JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The appellant herein along with accused-Subhash Krishna Savant, Mahadu Raghunath Waghmare and Ramji Balu Waghmare were tried and by judgment rendered by the Trial Court while the other three accused persons were acquitted of the charges, the appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code [for short, "the Indian Penal Code"] and sentenced to death penalty. Apart from this conviction, the appellant was convicted for other offences also. Against the order of acquittal of the other accused persons, appeal was preferred by the State of Maharashtra before the High Court. So far as the appellant is concerned, he preferred an appeal apart from the fact that there was a reference. The High Court, upon appraisal of evidence, came to the conclusion that the order of acquittal of the other three accused persons was perverse one, as such, it reversed the same. So far as the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 Indian Penal Code is concerned, the High Court was of the view that it was not a case where the appellant should have been convicted under Section 302 Indian Penal Code simpliciter. 3. Accordingly, the High Court converted the conviction of the appellant from Section 302 Indian Penal Code to Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and convicted the appellant and the other three accused persons there under. So far as the other three accused persons are concerned, they have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each; in default, to suffer further imprisonment for six months; whereas in relation to the appellant the sentence of death awarded by the Trial Court has been confirmed. Hence, this appeal by special leave. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, at the outset, stated that the present appeal would be pressed only on the question of sentence. 5. Having given our anxious consideration to the entire matter, we are of the view that for awarding sentence, case of the appellant cannot be distinguished from that of other three accused persons. Moreover, the present case cannot be said to come within the realm of rarest of the rare case so as to impose death penalty. 6. 5. Having given our anxious consideration to the entire matter, we are of the view that for awarding sentence, case of the appellant cannot be distinguished from that of other three accused persons. Moreover, the present case cannot be said to come within the realm of rarest of the rare case so as to impose death penalty. 6. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in-part and while upholding conviction of the appellant, sentence of death awarded against him is commuted to imprisonment for life. 7. We direct that all the sentences awarded against the appellant, including the sentence of life imprisonment shall run concurrently.