JUDGMENT : S. L. KOCHAR, J. 1. This judgment shall also govern the disposal of Cri. Appeal No. 734/2007 filed by the appellant/accused against the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence. 2. The learned IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Dewas/trial Court submitted the Criminal Death Reference No. 2/2007 for confirmation of death sentence passed by the impugned judgment and order dated 15-6-2007 whereby the learned Judge has convicted the appellant Brajendra Singh for the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to death in Sessions Trial No. 99/2005. The appellant/accused has also preferred Cri. Appeal No. 734/2007 being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction and sentence as mentioned hereinabove. 3. Laconically the prosecution case as put forth before the trial Court is that the appellant herein lodged the report at Police Station Industrial Area, Dewas in the intervening night of 27th and 28th February, 2005 at 2.00 AM which was recorded by Sub Inspector Mohan Singh Mourya (PW-16) that the appellant was serving in White Star Milk Product Factory, Dewas and his brother-in-law (wife's brother) Shiv Kumar was also residing with the family of the appellant. Shivkumar (PW-2) was serving in Sudarshan Factory. PW-10 Liladhar Tiwari was the neighbour of the appellant with whom, his wife Aradhana was talking for which the appellant had objection. On this count, in the night of incident, wife of the appellant told him that she will die and poured kerosene oil on her person and also lit fire. He tried to extinguish the fire, and he thought that as she was dying, therefore, he also caused injuries by knife (CHHURI) and killed her. While extinguishing fire, he sustained burn injuries on his right and left palm and right cheek. After commission of murder of the wife, he thought as to what would happen to the children? and he killed his daughter Varsha, sons Lokesh and Mayank causing injuries on neck by knife. His brother-in-law had gone to the factory on night duty. After committing murders of the entire family, he also tried to commit suicide by causing injury on his neck, but could not succeed in his attempt. All the four dead bodies were lying in the house. He produced the CHHURI before the police with which murders were committed by him. On the basis of this First Information Report (Ex.P/27), MARG Nos. All the four dead bodies were lying in the house. He produced the CHHURI before the police with which murders were committed by him. On the basis of this First Information Report (Ex.P/27), MARG Nos. 10, 11, 12 and 13 of 2005 were registered by the Sub Inspector PW-16 Mohan Singh Mourya. (Inquest Report Ex.P/29). Shri. Mourya also conducted inquest proceedings and prepared reports Ex.P/2 to Ex.P/5 of deceased persons namely, Aradhana, Mayank, Lokesh and Varsha respectively in the presence of the witnesses and sent all the four dead bodies for post-mortem examination which was performed by Dr. Shakirali (PW-12). Post-mortem Reports are from Ex.P/12 to Ex.P/15 of deceased Aradhana, Lokesh, Varsha and Mayank respectively. Dr. Shakirali also gave his opinion Ex.P/6 about knife (CHHURI) whereby the injuries could be caused to the deceased persons. Appellant Brajendra Singh was also examined medically by Dr. Hari Singh Rana (PW-14) who issued his MLC Report Ex.P/18. Dr. Rana also gave his opinion (Ex.P/19) about the knife (CHHURI). Kamta Singh (PW-6), brother of deceased Aradhana witnessed the inquest proceedings and also received all the dead bodies and gave receipt Ex.P/5. Sub Inspector Shri Mourya (PW16) seized the sealed packet containing clothes of the dead persons through seizure memo Ex.P/7. He also seized the photographs of the spot and CD. of videography vide seizure memo Ex.P/7 to Ex.P/9. He also effected seizure of blood stained and controlled earth through seizure memo Ex.P/10 and knife, shirt and pant of appellant vide seizure memo Ex.P/1 3. 4. The appellant was arrested and his arrest memo is Ex.P/11. Seized articles were sent with letter (Ex.P/20) of S.P. Dewas to Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar for chemical examination and its reports are Ex. P.22, P/24 and P/26. Vide post-mortem report of deceased Aradhana (Ex.P/12), the medical expert found 36 percent burn injuries on her chest and abdomen. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code on four counts for commission of murders of four persons and also under section 309 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. The appellant refuted the charges and gave statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the trial Court that his wife Aradhana was having illicit relation with Liladhar Tiwari. On 27-2-2005, he came to his house from factory in the night at 11. 11 -30 pm. 5. The appellant refuted the charges and gave statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the trial Court that his wife Aradhana was having illicit relation with Liladhar Tiwari. On 27-2-2005, he came to his house from factory in the night at 11. 11 -30 pm. There was no fixed time for going and coming from the factory. When he reached at his house, he found the door of his house in open condition and his wife was not in the house. He peeped here and there and overheard the voice of his wife coming from the house of Liladhar Tiwari and his children were sleeping inside his house. At that juncture, he shouted loudly and kicked the door of Liladhar Tiwari whereupon the door opened and he saw both of them in nude condition. His wife came out and he caught plait of her hair and thrown her whereupon she started shouting and saying nonsense that she would go to Mr. Tiwari and if he objects or restrains her to meet with Tiwari, she would kill him and the children. Between them quarrel was going on for some time. Thereafter, she brought a CHHURI from inside the kitchen and dealt blows on the neck of all the three children and while trying to snatch the CHHURI, he sustained injuries on his neck and thereafter, he caused CHHURI blows on the neck of the deceased/wife because she had caused CHHURI blows on the neck of children. Because of CHHURI blows, she fell down on the ground. As a result of this incident, he lost his mental balance and he picked up kerosene can lying nearby and poured the kerosene on himself. Some kerosene also fell on the person of Aradhana. He lit match stick and set him to fire. The match stick fell on the person of deceased because of which she also burnt. The further say of the appellant in his statement is that he went towards bye-pass road in burnt condition with knife. Some kerosene also fell on the person of Aradhana. He lit match stick and set him to fire. The match stick fell on the person of deceased because of which she also burnt. The further say of the appellant in his statement is that he went towards bye-pass road in burnt condition with knife. The fire got extinguished automatically and after sometime he saw a truck coming and he tried to commit suicide by jumping in front of it, but police party reached over there and took him to the police station where he lodged the report which was not recorded by the police according to his say and that he had not assaulted the children. The appellant has not examined any witness in defence whereas the prosecution examined 16 witnesses and adduced 30 documents in order to establish its case. The learned trial Court finding the appellant guilty, convicted and sentenced him as indicated hereinabove. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the entire record carefully. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant Shri S. B. Shaligram submitted that the contents of the FIR (Ex.P/27) said to have been lodged by the appellant against him admitting the guilt, are not admissible in evidence being hit by section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act that no confession made to police officer shall be proved against a person accused of any offence and confessional statement made by the appellant in police station while in custody to Shivkumar (PW-2) and Liladhar Tiwari (PW-10) is also not admissible as per provision under section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act. He also urged that report of FSL (Ex.P./22) cannot be used against the appellant because in the CHHURI (knife Article A) though human blood was found, but examination for blood group it was insufficient and appellant has given the statement under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code explaining the circumstances in which incident occurred, has to be accepted as a whole and at the most offence under section 304 (Part I) of the Indian Penal Code would be made out against him. Lastly, he has submitted that it is not a case falling in the category of "rarest of rare case" for awarding death sentence. Lastly, he has submitted that it is not a case falling in the category of "rarest of rare case" for awarding death sentence. The learned counsel in support of his contentions placed reliance on the Supreme Court judgments passed in the cases of Aghnoo Nagesia vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 119 , Khatri Hemraj Amulakh vs. The State of Gujarat, AIR 1972 SC 922 ), Sharifkhan vs. The State of M. P., 1997(2) JLJ 186 , Faddi vs. State of M. P., AIR 1964 SC 1850 , Abdul Majid Makeemuddin vs. State of M.P., 1963 MPLJ 592 , Aher Raja Khima vs. State of Saurashtra, AIR 1956 SC 217 and Hate Singh Bhagat Singh vs. State of Madhya Bharat, AIR 1953 SC 468 . 8. Per contra, the learned Dy.A.G. Shri Girish Desai has submitted that inculpatory part of the statement of accused can be taken into consideration if exculpatory part found to be false and the instant case is falling within the category of rarest in rare case for awarding death sentence. Over and all he has supported the judgment and finding arrived at by the learned trial Court. To bolster his submission he placed reliance on Supreme Court judgments passed in the cases of Mohansingh vs. Premsingh, 2002 (8) JT 7 and Swami Sharada Nanda vs. State of Karnataka, 2007(7) JT 403 . 9. The core question before us to decide in the instant case is as to what would be the intrinsic value of the First Information Report (Ex.P/27) lodged by the appellant and his statement recorded by the trial Court under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure coupled with other circumstantial and medical evidence. 10. The First Information Report Ex.P/27 was recorded by Sub Inspector PW-16 Mohan Singh who proved it in Court and stated that the appellant came to the Police Station in the night of 28-2-2005 at 2.00 AM and lodged the report which was recorded by him vide Ex.P/27. No suggestion was given to this witness by the defence in cross-examination that the report was not recorded according to his narratives , therefore, we are of the considered view that the FIR Ex.P/27 was recorded at the instance of the appellant and there is no substance in the statement of the appellant recorded under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, that the FIR was not recorded as stated by him. 11. The legal position about the use of the contents of the FIR lodged by the accused is very clear in view of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Aghnoo Nagesia and Khatri Hemraj (supra) that confessional part of the FIR means admission of guilt by the accused is not admissible as per provisions under section 25 of the Evidence Act and confessional statement made by the accused to the witnesses in presence of police is also not admissible in view of bar imposed by section 26 of the Evidence Act. It is also an established legal proposition that the part of the FIR lodged by the accused regarding discovery of fact relevant to the case is admissible in evidence as per provision under section 27 of the Evidence Act. Where the accused himself lodges the FIR, the fact of his giving the information to the police is admissible against him, as evidence of his conduct under section 8 of the Evidence Act and to the extent it is non-confessional in nature, it would also be relevant under section 21 of the Evidence Act, but the confessional part of the FIR by the accused to the police officer cannot be used at all against him in view of the bar of section 25 of the Evidence Act. 12. We may also usefully rely upon the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Bheru Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, [ 1994(2) SCC 467 para 19]. In this Judgment the Supreme Court has held that the relationship of the appellant with the deceased, and the motive for commission of crime do not amount to confession of committing any crime. These statements are non-confessional in nature and can be used against the appellant as evidence under section 8 of the Evidence Act. The production and seizure of the sword by the appellant at the Police Station which was blood stained is also saved by the provisions of the Evidence Act. 13. In the case at hand, there is no dispute that the FIR was lodged by the appellant. In accused statement, the accused admitted lodging of the report, but stated that the report was not recorded as narrated by him and he did not kill the children. 13. In the case at hand, there is no dispute that the FIR was lodged by the appellant. In accused statement, the accused admitted lodging of the report, but stated that the report was not recorded as narrated by him and he did not kill the children. As discussed herein-above, no cross-examination was done on this point by the defence with the scribe of FIR Mohan Singh Mourya (PW-16). It is also admitted by the appellant that there was strained relation and dispute between him and his wife on account of talking with neighbour Liladhar (PW-10) and this was the motive of the incident. The facts mentioned in the FIR that all the four dead bodies were lying in the house and he produced the CHHURI in the Police Station are admissible in evidence. The CHHURI, pant and shirt containing blood stains were seized vide seizure memo Ex.P/3. Sub Inspector M.S. Mourya specifically stated in this regard and proved his signature and signature of the appellant on the seizure memo. In the Court, the seized CHHURI (Article A) was shown to him and he accepted the seizure of the said CHHURI on production by the appellant. He reached at the house of the appellant and summoned the witnesses through notice Ex.P/1. Thereafter, he prepared the inquest reports of the dead bodies of Aradhana, Mayank, Lokesh and Varsha which were lying inside the house of the appellant. The inquest reports are from Ex.P/2 to P/5 respectively. These inquest reports have also been proved by PW-6 Kamta Singh and the defence has not challenged the presence of dead bodies inside the house of the appellant and inquest reports in cross-examination of Kamta Singh (PW-6) as well as the Sub Inspector PW-16 M. S. Mourya. 14. The autopsy on the dead bodies were performed by PW-12 Dr. Shakirali. The homicidal death of all the four persons has also not been questioned before the trial Court as well as before this Court. There is absolutely no cross-examination to witness Dr. Shakirali by the defence counsel, but it would be apt to mention herein the material contents of the post-mortem reports and the statement of the medical expert. Shakirali. The homicidal death of all the four persons has also not been questioned before the trial Court as well as before this Court. There is absolutely no cross-examination to witness Dr. Shakirali by the defence counsel, but it would be apt to mention herein the material contents of the post-mortem reports and the statement of the medical expert. On the person of deceased Aradhana (it appears that because of typing mistake in the Court-statement para 1, the name is typed 'Anuradha' and percentage of burn is also incorrectly typed as 80 per cent' because the post-mortem report proved by Dr. Shakirali Ex.P/12 is showing 36 per cent burn on chest and abdomen), doctor found the following injuries on her person :- Penetrating wound on front part of neck 1" x ½" x 1½" having clotted blood. There was cut of cartilage and part of trachea. Cut of left side of large carotid blood vessel. Both the lungs, liver, spleen and kidneys were found pale. In his opinion, the deceased died because of shock due to excessive bleeding. The injuries were ante mortem in nature. Post-mortem burns were found. Dr. Shakirali proved the post-mortem report Ex.P/12 of deceased Aradhana. 15. Following injuries were found on the dead body of deceased Lokesh son of the appellant aged 10 years (I) Penetrating two wounds on front side of neck 1" x ½" and left large carotid vessel was cut. Trachea was cut. Another wound was 1" x ½" x ¼" on abdomen. On internal examination he found both lungs, heart, liver, spleen, and kidneys pale. All injuries were ante mortem in nature and dangerous to life. The deceased died because of shock due to excessive bleeding. The medical expert proved post-mortem report Ex.P/13 of deceased Lokesh. 16. Deceased Varsha daughter of the appellant aged 7 years suffered following injuries :- (I) Incised wound on trachea (front side of neck) 1" x ½" x ½" (II) Penetrating wound on left side of neck 1" x 1" x 1½ ". Left large blood cartilage was cut and clotted blood was present. On internal examination, the doctor found both lungs and heart pale and empty. Liver, spleen and kidneys were also pale. All the injuries were ante mortem in nature and the deceased died because of shock due to excessive bleeding. Post mortem report is Ex.P/14. 17. Left large blood cartilage was cut and clotted blood was present. On internal examination, the doctor found both lungs and heart pale and empty. Liver, spleen and kidneys were also pale. All the injuries were ante mortem in nature and the deceased died because of shock due to excessive bleeding. Post mortem report is Ex.P/14. 17. Following injuries were noted by the medical expert on the dead body of Mayank son of the appellant aged 5 years :- (I) Incised wound 1" x ½" x 1" below the jaw. (II) Incised wound 1" x 2" cutting left large cartilage having clotted blood. On internal examination, he found incised wound/cut of trachea. Both the lungs, liver, spleen, kidneys were pale and empty. The injuries were ante-mortem in nature. In the opinion of the doctor, the deceased died due to shock because of excessive bleeding. He proved the post-mortem report Ex.P/15. 18. The doctor also examined the seized knife sent by the police and gave opinion that the injuries found on the persons of the four deceased persons could be caused by the seized knife (CHHURI). He proved his report Ex.P/16 and also identified the knife in the Court. 19. In view of the positive opinion given by the medical expert PW-12 Dr. Shakirali that the burn injuries on the person of deceased Aradhana were post-mortem in nature, falsified the facts mentioned in the First Information Report by the appellant that the deceased poured kerosene oil on herself and set fire as well as the statement made by him under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code that he poured kerosene oil on him and some oil also fell on the deceased Aradhana. He lit the match stick and set him to fire. The stick also fell on the person of Aradhana and she sustained burn injuries. To appreciate story of burn injuries, it would be apposite to mention here the medical report and the statement of PW-14 Dr. Hari Singh Rana who examined the appellant on the same day early in the morning at 4.45 AM and noted burn injuries on the right and left hands, right leg and face in total 20 percent. He also found a stab wound on the neck 1 Cm. x ½ Cm. The depth of the wound could not be measured. The appellant was admitted in the hospital. His medico Legal Report is Ex.P/18. Dr. He also found a stab wound on the neck 1 Cm. x ½ Cm. The depth of the wound could not be measured. The appellant was admitted in the hospital. His medico Legal Report is Ex.P/18. Dr. Rana also gave opinion Ex.P/19 after examining the knife sent to him by the police that by the said knife, injury could be sustained by the appellant. In Court also he gave the same opinion after seeing the seized knife. In cross-examination he admitted that the injury to the appellant on the neck could be self inflicted and could also be caused by some one. 20. On visualizing the medical report of the appellant and the statement of Dr. Rana, we do not find any ring of truth in the statement of the appellant recorded under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code. That he poured kerosene oil on his body and while doing so, some kerosene fell on the person of the deceased, thereafter, he lit fire to his body and the match stick fell on the person of the deceased because of which she also sustained burn injuries. If he would have poured kerosene oil on his person, he must have sustained injury on his chest, abdomen, back portion and thigh also, but no burn injuries were found on these parts of the body of the appellant. The burn injuries were found only on left and right upper arm, left leg and face, 9%. 4%, 6% and 5% respectively in total 24%. It appears that after committing murder of wife Aradhana, the appellant set her on fire and also caused burn injuries by flames on his upper right hand, left hand, lower part of left leg and face and concocted a story in his statement under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code to explain post-mortem burn injuries on the person of the deceased. 21. To appreciate the statement of the appellant made under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, the situation of the spot is also required to be seen and discussed. The spot map was prepared by PW-16 Mohan Singh Mourya Sub Inspector vide Ex.P/28. On the steel Palang, at places A and B body of son Mayank and daughter Varsha and on the floor at places C and D, body of son Lokesh and wife of the deceased were lying inside the room. The spot map was prepared by PW-16 Mohan Singh Mourya Sub Inspector vide Ex.P/28. On the steel Palang, at places A and B body of son Mayank and daughter Varsha and on the floor at places C and D, body of son Lokesh and wife of the deceased were lying inside the room. Near the dead body kerosene plastic can was also found and place (5) is the room of Liladhar alias Laldhar (PW-10). Finding of the dead bodies inside the room is also stated by inquest witness PW-6 Kamtasingh and land lady PW-3 Smt. Kamalkunwar has deposed that she had let out two rooms to the appellant before 5/6 months from the date of incident wherein the appellant was residing with his wife and children and adjacent to their room in one room PW-10 Liladhar, her another tenant was residing since one and a half year from the date of incident. PW-8 Naresh has deposed that from the house situated in Vikasnagar, police seized a Mangalsutra, blood stained earth, clothes, broken glass, match box, blood stained pant,shirt and Baniyan and clothes of the deceased through seizure memo Ex.P/10. There is no cross-examination on this witness. 22. The Investigating Officer V. S. Dwivedi (PW-15) recorded the statement of some of the prosecution witnesses and sent the seized knife (Article A) in sealed condition to the District Hospital Dewas for opinion and overleaf the requisition the doctor gave his opinion. He proved the signature on Ex.P/19-A at portion marked B to B and on Ex.P/16-A on which he proved his signature on portion marked A to A. He effected the seizure of ten photographs from the photographer Chhaganlal Verma in the presence of the witnesses. These are the photographs of the spot including the dead bodies lying on the spot i.e. the room of the appellant. The seizure memo of these photographs is Ex.P/8 and videography CD. of the spot is Ex.P/9 bearing signature of this witness SHO Shri Dwivedi. The photographs were marked as Articles A to I and C.D, as Art. J and K. He seized the Bed Head Ticket of the appellant who remained admitted in the M. Y. Hospital, Indore and also sent the seized articles through covering letter Ex.P/20 to P/24 and P/26. Ex.P/21, P/23 and P/25 are the covering letters/memos of the expert sent along with the reports. Ex.P/21, P/23 and P/25 are the covering letters/memos of the expert sent along with the reports. This witness has also not been cross-examined by the defence counsel and there is no challenge to his testimony given on oath in Court. 23. The photographs of the spot including the dead bodies of two children lying on the Palang showing blood and injuries. Article B is also a photograph of the same deceased children taken from different angle. Article-C is the photograph showing part of the iron-palang on which some clothes were lying and just near the Palang burnt dead body of the deceased Aradhana wearing only an underwear and on her right side of the thigh up to waist, red colour cloth with burnt clothes were lying. Blood was present on the neck as well as on floor. Injuries, on chest, abdomen, left thigh and part of the legs as well as below the knee of right leg were present. Photograph Article-D is also showing the dead body of one boy having blood on the neck lying very close to the dead body of the deceased Aradhana. His legs were towards her head and his head was towards the waist and forearm of deceased Aradhana and on her forearm, the head of the boy was lying. This photograph is clearly showing the blood on the neck of the deceased. Deceased Aradhana was wearing only an underwear and red colour cloth with burnt cloth were covering her right thigh and waist. Burn injuries were present on chest, some part of shoulder, abdomen, left thigh and below the right knee. In photograph Article-C the dead body of a woman and one boy are lying on the floor between Palang and Almirah and no space is available towards the right leg of the deceased and a part of plastic chair is visible. Article-F is also the photograph of spot and dead body of the deceased woman showing burn injuries, clothes, thigh and waist. Article G is also the photograph showing only legs, underwear, clothes on right thigh and head of the deceased boy. Article H is the photograph taken from very close range of the woman and showing burn injuries on chest, abdomen, both hands and left thigh. Article H (another photograph) is the photograph of the woman and a boy. Article G is also the photograph showing only legs, underwear, clothes on right thigh and head of the deceased boy. Article H is the photograph taken from very close range of the woman and showing burn injuries on chest, abdomen, both hands and left thigh. Article H (another photograph) is the photograph of the woman and a boy. This photograph is showing burn injuries on the person of the deceased and blood -like stain on the neck of the deceased and underneath the neck of the body her right forearm having blood stains and there is pool of blood near the neck of both the deceased persons. Article I is also showing the body of the woman with burn injuries and blood stain on neck. 24. In the instant case, these photographs are very important showing the situation of the room where all the four bodies were lying. The burn injuries were only on the body of the deceased woman (Aradhana) and according to post-mortem report, burn injuries were post-mortem in nature and the deceased was wearing only an underwear which was not burnt. On her iliac crest clothes and burnt pieces of clothes were lying. This situation is also visible in crime details form Ex.P/28 (spot map), at Sr. No. 4, Sub Inspector Mohan Singh Mourya (PW-I6) has proved it. Dr. Shakirali has also stated that he found 80% burn injury on post-mortem examination, post-mortem in nature, on the body of deceased Aradhana and her inquest report Ex.P/2 is also showing the same situation which is proved by PW-16. Hari Singh Mourya Sub Inspector and PW-6 Kamta Singh. If kerosene oil was poured by the deceased herself or by the appellant while in live condition of the deceased, the same would have certainly fallen on the boy lying near the deceased Aradhana and he would have also sustained burn injury. But, no such injury was found on the person of the boy by Dr. Shakirali and also not visible in the photograph. But, no such injury was found on the person of the boy by Dr. Shakirali and also not visible in the photograph. All these circumstances are going to establish the only fact that after the death of the deceased, her clothes were removed except the underwear and on chest, abdomen, thigh and other parts of the body, the burn injuries were caused with the aid of any inflammatory substance and since no clothes were on those parts of the body, there was no flame, because of which the child body could sustain burn injury whose neck was on the right forearm of deceased Aradhana. These post-mortem injuries must have been caused by the appellant and burn injuries sustained by the appellant appear to be self inflicted just to show that he had tried to extinguish the fire. 25. All these circumstances are available in the inquest reports of all the four deceased persons, spot map and photograph and belying the statement of the appellant given under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code that the deceased brought the CHHURI from the kitchen and caused injuries on the neck of all the three children and he tried to snatch the CHHURI and in this process he sustained injuries on his neck. Thereafter, by the same CHHURI he caused injuries on the neck of the deceased. It is worthwhile to see that all the four deceased persons suffered major injuries on front part of the neck (throat area). If the deceased Aradhana had brought the CHHURI from the kitchen and started assaulting the children, three in number, and each was caused two injuries then it is not believable that the appellant could not stop the deceased from causing several blows by CHHURI on the neck of the three children. It is also not believable that the injuries found on the neck of deceased Aradhana could be caused by the appellant after snatching the CHHURI only on the neck and no other part of the body. The situation of the room, injuries on the persons of all the four deceased i.e. on necks are indicative of the fact that these injuries were caused while they were in sleeping condition and a very vulnerable part of the body like neck was chosen to kill them so that more than one or two blows would not be required. The situation of the room, injuries on the persons of all the four deceased i.e. on necks are indicative of the fact that these injuries were caused while they were in sleeping condition and a very vulnerable part of the body like neck was chosen to kill them so that more than one or two blows would not be required. All the circumstances are belying the contents of the FIR regarding pouring of kerosene oil by deceased Aradhana on her person. This part of the FIR can be considered because it is not a confessional statement of the appellant who lodged the FIR (Ex.P.27). The motive for the incident is also established and as such it is the admitted fact by the appellant that he was having objection about talking of Aradhana with Leeladhar Tiwari (PW. 10) and she was having illicit relation with him (as stated in his statement under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code). 26. The abovementioned circumstances and statements of the witnesses are also not supporting the statement of the appellant recorded under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code that when he came to his house in the night the doors were open, wife Aradhana was not in the house, he overheard the voice of his wife coming from the house of Liladhar, then he shouted loudly and kicked the door which was found unchained or unbolted and he saw both in nude condition. If deceased Aradhana was in the house of Liladhar, in such condition, it was not expected that a married woman and man having illicit relation would talk so loudly so as to attract the persons standing outside the house, and they would keep the door unchained or unbolted. The statement of landlady Smt. Kamal Kunwar and other witnesses as well as the investigating officer PW.15 Dwivedi and PW.16 Mohan Singh Morya are showing clearly that adjacent to the house of appellant, house of Liladhar and some other houses, in which persons were residing, were also situated. The version of the appellant that there was no fixed time for his coming and going to the factory is also not acceptable. Whether it is a Government factory or a private, there must be a fixed schedule of working of employee. The version of the appellant that there was no fixed time for his coming and going to the factory is also not acceptable. Whether it is a Government factory or a private, there must be a fixed schedule of working of employee. In the FIR the appellant has nowhere mentioned that on the date of incident he was on night duty and returned from the duty at 11.30 p.m. which is the time of incident shown in the FIR (Ex.P.27) which was recorded at the instance of the appellant in the same night after 2 and a half hours i.e. 2.00 a.m. 27. Lodging of the FIR can be considered with regard to conduct of the appellant as per provision under section 8 of the Evidence Act. In normal circumstances if a married woman and a man having illicit relation were in the room in nude position, they would not keep the door open as stated by the appellant that the door was open, when he kicked the same. The bolted or chained door from inside would not be opened by simple kick. His further statement that after opening the door she came out and he caught her plait and threw her and she started shouting saying nonsense that she would go to Tiwari and if the appellant would stop her to meet with Tiwari, she would kill the children as well as the appellant, does not appear to be true. According to him, this quarrel was going on for sometime thereafter deceased Aradhana went inside the kitchen and came out with a CHHURI and caused injuries on the neck of all the three children. While snatching the CHHURI he also sustained injury on his neck and thereafter he caused injury on the neck of the deceased because he caused injuries to children by the said CHHURI. In the instant case, it is very peculiar that all the deceased, four in number, and the appellant sustained injuries on front side of the neck. In the given situation, as stated by the appellant in his accused statement, in our view, the injuries on the neck could not be caused with so precision and exactitude, therefore, we do not find any ring of truth in the version of the appellant. In the given situation, as stated by the appellant in his accused statement, in our view, the injuries on the neck could not be caused with so precision and exactitude, therefore, we do not find any ring of truth in the version of the appellant. His further statement regarding pouring of kerosene oil on his person and while doing so some kerosene also fell on the body of Aradhana and after setting fire to his body by match stick the said stick fell on the person of the deceased who also sustained burn injury and thereafter in burning condition with a knife he went towards bye-pass road, is not found correct on the basis of the medical report (Ex.P.18) and the statement of medical expert Dr.Hari Singh Rana. He sustained injuries on his right and left upper arm, left leg and part of the face. No injuries on chest and abdomen was caused skull and his hair were also not burnt. If he sustained injury through inflammatory substance like kerosene on his clothes, the injuries would have been positively caused on these parts of the body. 28. The full pant and shirt Articles A and C seized from the appellant, which he was wearing at the time of incident, were not containing kerosene oil as per the report Ex.P/26 of the Forensic Science Laboratory. The kerosene was found in Article E, I, L and M i.e. pieces of cement floor containing pieces of bangle, some melted element, pieces of glass, plastic can, cloth having red and black colour spots and burnt and half burnt pieces of clothes. Kerosene was found on Articles A, B, C, D, F, G, H, K, N, O and P i.e. metal CHHURI, full sleeve shirt, full pant, one pair of chappel, pieces of cement floor, mirror, two match boxes containing unburnt sticks, pieces of broken bangles, underwear and shirt of deceased Lokesh, shirt and pant of deceased Mayank and pant and Baniyan of deceased Versha. On all these articles, red and black spots were also present. Report Ex.P/26 of the Forensic Science Laboratory is also falsifying the version of the appellant that he poured kerosene oil on his person. On all these articles, red and black spots were also present. Report Ex.P/26 of the Forensic Science Laboratory is also falsifying the version of the appellant that he poured kerosene oil on his person. Looking to the post-mortem nature of burn injury on forearm, lower portion of right leg and some part of face of the deceased, it is crystal clear that the appellant caused burn injuries on the person of deceased Aradhana after her death and also caused burn injury on his both hands, right leg and face. Presence of all the four deceased persons and the appellant in one room, which is clear from the photograph, and presence of kerosene oil on some articles as mentioned herein-above, also establishes that the appellant used kerosene cautiously taking full precaution so that it may not fall on the persons of three deceased children, two were on Palang having cotton bed and one boy was by the side of deceased Aradhana. 29. The CHHURI produced by the appellant in the Police Station was 19.5 Cm. in length, out of which sharp; edge blade was 10.05 Cm. having edge of 1 Cm. (Article A). According to the opinion of both medical experts, the injuries could be caused by CHHURI (Article-A). Looking to the blade plus handle and sharp edge, it was not an ordinary CHHURI which one may use in the kitchen. The Forensic Science Laboratory Report Ex./P/22 is confirming presence of human blood on Articles , B, C, D, E, F, G, H-1, H-2, L-1, L-2, L-3, L-4, L-5, M-l, M-2, M-3, M-4, M-5, N-l, N-2, O-1, O-2, P-1, P-2 and Q. These articles are CHHURI, shirt, pant of the appellant, pair of chappel, pieces of cement floor (collected from the spot), mirror, match-box and sticks, pant shirt, Baniyan, Lungi of the appellant, bed-sheet Kurti. Salwar, braw, underwear, socks of deceased Aradhana, shirt and underwear of deceased Lokesh, shirt and underwear of deceased Mayank, pant and sandow Baniyan of deceased Varsha and, blood collected in a bottle from the spot. On Articles B, C, D, L-1, L-2, L-3, L-4, L-5, blood-group A and on Article Q, 'O' group blood was found. On Articles B, C and Chappel Article D and pant, shirt, Baniyan and Lungi of the appellant and on bed-sheet human blood was detected and O group blood was found in the bottle. On Articles B, C, D, L-1, L-2, L-3, L-4, L-5, blood-group A and on Article Q, 'O' group blood was found. On Articles B, C and Chappel Article D and pant, shirt, Baniyan and Lungi of the appellant and on bed-sheet human blood was detected and O group blood was found in the bottle. Presence of human blood on the clothes of the appellant seized from his person is also an important incriminating circumstance. Human Blood stains on the clothes of the appellant and from the room (spot) could be because of his presence and participation in the incident, as stated by him. 30. Now the question would be as to what weight can be attached to the statement of the appellant recorded under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the Supreme Court judgment passed in the case of Aher Raja Khima (supra) wherein in para 9 it has been held that :- "There are two important factors in every criminal trial that weigh heavily in favour of an accused person, one is that the accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt and the other an offshoot of the same principle, that when an accused person offers a reasonable explanation of his conduct, then, even though he cannot prove his assertions, they should ordinarily be accepted unless the circumstances indicate that they are false." There is no dispute with regard to the aforesaid principle, but in the instant case, the appellant cannot get benefit, because his explanation/statement is not reasonable and is palpably false as discussed hereinabove. 31. In the case of Aher Raja Khima (supra), the question before the Supreme Court was whether the confessional statement given by the accused under section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code was voluntary or not and the appellant repudiated his contention at the earliest opportunity in the Committing Court and submitted that after sending him to jail, police reached inside the jail in the night, threatened him to make confession before the Court as they directed. Police frightened him with beating as a result of which, under fear he made a false confession. He has given same statement in the statement recorded under section 342 (Old Criminal Procedure Code) now equivalent section 313 is in new Code. Police frightened him with beating as a result of which, under fear he made a false confession. He has given same statement in the statement recorded under section 342 (Old Criminal Procedure Code) now equivalent section 313 is in new Code. In the instant case, the appellant had no opportunity before the Committing Court to submit that his version was not recorded as per his narratives. In the cross-examination of the scribe of the First Information Report (Ex.P/27) Mohan Singh Mourya (PW-16) during the course of trial, no challenge was made on this aspect and for the first time, he stated in his statement recorded under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code. The contents of the statement are palpably false, concocted and the appellant submitted a very flimsy story of the entire incident directly contradicted by the circumstantial evidence as well as the medical evidence, as discussed herein-above. 32. Another judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellant is Hate Singh Bhagat Singh (supra) on the question of use and value of accused statement recorded under section 342 of the Old Criminal Procedure Code. In this judgment, the Supreme Court has observed that the statement of the accused is an important matter to be considered at a trial and it must be treated like any other piece of evidence coming from the mouth of a witness. The observations made while interpreting the provisions of sections 208, 209 and 342 of the old Criminal Procedure Code, taking into consideration that in the old Criminal Procedure Code, there was no provision for the accused to enter into the witness-box and speak on oath in his own defence. But, now in the new Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, there is a specific provision under section 315, giving right to the accused to appear as a witness in his defence, but the appellant did not avail this provision probably because of fear of trap in cross-examination by the opposite party. 33. But, now in the new Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, there is a specific provision under section 315, giving right to the accused to appear as a witness in his defence, but the appellant did not avail this provision probably because of fear of trap in cross-examination by the opposite party. 33. Use of the statement of accused in the trial in his favour or against him is discussed and decided by five judges Bench of the Supreme Court headed by the then Chief Justice M. Hiydayatullah in the case of Nishikant Jha vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1969 SC 422 and Justice Mittal speaking for the Bench held that "Inculpatory portion of the statement of the accused can be relied upon if it is found that exculpatory portion is not only inherently improbable, but contradicted by the evidence on record." In this case of Nishikant, confessional statement made by the appellant to village Mukhiya was contradicted by the statement of the appellant given under section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the trial Court. The Supreme Court placed reliance on inculpatory part of the statement of the accused and convicted him. [Also see Mohan Singh vs. Premsingh and another, JT 2002 (8) SC 7] In the case at hand, we have no hesitation to hold that the statement of the appellant under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code is inherently false and contradicted by circumstantial evidence as well as the medical evidence as discussed in detail hereinabove. 34. Since we have not found any substance in the statement of the appellant, therefore, we are holding him liable for commission of murder of his wife and three children. 35. On the question of sentence, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it is not a case falling within the category of "rarest in rare case", therefore, the learned trial Court has erred in awarding death sentence to the appellant. We have taken guidance from leading judgment passed on this issue by the Supreme Court in the case of Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 898 and Machi Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, 1983 (3) SCC 470 as well as the recent judgment rendered by Supreme Court in case of State of Rajasthan vs. Kashiram, 2007(1) SCC (Cri) 688. The evidence on record as discussed hereinabove is clearly establishing that the appellant was suspecting illicit relation between his wife and Leeladhar and committed murder of his wife and three innocent children with premeditation and planning. It is clear from the medical evidence that all the four deceased persons suffered injuries on same part of the neck and nature of injury is also clearly showing use of a sharp edged weapon with great force cutting the trachea and major arteries giving no chance to them to save and survive. Thereafter, in order to show his innocence the appellant planned the case of burning of wife after her death and also self emulation. In the facts and circumstances, of the instant case, we are of the opinion that the crime committed by the appellant is of diabolic nature, cold blooded, calculated and gruesome. In the case of Kashiram (supra), the learned trial Court awarded death sentence to accused Kashiram for commission of murder of his wife and two minor children on the basis of circumstantial evidence but the same was set aside by the High Court on a reference being made by the learned trial court as well as the appeal filed by the appellant. The State went up in appeal before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court while setting aside the judgment and finding of the High Court, restored the judgment and order passed by the trial Court. In this case, accused Kashiram was found last seen in the company of his wife and two minor children in the house in the evening but from the next morning the house was found locked for three days and after forcibly opening of the door, from the house dead bodies of the wife and children were found lying inside. The accused remained untraceable and was arrested about two weeks later. The Supreme Court has held that the burden lies on the accused to satisfactorily explain as to what happened during the period between he being last seen with the deceased and his arrest as the same was within his special knowledge, but the accused failed to explain the same or, to give any other plausible explanation to prove his innocence. The Supreme Court drawn adverse inference against the accused as per provision under section 106 of the Evidence Act and also found set of circumstances proving the guilt of the accused. The Supreme Court drawn adverse inference against the accused as per provision under section 106 of the Evidence Act and also found set of circumstances proving the guilt of the accused. In the case at hand, the appellant gave false explanation as detailed hereinabove. 36. In the alternative, learned counsel relying on the Supreme Court judgment passed in the case of Swami Shraddhanand @ M. M. Mishra vs. State of Karnataka, Supreme Today 2008(5) Page 1 urged that the death sentence may be substituted by a term in excess of 14 years or direct the Jail Authority not to release the appellant for rest of his life. We have heard learned counsel for the State also on this point. To decide this issue, it will be useful to reproduce the extract from Swami Shraddhanand's case (supra) :- "The matter may be looked at from a slightly different angle. The issue of sentencing has two aspects. Sentence may be excessive and unduly harsh or it may be highly disproportionately inadequate. When an appellant comes to this Court carrying a death sentence awarded by the trial Court and confirmed bv the High Court, this Court may find, as in the present appeal, that the case just falls short of the rarest of rare category and may feel somewhat reluctant in endorsing the death sentence. But at the same time, having regard to the nature of the crime, the Court mav strongly feel that a sentence of life imprisonment that subject to remission normally works out to a term of 14 years would be grossly disproportionate and inadequate. What then the Court should do. If the Court's option is limited only to two punishments, one a sentence of imprisonment, for all intents and purposes, of not more than 14 years and the other death , the Court may feel tempted and find itself nudged into endorsing the death penalty. Such a course would indeed be disastrous. Far more just, reasonable and proper course would be to expand the options and to take over what, as a matter of fact, lawfully belongs to the Court, i.e. the vast hiatus between 14 years' imprisonment and death. It needs to be emphasized that the Court would take recourse to the expanded option primarily because in the facts of the case, the sentence of 14 years imprisonment would amount to no punishment at all. It needs to be emphasized that the Court would take recourse to the expanded option primarily because in the facts of the case, the sentence of 14 years imprisonment would amount to no punishment at all. Further, the formalisation of a special category of sentence, though for an extremely few number of cases, shall have the great advantage of having the death penalty on the statute book but to actually use it as little as possible, really in the rarest of the rare cases. This would only be a reassertion of the Constitution Bench decision in Bachan Singh ( supra) besides being in accord with the modern trends in penology. In light of the discussion made above we are clearly of the view that there is a good and strong basis for the Court to substitute a death sentence by life imprisonment or by a term in excess of fourteen years and further to direct that the convict must not be released from the prison for the rest of his life or for the actual term as specified in the order, as the case may be." (Emphasis supplied and underlining by us). 37. For the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, in the statute only two kind of punishments are prescribed i.e. death sentence or imprisonment for life. When life imprisonment is awarded, the powers of commutation and remission of appropriate Government as defined under section 55-A of the Indian Penal Code come into play and appropriate Government may commute the punishment for imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding 14 years as per provision under section 55 of the Indian Penal Code read with sections 432, 433 and 433-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension, remission and commutation of sentence. As per provision under section 433-A, when imprisonment for life is imposed, then such person cannot be released from imprisonment unless he had served at least 14 years of imprisonment. For grant of remission to the convict, there are other statutes like Prison Act and Jail Manual made thereunder by the Appropriate Government. As per provision under section 433-A, when imprisonment for life is imposed, then such person cannot be released from imprisonment unless he had served at least 14 years of imprisonment. For grant of remission to the convict, there are other statutes like Prison Act and Jail Manual made thereunder by the Appropriate Government. It is clear that for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code the only two kind of punishments are prescribed and thereafter, it is a matter between the convict and Appropriate Government regarding use of power of suspension, commutation and remission as per provisions of law. In the opinion of this Court, the special category of sentence as discussed in the case of Swami Shraddhanand (supra) the powers lie only with the Supreme Court as enshrined under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Though expressly it is not stated in the judgment, but in our considered view it is implied which is clear from the language used i.e. when an appellant comes to this Court carrying a death sentence awarded by the trial Court and confirmed by the High Court, this Court may find .........(as underlined supra). In this view of the matter, the prayer of learned counsel for the appellant in this regard cannot be acceded. 38. In the result, the Reference made by the trial Court is accepted. The conviction and sentence of the appellant are hereby confirmed. The appeal filed by the appellant is hereby dismissed.