JUDGMENT K.S. GAREWAL, J. 1. Yoginder @ Parmod (36) of Ratanpur, Nawa Gaun, Police Station Nawa, Dehradun, Uttaranchal, was found guilty of murder of a young boy aged 4-1/2 for ransom and after trial by learned Sessions Judge, Yamunangar at Jagadhri, vide judgment dated August 17, 2005, death sentence was pronounced on August 24, 2005 on both the counts. Yoginder @ Parmod was also found guilty under Section 201 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. The learned Sessions Judge has. referred the, case for confirmation of the death sentence. The reference is Murder Reference No. 8 of 2005. Yoginder @ Parmod has also filed an appeal, being Crl. Appeal No. 661 DB of 2005, challenging his conviction and sentence. The murder reference and criminal appeal are being decided together. 3. Kailash Mehta (PW8) of Ranjit Gali, Yamunangar had three children, namely, Urvashi (10), Hemant (4-1/2) and Dushyant (2). On March 7, 2002, Urvashi and Hemant were sent to their grand father Ram Lal (PW9) in Hari Nagar as they had school holidays. Yoginder @ Parmod, accused-appellant herein, used to live in a part of Ram Lal’s house as a tenant. On March 8,2002, at about 6.30/7 P.M., the appellant took Hemant with him and left a letter with Ram Lal (PW9) saying that one of his companions would come to pick up the letter. Ram Lal told the appellant to leave the letter on a table. When Hemant did not return to the house and Ram Lal found that both Hemant and the appellant were missing, he and his family started looking for them and they searched up to 8/8.30 P.M. but no one ever came to collect the letter. When Ram Lals younger son Yashpal (PW5) came to the house, he saw the letter lying on the table and on going through the contents of the letter, he discovered that the letter was a demand for ransom. It was stated in the letter that the boy would be released only if Rs. 2.50 lacs was paid as ransom money. Earlier to this, Yashpal had at 7.30 PM seen the appellant taking Hemant to buy a kite for him. 4. It was stated in the letter that the boy would be released only if Rs. 2.50 lacs was paid as ransom money. Earlier to this, Yashpal had at 7.30 PM seen the appellant taking Hemant to buy a kite for him. 4. Ram Lal (PW9) called Hemant’s father, Kailash Mehta (PW8) and began looking for Hemant, but when they failed to locate the boy, Kailash Mehta wrote out an application to the Station House Officer, Police Station City, Yamunanagar at 3 A.M. on March 9, 2002, disclosing the facts of the case, whereupon F.I.R. was registered at Police Station, City Yamunangar at 3.15 P.M. 5. Investigation was commenced by ASI Surjit Singh (PW10), who proceeded to the spot and also sent information to Station House Officer on telephone. ASI Surjit Singh recorded the statements of the witnesses and prepared a site plan. Investigator was also handed over the ransom note as well as another note which contained detailed instructions of the manner in which the ransom money was to be paid and the place where it was to be delivered. On the reverse of the second note there was a detailed map containing directions on how to reach the spot and where the money was to be delivered. The ransom notes are exhibits PJ and PJ/1. These were handed over to the Investigating Officer, who took them in possession. 6. Thereafter, Inspector Balbir Singh (PW11) also reached the spot and supervised the investigation being conducted by ASI Surjit Singh. Inspector Balbir Singh moved an application to the SDO, Telephone Exchange, Yamunangar, for keeping Telephone No. 50581 under observation and took up the investigation himself on March 10, 2002. 7. According to Ram Lal (PW9), he received a telephone call from the appellant on March 9, 2002, between 8 or 9 A.M stating that money was not to be paid at the place specified in the letter and that he would specify another place on telephone where the ransom was to be paid. When Ram Lal told him that he was not in a position to ,pay Rs. 2.50 lacs, the caller reduced the arilOunt of ransom to Rs. 1.80 lacs, Ram Lal recorded this conversation with the appellant on a tape-recorder and handed over the audio cassette to the Investigator. 8. When Ram Lal told him that he was not in a position to ,pay Rs. 2.50 lacs, the caller reduced the arilOunt of ransom to Rs. 1.80 lacs, Ram Lal recorded this conversation with the appellant on a tape-recorder and handed over the audio cassette to the Investigator. 8. When Ram Lal informed the Investigator about the telephone conversation and the appellant’s direction that money should be kept in a bag on a pullia (culvert) situated near the Kali Mandir temple (near the Hanuman Mandir) on the main road to Dehradun, the Investigator started preparation to trap the appellant. 9. As per of the appellant’s directions, the police party put a bag containing the money on the culvert in the evening of March 10, 2002, but the appellant did not turn up. According to the Investigating Officer, they had put notes of plain paper between two real currency notes of Rs. 500/- to make the entire bundle resemble a bundle of Rs. 500/- notes. Similarly, they made a bundle of Rs. 100/- notes in the like fashion. There were six bundles in all. When the appellant did not show up to pick up the money, the Investigating Officer again asked Ram Lal to inquire from his house, if there was any message. Ram Lal was informed that the appellant had intimated that he would reach the spot at 7 A.M in the morning. Therefore, the police party stayed the night at Dehradun. In the morning the police party again reached the place and put the bag near the Hanuman Mandir, underneath a small bridge and hid themselves behind the bushes. The appellant came there to collect the bag. As soon as he picked up the bag, he was arrested red-handed. The appellant was identified as the person, who lived in Ram Lal’s house and who had abducted the child. The six bundles of real and fake currency notes were recovered and taken in possession along with bag. The appellant was arrested and brought back to Police Station, City Yamunangar for interrogation. 10. The appellant was interrogated by Inspector Balbir Singh in the presence of Surinder Suri (PW7) and Tarun Kumar. The appellant disclosed that he had buried Hemant’s body in a sugar- cane field under dry sugarcane and could get the body recovered. The disclosure statement was recorded. 10. The appellant was interrogated by Inspector Balbir Singh in the presence of Surinder Suri (PW7) and Tarun Kumar. The appellant disclosed that he had buried Hemant’s body in a sugar- cane field under dry sugarcane and could get the body recovered. The disclosure statement was recorded. Thereafter, the appellant led the police to the place where the dead body had been concealed and got the body recovered. The legs and arms of the dead body were found tide with a piece of cloth and there was another piece of cloth around the neck. The dead body was identified by the witnesses and photographed and thereafter the Investigating Officer prepared the inquest report as well as rough site plan. The offence for murder punishable under Section 302 IPC was also added. Special report was sent to the Magistrate. 11. Post-mortem was conducted by a Medical Board consisting Dr. M.R.Passi, (PWl) and Dr. Sumesh Garg at Civil Hospital, Jagadhri at 2.30 P.M. on March 11,2002. 12. The condition of the body, as described in the post- mortem report as under: “The length of the dead body was 3 feet x 6 inch. There was a ligature mark around the neck above the thyroid cartilage. The length of the ligature mark was 26 cm. Width of the ligature mark was 2 cm. Base of the ligature mark was dry hard and parchmant like. Skin was ecchymoses. Petchiae hemorrhage was present around the ligature mark. On dissection there was extravasation of blood into the subentaneous tissue underlying the ligature mark. Face was cyanosed and bleeding was present from mouth and nose and clenching of hands was present. Condition of the body: The body was moderately built and nourished of a male child wearing reddish brown safari suit, pant, shirt, stripped sweater, yellow baniyan, white shocks and spots shoes. There was a white coloured cloth present around the neck with a knot. Puffines of the face was present. There was found to be tightening of the left wrist with the left thigh. Eyes were opened. Conjective was congested. Rigor mortis was present on all the four limbs and was absent in neck.” In the opinion of the Medical Officer, the cause of death was asphyxia due .to strangulation. The post-mortem has been conducted within 48 hours of the death. 13. After completion of the investigation, the accused was sent up for trial. Eyes were opened. Conjective was congested. Rigor mortis was present on all the four limbs and was absent in neck.” In the opinion of the Medical Officer, the cause of death was asphyxia due .to strangulation. The post-mortem has been conducted within 48 hours of the death. 13. After completion of the investigation, the accused was sent up for trial. At the trial, charge was framed against-the appellant under Sections 364-A, 302 and 201 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 14. Prosecution examined Dr. M.R. Passi (PWl), Constable Deva Nand (PW2) (who proved delivery of special reports to S.P., D.S.P. and IlIaqa Magistrate on March 11, 2002 at 2.40 P.M.), Photographer Anil Kumar (PW3) (who had taken photographs of the dead body), Patwari Ram Kumar (PW4) (who had prepared the site plan), Yashpal (PW5) (who had last seen the appellant with the deceased on March 8, 2002 at 7.30 P.M.), Avtar Singh, UGC (PW6) (who had delivered the special report to the CJM), Surinder Suri (PW7) (who had seen the appellant in the company of the deceased on March 8, 2002 at about 8 P.M. and who had also witnessed the recovery of the dead body), Kailash Mehta (PW8) (father of the deceased), Ram Lal (PW9) (grand father of the deceased), ASI Surjit Singh (PWI0) and Inspector Balbir Singh (PWl1). 15. The appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the various circumstances appearing in prosecution evidence were put to him and he denied all knowledge about the case. 16. In defence, the appellant stated that he had been falsely implicated in the case. The complainant party wanted to get rid of him from their house. The deceased Hemant had died a natural death and his body was buried in the field of a known person of the complainant party by them and in order to get rid of the appellant from their house, the appellant has been falsely implicated for kidnapping and murder. 17. The appellant was called upon to produce evidence in his defence, but he did not examine any witness. 18. The learned Trial Judge accepted the evidence of Ram Lal as well as (PW9) as well as the tape-recorded conversation and the evidence of the bundles of currency notes picked up by the appellant. 17. The appellant was called upon to produce evidence in his defence, but he did not examine any witness. 18. The learned Trial Judge accepted the evidence of Ram Lal as well as (PW9) as well as the tape-recorded conversation and the evidence of the bundles of currency notes picked up by the appellant. The learned Trial Judge held that since the appellant had not cross-examined Ram Lal by challenging the identity of the voice contained in the cassette had failed to suggest to the witness that the cassette had been tampered with, the case against the appellant was proved beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt, that he had kidnapped Hemant for ransom and then murdered him. 19. The learned Trial Judge accepted the disclosure statement made by the appellant to the Investigating Officer, which led to the recovery of Hemant’s dead body. The learned Trial Judge also accepted the statements of Ram Lal, Surinder Suri and Kailash Mehta as being corroborated by medical evidence and the statements of Investigating Officer. The appellant had been arrested by the police when he came to .collect the ransom money from the place specified by him. Recovery of the currency notes and bag from the appellant left no doubt that Hemant had been kidnapped by the appellant for ransom. The medical evidence was also said to be correct version given by the witnesses. The learned Trial Judge also held that since the prosecution had been able to prove that the deceased had been kidnapped for ransom by the appellant, there was every justification for drawing the inference that the appellant had murdered the deceased. The dead body had been concealed by the appellant and got recovered at his instance. Consequently, the appellant was found guilty under Section 364-A and 302 IPC and awarded death sentence under both sections. 20. The appellant’s case was very ably argued by Shri Sanjeev Sheokand, Advocate. Shri J.L.Malhotra, Advocate also assisted the Court as Amicus-Curiae. 21. The main argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant was that the investigation of the case had been badly conducted, the ransom notes had never been examined by any handwriting expert and no comparison was done of the two documents with the handwriting of the appellant. 22. Shri J.L.Malhotra, Advocate also assisted the Court as Amicus-Curiae. 21. The main argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant was that the investigation of the case had been badly conducted, the ransom notes had never been examined by any handwriting expert and no comparison was done of the two documents with the handwriting of the appellant. 22. Likewise, the recorded conversation was not examined by a Forensic Expert to compare the voice of the caller with the voice of the appellant. Currency notes, after recovery, had not been sealed, nor any inventory was drawn up. The recovery memo was not signed by the appellant. The evidence of last seen by Surinder Suri (PW7) could not be used against the appellant, because this evidence has not been put to the appellant during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. It was pointed out that a number of documents prepared during investigation, relating to the recovery memos or recording of statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that had been prepared before Hemant’s murder had been discovered since these papers contained Section 302 IPC, as one of the sections under which the FIR was registered. This could never be the case because at the relevant time the Investigators were still trying to catch the appellant by trapping him. The appellant had allegedly demanded ransom from the family by saying that Hemant was with him and was alive. 23. In a case in which a young boy has been kidnapped for ransom and later murdered and the accused has been ordered to be hanged, the evidence collected during investigation and presented before the trial Court, as well as the trial proceedings before the court must be examined very closely, while considering the question of confirmation of death sentence. The Court has to be confident that the police had presented true facts before the court and not fabricated evidence. The Court has also to be confident that the trial has been fairly conducted and all procedural safeguards which ensure a fair trial of the accused have been observed. 24. The investigation in this case was shoddy and lacklustre to say the least. It would be a cause of serious concern if such investigations are made the basis of convicting a man and condemning him to die. 24. The investigation in this case was shoddy and lacklustre to say the least. It would be a cause of serious concern if such investigations are made the basis of convicting a man and condemning him to die. We are constrained to observe that death sentence awarded by the trial court can by no means be taken as a stamp of approval regarding the manner in which the case of kidnapping was handled by the Investigating Officer. 25. The broad features of the. case have been detailed above and the evidence of Ram Lal (PW9) and Kailash Mehta (PW8), as regards Hemant’s kidnapping by the appellant is explicit, acceptable and truthful. 26. Similarly, the statements of Yashpal (PW5) and Surinder Suri (PW7) regarding having last seen the appellant taking Hemant to buy a kite is also apparently truthful and acceptable. 27. Where the prosecution failed is where the Investigators stepped in and began introducing the evidence without proper scientific basis and procedure. Similarly, the learned Trial Judge also failed to take sufficient interest in the conduct of the trial and neglected to point out to the prosecutor where defective investigation and forensic work came to light. 28. The learned counsel for the appellant has highlighted the following five features of the case in support of his argument that the appellant was not the man who had kidnapped Hemant, demanded ransom and murdered him. Audio Cassette (exhibit P.15) 29. This cassette was recorded by Ram Lal (PW9) and is said to be contained conversation in the appellant’s voice demanding ransom money. The voice of the caller in the audio cassette and the appellant’s actual voice was never matched by any expert trained in the science of voice identification. The technique which enables a forensic expert to identify the recorded voice is quite accurate and is available at most Forensic Science Laboratories. Experts can identify voices even when attempts have been made to disguise the voice. Why no attempt was made by the Investigator to match the appellant’s voice with the voice of the caller recorded by Ram Lal on the audio cassette exhibit P.15 has not been explained. It is also surprising how this evidence was allowed to be admitted in evidence without even the transcript “of the conversation and without proof that the voice was that of the appellant. It is also surprising how this evidence was allowed to be admitted in evidence without even the transcript “of the conversation and without proof that the voice was that of the appellant. Question No.7, in the examination of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. also clearly asks the appellant if what was recorded in exhibit P .15 was in his voice or not? There is also no proof that exhibit P.15 had been kept in safe custody and not tampered with. The exhibit was never played in Court and no witness was called upon to recognize’ the appellant’s voice, as recorded in this exhibit. There was no observation by the trial Court’ that the cassette had been heard in Court and the voice matched the voice of the appellant. 30. It is a matter of common sense that when a telephone is tapped, in the expectation that the kidnapper would call the family, it can never be known at what time the call would come. A house in which a young boy was missing and suspected to have been kidnapped would be receiving a, large number of calls from the relatives and friends. Therefore, if the tape recorder is recording all the conversations then there would be a series of conversations including those with the kidnapper. It is possible that tape recorder was only switched on when the kidnapper called and only that particular call was recorded, but Ram Lal (PW9) does not say so. No one knows when the kidnapper had called. No attempt was made to find out from where the call had originated, no officer/official of the Telephone Department appeared to testify at the trial that permission had been granted to tap the said telephone line. 31. Another interesting feature of this exhibit is the recovery memo exhibit PL, relating to the recovery of the tape- recorder and the cassette on March 10, 2002. This document mentions the FIR as having been recorded under Sections 364/302 IPC, whereas on March 10, 2002, the case was still under Section 364 IPC. The kidnapper was still at large. The police and the family were busy trying to trap the kidnapper red handed. The appellant was arrested on March 11, 2002 while picking up the ransom money. This document mentions the FIR as having been recorded under Sections 364/302 IPC, whereas on March 10, 2002, the case was still under Section 364 IPC. The kidnapper was still at large. The police and the family were busy trying to trap the kidnapper red handed. The appellant was arrested on March 11, 2002 while picking up the ransom money. The time of recovery of dead body mentioned in column No.3 of inquest report under Section 174 Cr.P.C. was March 11, 2002 at 11.20 A.M. Therefore, it cannot be understood how exhibit PL indicated Section 302 IPC as one of the offences. 32. Learned counsel for the appellant has also highlighted the fact that the prosecution failed to examine any police official incharge of the Malkhana to testify that the audio cassette exhibit P .15 had been deposited with him in a sealed packet and had not been tampered by anyone. Ransom notes (Exhibits PJ and PJ/l). 33. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, these documents were never sent to any handwriting expert for examination and nor sample handwriting of the appellant was taken for comparison purposes. The appellant had never refused to give a sample of his handwriting indeed he was never called upon to do so. Therefore, how can it be said that the ransom notes were in the appellant’s handwriting. As a matter of fact even the learned Trail Judge did not question the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that it was he who had written the ransom note exhibits PJ and PJ/l. 34. Learned counsel further highlighted that the recovery memo regarding handing over the two ransom notes to the Investigating Officer by Ram Lal also contained Section 302 IPC as one of the offences, even though the ransom notes had been handed over on March 9, 2002 and had contained averments that the boy was still alive. 35. Furthermore, the ransom notes were never sealed. No attempt was made to keep them in safe custody in the Malkhana. Bundles of currency notes (exhibits P .17 to P .22) 36. These are the bundles currency notes, simple paper between real notes, which had been put in a bag placed on a culvert near Hanuman Temple on Dehradun Road. The bag had been picked up by the appellant shortly before he was nabbed. The recovery memo Ex. Bundles of currency notes (exhibits P .17 to P .22) 36. These are the bundles currency notes, simple paper between real notes, which had been put in a bag placed on a culvert near Hanuman Temple on Dehradun Road. The bag had been picked up by the appellant shortly before he was nabbed. The recovery memo Ex. PL also bore Section 302 IPC as one of the offences. Ex. PS is the site plan of the place of recovery which correctly mentions the FIR as only under Section 364 IPC, which obviously proves that both these documents had not been prepared contemporaneously at the same time. The notes had not been initialed by the Investigating Officer and nor sealed with his seal. Evidence of “last seen” 37. The deceased and the appellant were seen together by Yashpal (PW5), Surinder Suri (PW7) and Ram Lal (PW9). 38. Counsel’s criticism regarding Surinder Suri and Yashpal having seen the appellant with the deceased was that Yaspal’s statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. strangely again mentioned Section 302- IPC as one of the offences. Likewise, statement of Surinder Suri (PW7) recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. also mentioned Section 302 IPC as one of the offences. Surinder Suri’s statement had been recorded as early as at 3 AM on March 9, 2002. Therefore, his statement simply could not contain the offence of murder. Furthermore, the accused was not asked in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that he had been seen with the deceased by Surinder Suri and Ram Lal, although he had been specifically so asked in question No.3 that Yashpal (PW5) had seen him with Hemant. Recovery of dead body. 39. According to learned counsel, after the appellant has been arrested, he was interrogated and he made a disclosure statement exhibit PF. On the basis of which the dead body was recovered. However, after the dead body was recovered, no recovery memo was prepared. Furthermore, in the second special report, while re-counting the facts of the case, the Investigating Officer had not indicated that the dead body had been recovered on the basis of the appellant’s disclosure statement. It was also be pointed out that in the disclosure statement the appellant’s conversion was mentioned, but there were omissions regarding the appellant’s alluring Hemant on the pretext of buying him a kite and the body lying in Dalip Singh’s field. 40. It was also be pointed out that in the disclosure statement the appellant’s conversion was mentioned, but there were omissions regarding the appellant’s alluring Hemant on the pretext of buying him a kite and the body lying in Dalip Singh’s field. 40. The recovery had been from a local field. No independent witness had been examined, although many persons were present there. The body was tied with a piece of cloth and there was also a strip of cloth around the neck of the dead body. These items have not been recovered and nor deposited in Malkhana. 41. The many defects in the investigation, as - pointed out above, would certainly have an impact on the credibility of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, witnesses must pass the test of credibility if hence is to be accepted. Nevertheless each case has its own peculiar fact and circumstances. The present case is not a straightforward case of a murder witnessed by 2-3 witnesses, whose presence at the spot is not in doubt. It is a case of a child being kidnapped, ransom demand being made on telephone and through two letters, matter being reported to the police and a trap being set to arrest the accused by putting money in a bag. The kidnapper is lured to collect the cash and in the bargain he is arrested redhanded. Therefore, the defects in the investigation may somewhat weaken the prosecution case but cannot altogether obliterate it. The family of the victim consisted of his father and grand-father and two of his uncles. They were the main prosecution witnesses examined at trial. The appellant was a tenant in Ram Lal’s house and this fact too stands established. What Ram Lal witnessed and deposed before the trial is amply corroborated by his sons Kailash Mehta (PW8), Yashpal (PW5) and by Surinder Suri (PW7). The evidence of the prosecution as regards the boy being kidnapped by the appellant was extremely strong, but where the Investigator failed was as regards the audio cassette, the letters demanding ransom and the currency notes. These were the result of faulty and careless investigation, over which neither Ram Lal nor any of his family member had any control whatsoever. Ram Lal and his family had been fully cooperating with the Investigating Officer and had fully supported the prosecution case at the trial. These were the result of faulty and careless investigation, over which neither Ram Lal nor any of his family member had any control whatsoever. Ram Lal and his family had been fully cooperating with the Investigating Officer and had fully supported the prosecution case at the trial. It would be an extreme proposition of law, if Ram Lal’s evidence is altogether rejected. The Investigating Officer had failed to get the appellant’s voice and handwriting matched with the voice in the audio cassette and the hand writing of the ransom notes. Therefore, the main defect in the prosecution case was this (sic) failure to connect the appellant with the voice on” the audio cassette and the hand writing on the ransom notes. Apart from this, the other circumstantial evidence against the appellant was very strong. 42. The prosecution had, successfully established, without any shadow of doubt, that the appellant was the tenant under Ram Lal (PW9) and was in occupation of the premises on the date when Hemant had been kidnapped. The appellant and the deceased had left the house together and had been seen off by Ram Lal. The two were last seen by Yashpal and Surinder Suri. The appellant was arrested in district Dehradun and brought to Yamunangar. On interrogation, he disclosed that the read body was lying in a field in Yamunangar. The body was subjected to post-morterm examination, which confirmed that the boy had been strangulated to death and then murdered Ram Lal’s grand son. The exact sequence of events relating to the ransom demands and the ultimate recovery of the ransom Therefore, there was a complete, unbroken and credible chain of circumstances, which clearly established that the appellant had kidnapped and then murdered Ram Lal’s grand son. The exact sequence of events relating to the ransom demands and the ultimate recovery of the ransom amount may be some what clouded in mystery on account of various reasons mentioned above, yet, the motive for the appellant kidnapping the body for ransom was present and this further added to the circumstantial evidence against the appellant. 43. Consequently, we conclude that lacklustre investigation and lackadaisical conduct of the trial has not fatally damaged the prosecution case. There is sufficient circumstantial evidence to connect the appellant .with the crime. The appellant’s conviction under Sections 364-A, 302 and 201 IPC is upheld. 43. Consequently, we conclude that lacklustre investigation and lackadaisical conduct of the trial has not fatally damaged the prosecution case. There is sufficient circumstantial evidence to connect the appellant .with the crime. The appellant’s conviction under Sections 364-A, 302 and 201 IPC is upheld. However, we are of the opinion that the case does not call for the extreme penalty of death sentence because if proper investigation had been conducted it may have revealed that the appellant was not alone and there may have been other conspirators and collaborators. We feel that the prosecution case is not the complete truth. Defective investigation has ensured that the whole truth may never be known. 44. Consequently, the murder reference for confirmation of death sentence under Sections 302 and 364-A IPC is declined. Accused is entered to life sentence on both counts under Section~ 302 and 364A IPC with fine of Rs. 25,000/- on each of the two counts (in default 2 years rigorous imprisonment under both counts). Sentence under Section 201 remain intact and shall run concurrently. Resultantly, murder reference is rejected’ and the criminal appeal is disposed of in the above terms.