JUDGMENT 1. - While convicting accused Hansraj @ Hansia for the offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Jalore awarded capital sentence by the judgment and order dated 28.9.2010, hence this reference as per Section 366(1) Cr.P.C. is before us alongwith the appeal preferred by the accused. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 4.7.2007 at 09:30 AM Shri Shaitan Singh (PW-29) recorded statements (Ex.P/29) of Smt. Hemlata (one among the four deceased), who was undergoing treatment at Government Hospital, Jalore. As per Ex.P/29, in the night of 3.7.2007 Smt. Hemlata, her mother Smt. Saroj (deceased), brothers Jitendra and Dilip (both deceased) were at their home i.e. situated near Railway Station, Jalore. At about 10:00 PM Hansia (accused) carrying a tiffin set, wearing wet clothes came there. He desired to stay there for a night. After consuming the tiffin brought, Hansia offered 'rabri ice cream' brought by him and that was eaten by all the persons except Hansia. After eating 'rabri ice cream' all the persons felt drowsiness and became unconscious. In the morning Hemlata acquired some consciousness, but she was not in a position to raise herself from the bed. She was having an injury on her neck and that was oozing. Her father and police personnels brought her to hospital. After making the statement as stated above she desired to have rest, being not in position to state much. 3. Mother of Hemlata Smt. Saroj, who was also undergoing treatment at the same hospital, died when the investigating officer was recording statements of Hemlata. One brother Jitendra was found dead from the spot and another brother Dilip was seriously injured. 4. A criminal case then was registered, investigation was made and during that dying declaration (Ex.P/45) of Hemlata was recorded on 12.7.2007 at SMS Hospital, Jaipur. While undergoing treatment statements of Dilip (Ex.P/41) were recorded on 9.7.2007 at SMS Hospital, Jaipur. As per Ex.P/41, on 3.7.2007 in night at about 10:00 PM Hansia Naai, who was known to the victim family, came and consumed his tiffin. Subsequent thereto all the persons except Hansia eat 'rabri ice cream' that was brought in four packets by Hansia. After eating 'rabri ice cream' all the four persons gone to deep slumber. As per Ex.P/41, on 3.7.2007 in night at about 10:00 PM Hansia Naai, who was known to the victim family, came and consumed his tiffin. Subsequent thereto all the persons except Hansia eat 'rabri ice cream' that was brought in four packets by Hansia. After eating 'rabri ice cream' all the four persons gone to deep slumber. Subsequent thereto on hearing some noise, sleep of Dilip broken and he saw that Hansia was giving kulhari blows to his sister Hemlata. Hansia then before giving any chance to Dilip, attacked on him also. What happened thereafter, was not in knowledge of Dilip. 5. While undergoing treatment at SMS Hospital, Jaipur, Hemlata and Dilip died on 27.7.2007 and 24.7.2007 respectively. 6. The prosecution after completing the investigation filed a police report before the competent court alleging commission of offence punishable under Sections 302 and 328 Indian Penal Code by accused Hansia. After committal of case, the court of Sessions framed charges and on denial of the same proceeded with the trial. 7. During the course of trial statements of 30 prosecution witnesses were recorded and 105 documents were examined. The accused, while explaining his conduct as appearing adverse to him in prosecution evidence, stated that he was falsely implicated with the crime in question, Hemlata was like his sister and all family members except Hemlata's father were happy with him. He further stated that Bhudarmal, father of Hemlata, was keeping some suspicion for no reason. In defence statements of DW-1 Bajranglal were recorded and certain documents were produced. 8. In appeal, submission of counsel for the accused appellant is that in prosecution story there are several contradictions, sufficient to have a reasonable doubt about involvement of the accused appellant in the crime concerned and that demands his acquittal. As per counsel for the appellant the entire incident as per prosecution took place in the intervening night of 3.7.2007 and 4.7.2007 at about 00:00 hours or nearby thereto. Shri Bhudarmal (PW-9), head of the family, was not in the house and he came from his native place in early morning. No explanation is given as to what happened from early morning to 08:50 AM when a telephonic message was received about the crime in question. As per counsel for the appellant a 'rojnamcha' entry (Ex.P/52) was made on receiving a telephonic message from PW-15 Ugam Singh. No explanation is given as to what happened from early morning to 08:50 AM when a telephonic message was received about the crime in question. As per counsel for the appellant a 'rojnamcha' entry (Ex.P/52) was made on receiving a telephonic message from PW-15 Ugam Singh. A police party then proceeded to the spot wherefrom injured Hemlata, Saroj and Dilip were carried to the hospital. Saroj died at the hospital. However, Hemlata while stating all the facts taken place did not state several other things those were narrated by her on 12.7.2007 while making a statement before a Judicial Magistrate and also on 4.7.2007 itself while making statement as per Section 161 Cr.P.C. 9. Counsel for the appellant also pointed out the statements of PW-9 Bhudarmal who in quite unambiguous terms accepted that he was not liking visits of accused Hansia at his home and on basis of it an effort is made to convey that there are all possibilities of making killings by Bhudarmal himself on finding accused Hansia at his home in early morning of 4.7.2007. 10. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor strenuously urged that adequate evidence is available on record to establish guilt of accused Hansia. It is submitted that the dying declaration given by Smt. Hemlata, availability of Atropine from the viscera of deceased persons, recovery of kulhari at the instance of accused and availability of blood stains on clothes of the accused matching with the blood stains available on axe are sufficient to maintain the conviction made by the trial court. While arguing to maintain the capital sentence, it is submitted by learned Public Prosecutor that the accused belied his truth and committed heinous crime, thus, he is certainly liable for capital sentence. 11. Heard counsel for the parties. 12. As per medical evidence there is no doubt about homicidal death of Smt. Saroj, Jitendra, Dilip and Hemlata. The case of the prosecution is mainly based on the statements of Investigating Officer Shaitan Singh, the statements as per Section 164 Cr.P.C. which are also treated as dying declaration of deceased Hemlata, recovery of blood stained kulhari, blood stained clothes of accused, blood stained clothes of deceased persons and report of serological examination given by the Forensic Science Laboratory. 13. 13. The chain of circumstances resulting into the finding of guilty of accused Hansia starts with a 'rojnamcha' entry (Ex.P/52) entered at 08:50 AM at police station. 14. As per PW-29 Shri Shaitan Singh, the Investigating Officer, after receiving information as entered in the 'rojnamcha', he alongwith other police personnels reached at the spot, where three injured persons and a dead body were found. All the three injured persons were sent to the hospital where statements of injured Hemlata (Ex.P/29) were recorded. Constable Sahiram then was sent to the police station to register a case. After some time on some improvement in condition of Hemlata her statements as per provisions of Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Ex.P/53) were recorded. At about 12:00 Noon spot of crime was inspected with specifications provided by Bhudarmal and samples of blood stained earth, remaining food articles etc. were taken. A thorough photography of the site was also made. On the same day statements of Bhudarmal as per provisions of Section 161 Cr.P.C. were also recorded. Injured Hemlata and Dilip were referred to Jodhpur for their treatment wherefrom they were referred to the SMS Hospital, Jaipur. Statements of injured Hemlata as per Section 164 Cr.P.C. were recorded at Jaipur by Judicial Magistrate Shri Sanjay Tripathi (PW-26). The statements of injured Dilip as per Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Ex.P/88) were also recorded at Jaipur on 14.7.2007. The Investigating Officer PW- 29 also stated all necessary facts about the recovery of blood stained kulhari on 10.7.2007 and his blood stained clothes as per information given by him. The samples so taken were sent for their serological examination after taking due precautions. 15. PW-26 Shri Sanjay Tripathi, a Judicial Magistrate, stated that while working as Judicial Magistrate, First Class No.3, Jaipur City, he recorded statements of Hemlata Sen on basis of an application made by Shri Ambalal, Sub Inspector, Police Station Kotwali, Jalore. As per this witness he went to SMS Hospital, Jaipur and obtained a fitness certificate regarding condition of Smt. Hemlata from duty Dr. M.S. Astha Patni. After obtaining fitness certificate this witness recorded and written statements of Hemlata in his own hand writing which are available on record as Ex.P/45. The witness also obtained thumb impression of Hemlata on the statement. M.S. Astha Patni. After obtaining fitness certificate this witness recorded and written statements of Hemlata in his own hand writing which are available on record as Ex.P/45. The witness also obtained thumb impression of Hemlata on the statement. PW-26 quite specifically stated that during the course of process of recording statement Hemlata was in her full consciousness and whatever statements given by her were as per her will and without any pressure. As per this witness at the time of recording statements no person including the family members of Hemlata and police personnels were present in the room and all the persons present in the room prior to recording of the statements were sent out. PW-26 as such established the contents of the document Ex.P/45. As already stated, earlier under the document Ex.P/45 Hemlata stated in detail about entire incident taken place on the intervening night of 3.7.2007 and 4.7.2007. According to the document Ex.P/45 Hemlata on oath stated that in the night she was at her home with her mother Saroj Devi and brothers Dilip and Jitendra. Hansraj at that time came to their house and desired to stay there for a night as it was then raining. Hemlata further stated that she was always considering Hansraj like her brother but he was keeping a bad eye on her. Hansraj at about 09:30 went out from house and returned at about 11:00 PM with four packets of 'rabri'. He offered 'rabri' to all the persons present but that was not eaten by Hansia himself. After eating 'rabri' all the four persons became unconscious. At this time Hansia stated to Hemlata that he loves her too much and for her he was ready to leave his wife. Hemlata objected and stated that you are like my brother. On hearing this Hansia threatened by carrying a kulhari in his hand that in the event of denial for marriage he will kill her entire family. On repeated denial for the offer of marriage Hansia gave a kulhari blow on the neck of Saroj Devi and then on the neck of Dilip. He further gave a kulhari blow on the legs of Jitendra. A kulhari blow was also given on the neck of Hemlata. In the morning at about 08:00 AM her father entered in the house and subsequent thereto police also came at the spot. 16. He further gave a kulhari blow on the legs of Jitendra. A kulhari blow was also given on the neck of Hemlata. In the morning at about 08:00 AM her father entered in the house and subsequent thereto police also came at the spot. 16. The aforesaid statement of Hemlata was recorded by Judicial Magistrate Sanjay Tripathi (PW- 26) and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. Suffice it to mention that from very beginning Hemlata maintained her stand. At the first instance under Ex.P/29 she stated to Shri Shaitan Singh (PW-29) while undergoing treatment at Government Hospital, Jalore that at about 10:00 PM Hansia carrying a tiffin set wearing wet clothes came there and desired to stay there for a night. After consuming the tiffin brought, Hansia offered 'rabri' and after consuming the same all the four persons fell drowsiness and became unconscious. She quite unambiguously stated that in her statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Ex.P/53) also recorded on 4.7.2007 itself that the injuries were given by Hansia by kulhari. The consistency in the statements of Hemlata, in addition with fact that the recovered articles at the instance of accused Hansia were having blood stains matching with the blood group of deceased persons, leaves no room of doubt in holding him guilty for the offence charged. Suffice it to note that as per Forensic Science Laboratory's report Ex.P/32 the viscera collected from the bodies of deceased persons were found with Atropine, which also supports to prosecution case about giving some toxic material alongwith 'rabri' to the victims. It is further pertinent to note that as per Ex.P/91, the report given by the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Jodhpur dated 27.9.2007, the blood stained piece of 'rali' cover, blood stained piece of mattress cover were having blood stains with 'B' group and that matched with the blood stains available on kulhari, the weapon of offence and the 'kamij' of the accused. 17. The complete chain of circumstances as narrated above, without any shadow of doubt establishes involvement of the accused in the crime in question. The only issue now requires consideration is regarding quantum of sentence i.e. to be awarded. 18. 17. The complete chain of circumstances as narrated above, without any shadow of doubt establishes involvement of the accused in the crime in question. The only issue now requires consideration is regarding quantum of sentence i.e. to be awarded. 18. Hon'ble Supreme Court in its latest judgment reported in 2011(1) CJ (Cri.) (SC) 108, Santosh Kumar Singh v. State through CBI , while dealing with the issue relating to the considerations while opting sentence from life term imprisonment and death sentence, held as under:- "38. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel and have also gone through the judgments relied upon by them in support of their respective cases. We think that the answer on the question of the sentence can be found in the judgment of the High Court itself. We quote from paragraph 3 of the sentencing part of the judgment delivered on 30th October, 2006 : "We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have given our consideration to what has been placed before us. We need hardly say that sentencing is the most difficult part of a judgment and this indeed has been a case here. There is absolutely no doubt in our mind that what was required of Santosh Singh was exemplary behaviour being a son of a police officer and also a lawyer himself yet with a premeditated approach he continued to harass the victim for nearly two years and ultimately in spite of repeated warnings by the police and his undertakings to them went about committing a most ghastly act. The act itself sent ripples in the society and showed how insecure a citizen can get against this kind of a person. In the various judgments which have been referred to by counsel from both sides we find the principles laid down to the considered while deciding the question of sentence are best reported in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 898 and Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, 1983 SC 211 . These cases sum up the law on the subject of death penalty which we have kept in mind. These cases sum up the law on the subject of death penalty which we have kept in mind. Evaluating the circumstances in favour and against the convict which have already been enumerated above, we find that the aggravating circumstances referred to by the Additional Solicitor General for outweigh the circumstances which according to the counsel to the convict are mitigating circumstances, although we do not consider them to be so. We are thus of the opinion that for a crime of this sort which has been committed with premeditation and in a brutal manner the convict deserves no other sentence but death." The underlined words themselves give a hint as to the sentence that should be awarded in this case. Undoubtedly the sentencing part is a difficult one and often exercises the mind of the Court but where the option is between a life sentence and a death sentence, the options are indeed extremely limited and if the court itself feels some difficulty in awarding one or the other, it is only appropriate that the lesser sentence should be awarded. This is the underlying philosophy behind 'the rarest of rare principle'. Furthermore, we see that the mitigating circumstances need to be taken into account, more particularly that the High Court has reversed a judgment of acquittal based on circumstantial evidence, the appellant was a young man of 24 at the time of the incident and, after acquittal, had got married and was the father of a girl child. Undoubtedly, also the appellant would have had time for reflection over the events of the last fifteen years, and to ponder over the predicament that he now faces, the reality that his father died a year after his conviction and the prospect of a dismal future for his young family. On the contrary, there is nothing to suggest that he would not be capable of reform. There are extremely aggravating circumstances as well in particular we notice the tendency of parents to be over indulgent to their progeny often resulting in the most horrendous of situations. These situations are exacerbated when an accused belongs to a category with unlimited power or pelf or even more dangerously, a volatile and heady cocktail of the two. The reality that such a class does exist is for all to see and is evidenced by regular and alarming incidents such as the present one. These situations are exacerbated when an accused belongs to a category with unlimited power or pelf or even more dangerously, a volatile and heady cocktail of the two. The reality that such a class does exist is for all to see and is evidenced by regular and alarming incidents such as the present one. Nevertheless, to our mind, the balance sheet tilts marginally in favour of the appellant, and the ends of justice would be met if the sentence awarded to him is commuted from death to life imprisonment under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code; the other part of the sentence being retained as it is. With this modification in the sentence, the appeal is dismissed." 19. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Swamy Shraddananda @ Murali Manohar Mishra v. State of Karnataka, reported in JT 2008(8) SC 27 , while examining the question regarding imposition of sentence and option of capital sentence and life term sentence, held that extreme penalty should be imposed only in extreme cases. The death penalty ought not to be imposed save in rarest of rare cases when the alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed. A rarest of rare case or an exceptional case or an extreme case are required to be judged by the Court looking to the facts available. It is pertinent to note that in the case aforesaid Hon'ble Supreme Court also observed that question of death penalty is not free from subjective element and confirmation of death sentence or its commutation by the Court depends on a good deal of personal predilection of the judges constituting the Bench. 20. In the instant matter no doubt that four persons were killed and trust of the deceased persons was broken by the accused. However, there is no material available on record to say that the appellant is such a hardcore criminal that there are no chance of his reform. The accused at the time of commission of crime was of 26 years and is a married person. These facts demands some leniency in awarding the sentence. We are of the opinion that the death sentence awarded by the trial court shall be excessive and, therefore, that requires appropriate modification. Thus, we are not inclined to confirm the death sentence. 21. These facts demands some leniency in awarding the sentence. We are of the opinion that the death sentence awarded by the trial court shall be excessive and, therefore, that requires appropriate modification. Thus, we are not inclined to confirm the death sentence. 21. In view of whatever stated above, the death sentence of the accused as awarded by the trial court under the judgment impugned is not confirmed. The appeal of the accused is dismissed to the extent that relates to conviction of the accused appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. However, the sentence imposed by the trial court is modified and is substituted by the life term rigorous imprisonment that shall not be less than 14 years of actual imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In event of default of payment of fine the appellant shall require to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment in addition to the sentence of life term imprisonment.Appeal dismissed. *******