to the operative part of the judgment we do not refer to the two principal submissions canvassed by Mr. H. A. Alvi, learned Counsel for the appellant. Mr. Alvi firstly urged that the circumstance, that apart from murdering his wife Vidya, the appellant also murdered his four daughters and did not run away shows that he was insane. H. A. Alvi, learned Counsel for the appellant. Mr. Alvi firstly urged that the circumstance, that apart from murdering his wife Vidya, the appellant also murdered his four daughters and did not run away shows that he was insane. We have reflected over the said submission and do not find any merit in it. Earlier we have furnished reasons as to why in our view the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of plea of insanity contained in Section 84 IPC. In our judgment, the circumstance that the appellant murdered his four daughters does not show that he was insane. From the evidence of Pankaj and Purnima, to which we have referred to earlier, it is manifest that since they were a hindrance in the way of the appellant in murdering his wife Vidya he committed their murder. To us it appears that he was so furious at the conduct of Vidya that he did not want to spare her and in turn assaulted his daughters because they wanted to rescue her. Again, we feel that the conduct of appellant in remaining inside the house and not running away is also not a pointer to the fact that he was insane. In our view, the appellant may not have run away after committing the murders because he knew that in the Police Lines there was armed police men whose suspicion would be aroused at his running away in the early hours of the morning. Hence, the first submission of learned Counsel for the appellant fails. 31. Secondly, learned Counsel for the appellant urged that the instant case does not warrant the imposition of death sentence. Since for the reasons mentioned earlier we are of the view that the sentence of the appellant warrants to be converted from death to imprisonment for life, we do not want to burden our judgment by dealing with this submission. Hence, this submission also fails. 32. In the result: (A) Capital Sentence Reference No. 2 of 2003: The reference made by the Sessions Judge, Lucknow for confirmation of death sentence of Chandra Jeet Yadav is rejected. (B) Criminal Appeal No. 840 of 2003: The appeal is partly allowed. Hence, this submission also fails. 32. In the result: (A) Capital Sentence Reference No. 2 of 2003: The reference made by the Sessions Judge, Lucknow for confirmation of death sentence of Chandra Jeet Yadav is rejected. (B) Criminal Appeal No. 840 of 2003: The appeal is partly allowed. Although we uphold the conviction of appellant Chandra Jeet Yadav for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, but we set aside the sentence of death awarded to him thereunder and instead sentence him to undergo imprisonment for life. The appellant is in jail and shall serve out his sentence. .