JUDGMENT By Court. - The appellants Bhinsent Oraon and Lodha Mahli were arrayed as A1 and A2 in S.T. No. 73 of 2003 on the file of the Sessions Judge. Simdega. They were charged under section 302/34 IPC and the allegation in the said charge is that at 9.00 p.m. on 12.4.2003, the appellants in furtherance of common intention of each other caused death of D1 Deonish Oraon, D2 Bhakra Oraon and D3 Damrudhar Singh in village Ghaghara, within Ghumatongri Police Station limits. The learned trial Judge, on the recorded evidences, finding the appellants guilty sentenced each of them to death. The appeal is against the conviction and sentence and the Reference is by the Sessions Judge for confirmation of the death sentence. 2. The case of prosecution can be briefly summarized as follows: 3. PW 1 Hem Prakash Singh is the elder brother of Damrudhar Singh D2. PW 2 Sudhir Ekka is son of Nanhku Ekka, who was examined as PW 7. PW 7 Nanhku Oraon is another brother of DW 2 Oamrudhar Singh. PW 8 Beartha Ekka is the wife of Nanhku Oraon. PW 9 Karina Oraon is the wife of DW 2 Bhakra Oraon. Both the accused and the witnesses were residents of the same village. There was a dispute between the families of the accused and the deceased, as regards the usage of the courtyard and sweeping in front of the house. On account of the said dispute, there was a quarrel on the day of Ram Navami in the year 2003. At about 9 p.m. on 12.4.2003, PW 10 was standing in front of the courtyard. PW 7 was also standing there. D1 and D2 were in the house. D3 Damrudhar Singh, who had come to the house on the invitation of D1 and D2, was also present with D1 and D2. Sometime thereafter, D1 Deonish Oraon, D2 Bhakra Oraon, D3 Damrudhar Singh, Inder Pahan and Damar Oraon came out of the house followed by PW 10. When they reached the courtyard, the 1st accused Bhinsent Oraon went towards D1 with a tangi in his hand. Loda Mahli, the 2nd accused, who was sitting, was having a balua in his hand. On approaching D1, A1 hit him with the tangi. When they reached the courtyard, the 1st accused Bhinsent Oraon went towards D1 with a tangi in his hand. Loda Mahli, the 2nd accused, who was sitting, was having a balua in his hand. On approaching D1, A1 hit him with the tangi. On seeing this, D3 went to the rescue of D1 and the 2nd accused Lodha Mahli stood up with the balua and caused injuries on his person. D1 and D3 fell down. D2 Bhakra Oraon questioned A1 and A2 for their unruly act and the 2nd accused hit him (D2) with balua. On receiving the said injuries, D2 also fell down. Thereafter both the accused caused injuries on the three persons and left the place. PW 10 raised alarm. The occurrence was witnessed by PW 2 Sudhir Ekka, PW 7 Nankhu Ekka, PW 8 Bertha Ekka, and PW 9 Karina Oraon apart from PW 10 Jyoti Devi. As it was night, PW 1 could not leave the village and on the next day at 8.30 a.m. went to the police station and gave fard beyan (Ext. 3) to the Police Ext. 1/5 is the signature of PW 10 on the said fard beyan. Investigation was immediately taken up by PW 11 Nageshwar Prasad Singh who was in-charge of Simdega P.S. 4. PW 11, on taking up the investigation, reached the scene of the occurrence and prepared the inquest reports (Ext. 1/1, 1/2 and 1/3) after conducting inquest over the dead bodies of the three deceased D1 to D3. After inquest, the dead bodies were sent to the hospital for post mortem. 5. On receipt of the requisition and the dead bodies, Dr. K.D. Choudhury, Medical Officer, conducted post mortem on the dead body of D1 and found the following injuries: 1. incised wound 2" x 1" x 1" ½” over the right parietal region of head, cutting right external ear into two parts with fracture of underlying bones: 2. incised wound 1" x 1/2" x 1" over the right frontal region of head with fracture of underlying bone; 3. incised wound 1" x 1/4" x whole thickness of upper lip of right side with dislocated upper incissor teeth. 4. incised wound 6" x 3" x 3" triangular in shape over the vertex of head with fracture of underlying bone with brain matter and meninges coming outside, from the wound site; 5. incised wound 1" x 1/4" x whole thickness of upper lip of right side with dislocated upper incissor teeth. 4. incised wound 6" x 3" x 3" triangular in shape over the vertex of head with fracture of underlying bone with brain matter and meninges coming outside, from the wound site; 5. incised wound 2 1/2" x 1/2" x ½” over the ½" over the left angle of mouth; 6. multiple abrasion over the right side of face with fracture of whole right maxillary bone and nosal bones. The doctor issued Ext. 2 post mortem certificate with his opinion that the death is on account of shock produced by excessive bleeding. 6. The doctor thereafter commenced post mortem on the dead body of D2 and noted the following injuries: 1. incised wound 4" x 1" x 2 1/2" over the frontal region of head with cutting of underlying bone. Brain matter coming outside from the wound. 2. incised wound 6" x 1 ½” x 3 ½” over the vertex of head with fracture of underlying bone with brain matter coming outside from the wound with black clots present inside the cranial cavity; 3. incised wound 5" x 3" x 3" over the base of left side of neck cutting important vessels, nerves, muscles of neck. The doctor issued Ext. 2/1, post mortem certificate, containing his opinion that the death is on account of cutting of important vessels in the body and on account of excessive bleeding. 7. The doctor finally commenced autopsy on the dead body of Damodar Singh D3 and found the following injuries: 1. ilncised wound 2 ½” x 1" x 1 ½” over the right ear dividing into two parts with fracture of underlying bone; 2. incised wound 6" x 2 ½” x 3" over the occipital region of head with fracture of underlying bone with brain matter coming outside. 3. incised wound 1 ½" x ½" x 1 1/2" over the right parietal region of head with fracture of underlying bone; 4. incised wound 4" x 2" x 2" over the left side of face paralleled to left mandible (jaw bone) with fracture of left mandible; 5. incised wound 1 ½" x ½" x skin-deep over the neck of nap. He issued Ext. 2/2 post mortem certificate containing his opinion that the death is on account of excessive bleeding due to head injury. 8. incised wound 1 ½" x ½" x skin-deep over the neck of nap. He issued Ext. 2/2 post mortem certificate containing his opinion that the death is on account of excessive bleeding due to head injury. 8. After the completion of the investigation, final report was filed against the appellants. 9. When the appellants were questioned under Section 313 Cr. P.C. about the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, they denied all the incriminating circumstances. They did not examine any witness on their side. 10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in the above appeal contends that since no independent witness was examined, the evidence of PWs. 2, 7, 8, 9 and 10 cannot be accepted as they are related to each other and the deceased. Learned counsel submits that the deceased must have been attacked by Inder Pahan and Damrudhar Oraon, who were members of the MCC. 11. On the above contentions, we have heard learned counsel for the State and we have perused the evidence, both oral and documentary. 12. The evidence let in by the prosecution shows that there was a long standing enmity between the families of the accused and the deceased as regards the usage of courtyard and that on the date of the incident, a quarrel also ensued at 4.00 p.m. between the parties. The evidence of PW 10, wife of D1, further shows that on the date of the incident, D3 had came to the hosue of D1 and D2 at their request and when D1 and d3, accompanied by Inder Pahan, went out of the house, Deonish D1 was attacked by A1 and that when D3 intervened he was also attacked. According to PW 10, when D2 questioned the high handed act of the accused 1 and 2, he was also attacked and on receiving the injuries, all the three persons fell down and that accused 1 and 2 inflicted further injuries leading to their death. 13. We have perused the evidences of the witnesses and we do not find any material contradiction or any fact, which could give an impression in the mind of the court that they had given false evidence during trial. PW 10 is the wife of D1 and it is not in dispute that the occurrence took place near the courtyard of the house of D1. PW 10 is the wife of D1 and it is not in dispute that the occurrence took place near the courtyard of the house of D1. It is also not in dispute that the occurrence took place at 9.00 p.m. 14. In the above circumstances, PW 10 being wife of D1, and the occurrence having taken place at 9.00 p.m. at the courtyard of their house, she becomes a natural witness, as at that hour and place, she will naturally be present. We have carefully perused the evidence of all the witnesses, including PW 10. It was not even suggested to PW 10 that she was not present in the house at the time on the date of the incident. We, therefore, find it difficult to reject the evidence of any eyewitnesses which is fully supported by the medical evidence brought out through Dr. PW 5, who conducted autopsy on the dead bodies and the post mortem certificates issued by him. It is also not in dispute that a complaint was immediately given at the earliest opportunity by PW 10 mentioning the names of the appellants by implicating them in the crime. We, therefore, find that the trial court rightly convicted the accused under section 302/34 IPC. We therefore confirm the conviction of the appellants. 15. The only question now to be decided by us is the nature of the sentence to be imposed upon the appellants. A perusal of the judgment shows that the trial Judge was carried away by the fact of triple murder and therefore awarded death sentence. He also observed that it is a cold-blooded murder and there is no attenuating or extenuating circumstances in favour of accused/appellant. The trial Judge further observed that the murder was preplanned and therefore it becomes the rarest of rare cases requiring death. We are unable to accept the reasons given by the trial Judge. The facts narrated above shows that the accused appellants had no premeditation to cause death of D2 and D3. They were present at the courtyard when D1 and D3 came out and on seeing them, the 1st accused appellant commenced attacked on D1 and only when D2 intervened, he was attacked by A2. At that time, D3 questioned both the accused for their highhanded act and therefore he was attacked. They were present at the courtyard when D1 and D3 came out and on seeing them, the 1st accused appellant commenced attacked on D1 and only when D2 intervened, he was attacked by A2. At that time, D3 questioned both the accused for their highhanded act and therefore he was attacked. It is therefore clear that there was no premeditation or pre-plan as observed by the trial Judge on the part of the accused to attack and cause injuries to D2 and D3 even if it is to be assumed that they had come there to attack D1. In the above circumstances, we are not able to hold that this is the rarest of the rare cases falling within the guidelines given by the Supreme Court in the case of Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab ( AIR 1980 SC 898 ). The Supreme Court while laying down the guidelines as to the circumstances under which death sentence should be awarded, observed as follows: "There are numerous other circumstances justifying the passing of the lighter sentence; as there are countervailing circumstances of aggravation. (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. Facts and figures albeit incomplete, 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 high road of legislative policy outlined in Sec. 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 law's instrumentality. 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 law's instrumentality. That ought not to be done save in the rarest of rare cases when the alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed." 16. In view of the above, we modify the sentence and reduce it to life imprisonment. 17. In the result, the conviction of the appellants are confirmed. Sentence of death is reduced to life imprisonment. With the above modification in the sentence, the appeal is disposed of. The reference is answered in the negative.