JUDGEMENT DHARNIDHAR JHA, J. 1. The above noted Death Reference has been made by the learned Ist Additional sessions Judge, Banka for confirmation of the sentence of death which has been passed by him upon the two respondents Ram Das alias Baungi Harijan and Naresh Harijan, after having held them guilty of committing the triple murders of their own kith and kin. The finding of guilt and order of sentence was passed in Sessions Trial No.94 of 2008 by the above court on the 30th of July, 2009 and the order of sentence was passed by him afflicting the maximum punishment prescribed under section 302 of the Indian penal Code, after holding each of the two guilty under section 302/34 of the Indian penal Code. The two respondents have also preferred the connected Criminal Appeal to bring into question the findings as also the sentence passed upon them. 2. The two appellants are the younger brothers of deceased Sitaram Harijan. The other two deceased Sita Devi and Kiran Kumari were the wife and daughter of the said deceased Sitaram Harijan. 3. As per the prosecution story, the three deceased were sleeping on a cot in the verandah of their house in the night intervening the 21st and 22nd of August, 2007, after having taken their meals. An earthen lamp was burning there. The informant Kush Kumar, P. W.7, along with his younger brothers Ankit Kumar and Rajesh kumar were sleeping inside the room. At about 2.30 A. M. the informant heard the cries of his mother and as such, he looked through the crevice or hole of the door and found the two appellants with two unknown persons there who were attempting to kill his parents as also his little sister. The two appellants were found by P. W.7, the informant armed with fasuli whereas the two unknown were having garasi in their hands. 4. P. W.7 stated that he saw that the two appellants with the help of their two unknown companions, cut the throat of his father, When his mother, the other deceased, cried and attempted to intervene into the acts of the accused persons, appellant Naresh Harijan cut her with the Fasuli in his hand, where after, the other appellant Ram Das alias Baungi Harijan gave a blow with Fasuli on her head. Sita Devi, the mother of P. W.7, slumped on the body of her husband where after, the two unknown accused persons dealt repeated blows with garasi on her hands. 5. Seeing the above ghastly acts, the little girl kiran Kumari, who happened to be the sister of P. W.7, started crying whereupon the accused persons slit her throat also. They, thereafter, ran away from the house to their houses. 6. P. W.7 came out of the room in which he was sleeping with his brother and found that his parents and his little sister were dead. P. W.7 went out and hid himself into a paddy field, east of his house, and from there saw that the two appellants Naresh and Ram Das alias Baungi harijan were moving towards south along with their wives and children. He came back at about 4- 5 A. M. and raised a halla which attracted the villagers and accordingly, he informed them about the occurrence. A little after, the chowkidar also came there. 7. The reason for the occurrence, as stated by P. W.7, was that his deceased father had been settled with one Bigha of land by the government in a particular area of the village and the two appellants who were full brothers of the deceased Sitaram Harijan, wanted their share in that property for which a panchayati had also been convened two days prior to the occurrence in which Pravesh Harijan (not examined) and Sarpanch Jai Ram Singh, P. W.9 and others had participated. But, no resolution of the dispute could be arrived at. Besides, there were cases pending between the deceased and the appellants and. it was alleged that on account of these reasons they had conspired, planned and executed the triple murder by killing the three deceased with sharp cutting weapons. 8. The Fardbeyan (Ext.5) of P. W.7 was recorded at his house at village Chhoti muradpur by P. W.10 at 7.30 A. M on 22.8.2007. On the basis of Ext.5, FIR (Ext.6)was drawn up on 22.8.2007 at 10.15 A. M. 9. 8. The Fardbeyan (Ext.5) of P. W.7 was recorded at his house at village Chhoti muradpur by P. W.10 at 7.30 A. M on 22.8.2007. On the basis of Ext.5, FIR (Ext.6)was drawn up on 22.8.2007 at 10.15 A. M. 9. P. W.10, Pramod Poddar, who was the officer In charge of Rajaun Police station on 22.8.2007, would say in his evidence that he received telephonic message from the chowkidar, Mukesh Paswan that three persons had been murdered at village Chhoti Muradpur and accordingly, he left for the village along with A. S. I. Abhay Prasad Singh and a contingent of armed force. He reached there and recorded Ext.5, the fardbeyan of P. W.7 in presence of Mukhia of the village, namely, anandi Singh. A,s,i. Dinesh Poddar had drawn up the F. I. R. (Ext.6) on the basis of Ext.5. P. W.10 had taken up the investigation and he held inquest upon the three dead bodies and prepared the inquest reports in that respect by carbon process each of which has been marked as Ext.7,7/a and 7/b. 10. Thereafter, P. W.10 inspected the place of occurrence which was situated at village chhoti Muradpur. It was a house made of earthen walls which had thatched roof and it was facing south. A single room had a verandah on its south and that was also facing south. The verandah had been secured by the leaves of palm trees. It was the place where the three deceased persons were sleeping in the night of the occurrence and where, as per Ext.7 series, the dead bodies were found lying on a cot. P. W.10 found copious blood at the place of occurrence and he seized the blood stained earth from there. He has stated further that the single room of the house had doors fixed in it and he found a hole existing in it. He recorded the statements of different witnesses and persons, sent the dead bodies for postmortem examination to Banka hospital and also prepared the seizure memo in respect of the seizure of blood stained earth which had been marked Ext.8. He found materials sufficient against the appellants and sent them up by laying a charge sheet for trial. 11. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined eight witnesses in support of the charges. He found materials sufficient against the appellants and sent them up by laying a charge sheet for trial. 11. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined eight witnesses in support of the charges. P. W.7, as pointed out, is the only eye witness to the occurrence and he is the son of two of the deceased namely Sitaram Harijan and Sita Devi and his little sister Kiran kumari was the third deceased. Out of other witnesses, P. W.1, Arun Chandra Das and p. W.2 Shree Babu Lal Harijan were witnesses to the three inquest and signed the three documents in that behalf. P. W.3 Gangiya devi, P. W.4 Ram Parwesh Harijan and P. W.5 Sharwan Das were declared hostile and they gave one line evidence that they did not know anything of the occurrence. P. W.6 Sushma Devi is the sister of the informant and she was not present at the time of the occurrence in the house and as per her evidence, she had gone to her matrimonial house in the very morning of the day in the night of which the occurrence took place and had to rush back to her fathers house after having received the information about the triple murders of her parents and one of her youngest sisters. She had given evidence that she was told by P. W.7 as to how the incident had occurred. P. W.8 Dr. Suhail anzum had performed the postmortem examination on the three dead bodies and prepared the three reports in that behalf which have been marked as Ext.4 to 4/b. P. W.9 Jai Ram Singh was the Sarpanch of the neighbouring panchayat and had been invited to be one of the Panches in the panchayati which was convened to resolve the dispute between the deceased Sitaram Harijan and the two appellants and he had given evidence on that part of the prosecution story. It may appear from his evidence that his efforts on resolution of the dispute could not materialize and the panchayati was adjourned. P. W.10 S. I. Pramod Poddar, as just pointed out had investigated the case after having recorded the fardbeyan, Ext.5 of P. W.7. 12. The defence of the appellants was that on account of the admitted dispute for a particular land, they had been falsely implicated in the case and that the informant had been tutored to depose falsely against them. 12. The defence of the appellants was that on account of the admitted dispute for a particular land, they had been falsely implicated in the case and that the informant had been tutored to depose falsely against them. They also challenged the identification by the informant. 13. After considering the evidence in the light of the defence, the court below recorded the conviction of the two appellants and directed them to be hanged by their necks till they were dead. 14. We have heard Shri Akhileshwar Prasad singh, learned counsel for the two condemned prisoners who are the two appellants in the connected criminal appeal and Shri Ashwani kumar Sinha, learned Additional Public prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. 15. Shri Singh, learned counsel for the two appellants took us through the evidence of p. Ws.6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 and submitted that there may be a possibility that the informant had not seen the occurrence as he claims to have seen through the hole/crevice which was existing in the door plank of the house and that he, merely on suspicion, had implicated the accused persons by assigning particular roles to them. It was contended that there could be a possibility, as appears from the evidence, that initially there was no evidence and not even suspicion as to how and by whom the two deceased and their little daughter had been murdered and it appears that one Vijay Kumar, who was an Advocates clerk working in the Civil Courts, Banka, had tutored the informant so as to lodging a report and deposing in the case on the tutored lines. It was contended that the evidence of P. W, 7 is not supported by the persons of the neighbourhood. It was next contended that p. W.7 had stated in paragraph 28 of his evidence that chowkidar had arrived earlier to p. W.10 and he had pointed out the facts of the case to P. W.10 who noted them down and read them over to the chowkidar and thereafter, P. W.7, the informant was made to sign the document. It was contended in the light of the above evidence that Ext.5 was not an admissible document as it was hit by section 162 of the Cr. It was contended in the light of the above evidence that Ext.5 was not an admissible document as it was hit by section 162 of the Cr. P. C. and it appears that the informant was not knowing anything about the occurrence and the case was concocted by the chowkidar and others. 16. As regards the quantum of sentence, our attention was drawn to the evidence of P. W.7 itself in paragraphs 10,11 and 12 in which he has stated that the appellant Naresh Harijan had a daughter and two sons who were quite adolescent and that his wife was living. Likewise, appellant Ram Das had three daughters and a son. It has further been stated by P. W.7 that one of the three sons of Ram Das was quite grown up but other children of his were young ones and further that his wife too was living. P. W.7 stated that the age of the appellant Naresh was 30-35 years whereas appellant Ram Das was 40 year old. It was contended that these may be considered as extenuating circumstances so as to commuting the sentence of death inflicted upon the two appellants. 17. Sri Ashwini Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the state has replied to the above contention, firstly, by submitting that the answers of P. W.7 either in paragraph 28 or in paragraph 27 of the evidence, could be on account the crafty questions put by the cross examiner. It was contended that as regards submission that the chowkidar was the real creator of Ext.5, the evidence of P. W.7 in paragraph 27 could be a reply which defence elicited on a question to that effect. Likewise, it was contended that while considering the evidence of P. W.7, the court may consider the psychological state of mind of the child who was 13 years of age and who had lost his parents and his little sister aged about two and half years, which may appear from the evidence of P. W.6 and also the surroundings of standing in the witness box after the annihilation of his family members to answer the crafty questions of a cross examining expert. It was contended that those could be frailties appearing on account of many reasons and much weight may not be attached to them. It was contended that those could be frailties appearing on account of many reasons and much weight may not be attached to them. It was contended that there was no reason for the child aged about 13 years to falsely implicate the two appellants. He had given good reasons for identifying them and there does not appear any challenge set up by the defence to the fact that the source of identification was there. As regards the quantum of sentence, Sri sinha was fairly submitting that it was within the domain and prudence of the Court to consider the question in the light of settled law. 18. We, first, want to take up the contention of Shri Singh, learned counsel for the appellants that Ext.5 may not be the real report. There could be many reasons to negate the argument. Paragraph 6 of P. W.7 indicates that when P. W.10 the Sub inspector of Police had arrived at the scene of occurrence, the informant was questioned and his statement was recorded and P. W.7 had signed it. Likewise, during his cross examination P. W.7 gave almost the same evidence when he stated that he had signed the written statement and thereafter, he could not meet the police again. P. W.10, the I. O. of the case, has stated that he had arrived at the scene of occurrence after learning about the incident of triple murders at village Chhoti Muradpur and had recorded the fardbeyan of P. W.7, Kush Kumar. These are the evidences on record which convince us that there was no other report than that which is the basis of the prosecution. Besides, there was information received by P. W.10 telephonically about the incident and he came there for verifying the same and found the three dead bodies lying at the village and recorded the statement of P. W.7. It was rightly contended by the learned Additional public Prosecutor that the evidence of P. W.7 has always to be considered keeping in mind that he was a boy of about 14 years who was not acquainted with the crafts of the court and he was altogether new to the environment when he was giving his evidence in court. He was being confronted with questions on the manner of his parents being annihilated along with his little sister. He was being confronted with questions on the manner of his parents being annihilated along with his little sister. The occurrence had taken place on 22nd August, 2007 and the witness was being examined on 15th December, 2008, just about one year and three months of the incident. The incident could have been quite fresh in his mind and we, as judges or officers of the court, may comprehend the state of his mind in which he would be living after having experienced the nightmare. Still on considering the evidence of P. W.7, we find that he appears a competent and trustworthy witness and the evidence which he has given, could be given only by a person who had really seen the occurrence. He was examined, cross examined and discharged, in the first installment, after two days. He was again produced on recall to be re-examined and was cross-examined. The whole of his evidence running into 50 paragraphs indicates that a variety of questions, both in searching and leading forms, were put to him and he replied to them with competence and clarity. He appears to us a person who had attained maturity of a grown up man. His answers to a barrage of questions indicate that he had quickly grasped the various aspects of life and that was quite aware of the circumstances surrounding him. Tragic incidences impart responsibility which imparts maturity to persons, probably to make him fit to survive. As such, the submission that the case was lodged merely on suspicion, appears to us not acceptable. 19. The chowkidar was there as appears from the evidence of both P. W.7 and P. W.10. It appears an usual phenomenon that when such a ghastly occurrence takes place occurring in any village, the chowkidar comes to the scene so as to keep a watch over the situation. P. W.10 has stated in his evidence that the chowkidar informed him telephonically that an occurrence of a triple murders had occurred at village Muradpur. Thereafter, he proceeded to verify the truthfulness of the same. The chowkidar was not an eye witness as may appear clearly coming out from the evidence. He had arrived in the next morning at the scene of occurrence and he appears informing the police only after getting information from the informant or from other persons. Thereafter, he proceeded to verify the truthfulness of the same. The chowkidar was not an eye witness as may appear clearly coming out from the evidence. He had arrived in the next morning at the scene of occurrence and he appears informing the police only after getting information from the informant or from other persons. It may not be unnatural for the I. O. of the case after he had arrived at the scene of occurrence that he would have gathered the information also from the chowkidar about the incident and if he had made any statement, it was not unusual that the I. O. had recorded it in the case diary. That did not make the chowkidar a competent witness in the case. We feel that his non-examination was not materially affecting the merit of the prosecution charge. Likewise, a single line in the evidence of P. W.7 in paragraph 28 that the chowkidar made the statement which was recorded by the I.0. and that written statement was read out to the chowkidar, and the informant signed it, does not mean that it was the first information report. We, rather, find that this evidence of P. W.7 in paragraph 28 is against the record of facts indicating the manner of discharge of the public duties of P. W.10 S. I. Pramod Poddar which is in the form of the fardbeyan and other connected document the F. I. R. , as may appear from Ext.5 and also from the evidence of P. W.10 had been recorded by S. I. Pramod Poddar. As such, the contention of the learned counsel that ext.5 is inadmissible document appears to us fit to be rejected. 20. We were taken through the evidence of p. W.7. When we were going through that evidence, we find that there is not only strong consistency in his evidence, rather, it appears naturally coming out of his mouth. Each and every fact stated by him appears shorn of improvement. The evidence which had been given by P. W.7 appears to us coming from a person who had really seen the occurrence. P. W.7 has stated in the fardbeyan as also in his evidence in paragraph 39 that an earthen lamp was burning at the place of occurrence and he saw and identified the two appellants in light thereof. The evidence which had been given by P. W.7 appears to us coming from a person who had really seen the occurrence. P. W.7 has stated in the fardbeyan as also in his evidence in paragraph 39 that an earthen lamp was burning at the place of occurrence and he saw and identified the two appellants in light thereof. He has stated in his evidence, as he did in Ext.5, that he was looking through the hole which was existing in the door plank (P. W.7, paragraph 2 and 39 ). He has narrated each and every detail of the occurrence as to how the appellants and their two unknown companions had murdered, firstly, his parents and when his little sister started crying, she was also butchered by the appellants. The cross examination part of his evidence indicates to us that the immature person that he was in terms of age, had really matured him in a very competent witness. He had given answers correctly and satisfactorily to every question put to him in cross examination and his conduct, to us, appears consistent with the ordinary human conduct. Having seen his parents and his little sister butchered, the witness, as he has stated, fled into the fields to hide himself from where he found the two appellants along with their two unknown companions out of their house with their family members going to some other place. Thereafter, he could muster courage to raise a halla which attracted people of the village who were told about the occurrence. The evidence of P. W.7 appears to us quite satisfactory and containing the truth as was seen happening by him. 21. As regards the eviedence of other witnesses, we have already indicated that p. Ws.3,4 and 5 were declared hostile. P. W.6 Sushma Devi is the eldest of the children of the deceased Sitaram Harijan and Sita Devi. Her evidence also appears to us acceptable as she had stated in her evidence that she came, after having learnt about the incident, to her parents house to find that the dead bodies of her parents were lying on the cot whereas that of her little sister was found thrown at some distance away from the cot. She stated that she found that the throat of her sister had been cut. She stated that she found that the throat of her sister had been cut. Likewise, the throat, faces and legs of her parents were also cut and were bearing blood marks. P. W.6 has stated that her brother Kush Kumar (P. W.7) has stated to her about the incident and that detail appears in paragraph 3 of P. W.6 and we find that that particular story which is contained in paragraph 3 of the evidence of p. W.6 is the story which P. W.7 has narrated himself on other occasions and initially in his fardbeyan. P. W.7 has also stated that he stated about the incident to his sister as may appear from his evidence in paragraph 21. Thus, we find that P. W.6 corroborates the evidence of P. W.7 as regards the manner of occurrence. 22. We have already stated that there was a source of light at the scene of occurrence and P. W.7 had seen the occurrence happening from his own eyes through the hole which was appearing in door- plank of the house. We find that the evidence is satisfactory as regards the identification and participation of the appellants and other unknown accused in the commission of the offence. 23. As regards further support of the manner of occurrence, the same gets supported from the evidence of P. W.8, Dr. Suhail Anzum who recorded the injuries found by him on the three dead bodies and we do not want to reproduce the same, not because it is a lengthy statement but because the support is clearly coming as regards the manner of occurrence, the use of weapons and further assault dealt by two unknown persons with their weapons, Garasi. The injuries could be caused as has been stated by P. W.8 by sharp cutting weapon. We need not point out that a Fasuli or a Garasi could be sharp cutting weapon and the injuries correspond to the opinion as regards the weapon used which has been alleged by P. W.7 in his evidence. Thus, we find that the manner of. occurrence also gets support from the evidence of P. W.8. 24. As regards the genesis of the occurrence, it has been alleged that there was some dispute for some immovable properties between the deceased on the one hand and the two appellants before us on the other. Thus, we find that the manner of. occurrence also gets support from the evidence of P. W.8. 24. As regards the genesis of the occurrence, it has been alleged that there was some dispute for some immovable properties between the deceased on the one hand and the two appellants before us on the other. P. W.9 Jai ram Singh was examined in the trial court by the prosecution and he has stated that he had gone to village Muradpur in connection with a panchayati which was to be held for resolution of the dispute between the three brothers Sitaram Harijan, Naresh Harijan and ram Das. P. W.9 has further stated that the dispute was in respect of certain properties and he had gone to partition them. But, nothing could come out as an adjournment was sought by the deceased Sitaram Harijan and, accordingly, another date, i. e. , 25.8.2007 had been fixed. If we consider the evidence of p. W.7 and P. W.6, they have also stated that a panchayati had been convened two days prior to the occurrence. P. W.6 has stated in paragraph 4 of her evidence that a panchayati had been convened two days prior to the occurrence and the date next fixed for the same was the 25th August, but the incident had occurred ahead of that date. P. W.7 has stated in paragraph 35 of his evidence that two appellants were demanding their share in one bigha land that was settled to the deoeased, sitaram Harijan by the State of Bihar but the deceased was not ready for that. Thus, the evidence of P. W.6, when considered in the light of the evidence of P. W.9 as also in the evidence of P. W.7, establishes the genesis of the occurrence. Our experience also says that in most of the cases of the type which we are having in our hands, it is always some property dispute for which murders or other serious offences are committed. 25. After having considered the evidence available to us on record, we find that the findings recorded by the learned trial judge on the guilt of the appellants, were the only findings which could be justified in light of the evidence. 25. After having considered the evidence available to us on record, we find that the findings recorded by the learned trial judge on the guilt of the appellants, were the only findings which could be justified in light of the evidence. Thus, the findings appear to us founded on good reasoning and proper consideration of the evidence by the learned trial court on the record of the case and the guilt of the appellants was correctly recorded. 26. This brings us to consider as to whether this could be one of the rarest of the rare cases. The rarest of the rare case principle was enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of Bachchan Singh Vs. State of punjab, reported in (1982 ( 3) SCC 24 and the criteria thereof was laid down again by the supreme Court in another decision reported in (1983) 3 SCC 470 Machhi Singh Vs. State of Punjab. The criteria appears at pages 488-89 of the report and we are tempted to reproduce those criteria. " (i) when the murder is committed in an extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting or dastardly manner so as to arouse intense and extreme indignation of the community. (ii) When the murder is committed for a motive which evinces total depravity and meanness e. g. murder by hired assassin for money or reward; or cold blooded murder tor gains of a person vis-a-vis whom the murderer is in a dominating position or in a position of trust; or murder is committed in the course of betrayal of the motherland. (iii) When murder of a member of a scheduled Caste or minority community, etc. is committed not for personal reasons but in circumstances which arouse social wrath; or in cases of "bride-burning" or "dowry deaths" or when murder is committed in order to remarry for the sake of extracting dowry once again or to marry another woman on account of infatuation. (iv) When the crime is enormous in proportion. For instance when multiple murders, say of ail or almost all the members of a family or a large number of persons of a particular caste, community, or locality, are committed. (iv) When the crime is enormous in proportion. For instance when multiple murders, say of ail or almost all the members of a family or a large number of persons of a particular caste, community, or locality, are committed. (v) When the victim of murder is an innocent child, or a helpless woman or old or informs person or a person vis-a-vis whom the murderer is in a dominating position or a public figure generally loved and respected by the community. 27. If we consider the above criteria in the light of the evidence of the doctor, P. W.8, we could find that the three deceased were murdered in the most brutal manner. The facts of the case indicate that the two deceased persons Sitaram Harijan and Sita devi were sleeping on a cot with their little daughter who had been stated by P. W.6 to be two and half years to three years of age as may appear from paragraph 1 of her deposition and also by P. W.8 who has recorded her age as 3-4 years as may appear from paragraph 11 of the evidence of P. W.8. 28. The house of a person is the safest place for him where he gets the solace that his fife and properties are safe and secured. They were fast asleep and the occurrence took place at 2.30 A. M. in the night intervening 21st and 22nd August, 2007. They could not even have an inkling or any apprehension that any one would be swooping at them with such deadly weapons like a Fasuli or a garasi so as to annihilating them merely because the deceased appeared not inclined to part with some portion of the property he had been settled with by the Government. When one peruses the evidence of P. W.8 further, one could find that the deceased sitaram Harijan had as many as five incised wounds ranging from 13" to 4" in length and as devastating as to cut his trachea, oesophagus and grasing and causing fracture of left mandible, as appears from the description of injury no.3. Each and every of the four wounds, which were inflicted upon deceased Sitaram Harijan appears the result of massive blows as they could, in themselves, be sufficient to cause his death. Each and every of the four wounds, which were inflicted upon deceased Sitaram Harijan appears the result of massive blows as they could, in themselves, be sufficient to cause his death. Likewise, the other deceased Sita Devi, a helpless unarmed lady, had been given five decisive blows each in themselves sufficient, as may appear from their respective descriptions, to cause death except injury no.4. The length of four out of five injuries was ranging from 8" to 4 1/2 and the death could be gauged from one fact that on whichever organ a blow had fallen, it had demolished the underlying structures, may be bony or otherwise. So far as the little ones Kiran was concerned, she was given three decisive blows ants each blow, to us, appears equally devastating. Moreover, Kiran who was aged around three years, was the most unharming gift of god to this world who was brutally assaulted and killed by the assailants. Present case, in our opinion, could best qualify as one amongst the rarest of the rare cases. 29. We have been hearing a lot about adopting an uniform sentencing policy. We overtook while discussing the above, the provisions of section 235 (2) and 354 of the code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code ). Sec.235 (2) of the Code requires the accused to be heard on question of sentence if he is not likely to be proceeded in accordance with the provision of section 360 of the Code. Sec.354 of the Code, by virtue of its provision contained in sub section (3) and (4), directs recording of reasons if the court has convicted an accused for an offence punishable with death or in the alternative, with imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of years. The later part of sub section (3) further indicates that if the court is inclined to inflict the sentence of death then it is required to assign special reasons for passing such a sentence. We want to state that the guidelines on sentencing could be created and followed after considering the different discretionary jurisdiction created by the Code in the matter of sentencing, keeping in view the provisions of section 354 (3)and (4) of the Code. It is not that the numbers of deaths could be sufficient to inflict death sentence. We want to state that the guidelines on sentencing could be created and followed after considering the different discretionary jurisdiction created by the Code in the matter of sentencing, keeping in view the provisions of section 354 (3)and (4) of the Code. It is not that the numbers of deaths could be sufficient to inflict death sentence. In order to inflicting the death sentence, the court is required to assign special reasons and those special reasons must be compatible with the characteristics of cases which have been pointed out by the Supreme court in Machhi Singh (supra ). We have already stated that present case fully qualify to be categorized as one of the rarest of the rare cases. But, when there is a requirement from the court to create a balance sheet of aggravating and extenuating circumstances and thereafter to proceed as to what sentence could be appropriate under the facts of the case, then we find that as against the aggravating circumstance of killing three innocent persons specially the two who were the mother and her little daughter by giving such massive and decisive blows and that too in an unearthly hour of the night, this could be the most aggravating of circumstances to justify the infliction of death sentence. 30. After considering the evidence of P. W.7 in paragraph 10 to 12, we find that appellant naresh Harijan was aged about 30-35 years on the date P. W, 7 was giving evidence in court Appellant Ram Das alias Baungi Harijan had three daughters and one son and all of his three daughters appeared unmarried out of whom one was quite grown up and the two were little ones. He had a son also and his wife was very much living. As regards Naresh Harijan, he had a daughter and two sons and his three children were little ones. Besides, his wife was also living. In our considered view, these are the features as extenuating circumstances in the lives of the two appellants which require to be considered. Directing the two prisoners to be hanged by their necks till they are dead, may be the appropriate sentence under the facts of the case but that shall be an unjust order to be passed by this court as regards their innocent dependents which is comprised, in case of both the appellants, by their destitute wives and young adolescent children. Directing the two prisoners to be hanged by their necks till they are dead, may be the appropriate sentence under the facts of the case but that shall be an unjust order to be passed by this court as regards their innocent dependents which is comprised, in case of both the appellants, by their destitute wives and young adolescent children. Besides, we feel that while greed for properties may be bad for the society and its peace but could not it be a factor that under a momentous surge of angry and frustrating sentiments, the two appellants were moved to indulge in the crime of the foulest type. Considering these two factors, we are of the considered view that the sentence of death as was awarded by the learned trial judge, was a bit excessive and, therefore, we commute the sentence of death passed upon each of the two appellants to rigorous imprisonment for life. However, we want to apply the decision of Swami shraddananda Vs. State of Karnataka (2007) 12 Supreme Court Cases 288 to the present case and its circumstances and direct the State Government not to grant remission to the two appellants till each of them had completed twenty years of imprisonment 31. With the above modification in sentence, we dismiss the appeal filed by the two appellants and answer the reference made by the trial judge under section 366 of the Code.