VISHNU SAHAI, J. Four persons, namely, Bachchu Singh, Bhanwar Singh, Nahar Singh and Girraj were tried by Additional Sessions Judge (Court No. 4), Aligarh for offences punishable under Sections 302/34 I. P. C. and 307/34 I. P. C. During the pendency of the trial, Girraj died. Vide judgment and order dated 15-7-2003, the learned Judge convicted and sentenced Bachchu Singh, Bhanwar Singh and Nahar Singh in the manner stated hereinafter: (i) Under Section 302/34 I. P. C. to death, and (ii) Under Section 307/34 I. P. C. to seven years R. I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default to undergo one years sentence. 2. Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence Bachchu Singh preferred in this Court Criminal Appeal No. 281 of 2003 and aggrieved by their conviction and sentence Bhanwar Singh and Nahar Singh preferred in this court Criminal Appeal No. 3412 of 2003. Capital Sentence Reference No. 9 of 2003 arises out of the reference made by the learned Judge under Section 366 (1) Cr. P. C. for confirmation of death sentence of Bachchu Singh, Bhanwar Singh and Nahar Singh. 3. Since both these appeals and Capital Sentence Reference No. 9 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: The informant Netrapal Singh P. W. 1 is the uncle of deceased Mukesh and brother of the injured Khajan Singh P. W. 2. At the time of the incident, the informant, Mukesh, Khajan Singh and appellants Bachchu Singh, Bhanwar Singh and Nahar Singh were residing in village Barka within the limits of Police Station Khair, District Aligarh. There was enmity between Balbeer Singh (the brother of the informant and Khajan Singh) on one hand and appellant Bachchu Singh on the other. The wives of Balbeer Singh and Bachchu Singh had contested the election for Pradhan. In the said election Bachchu Singhs wife emerged victorious. On 21-5-1996, at about 10. There was enmity between Balbeer Singh (the brother of the informant and Khajan Singh) on one hand and appellant Bachchu Singh on the other. The wives of Balbeer Singh and Bachchu Singh had contested the election for Pradhan. In the said election Bachchu Singhs wife emerged victorious. On 21-5-1996, at about 10. 00 p. m. , while the informant Netrapal Singh and his brother Karam Vir Singh were sleeping on one cot and Khajan Singh and Mukesh were sleeping on another cot (at the tube-well of the informant) the informant Netrapal Singh and Karamveer Singh heard some sound and saw appellants Bachchu Singh and Bhanwar Singh armed with knives and Nahar Singh and Girraj (the latter died during trial) armed with pistols. The aforesaid persons surrounded the cot, on which Khajan Singh and Mukesh were lying. They challenged that they be killed. Thereafter, Khajan Singh implored the accused persons to leave them but they did not pay any heed to his request. In the meantime, the Informant Netrapal Singh flashed torch. In the said light he, Karam Vir and Khajan Singh saw that the appellants with knives and country-made pistols first assaulted Khajan Singh with knives and fired on him and thereafter assaulted Mukesh with knives and fired on him. As a consequence of the assault, Khajan Singh sustained serious injuries. Thereafter the accused persons ran away. Thereafter, the informant and Khajan Singh saw that Mukesh had succumbed to his injuries. Then, the informant dictated the F. I. R. to Shyam Sunder who scribed it and thereafter read it over to him. Then, the informant alongwith Khajan Singh proceeded to Police Station Khair, where he lodged the F. I. R. 5. The evidence of Head Constable Kailash Chandra P. W. 7 shows that on 21-5-1996, at 12. 10 a. m. Netrapal Singh alongwith Khajan Singh, Balveer Singh and Jaswant Singh came at the Police Station and lodged his F. I. R. on the basis of which he registered a case in the General Diary for offences punishable under Sections 307/302 I. P. C. and prepared the chik F. I. R. A perusal of the chik F. I. R. shows that the distance between the place of the incident and Police Station Khair is 7 kilometres and in the F. I. R. the four accused persons, namely, Bachchu Singh, Bhanwar Singh, Nahar Singh and Girraj are named. The evidence of Head Constable Kailash Chandra further, shows that he prepared the chitthi Mazroobi (a letter of request for medical examination) and sent Khajan Singh for medical examination. 6. The evidence of Dr. S. K. Upadhya P. W. 4 shows that on 22- 5-1996, at 12. 30 a. m. , he medically examined Khajan Singh and found on his person the following injuries: (i) A lacerated wound 4. 5 cm x 2. 5 cm x scalp deep on the left occipital region bleeding and blood dots. Patient fully conscious, well oriented of space and time. (ii) Multiple gun shot wounds in the area 10 cm x 7 cm on the antero lateral aspect of left an each measuring about 0. 3 cm x 0. 2 cm. Margins black. Kept under observation and advised X- ray of left arm. (iii) Multiple gun shot wounds in the area 9 cm x 5 cm on the posterior aspect of left forearm, 5 cm below the elbow joint, each measuring about 0. 4 cm x 0. 3 cm. Kept under observation and advised X-ray of left forearm. (iv) Omentum is coming out from a wound on the left lateral side of abdomen. Kept under observation and referred to general surgeon for expert opinion and management. (v) An incised wound 0. 5 cm x 1 x 0. 8 cm on the posteo lateral aspect of left thigh in the upper part. Margins sharp. In the opinion of Dr. Upadhya, injury No. 1 was caused by a hard and blunt object; injuries No. 2 and 3 by fire-arm and injuries Nos. 4 and 5 by a sharp object. In his statement in the trial Court, Dr. Upadhya stated that the said injuries could have been suffered by Khajan Singh on 21-5- 1996, at 10. 00 p. m. His evidence further shows that since the condition of Khajan Singh was serious, he referred him to the J. N. Medical College, Aligarh. 7. The evidence of Dr. A. K. Verma PW-6 shows that Khajan Singh was brought to J. N. Medical College, Aligarh on 22-5-1996 at 3. 45 a. m. and was admitted therein. His evidence shows that emergency surgical team treated him under his supervision. 8. The evidence of Dr. S. S. Siddiqui PW-5 shows that on 22-5-1996 he was the Professor of Orthopaedics in J. N. Medical College, Aligarh and his junior resident Dr. 45 a. m. and was admitted therein. His evidence shows that emergency surgical team treated him under his supervision. 8. The evidence of Dr. S. S. Siddiqui PW-5 shows that on 22-5-1996 he was the Professor of Orthopaedics in J. N. Medical College, Aligarh and his junior resident Dr. Anup Agarwal got the X-ray of Khajan Singh done. On seeing the X-ray plate Dr. Siddiqui opined that he had sustained fracture of the radius bone. 9. The evidence of Khajan Singh PW-2 further shows that since he did not respond to treatment at J. N. Medical College, Aligarh after some days he took his discharge from there and got himself treated at P. Kumar Nursing Home, where he recovered from his injuries. 10. The investigation in the case was conducted by Inspector Mahabir Chowdhary PW-8 of Khair Police Station. His evidence shows : After the registration of the case he took over the investigation and went to the place of the incident, where he searched for the accused persons, but could not find them. He recorded the statement of Netrapal Singh and on his pointing out inspected the place of the incident and prepared the site-plan (Exhibit Ka-17 ). He thereafter performed the inquest on the corpse of the deceased Mukesh. He seized from the place of the incident, empty cartridge under a recovery memo. On 23-5-1996, he recorded the statement of Balbir Singh. On 3-7-1996, after completing the investigation, he submitted the charge- sheet against Bachchu Singh, Bhanwar Singh, Nahar Singh and Girraj. 11. The autopsy on the corpse of the deceased Mukesh was conducted on 22-5-1996 at 5. 45 p. m. by Dr. Janendra Kumar PW 3, who found on it the following ante-mortem injuries : (i) Gun shot wound of entry 3 x 2 cm x muscle deep on left side upper part chest with blackening and tattooing present. 25 pellets recovered. (ii) Gun shot wound of exit 4 x 2. 8 cm x through and through with No. 1. (iii) Incised wound 1. 5 x 0. 5 x chest cavity deep on left side abdomen cm. . . . . (sic) at 3 Oclock position. (iv) Incised wound 1 x 0. 5 x muscle deep on left side chest just below left nipple. (v) Incised wound 1 x 0. 3 cm x muscle deep on back of chest lower part left side. (vi) Incised wound 0. 5 x chest cavity deep on left side abdomen cm. . . . . (sic) at 3 Oclock position. (iv) Incised wound 1 x 0. 5 x muscle deep on left side chest just below left nipple. (v) Incised wound 1 x 0. 3 cm x muscle deep on back of chest lower part left side. (vi) Incised wound 0. 3 x 3 cm x muscle deep on back of chest below just right side nipple. On internal examination, Dr. Kumar found left pleura and left lung to be lacerated. The cause of death spelt out in the post mortem report was shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante- mortem injuries. In his deposition in the trial Court, Dr. Kumar reiterated the said cause of death and stated that the deceased could have died on 21-5-1996 at 10. 00 p. m. He also stated therein that the ante mortem injuries suffered by the deceased were attributable to a sharp edged weapon and fire arm. 12. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions in the usual manner, where Bachchu Singh, Bhanwar Singh, Nahar Singh and Girraj were tried on counts mentioned in paragraph-1. They pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. During trial, in all, the prosecution examined eight witnesses. Two of them, namely, Netrapal Singh PW- 1 and Khajan Singh PW-2 were examined as eye witnesses. In cross-examination the suggestion given to them was that the deceased Mukesh and Khajan Singh were assaulted in darkness by some unknown persons, whom they could not recognise and they falsely implicated the accused persons. The said witnesses emphatically denied the said suggestion. In defence a solitary witness namely Talveer Singh was examined as D. W. 1. During trial Girraj died. The learned trial Judge believed the evidence adduced by Netrapal Singh and Khajan Singh and convicted and sentenced Bachchu Singh, Bhanwar Singh and Nahar Singh in the manner stated in paragraph- 1. Hence, these appeals and reference. 13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused: the depositions of the prosecution witnesses; the material exhibits tendered and proved by the prosecution the statements of the appellants recorded under Section 313 Cr. PC the evidence of the defence witnesses and the impugned judgment. In our judgment whereas Capital Sentence Reference No. 9 of 2003 deserves to be rejected, Criminal Appeal Nos. PC the evidence of the defence witnesses and the impugned judgment. In our judgment whereas Capital Sentence Reference No. 9 of 2003 deserves to be rejected, Criminal Appeal Nos. 281 of 2003 and 3412 of 2003 deserve to be partly allowed, inasmuch as instead of death sentence the appellants therein deserve the lesser sentence of imprisonment for life. 14. It would become manifest from the above that the learned trial Judge has based the conviction of the appellants on the ocular account furnished by the informant Netrapal Singh PW-1 and Khajan Singh PW-2, the injured witness of the incident. In our judgment, their evidence inspires confidence. We now propose dealing with their evidence and furnishing our reasons. 15. We would first like to take up the evidence of the injured witness Khajan Singh P. W-2. Since in paragraph-4 we have set out the prosecution story primarily on the basis of the recitals contained in his examination-in-chief we do not want to burden our judgment by reiterating the details. In short, his evidence shows: On 21-5-1996, at night he and his nephew Mukesh had slept on one cot and his brothers Netrapal Singh PW-1 and Karam Vir on another cot at their tube-well, situated at the outskirts of the village. At about 10. 00 p. m. , he noticed that the four accused persons, namely, Bachchu Singh, Bhanwar Singh, Nahar Singh and Girraj came. Out of them, Girraj and Nahar Singh were armed with pistols and Bachchu Singh and Bhanwar Singh with knives. They instigated "saalo Ko Maar Daalo" (kill the buggers ). Thereafter they fired on him and assaulted him with knives. They then fired upon Mukesh and assaulted him with knives. He saw this incident in the light of torch, which was flashed by Netrapal Singh. After assaulting him and Mukesh, Bachchu Singh, Bhanwar Singh, Nahar Singh and Girraj ran away. 16. We have gone through the evidence of Khajan Singh and make no bones in observing that we find him to be a wholly truthful witness. In the first place, he has explained his presence on the place of the incident. He has stated that at the time of the incident both he and Mukesh were sleeping on one cot and Netrapal Singh and Karam Vir on another cot at their tube-well. In the first place, he has explained his presence on the place of the incident. He has stated that at the time of the incident both he and Mukesh were sleeping on one cot and Netrapal Singh and Karam Vir on another cot at their tube-well. It is pertinent to mention that although he was extensively cross-examined but this claim of his could not be dislodged. Secondly, the manner of assault as furnished by him both in relation to himself and the deceased Mukesh is corroborated by medical evidence. We have seen that according to him two accused persons with knives assaulted him and two with pistols fired upon him. It is pertinent to mention that the evidence of Dr. S. K. Upadhya PW-4 who medically examined him on the same night at 12. 30 a. m. (i. e. within two and a half hours of the incident taking place), found on his person two gun shot wounds, one injury which he has described as omentum protruding out and an incised wound. He also found on his person a lacerated wound. In our judgment, the presence of two multiple gun shot wounds, one incised wound and the factum of his Omentum protruding out is corroborated by the manner of assault as furnished by him. It is true that Dr. S. K. Upadhya also noted in his injury report that he suffered a lacerated wound 4. 5 cm x 2. 0 cm x scalp deep on-the left occipital region, which, in his opinion (as per the injury report) was caused by hard and blunt object, but in our judgment, this injury could either have been caused as the result of fall or as the result of striking of handle of the knife. We also find that the manner of assault as furnished by him in relation to the deceased Mukesh is corroborated by medical evidence. He stated that the deceased was fired upon by accused having fire arms and the accused with knives assaulted him. Earlier we have set out the ante mortem injuries received by the deceased Mukesh and seen that he sustained a gun shot wound of entry, a gun shot wound of exit, and four incised wounds. It is pertinent to mention that the autopsy surgeon Dr. Janendra Kumar PW-3 stated that the fire arm wounds could be caused by pistol and the incised wounds by knife. It is pertinent to mention that the autopsy surgeon Dr. Janendra Kumar PW-3 stated that the fire arm wounds could be caused by pistol and the incised wounds by knife. 16-A. It should be borne in mind that Khajan Singh is an injured witness of the incident, whose injuries are corroborated by medical evidence. Criminal Courts attach great importance to the evidence of an injured witness because injuries fix his presence on the place of the incident and the only question which remains is of his credibility. Since the injuries suffered by Khajan Singh are compatible with the manner of assault as furnished by him we find him to be a credible witness. 17. It is pertinent to mention that although Khajan Singh was extensively cross-examined but nothing major could be extracted therefrom which could erade his credibility. It is true that in his cross-examination he stated that knife was used in a piercing manner both on his person as also on the deceased and the doctor did not find any punctured or stab injury either on his person or on that of the deceased. But, in our judgment, his injuries and the injuries suffered by the deceased corroborate the use of a knife in a piercing manner. One of the injuries suffered by him has been described as omentum protruding out. This was situated on the lateral side of the abdomen. The factum of omentum protruding out shows that knife was pierced in his abdomen. Again, we find that ante mortem injury No. 3 suffered by the deceased was an incised wound 1. 5 cm x 0. 5 cm x chest cavity deep. The depth of this injury shows that the knife was used in a piercing manner. Consequently, in our judgment, his statement that knife was used in a piercing manner is not belied by the medical evidence. 18. For the aforesaid reasons, in our judgment, the evidence of Khajan Singh PW-2 inspires implicit confidence. At the cost of repetition, we would like to point out that he is an injured witness and the manner of assault as furnished by him, both in relation to himself as also the deceased is corroborated by medical evidence. In our judgment, his evidence alone is sufficient to sustain the conviction of the appellants. At the cost of repetition, we would like to point out that he is an injured witness and the manner of assault as furnished by him, both in relation to himself as also the deceased is corroborated by medical evidence. In our judgment, his evidence alone is sufficient to sustain the conviction of the appellants. In this connection, we would like to advert to the provisions contained in Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, which provide that "no particular number of witnesses shall be required for proof of any fact". The said provisions make it manifest that a conviction can be recorded/sustained on the testimony of a solitary witness and in Khajan Singh we have such a witness. 19. We however, are fortunate in having plurality of ocular account in the form of that furnished by Netrapal Singh PW-1. Since in paragraph-4 we have set out the prosecution story on the basis of the recitals contained in his examination-in-chief we do not want to burden our judgment by reiterating the details. Since the manner of assault furnished by him, both in relation to the assault on Khajan Singh and the deceased is akin to that furnished by Khajan Singh PW-2, we do not want to burden our judgment by reiterating the details. Like Khajan Singh, he also stated that Bachchu Singh and Bhanwar Singh were armed with knives and Girraj and Nahar Singh with pistols. Like him he also stated that Girraj and Nahar Singh fired upon him (Khajan Singh) and Mukesh and Bhanwar Singh and Bachchu Singh assaulted him (Khajan Singh) and Mukesh with knives. He stated that he saw the incident in the light of torch, which he flashed. He also stated that after assaulting Khajan Singh and Mukesh the accused persons ran away. 20. We have gone through the evidence of Netrapal Singh and find him to be a wholly truthful witness. Since he has furnished the same manner of assault as Khajan Singh and while dealing with the evidence of Khajan Singh we have found that the version given by him, both in relation to the assault on himself as also on the deceased, is in consonance with medical evidence it follows as a logical imperative that the manner of assault as furnished by him (Netrapal Singh) both in relation to Khajan Singh and the deceased Mukesh is also in consonance with the medical evidence. Further, we find that he has explained his presence on the place of the incident. He has stated that on the date and time of the incident he was sleeping there on a cot. Although he was cross- examined but his presence on the place of the incident could not be dislodged. 21. It is pertinent to mention that although Netrapal Singh was extensively cross-examined but nothing could be extracted therefrom which could impair his credibility. 22. For the aforesaid reasons, the evidence of Netrapal Singh also inspires confidence. 23. In our judgment, the evidence of Khajan Singh PW-2 and Netrapal Singh PW-1 squarely establishes the involvement of appellants Bachchu Singh, Bhanwar Singh and Nahar Singh in the incident. 23-A. We do not have any reservations in our minds that the learned trial Judge acted correctly in convicting Bachchu Singh, Bhanwar Singh and Nahar Singh for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 I. P. C. and 307/34 I. P. C. Earlier we have reproduced the ante mortem injuries suffered by the deceased and seen that he sustained one gun shot wound of entry, one gun shot wound of exit and four incised wounds. We have also seen that the left pleura and left lung were lacerated. We have further seen that the evidence of the eye-witnesses shows that as a consequence of the said injuries the deceased died on the spot. It is true that the autopsy surgeon Dr. Janendra Kumar PW-3 has not stated that the ante mortem injuries suffered by the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, but in our judgment despite this the appellants can be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 I. P. C. as their act would squarely fall within the ambit of clause thirdly of Section 300 I. P. C. , the breach of which is punishable under Section 302 I. P. C. Clause thirdly of Section 300 I. P. C. provides that culpable homicide would be murder if the act by which death is caused is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. A perusal of the said clause would show that for its application two pre-requisites have to be satisfied; they being: (a) There should be intention to cause the injuries actually caused, in contradistinction to their being accidentally caused; and (b) The injuries caused should be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. In our judgment, both these pre-requisites are satisfied. The evidence of the eye-witnesses shows that appellants Bachchu Singh, Bhanwar Singh and Nahar Singh alongwith Girraj intentionally inflicted the injuries on the person of the deceased. It is true that the evidence of the autopsy surgeon does not show that they were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, but in our judgment this would be inconsequential. It is manifest from a perusal of paragraph-6 of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Brij Bhukhan and others (Appellants) v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1957 S. C. 474) that even if the medical evidence is not to the effect that the injuries are sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death but if their bare perusal warrants such an inference there would be no impediment in the way of the court in holding that the injuries are sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Since the injuries on the deceased were inflicted by the appellant Bachchu Singh, Bhanwar Singh and Nahar Singh alongwith Girraj in furtherance of their common intention an offence punishable under Section 302/34 I. P. C. would be made out against them and the learned trial Judge acted correctly in convicting them thereunder. 23-B. Coming to the injuries of the injured Khajan Singh, we find that the learned trial Judge acted correctly in convicting Bachchu Singh, Bhanwar Singh and Nahar Singh for the offence punishable under Section 307/34 I. P. C. We have earlier extracted in entirety the injuries found on the person of Khajan Singh, by Dr. S. K. Upadhya PW-4, who medically examined him. We have seen that one of the injuries sustained by Khajan Singh resulted in omentum protruding out. It can safely be said that this injury betrays an intention to commit the murder of Khajan Singh. S. K. Upadhya PW-4, who medically examined him. We have seen that one of the injuries sustained by Khajan Singh resulted in omentum protruding out. It can safely be said that this injury betrays an intention to commit the murder of Khajan Singh. Since the injuries of Khajan Singh were inflicted by the appellants Bachchu Singh, Bhanwar Singh and Nahar Singh, alongwith Girraj, in furtherance of their common intention, an offence punishable under Section 307/34 I. P. C. would be made out against them. 24. Before proceeding to the question of sentence we would like to deal with the evidence of Talveer Singh DW-1. We make no bones in observing that his evidence does not inspire any confidence and has been rightly rejected by the learned trial Judge. His evidence shows that on the date of the incident at 9. 30-10. 00 p. m. Khajan Singh PW-2 came and informed him that Pappu had assaulted him and Mukesh. However, in his cross examination he admitted that he had not lodged any report at the Police Station to the said effect, but had given information to the S. S. P. (Senior Superintendent of Police), through an affidavit. When he was asked to file a copy of the said affidavit he admitted that since he did not have it he could not file it. In our view, the learned trial Judge for the said reasons, and also for some other plausible reasons contained in the impugned judgment rightly rejected his testimony. 25. This leaves us with only one question, namely, that of sentence. In our judgment, the instant case cannot be put in the category of "rarest of rare", warranting only the imposition of death sentence. The evidence of Khajan Singh PW-2 shows that the appellants initially did not have any intention to commit the murder of the deceased Mukesh. In his examination-in-chief he has stated that the appellants first assaulted him and when Mukesh told them not to assault his uncle (Khajan Singh) they said that he should also be killed. It was then that Girraj and Nahar Singh fired upon him and Bachchu Singh and Bhanwar Singh assaulted him with knives. 25-A. Apart from this, there is another reason why the appellants do not deserve the sentence to death. It was then that Girraj and Nahar Singh fired upon him and Bachchu Singh and Bhanwar Singh assaulted him with knives. 25-A. Apart from this, there is another reason why the appellants do not deserve the sentence to death. A perusal of the autopsy report shows that the deceased sustained one gun shot wound of entry, one gun shot wound of exit and four incised wounds. It further shows that the fatal injury was ante mortem injury No. 1 which was a gun shot wound of entry, beneath which the autopsy surgeon found left pleura and left lung lacerated. According to the eye-witnesses both Girraj and Nahar Singh fired on the deceased. We have seen that the deceased sustained one gun shot wound of entry. It is pertinent to mention that both Netrapal Singh PW-1 and Khajan Singh PW-2 have not been able to specify as to who amongst Nahar Singh and Girraj was responsible for the fatal fire-arm injury suffered by the deceased. 26. For the aforesaid reasons, in our view, appellants Bachchu Singh, Bhanwar Singh and Nahar Singh do not deserve the extreme penalty of death and a sentence of imprisonment for life would meet the ends of justice. 27. In the result : A. Criminal Appeal No. 281 of 2003: The appeal is partly allowed. Although we confirm the conviction and sentence of appellant Bachchu Singh for the offence punishable under Section 307/34 I. P. C. and his conviction for that punishable under Section 302/34 I. P. C. but we reduce his sentence on the latter count from death to imprisonment for life. Appellant Bachchu Singh is in jail and shall serve out his sentence. B. Criminal Appeal No. 3412 of 2003: The appeal is partly allowed. Although we maintain the conviction and sentence of appellants Bhanwar Singh and Nahar Singh for the offence punishable under Section 307/34 I. P. C. and their conviction for that punishable under Section 302/34 I. P. C. but we set aside their sentence of death on the latter count and instead sentence them to imprisonment for life. Appellants Bhanwar Singh and Nahar Singh are in jail and shall serve out their sentences. C. Capital Sentence Reference No. 9 of 2003: The reference is rejected. Appeals partly allowed, reference rejected. .