JUDGMENT : As per Rakesh Saksena J.:- Since allthe above cases arise out of the common impugned judgment passed by the TrialCourt, this judgment shall govern the disposal of all the three cases. 1. AppellantGudda @ Dwarikendra has filed Criminal Appeal No. 2246/2010 against thejudgment dated 7th September, 2010 , passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Satna, inSessions Trial No. 257/2007, convicting him under Section 302 of the IPC onthree counts and sentencing him to death. Since appellant Gudda @ Dwarikendrahas been awarded penalty of death sentence, learned Additional Sessions Judgehas made reference (Cri. Ref. No. 3/2010) for conformation of the deathsentence under Section 366 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Beingaggrieved by the acquittal of accused/respondent Smt. Geeta Vishwakarma of thecharge under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the IPC, State has filedCriminal Appeal No. 1870/2011. 3. In short,the prosecution case is that on 28-5-2007 at about 12.20 p.m. complainantRamesh Prasad Gupta (P.W. 4) gave a Dehati Nalishi report to Police Kolgawan,District Satna, that at about 12 hrs., while he was going to his house frommarket, near Kandhi street, he saw a mob of people talking that GuddaVishwakarma, the accused, committed murder of three persons in his rentedhouse. He went in front of the house of Subhadra Jaiswal and saw dead bodies ofhis nephew Sunil Gupta, daughter-in-law Pushpa Gupta and grand son Gaurav, agedabout 5 years, lying in the passage of the house of Subhadra Jaiswal. SubhadraJaiswal and the people of the neighbourhood informed him that about 45 minutesbefore Gudda @ Dwarikendra suspecting illicit relations between his wife andSunil Gupta, killed him, Pushpa Gupta and their son Gaurav by a Katar. Wife ofaccused viz., Geeta had also suffered an injury on her leg and that accused hadrun away on his motorbike. On the basis of this report. Investigating OfficerVimal Shrivastava (P.W. 19) recorded Dehati Nalishi (Exh. P-10). Dehati mergintimations 1, 2 and 3/2007 (Exh. P-9) under Section 174 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure were recorded. After Dehati Nalishi (Exh. P-10) and DehatiMerg (Exh. P-9) were received at Police Station, Kolgawan, First Information Report(Exh. P-8) under Section 302 of the IPC (on three counts) was recorded by ASI,S.P. Shukla (P.W. 6). 4. Duringinvestigation, Investigation Officer, Vimal Shrivastava (P.W. 19) conductedinquest proceedings of the dead bodies and found stab injuries on the bodies ofall the three persons. After Dehati Nalishi (Exh. P-10) and DehatiMerg (Exh. P-9) were received at Police Station, Kolgawan, First Information Report(Exh. P-8) under Section 302 of the IPC (on three counts) was recorded by ASI,S.P. Shukla (P.W. 6). 4. Duringinvestigation, Investigation Officer, Vimal Shrivastava (P.W. 19) conductedinquest proceedings of the dead bodies and found stab injuries on the bodies ofall the three persons. He sent the bodies to District Hospital , Satna, for post-mortem examination. 5. Dr.(Smt.) Rekha Tripathi (P.W. 14) examined the body of deceased Pushpa Gupta andfound that she was carrying pregnancy of about 26 weeks and a female foetus ofthe said duration was present in her uterus. 6. Dr. S.K.Jain (P.W. 16) conducted post-mortem examination of the bodies of Sunil Guptaand Gaurav and vide post-mortem examination reports (Exhs. P-23 and P-24) foundthat they died due due to syncope because of excessive haemorrhage byante-mortem injuries caused to them. 7.Accused/respondent Geeta was also sent for medical examination. Dr. Alok Khanna(P.W. 13) vide his report (Exh. P-21) found one incised wound on her leg. 8. Duringfurther investigation, blood stained pieces of wall, cement floor etc. wereseized from the house of Subhadra Jaiswal. A mobile, Katar and Motorcyclenumber M.P. 19-E-4928, belonging to deceased Sunil Gupta, was also seized fromthe spot. 9. On 31-5-2007 , accused was arrested and on his information,recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. an iron knife and a motorcycleHero Honda CD Delux, Reg. No. M.P. 19-MA-1135 were seized from his possession.His full pants and shirt were also seized. A maxi belonging to accused Geeta,having a cut mark on it, was seized from her. Seized properties were sent forexamination to FSL, Sagar. 10. Afterinvestigation, it was found that accused Gudda @ Dwarikendra suspected that hiswife Geeta had illicit relations with deceased Sunil Gupta. Though he askedSunil Gupta not to meet Geeta, but he used to visit his house. Therefore, he,under a conspiracy with Geeta, invited Sunil Gupta, his wife and son on lunchand in a planned way committed murder of all the three persons. 11. Aftercompletion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet against accused Gudda @Dwarikendra and Geeta in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First ("lass,Satna, from where the case was committed to Court of Sessions for trial. 12. Duringtrial, accused Gudda @ Dwarikendra was charged under Section 302 of the IPC onthree counts, whereas, Smt. Geeta was charged under Sections 302/120-B of theIPC on three counts. 13. 12. Duringtrial, accused Gudda @ Dwarikendra was charged under Section 302 of the IPC onthree counts, whereas, Smt. Geeta was charged under Sections 302/120-B of theIPC on three counts. 13. Both theaccused abjured their guilt and pleaded innocence. The defence of accused Gudda@ Dwarikendra was that on 27-5-2007 in the night when he came back home, hiswife informed that Sunil Gupta had called her to school in the morning. Thoughshe refused, but he insisted her to come for doing important work. On the nextday morning, she informed that a boy of 8-10 years of age gave message to herthat Sunil Gupta had called her in the school, but she had refused. At about 11.30 a.m. , when he came back to his house, he found Sunil'swife and his son sitting on the roof in front of his room. He heard shrieks ofhis wife. When he entered the room, he saw Sunil Gupta attacking his wife witha knife. His wife suffered an injury by the knife on her knee. When Sunil Guptawanted to attack him, he caught his hand, snatched the knife and defendedhimself and his wife. Since deceased Gaurav and Pushpa suddenly came andintervened, accidentally they suffered injuries. 14. Similarplea was put forth by accused Geeta Vishwakarma According to her, at about11.15 a.m., when Sunil Gupta alongwith his wife and son came to her house andwas sitting on the open roof in front of her room and she was preparing tea,suddenly Sunil Gupta came inside the room and tried to outrage her modesty bypressing her breasts. When she resisted, he pushed her and took out a knife andintimidated her. An injury was caused on her leg by the knife of Sunil Gupta.When her husband tired to save her, Sunil's wife and son came to intervene andsuffered injuries. Her husband protected her life and modesty. 15. Tosubstantiate its case, prosecution examined 19 witnesses. 16. LearnedTrial Judge, relying mainly on the evidence of eye-witnesses Subhadra Jaiswal(P.W. 5) and Smt. Munni (P.W. 7) and finding their evidence corroborated by theevidence of Bhuri Bai (P.W. 8), Lale @ lal Singh (P.W. 9), Dinesh Singh (P.W.18), Ramesh Prasad Gupta (P.W. 4) and on the basis of medical evidence of Dr.S.K. Jain (P.W. 16), Dr. (Smt.) Rekha Tripathi (P.W. 14) and Dr. (Smt.) Rekha Tripathi (P.W. 14) and Dr. Alok Khanna(P.W. 13), held the accused Gudda @ Dwarikendra guilty and convicted him underSection 302 of the IPC on three counts, however, finding the evidenceinsufficient, acquitted accused/respondent Geeta Vishwakarma of the chargeunder Section 302/120-B of the IPC. 17. Sincethe learned Additional Sessions Judge awarded death penalty to accused Gudda @Dwarikendra, he referred the proceedings of the Court for confirmation. 18.Aggrieved by his conviction, accused Gudda @ Dwarikendra, and aggrieved by theacquittal of Geeta Vishwakarma, the State have filed their respective appealsagainst the impugned judgment. 19. ShriS.C. Datt, learned Senior Counsel, submitted that the evidence of eye-witnesses,viz., Subhadra Jaiswal (P.W. 5) and Smt. Munni (P.W. 7) was not reliable. TrialCourt committed error in placing reliance on their evidence and convictingaccused Gudda @ Dwarikendra. He submitted that the statements of both theaccused given under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were true andgenuine. They revealed that deceased Sunil Gupta attempted to outrage modestyof Geeta, therefore, accused Gudda @ Dwarikendra was entitled to exercise theright of private defence, especially when deceased wielded a knife. Hesubmitted that since there was no evidence in the case about the genesis of theoccurrence, the statements of accused persons given by them under Section 313of the Cr.PC had to be relied on. According to him, the injures to deceasedSunil were caused by the accused in exercise of right of private defence andthat the deceased Pushpa Gupta and Gaurav suffered injuries accidentally, whenthey tried to intervene in the quarrel. He submitted that in the abovecircumstances, it was, at least, not a case in which accused Gudda could havebeen awarded penalty of death sentence. The case against him did not fallwithin the category of 'rarest of rare cases'. 20. LearnedDy. Government Advocate, Shri Yogesh Dhande, on the other hand, submitted thatthe evidence of prosecution witnesses was reliable. Subhadra Jaiswal (P.W. 5)and Smt. Munni (P.W. 7) were the natural witnesses. They had no animus againstthe accused. The conviction of accused Gudda @ Dwarikendra under Section 302 ofthe IPC (on three counts) was fully justified. He further submitted that fromthe evidence on record, it was apparent that accused Geeta Vishwakarmaconspired with her husband and invited deceased persons to her house with themotive that they be killed. They had no animus againstthe accused. The conviction of accused Gudda @ Dwarikendra under Section 302 ofthe IPC (on three counts) was fully justified. He further submitted that fromthe evidence on record, it was apparent that accused Geeta Vishwakarmaconspired with her husband and invited deceased persons to her house with themotive that they be killed. The injury found on the person of Geeta Vishwakarmacould have been caused at the hands of her husband when she might have tried tosave deceased Sunil Gupta, who happened to be her colleague. According to him,Trial Court committed error in acquitting accused/respondent Geeta Vishwakarmafor the charge under Section 302/120-B of the IPC. 21. We haveheard the learned Counsel for the parties and carefully perused the evidence onrecord and the reasonings assigned by the Trial Court in the impugned judgment. 22. From theevidence of Ramesh Prasad Gupta (P.W. 4), Subhadra Jaiswal (P.W. 5), Smt. Munni(P.W. 7), Lale @ lal Singh (P.W. 9), Dinesh Singh (P.W. 18) and InvestigatingOfficer Vimal Shrivastava (P.W. 19), it has been amply established that deceasedSunil Gupta, Pushpa Gupta and their son Gaurav Gupta died a homicidal death. Ithas not been disputed by the accused also. The Investigating Officer, VimalShrivastava (P.W. 9) received Dehati Nalishi on the basis of information givenby Ramesh Prasad Gupta (P.W. 4) and went at the spot. He conducted inquestproceedings in respect of death of all the three deceased persons and preparedinquest memos (Exhs. P-12, P-13 and P-14) in respect of the dead bodies ofGaurav Gupta, Sunil Gupta and Smt. Pushpa Gupta. He found injuries on theirbodies. He sent their bodies for post-mortem examination. Dr. S.K. Jain (P.W.16) conducted the post-mortem examination of the bodies of aforesaid deceasedpersons and found following injuries :- (A) On thebody of Smt. Pushpa Gupta, he found : "(1)Incised wound 4 cm x 2 cm x 2 cm on the left side of neck. Carotid artery wasruptured and blood had flown out. (2) Incisedwound 4 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm on the left side of abdomen. (3) Incisedwound 2 cm x 1/6 cm x 1/6 cm on left side of abdomen. (4) Incisedwound 4 cm x 1 cm x 1/2 cm on left knee. (5) Incisedwound 1 cm x 1/3 cm x 1/3 cm on left thigh. On internalexamination, he found trachea was cut. There was a female foetus of 26 weeks inher uterus. (3) Incisedwound 2 cm x 1/6 cm x 1/6 cm on left side of abdomen. (4) Incisedwound 4 cm x 1 cm x 1/2 cm on left knee. (5) Incisedwound 1 cm x 1/3 cm x 1/3 cm on left thigh. On internalexamination, he found trachea was cut. There was a female foetus of 26 weeks inher uterus. The cause of her death was syncope due to excessive haemorrhagebecause of cutting of carotid artery. The injuries were ante-mortem in nature.Her post-mortem report (Exh. P-22) was written and signed by him." (B) On thebody of Sunil Gupta, he found : "(1)Incised wound 4 cm x 2 cm x 2 cm bone deep oval in shape on right side ofchest. Right 8th rib was cut. (2) Incisedwound 7 cm x 2 cm x deep up to lung cavity. Oval in shape on left side ofchest. 5th left rib was cut. (3) Incisedwound 4 cm x 1 cm x 1/2 cm on right side below the ribs. (4) Incisedwound 5 cm x 1/2 cm x cavity deep on right side of abdomen above ilium bone. (5) Incisedwound 6 cm x 2 cm x cavity deep 6 cm below the left side of ribs on abdomen. (6) Incisedwound 1/2 cm x 1/4 cm x 1/4 cm on little finger of left hand. (7) Incisedwound 2 cm x 1/2 cm x 1/2cm on the right scapular region. (8) Incised wound4 cm x 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm on middle of left scapular region. (9) Incisedwound 3 cm x 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm on left lumber region. (10) Incisedwound 1 cm x 1/3 cm x 1/3 cm on back side of right arm. On internalexamination, he found left lung of the deceased cut. Transverse colon of thelarge intestine was cut in the dimension of 4 cm x 2 cm. Right side of liverwas cut and blood was filled in the abdomen. On examining the clothes ofdeceased, he found number of cuts on them at the places where the wounds werefound on the body of deceased. In his opinion, the cause of death of deceasedwas syncope due to excessive" haemorrhage from external and internalinjuries. External ante-mortem injuries were found on the body of deceased. Post-mortemreport (Exh. P-23) was written and signed by him and Dr. In his opinion, the cause of death of deceasedwas syncope due to excessive" haemorrhage from external and internalinjuries. External ante-mortem injuries were found on the body of deceased. Post-mortemreport (Exh. P-23) was written and signed by him and Dr. Rekha Tripathi." (C) On thebody of Gaurav Gupta, he found : "(1)Incised wound 11 cm x 3 cm x 1/2 cm oval in shape on the right side of chest. (2) Incisedwound 7 cm x 2 cm x cavity deep on right side of chest below clavicle bone. 3rdand 4th ribs were cut and right lung was protruding out. (3) Incisedwound 4 cm x 2 cm x cavity deep on the left side of abdomen. Omentum wasprotruding out of the wound. (4) Incisedwound 5 cm x 2 cm x cavity deep on the right side of abdomen. Small intestinewas protruding out. (5) Incisedwound 1 cm x 1/3 cm x 1/3 cm on left thigh. On internalexamination, right lung of the deceased was found cut. Pleural cavity was foundfilled with blood. Ascending portion of large intestine was also cut. Theclothes of deceased had also cut marks at the place where the wounds were foundon the body of deceased. In the opinion of doctor, the cause of death wassyncope due to external ante-mortem injuries. His post-mortem report (Exh.P-24) was written and signed by him and Dr. Rekha Tripathi." Thus, it wasestablished that all the aforesaid deceased persons died of homicidal deathbecause of injuries received by them. 23. Now thequestion before us is whether accused, viz., Gudda @ Dwarikendra committedmurder of deceased persons and whether Smt. Geeta Vishwakarma conspired withhim for the commission of the said offence ? 24.Prosecution examined Subhadra Jaiswal (P.W. 5), Smt. Munni (P.W. 7) andBhuribai (P.W. 8) as eye-witnesses of the incident. 25. SubhadraJaiswal (P.W. 5) deposed that accused Gudda @ Dwarikendra was tenant in herhouse. Since deceased Sunil Gupta, his wife Smt. Pushpa Gupta and son Gauravused to come to the house of accused, she knew them. In the morning, she hadgone to fetch vegetables. At about 11 o'clock , when she came back and was sitting in her house, she heard shrieksfrom the staircase of her house. She rushed to the passage and saw deceasedSunil Gupta coming down from the stairs. Accused Gudda came with a knife in hishand and started assaulting him. She asked Gudda to refrain from assaultingSunil, but he asked her not to intervene. She rushed to the passage and saw deceasedSunil Gupta coming down from the stairs. Accused Gudda came with a knife in hishand and started assaulting him. She asked Gudda to refrain from assaultingSunil, but he asked her not to intervene. She remained shouting in the passageand Gudda continued to assault Sunil and his wife with knife. Gudda went nearGaurav, who was standing in the passage, and started assaulting him also withthe knife. She made desparate efforts to stop Gudda, but he did not yield toher request and continued to stab Gaurav also. She grabbed Gaurav and ran outof the house. Leaving Gaurav there, she went to the house of mother-in-law ofGudda, who resided in the neighbourhood and informed about the occurrence.Mother-in-law of Gudda also reached at the spot, but by the time Sunil, Pushpaand Gaurav had died. Gudda had run away in his motorcycle. She deposed thatPushpa was carrying pregnancy of about 5-6 months. 26. Smt.Munni (P.W. 7) was also a tenant in the house of Subhadra Jaiswal (P.W. 5).According to her, when she was in her house at about 12 o'clock , she heard something falling from the stairs andcries. She went at her door and saw accused Dwarikendra assaulting Sunil Guptaand his wife Pushpa Gupta with knife. Thereafter, he also assaulted Gaurav withknife. Though Subhadra tried to save the victims, but accused continued toassault them and went away on his motorcycle. Accused Geeta, at that time, wassitting at the stairs. 27. Anothereye-witnesses Bhuribai (P.W. 8) did not support the prosecution case as aneye-witness, but stated that hearing the hue and cry when she came out of herhouse, she saw a mob and a Gupta boy lying on the ground. According to her, herneighbour was shouting that he was killed by Gudda. 28. Lale @lal Singh (P.W. 9), who knew the deceased persons, deposed that at the time ofincident he had come to visit the house of Tiwari Ji, who resided nearby theplace where the incident occurred. At 11.45 a.m. , when he happened to reach near the place of occurrence, he heardSubhadra Jaiswal shouting from her house "Bachao Bachao Maar Dala "and dragging out Gaurav in front of the door of her house. As soon as she leftthe child, he died. When he reached near Gaurav, he saw that there wereinjuries on his abdomen and his intestines were protruding out. As soon as she leftthe child, he died. When he reached near Gaurav, he saw that there wereinjuries on his abdomen and his intestines were protruding out. Immediatelythereafter, Gudda came out with a knife in his hand extending threats that ifany body tried to stop him, he would not be spared. He boarded motorcycle andwent away. He went inside the passage of Subhadra and saw Sunil and his wifelying dead. At that time accused Geeta was sitting on the stairs. There wereinjuries on the bodies of deceased persons. He stated that when he askedaccused Geeta that she and Sunil were teachers in the same school, then how ithappened, Geeta told that Sunil kept her as his wife, but her husband did notlike that. She also told that on telephone Sunil with his family was invitedfor lunch. Thereafter, there occurred quarrel. He further stated that Geetatold to him that her husband killed all the three persons by knife. 29.Similarly, Dinesh Singh (P.W. 18) deposed that when he and Lale Singh werecoming out from the house of Sunil Tiwari, he heard Subhadra shouting. A youngboy was lying out side the house of Subhadra. Intestines of boy had come out.In the meantime, accused Gudda came out of his house with a knife and extendedthreats that nobody should come near him, otherwise he will have the same fate.In the passage of the house of Subhadra, Gupta Ji and his wife were lying deadand there was all blood at the spot. Accused Geeta Vishwakarma was sitting atthe stairs of the house and weeping. She told that Gudda killed them. 30. Thoughthe aforesaid witnesses were cross-examined at length, but nothing materialcould be elicited out, which could have rendered their presence at the spotdoubtful. Minor omissions were found in the evidence of Subhadra Jaiswal (P.W.5), but they did not go to the extent of affecting her credibility. Herpresence at the place of occurrence was natural. She was landlady of the house.Gudda and his wife were residing on the first floor of her house, whichconsisted of one room. The approach to the room was through the stairs goingfrom the passage (Galiyara) of the house of Subhadra Jaiswal. Incross-examination, Subhadra Jaiswal clearly stated that she knew deceased Sunilonly since accused Gudda came as a tenant in her house and because Sunil andhis wife used to visit his house. The approach to the room was through the stairs goingfrom the passage (Galiyara) of the house of Subhadra Jaiswal. Incross-examination, Subhadra Jaiswal clearly stated that she knew deceased Sunilonly since accused Gudda came as a tenant in her house and because Sunil andhis wife used to visit his house. Subhadra deposed that she did not ask Sunilwhy he used to visit the house of Gudda when Gudda was not there because Sunilused to give tuition to his children. This witness was cross-examined at lengthon the point that deceased Sunil attempted to outrage modesty of accused Geetaand, therefore, accused Gudda tried to protect his wife, but she expressedignorance. It appears quite natural because the incident is said to have begunon the first floor while this witness was present in her house on the groundfloor. Learned Counsel for the accused drew our attention to Paragraph 19 ofthe cross-examination of Subhadra Jaiswal wherein she admitted that when shefirst saw, she found Sunil and Pushpa lying injured below the stairs, but wefind that she remained firm in saying that she saw accused assaulting Sunil andPushpa with knife. She categorically stated that she caught the hands ofinjured Gaurav and took him out of the house. Merely on the basis of one straysentence whole of the evidence of a witness cannot be discarded if it otherwiseappears reliable. The evidence of Subhadra Jaiswal (P.W. 5) finds ample supportfrom the evidence of Smt. Munni (P.W. 7), who categorically stated that she sawaccused assaulting Sunil, his wife Pushpa and son Gaurav with knife and thatthe landlady Subhadra had come at the spot and tried to snatch knife from Guddawith a view to save Gaurav. She also stated that Gudda ran away on hismotorcycle and accused Geeta remained sitting on the stairs. She firmly deniedthe suggestion that she did not see the Maar-Peet of deceased persons and onlysaw them lying injured. Merely because she did not inform the police, it cannotbe said that she was not a reliable witness. 31. ThoughSmt. Bhuribai (P.W. 8) did not support the prosecution case, still she admittedthat Subhadra went in the passage of her house and loudly shouted "GuddaMat Maar - Gudda Mat Maar". 32. Merely because she did not inform the police, it cannotbe said that she was not a reliable witness. 31. ThoughSmt. Bhuribai (P.W. 8) did not support the prosecution case, still she admittedthat Subhadra went in the passage of her house and loudly shouted "GuddaMat Maar - Gudda Mat Maar". 32. Theevidence of Subhadra Jaiswal (P.W. 5) and Smt. Munni (P.W. 7) finds furthersupport from the evidence of Lale @ lal Singh (P.W. 9) and Dinesh Singh (P.W.1-8), who saw accused Gudda coming out of her house with a knife and runningaway on a motorcycle extending threats. Lale @ lal Singh (P.W. 9) clearlystated that as soon as he reached near the place of incident, he saw Subhadrashouting and dragging Gaurav out of her door. The evidence of Ramesh PrasadGupta (P.W.4) and Narendra Kumar Jaiswal (P.W. 15), who reached at the place ofoccurrence immediately after the occurrence, that Subhadra, Munni and otherpersons at the spot told to them that Gudda Vishwakarma ran away after killingthe deceased persons is also relevant under Section 6 of the Evidence Act andgives support to the prosecution version that accused Gudda killed the deceasedpersons. 33. Apartfrom the above evidence, the evidence of Subhadra Jaiswal (P.W. 5) and Smt.Munni (P.W. 7) was further corroborated from the evidence of Dr. S.K. Jain(P.W. 16) and Dr. Rekha Tripathi (P.W. 14), who conducted the post-mortemexamination of the bodies of deceased persons. Dr. S.K. Jain (P.W. 16) foundten incised injuries on the body of Sunil, five incised injuries on the body ofPushpa and four incised injuries on the body of child Gaurav. These injuriescould have been caused by a weapon like knife. Investigating Officer VimalShrivastava (P.W. 19), when arrested accused Gudda, seized a knife on hisinformation from a pit in sand near the bridge of river. The evidence of VimalShrivastava finds support from the evidence of Pushpraj Singh (P.W. 17), whocategorically stated that on the information given by accused a knife wasseized hidden in the sand near the bridge of river. 34. On aclose scrutiny with care and caution of the testimonies of the aforesaidwitnesses, we find it established that it was accused/appellant Gudda @Dwarikendra, who caused fatal injuries by knife to deceased Sunil Gupta, Smt.Pushpa Gupta and Gaurav, as a result of which they died at the spot. 35. 34. On aclose scrutiny with care and caution of the testimonies of the aforesaidwitnesses, we find it established that it was accused/appellant Gudda @Dwarikendra, who caused fatal injuries by knife to deceased Sunil Gupta, Smt.Pushpa Gupta and Gaurav, as a result of which they died at the spot. 35. The nextquestion before us would be whether accused Gudda acted in exercise of hisright of private defence for saving himself and his wife accused Geeta ?Whether deceased Sunil Gupta tried to outrage modesty of accused Geeta ? andwhether accused Geeta conspired with her husband Gudda @ Dwarikendra to commitmurder of deceased persons. The defence version, as appeared from the statementsof both the accused, given by them under Section 313 of the Cr.PC, was thatdeceased Sunil Gupta kept an evil eye on Geeta. Sunil and Geeta were working asteachers in Gayatri School . Sunil visited the house of accused in the absence ofaccused Gudda and asked Geeta to come to school in the morning, though therehad been holidays of the school and there was no work. Since he insisted her tocome to school, she disclosed this fact to her husband. On the date ofoccurrence, when accused Gudda was not at the house, Sunil Gupta along with hiswife and son came to her house and when his wife and son were at the roof, hetried to molest her inside the room. When she resisted, he whipped out a knifeand threatened her. In the meanwhile, her husband Gudda reached, there. When hetried to catch hold of Sunil, he tried to assault with knife, which hit Geetaat her knee. When Gudda tried to snatch the knife from Sunil, his wife 3nd soncame there to intervene and accidentally suffered injuries. According to accusedGeeta, had Gudda not come, Sunil would have ravished her or killed her. Herhusband Gudda tried to save her, but accidentally Pushpa and Gaurav gotinjured. 36. ThePrincipal of Gayatri Girls Higher Secondary School Brijmohan Tiwari (P.W. 11)stated that accused Geeta and deceased were teachers in the school. He deniedthat Geeta Vishwakarma made complaint that Sunil used to tease her or he evertried to go to her house in the absence of her husband. Herhusband Gudda tried to save her, but accidentally Pushpa and Gaurav gotinjured. 36. ThePrincipal of Gayatri Girls Higher Secondary School Brijmohan Tiwari (P.W. 11)stated that accused Geeta and deceased were teachers in the school. He deniedthat Geeta Vishwakarma made complaint that Sunil used to tease her or he evertried to go to her house in the absence of her husband. On the contrary, Lale @lal Singh (P.W. 9) deposed that when he asked Geeta at the spot as to why theincident occurred, she told that Sunil was keeping her as his wife, which wasnot liked by her husband and that he asked her to invite Sunil and his familyon lunch. Thereafter, the incident occurred and her husband killed all thethree persons. In cross-examination, this witness clarified that Geeta toldthat Sunil wanted her to be his wife and it was incorrect that he had keptGeeta as his wife. He was confronted with his police statement (Exh. D-3) whereinhe did not say that Sunil had kept her as his wife. It is true that it was notmentioned in the police statement that Sunil kept Gccta as his wife, but it wasnot an omission that Sunil wished her to be his wife as stated by him in thecross-examination. Complainant Ramesh Prasad Gupta (P.W. 4) stated that when heasked Subhadra Jaiswal and other persons, they told him that Gudda committedmurder because Sunil used to visit his house, but this fact was found missingin Dehati Nalishi (Exh. P-10) lodged by him. Though in Dchati Nalishi, in theconfronted portion B to B, it was mentioned that Subhadra Jaiswal and otherneighbours told to him that Gudda @ Dwarikendra committed murders of Sunil,Gaurav and Pushpa, as he suspected illicit relations between Sunil and hiswife, but this fact cannot be accepted, as it was not stated by the witness inthe Court and also by Subhadra Jaiswal (P.W. 5). From the evidence of MaheshGupta (P.W. 10), the father of deceased Sunil, it is revealed that Sunil toldto him that he, his wife and son were going to the house of accused Geeta onher invitation. This witness also reached at the spot as soon as he came toknow about the incident, but he did not say that anybody told to him that Sunilwas killed because of the suspicion of illicit relations between him andaccused Geeta. This witness also reached at the spot as soon as he came toknow about the incident, but he did not say that anybody told to him that Sunilwas killed because of the suspicion of illicit relations between him andaccused Geeta. So far as the fact that deceased Sunil informed him that he wasgoing to the house of accused persons on the invitation of lunch, it does notreveal that accused Geeta called him. There appears absolutely no evidence onrecord to indicate as to which of the or any of the accused invited deceasedpersons for lunch. An inference that accused Geeta invited deceased for lunchin conspiracy with accused Gudda cannot be drawn merely on the basis of evidenceof Laic @ lal Singh (P.W. 9) that Gudda asked her to invite the family ofdeceased on telephone. Even if, this fact is accepted, it cannot be held withcertainty that Geeta knew the design or the plan conceived by accused Gudda.Thus, there appears no sufficient and satisfactory evidence on record to holdthat accused Geeta conspired with her husband Gudda Vishwakarma in commissionof the offence. The finding of acquittal of accused Geeta recorded by the TrialCourt suffers with no infirmity and is accordingly affirmed. 37. As faras the question of exercise of right of private defence of the person ofaccused Gudda and/or of his wife Geeta is concerned, except the statements ofaccused persons under Section 313, Cr.PC, there is no other evidence on record.The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that in the absenceof any positive evidence by the prosecution, the statement of accused deservesto be accepted, since it is accused only who can reveal the genesis of theoccurrence. With due respect to learned Counsel for the appellant, we areunable to accept his submission. It is true that the incident began on thefirst floor of the house where deceased persons and the accused persons onlywere present, but, in such circumstances, the version put forth by the accusedpersons has to be tested on the anvil of probabilities and truthfulness. Itappears quite unnatural that the deceased Sunil in the presence of his wife andson, in the house of accused, would have dared to enter the room of accusedGeeta and commit a mischief with her, who happened to be a teacher in the sameschool in which he worked. Itappears quite unnatural that the deceased Sunil in the presence of his wife andson, in the house of accused, would have dared to enter the room of accusedGeeta and commit a mischief with her, who happened to be a teacher in the sameschool in which he worked. It is quite unnatural that Sunil, a teacher, wouldbe so desperate that he would molest Geeta even at her residence and on thepoint of knife. According to the statement of accused Gudda, when he came tohis house, wife and son of Sunil were sitting on the roof and his wife wascrying for help. It was only then he went inside the room and saw Sunilassaulting Geeta with knife. When he tried to intervene, Sunil attempted toattack him with the same knife. According to him, in the meanwhile Sunil's wifeand son intervened and tried to push him then he snatched the knife and savedhis wife, else Sunil would have ravished her. The version put forth by both theaccused persons appears absolutely unnatural, improbable and false. The injuryfound on the knee of accused Geeta could have been caused to her, when accusedGudda assaulted Sunil. Otherwise also, there appeared absolutely no reason foraccused Gudda to have caused ten injuries to Sunil, five injuries to his wifePushpa and four injuries to child Gaurav. It has been proved by Subhadra (P. W.5) and Smt. Munni (P.W. 7) that Gudda dealt knife blows to Sunil and Pushpa onthe stairs and stabbed Gaurav down the stairs despite the requests made bySubhadra Jaiswal to not to assault Gaurav. The number and nature of injuriesfound on the body of deceased persons clearly indicate that these injuriescould not have been caused by accused in protecting accused Geeta or himself.Since accused Gudda put forth totally a false explanation, adverse inferencedeserves to be drawn against him. From the statement of accused Gudda, it can,I however, be inferred that he was annoyed by the insistence on the part of Sunilthat Geeta should go to school in the morning when there were holidays anddespite the fact that he told him on telephone that Geeta would not go toschool, he along with his wife and son went to his house. 38. 38. In the abovecircumstances, in our considered opinion, the explanation given by accusedGudda was not acceptable and it was proved beyond doubt that for the reasonsbest known to him he brutally stabbed Sunil, Pushpa and their son Gaurav withintention to cause their death. We thus find that the Court below consideredthe evidence, oral and documentary on record, in proper perspective and rightlyrecorded the finding of conviction of accused/appellant Gudda under Section 302of the IPC. Accordingly, the finding of conviction of appellant Gudda @Dwarikendra under Section 302 recorded by the Trial Court is hereby affirmed. 39. Now thequestion before us is whether the death sentence awarded to accused/appellantGudda @ Dwarikendra by the Trial Court is justified ? Learned Counsel for theappellant submitted that appellant is a young man of about 35 years of age. Heis a first offender. By profession he was an iron grill fabricator. There isnothing on record to indicate that he had a criminal background or he was amenace to society. It cannot be said that he is incapable of being reformed orrehabilitated to be a useful member of society. The incident must have occurredunder emotional imbalance, probably suspecting that deceased Sunil had illicitrelations with his wife. Probably once he indulged in assault on deceasedSunil, he lost his mental balance and could not control himself and in a ragecaused injuries to his wife and son also. Placing reliance on the ratio ofState of Maharashtra Vs. Goraksha Ambaji Adsul , AIR 2011 SC 2689 , he submitted that the deathpenalty should be awarded only in rarest of rare cases. Mere number of personskilled is not by itself a circumstance justifying the death sentence. 40. On theother hand, learned Counsel for the State submitted that the instant case fellwithin the ambit of rarest of rare cases as the accused for no reason killed aninnocent woman and a child of about 5 years of age brutally in addition toSunil. As many as ten stab injuries were caused to deceased Sunil, fiveinjuries were caused to his wife Pushpa and four stab injuries were caused totheir son Gaurav. Even if, there would have been some grievance against thedeceased Sunil, appellant Gudda had absolutely no reason to cause death ofPushpa and Gaurav. As many as ten stab injuries were caused to deceased Sunil, fiveinjuries were caused to his wife Pushpa and four stab injuries were caused totheir son Gaurav. Even if, there would have been some grievance against thedeceased Sunil, appellant Gudda had absolutely no reason to cause death ofPushpa and Gaurav. He was no desparate that despite the requests made bywitness Subhadra Jaiswal he did not spare even a child of 5 years of age.Instead of having any compunction, he put forth a false defence that deceasedSunil attempted to molest his wife. 41. TheConstitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in case of Bachan Singh Vs. Stateof Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 898 , observed that the Court is expected to keep in mindthe facts and circumstances of a case, the principles of law governing award ofsentence, the Legislative intent of special or general statute raised in thecase and the impact of awarding punishment.....The death penalty should beimposed in rarest of rare cases and that too for special reasons to berecorded. To put it simply, a death sentence is not a rule but an exception. 42. The ApexCourt in case of Machhi Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1983 SC 957 , approvedthe decision of Constitution Bench in the case of Bachan Singh (supra), andstated guidelines while considering the possibility of awarding the sentence ofdeath. It was stated that extreme penalty of death need not be inflicted exceptin gravest cases of extreme culpability. The circumstances of the 'offender' bealso taken into consideration along with the circumstances of the crime. Deathsentence must be imposed only when life imprisonment appears to be analtogether inadequate punishment having regard to the relevant circumstances ofthe crime. If the offence was committed under the influence of extreme mentalor emotional disturbance, there was probability that accused would notconstitute a continuing threat to society, there was probability that accusedcan be reformed and rehabilitated, the accused acted under duress or dominationof another person or that the condition of the accused showed that he wasmentally defective and the said defect impaired his capacity to appreciate thecriminality of his conduct, the death sentence should not be awarded. 43. In caseof Goraksha Arnbaji Adsul (supra), the Apex Court held that the case did not fall in category of'rarest of rare cases' where motive behind crime was dispute over agriculturalland/partition. 43. In caseof Goraksha Arnbaji Adsul (supra), the Apex Court held that the case did not fall in category of'rarest of rare cases' where motive behind crime was dispute over agriculturalland/partition. There were continuous quarrels with regard to division ofproperty.....By the passage of time pressure had increased and probably thefrustration attained limit of commission of a heinous crime by accused.Intensity of bitterness between the members of family had exacerbated thethoughts of revenge and retaliation in the accused. The constant nagging wouldhave have to be taken in mitigating circumstance in commission of crime. 44. The ApexCourt in Devendra Pal Singh Vs. State of NCT Delhi, (2002) 5 SCC 234 , culledout the principle that when collective conscience of the community is shocked,the death penalty can be awarded. It was observed that :- "Thecommunity may entertain such sentiment in the following circumstances :- (1) When themurder is committed in an extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting,or dastardly manner so as to arouse intense and extreme indignation of thecommunity. (2) When themurder 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 forgains of a person vis-a-vis whom the murderer us in a dominating position or ina position of trust; or murder is committed in the course for betrayal of themotherland. (3) Whenmurder of a member of a Scheduled Caste or minority community etc. is committednot for personal reasons but in circumstances which arouse social wrath, or incases of 'bride burning' or 'dowry deaths' or when murder is committed in orderto remarry for the sake of extracting dowry once again or to marry anotherwoman on account of infatuation. (4) When thecrime is enormous in proportion. For instance-when multiple murders, say of allor almost all the members of a family or a large number of persons of aparticular caste, community or locality, are committed. (5) When thevictim of murder is an innocent child, or a helpless woman or old or infirmperson or a person vis-a-vis whom the murderer is in a dominating position, ora public figure generally loved and respected by the community. (5) When thevictim of murder is an innocent child, or a helpless woman or old or infirmperson or a person vis-a-vis whom the murderer is in a dominating position, ora public figure generally loved and respected by the community. If upontaking an overall global view of all the circumstances in the light of theaforesaid proposition and taking into account the answers to the questionsposed by way of the test for the rarest or rare cases, the circumstances of thecase are such that death sentence is warranted, the Court would proceed to doso." 45. In caseof Rajbir Vs. State of Harydna, AIR2011 SC 568, the Apex Court mandated that death sentence should be awarded for barbaric crime againstwomen. 46. After asincere consideration of the factual matrix of the present case in the light ofthe aforesaid legal propositions laid down by the Apex Court , we find that the appellant Gudda had apparently noreason to commit the murder of three persons especially the murder of apregnant woman and an innocent child of five years. The appellant was under noduress or was provocated by any visible circumstance. His conduct in stabbingthe aforesaid three persons was so brutal, cruel, grotesque and diabolical andthe offence was committed in such dastardly manner that he deserved nosympathy, especially in view of the fact that he inflicted ten stab injuries toSunil, five stab injuries to Pushpa and four stab injuries to child Gaurav. Inthe facts and circumstances of the case, in our opinion, it would have beenfailure of justice in case death sentence was not awarded to accused/appellantGudda @ Dwarikendra as the case undoubtedly fell within the category of rarestof rare cases calling for the death penalty. In our opinion, Trial Court wasjustified in awarding death sentence to accused/appellant Gudda @ Dwarikendra. (i) For thereasons afore-recorded. Criminal Reference No. 3/2010 made by the Trial Courtis accepted. The death sentence awarded to accused Gudda @ Dwarikendra isaffirmed; (ii)Criminal Appeal No. 2246/2010 filed by the Gudda @ Dwarikendra is dismissed;and (iii)Criminal Appeal No. 1870/2011 filed by the State against the acquittal ofaccused Smt. Geeta Vishwakarma is dismissed.