JUDGMENT 1. The accused appeals. 2. The appellant, on being tried for an offence under Section 302 I.P.C for causing the death of Anthony Topno, was found guilty by the Trial Judge, for which he was sentenced to death. The appellant aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence has preferred the above appeal, while the Death Reference is by the Sessions Judge for the confirmation of death sentence by this Court and both are being disposed of by the following common judgment. 3. The allegation against the appellant is that at 11.30 a.m. on 23.1.2005, he caused the death of Anthony Topno, son of P.W.4 Marshal Topno, by cutting his neck. 4. At about 11.30 a.m. on 23.1.2005, while P.W.4 Marshal Topno was taking his lunch at his house, his son Lawrence Topno, who is the elder brother of the deceased Anthony Topno, rushed to him and told him that the appellant has cut the deceased to death. P.W.4 ran to the house and found the dead body of his son Anthony Topno inside the house of the appellant. P.W.4 raised alarm and villagers gathered. The appellant Tara Sardar was caught by the villagers and Ext.4 fardbeyan was given at 2.50 p.m. at Potka police station by Marshal Topno, on the basis of which Ext.6 F.I.R was registered. The investigation in the crime was taken up by P.W.7 Remegius Toppo. 5. P.W.7, on taking up the investigation, reached to the scene of occurrence and prepared a seizure list, Ext.5, attested by witnesses. He also conducted inquest over the dead body by preparing the inquest report, Ext.6. The body was sent to the hospital with a request by P.W.7, requesting the Doctor to conduct autopsy on the dead body. 6. On receipt of the requisition, Dr. Lalan Chowdhary P.W.1 conducted autopsy on the dead body of Anthony Topno. He found the following injuries:- (A) Incised wounds (i) 0.5 cm x 3 cms x 0.5 cm over chin (ii) 12 cm. x 2 cm x 3 cm transversally over upper part of neck, in front neck muscles, vessels, larynx cut and separated (iii) 4 cm x 0.5= cm x 1 cm over right side lower part of neck (B) Abrasion of size 0.5 cm x 1.5 cms over right forearm lower part. x 2 cm x 3 cm transversally over upper part of neck, in front neck muscles, vessels, larynx cut and separated (iii) 4 cm x 0.5= cm x 1 cm over right side lower part of neck (B) Abrasion of size 0.5 cm x 1.5 cms over right forearm lower part. The Doctor issued Ext.1, the post mortem certificate, containing his opinion that the deceased would have died on account of shock and hemorrhage and the incised injuries found on the dead body would have been caused by a sharp cutting weapon. 7. The investigation continued, during which witnesses were examined and the statements were recorded. After the arrest of the appellant, he was sent to the hospital for treatment and the Doctor examined him and issued Ext.7, the injury report, mentioning the injuries, which are simple in nature, which he found on the person of the appellant. After completion of the investigation, final report was filed against the appellant, who, when questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C, denied all the incriminating circumstances. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that since there is contradiction as regards the weapon alleged to have been used by the appellant, the case of the prosecution is to be thrown out, more so when the occurrence was not witnessed by any one. On the above contention, we have heard Mr. Tapas Roy, learned counsel appearing for the State. 9. There can be no doubt that the deceased died on account of homicidal violence. The same stands proved from the evidence of the Doctor P.W.I and the post mortem certificate, Ext.l, issued by him. We, therefore, hold that Anthony Topno died on account of homicidal violence. 10. The prosecution before the trial court relied on circumstantial evidence as the occurrence was not witnessed by any one. According to the prosecution, the deceased was cut to death by the appellant as a sacrifice. The evidence of P.W.4, who is the father of the deceased, is to the effect that while he was taking his lunch at home, his son, P.W.5, rushed to him and informed him that the deceased had been cut to death by the appellant. He has further deposed that he went to the house of the appellant and found the dead body of his son, Anthony Topno, lying with cut injuries. He has further deposed that he went to the house of the appellant and found the dead body of his son, Anthony Topno, lying with cut injuries. The appellant was seen standing by the side of dead body and on seeing the dead body of his son, P.W.4 raised alarm, which brought the villagers to the scene, who thereafter apprehended the appellant. The evidence of P.W.4 is also supported by P.W.5 and also by the fact that the appellant was caught at the scene of occurrence by the villagers. The facts which we have narrated above, therefore, show that the dead body of the deceased with cut injuries was found in the house of the appellant and that the appellant was seen standing by the side of the dead body. He was also caught red handed by the villagers and produced at the police station. In the above circumstances, it is for the appellant to explain as to how the dead body of the son of P.W.4 came inside his house. The appellant had no explanation to offer. Non-explanation is an additional link in the chain of circumstances. On the above evidence, we find that the appellant was rightly convicted of murder. 11. The final question that is to be decided by us is the nature of sentence to be imposed upon the appellant. 12. On the above facts, we are not inclined to confirm the death sentence as the case in hand cannot be termed as the rarest of rare cases. The Supreme Court in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab has laid down some of the mitigating circumstances and ultimately observed as follows:- We cannot obviously feed into a judicial computer all such situations since they are astrological imponderables in an imperfect and undulating society. Nonetheless, it cannot be over-emphasized that the scope and concept of mitigating factors in the area of death penalty must receive a liberal and expansive construction by the courts in accord with the sentencing policy writ large in Section 354(3). Judges should never be bloodthirsty .... Hanging of murderers has never been too good for them. Nonetheless, it cannot be over-emphasized that the scope and concept of mitigating factors in the area of death penalty must receive a liberal and expansive construction by the courts in accord with the sentencing policy writ large in Section 354(3). Judges should never be bloodthirsty .... Hanging of murderers has never been too good for them. Facts and figures albeit in complete, furnished by the Union of India, show that in the past Courts have inflicted the extreme penalty with extreme infrequency - a fact which attests to the caution and compassion which they have always brought to bear on the exercise of their sentencing discretion in so grave a matter. It is, therefore, imperative to voice the concern that courts, aided by the broad illustrative guidelines indicated by us, will discharge the onerous function with evermore scrupulous care and humane concern, directed along the highroad of legislative policy outlined in Section 354(3), viz., that for persons convicted of murder, life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence an exception. A real and abiding concern for the dignity of human life postulates resistance to taking a life through laws instrumentality. That ought not to be done save in the rarest of rare cases when the alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed. 13. On the principle laid down by the Supreme Court and in view of the fact that this case is not the rarest of rare cases, we set aside the sentence of death imposed upon the appellant and instead he is sentenced to imprisonment for life. The appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid modification in sentence. 14. The Death Reference is answered accordingly.