ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL) Death Reference No.1 of 2011 and Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.331 of 2011 arise out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.03.2011 and 16.03.2011 respectively passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Banka in Sessions Trial No.408A of 1998 arising out of Belhar P.S. Case No.78 of 1997 dated 8.07.1997 by which Sabbir Mian @ Lutania Mian has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 396 of the I.P.C. and has been awarded death sentence. A reference has been made to the Patna High Court for the confirmation of the death sentence under Section 366 Cr.P.C. 2. Death Reference No.2 of 2011 and Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.140 of 2012 arise out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.12.2011 and 17.12.2011 respectively passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Banka in Sessions Trial No.355 of 2010 arising out of Belhar P.S. Case No.78 of 1997 dated 8.07.1997 by which Dehru Khaira @ Laiya @ Naiya has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 396 and 201 of the I.P.C. and has been awarded death sentence for the offence punishable under Section 396 of the I.P.C. No separate sentence has been awarded under Section 201 of the I.P.C. A reference has been made to the Patna High Court for the confirmation of the death sentence under Section 366 Cr.P.C. 3. Since all the cases arising out of Belhar P.S. Case No.78 of 1997, as such, all the cases have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 4. The prosecution case as disclosed from the written report is that on 7.07.1997 at about 6.30 P.M., five persons, namely, the informant Mrigendra Kumar Singh @ Pappu Singh, Biplav Kumar Singh (since deceased) and Ramjee Kumar Yadav on one Kawasaki Motorcycle and two on another Rajdoot Motorcycle, namely, Shishupal Singh and Shankar Kumar Singh (since deceased) were returning after making advance payment to Bishundeo and Johari Pandit for fish. At that very time, six unknown criminals variously armed with revolver, dagger, rod, chain, bow and arrow and bomb etc. were standing at Spillway Bridge near Badua Dam. The motorcyclist had to stop the vehicle because of the obstruction and at that very time these appellants and other criminals took away money, watch, ring etc. At that very time, six unknown criminals variously armed with revolver, dagger, rod, chain, bow and arrow and bomb etc. were standing at Spillway Bridge near Badua Dam. The motorcyclist had to stop the vehicle because of the obstruction and at that very time these appellants and other criminals took away money, watch, ring etc. from the possession of the informant and others. Thereafter, the accused persons tide their legs and hands on their back with the assistance of the Lungi of the informant. In the meantime, three more persons including Pankaj Bhagat (since deceased) with two of his relatives came on their scooter and they were also robbed of their belongings by the miscreants. Soon thereafter, a tractor of Saloni Murmu loaded with sand being driven by Sukar Pandit alongwith labourers Mahesh Pandit, Subhash Sao, Dasrath Pandit and Raj Kumar Sao arrived and those persons were also robbed of their belongings. At the behest of Sardar of the gang of the criminals several persons were thrown and pushed down into the water of Badua Dam one after another by tying their hands/arms behind their back, as a result thereof, seven persons died. Some of the persons, who were thrown in the dam namely, informant, Shishupal Singh and Ramjee Yadav anyhow managed to save themselves from drowning. They rushed to the nearby village Biji Khorwa and reported about the occurrence and police was informed at 2.00 A.M. on 8.07.1997 which was situated at 8 Kms. away from Spillway Bridge Badua Dam. Belhar P.S. Case No.78 of 1997 was lodged for the offence punishable under Sections 396 and 201 of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against eight accused persons including the appellants. Cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions where the charge was framed on 28.03.2006 in Sessions Trial No.408A of 1998 against the appellant Sabbir Mian @ Lutania Mian under Sections 396 and 201 of the I.P.C. and charge against the aforesaid sections have been framed against Dehru Khaira @ Laiya @ Naiya in Sessions Trial No.355 of 2010 on 22.04.2010 to which they denied and claimed to be tried. After the trial, the appellant Sabbir Mian @ Lotania Mian has been convicted under Section 396 of the I.P.C. and death sentence has been awarded. After the trial, the appellant Sabbir Mian @ Lotania Mian has been convicted under Section 396 of the I.P.C. and death sentence has been awarded. Similarly, after the trial, the appellant Dehru Khaira @ Laiya @ Naiya was held guilty under Section 396 and 201 of the I.P.C. for the dacoity with murder and disappearance of the evidence vide judgment dated 12.12.2011 passed in Sessions Trial No.355 of 2010 and after hearing on the question of sentence Dehru Khaira @ Laiya @ Naiya was awarded death sentence for the offence under Section 396 of the I.P.C. on 17.12.2011. No separate sentence has been awarded under Section 201 of the I.P.C. Original record of the case alongwith the judgment passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Banka was sent to the Patna High Court for reference under Section 366 Cr.P.C. for confirmation of death sentence. 5. In Sessions Trial No.408A of 1998, the prosecution has examined 11 witnesses to prove its case. They are namely, P.W.1 Mahesh Pandit, P.W.2 Raj Kumar Sah, P.W.3 Sukar Pandit, P.W.4 Dasrath Pandit, P.W.5 Shishupal, P.W.6 Subhash Sah, P.W.7 Ramji Yadav, P.W.8 Mrigendra Kumar Singh, P.W.9 Siyaram Singh, P.W.10 Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh and P.W.11 Subhash Chandra Srivastava. No evidence has been adduced on behalf of the accused appellant Sabbir Mian @ Lotania Mian. 6. The defence of the appellant Sabbir Mian @ Lotania Mian was of false implication at the behest of the police. Further defence was that on the basis of such scanty evidence on the means of identification there was no occasion for the Court to convict him. 7. This Court is required to see as to whether death reference is justified and judgment of conviction and sentence is correct or not and as to whether the prosecution has been able to prove the charge against the appellant Sabbir Mian beyond all reasonable doubts or not. 8. P.W.1 has stated that at the time of occurrence, he was going on tractor loaded with sand. When he reached at Spillway Badua Dam, he saw that criminals had thrown 5-6 persons in the dam after tying them. He did not identify the criminals, who had thrown them in the dam. He was relieved and the criminals went away. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he cannot say as to who had thrown to whom. 9. P.W.2 has also stated as P.W.1. He did not identify the criminals, who had thrown them in the dam. He was relieved and the criminals went away. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he cannot say as to who had thrown to whom. 9. P.W.2 has also stated as P.W.1. He has also stated that he did not recognize the accused. 10. P.Ws. 3 & 4 have stated that they do not know anything about the occurrence. They have been declared hostile. P.W.4 has further stated that he does not remember as to whether he has gone to jail for Test Identification Parade and had identified one of the accused or not. 11. P.W.5 has stated that on 7.07.1997 in the evening, he, Mrigendra Singh (P.W.8), Shankar Singh (since deceased), Ramji Singh and Biplav Kumar Singh (since deceased) had gone to Hanumana Dam by motorcycle to purchase fish. They reached at the Spillway Badua Dam about 6.30 P.M. About 7 persons stopped their motorcycle. They were armed with revolver, bow and arrow, bomb, dagger etc. They surrounded P.W.5 and others. They snatched Rs.1000/- and writ watch of P.W.5. The aforesaid criminals looted P.W.5 and others. He has further stated that criminals tied their hands and legs by tearing the Lungi of Ramji Singh. Thereafter, first of all, they threw Biplav Kumar Singh (since deceased) in the water of Spillway. Thereafter, Ramji Singh was thrown in the water. Thereafter, P.W.5 and others were thrown in the water by the aforesaid criminals. Prior to throwing them into the water, they were assaulted by the criminals. Thereafter, a tractor came there. Two persons came by a scooter. They were also looted by the criminals, who were also cutting their necks by an axe. Anyhow P.W.5, Mrigendra Singh (P.W.8) and Ramji Singh (P.W.7) came out from the water. Biplab Kumar Singh and Santosh Singh had drawn in the water. Mrigendra Singh went to village Biji Kharba and called some persons. From their cooperation, P.W.5 and others were taken out from the water. He has further stated that he has also gone to the Test Identification Parade. He identified four of the criminals including Sabbir Mian (appellant). He has further stated that at the time of occurrence Sabbir Mian was carrying bomb and had threatened him. In his cross-examination also, he has stated that he identified the accused Sabbir Mian. He has further stated that he has also gone to the Test Identification Parade. He identified four of the criminals including Sabbir Mian (appellant). He has further stated that at the time of occurrence Sabbir Mian was carrying bomb and had threatened him. In his cross-examination also, he has stated that he identified the accused Sabbir Mian. He has denied the suggestion of the accused that Lalan Babu is an Ex-M.L.A. and there was dispute during the election and his son was thrown by someone and the appellant has been falsely implicated. 12. P.W.6 has stated that at the time of occurrence, he was going by the tractor loaded with sand. He reached at the Dam and saw that criminals had tied some persons. They also tied him and others. He did not identify the accused. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he did not identify anyone except Safli Khaira. 13. P.W.7 has stated that on the date and time of occurrence, he and others had gone to the Badua Dam. They gave money to fisherman to purchase fish. He was riding on the motorcycle. Criminals stopped the motorcycle. Criminals were about eight in number. They tied him and his two companions. He has also stated that the criminals also tied the other persons, who had reached there. Altogether eleven persons were tied by the criminals. The criminals put Biplav Singh in the Spillway. In the meantime, a tractor came there. The criminals threw the occupants in the spillway He did not identify any criminals. 14. P.W.8 is the informant of the case and has stated that he had gone to the Dam with his four companions namely, Viplab Kumar Singh (since deceased), Shishupal Singh (P.W.5), Santosh Singh and Ramji Yadav (P.W.7). They were returning from Hanumana Dam. They came to bridge near the spillway. 5-6 criminals stopped them and they snatched their ring, writ watch, money whatsoever they were in possession. After snatching the articles from P.W.8 and others, they tied their hands and legs. In the meantime, 3 persons came on a scooter. They were also assaulted. Thereafter, a tractor came. The criminals also assaulted the occupants of the tractor. At the instance of one accused, all the five persons were thrown in water one by one. He has further stated that he came out from the water after about 2 hours. In the meantime, 3 persons came on a scooter. They were also assaulted. Thereafter, a tractor came. The criminals also assaulted the occupants of the tractor. At the instance of one accused, all the five persons were thrown in water one by one. He has further stated that he came out from the water after about 2 hours. At that time, no criminal was present there. He went to nearby village and sent some persons at the dam to take out the victims. Shishupal (P.W.5) and Ramji Yadav (P.W.7) were sitting on the wall of the pool. Thereafter, he went to Belhar police station by a vehicle and gave written information to the Belhar police station. He has identified the application, which was a photocopy and it has been marked as ‘Ext.X’ for identification. He has also stated that he participated in the Test Identification Parade and identified the criminals. He has also identified the accused Sabbir Mian in the court. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he did not see the accused prior to the occurrence. The accused (Sabbir Mian) was near him at the time of occurrence. He does not remember as to who was the Magistrate in the Test Identification Parade. He has denied the suggestion of the accused Sabbir Mian that no occurrence has taken place and he has been falsely implicated. 15. P.W.9 has stated that there was an occurrence of firing. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he does not know as to what had happened. 16. P.W.10 Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh was posted as Medical Officer at Jathaur Rajpur Hospital on 9.07.1997. He was one of the members of Medical Board, which was constituted to conduct examination of the deceased in the present case. Total number of deceased was seven. Medical Board was consisted of three doctors namely, Dr. Uday Shankar Bhagat, Dr. Vishwanath Prasad and himself (P.W.10). On 9.07.1997 the post-mortem examination was conducted by Dr. Vishwanath Prasad and the two doctors were as observers. (1) During the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Pankaj Kumar Bhagat, the following ante-mortem injuries were found :–– (a) Bruising 1” x 1” around the left ankle. (b) Fracture of Mandible on both side. (c) Whole body swollen. (d) Both hands were tied behind with piece of cloth appears to be Lungi. (1) During the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Pankaj Kumar Bhagat, the following ante-mortem injuries were found :–– (a) Bruising 1” x 1” around the left ankle. (b) Fracture of Mandible on both side. (c) Whole body swollen. (d) Both hands were tied behind with piece of cloth appears to be Lungi. (e) Cause of death – Asphyxia due to drowning and time since death was within 24 to 48 hours. Post-Mortem Examination Report has been marked as Ext.1. (2) During the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Shankar Kumar Singh, the following ante-mortem injuries were found:–– (a) Bruising 2” x 2” below left knee. (b) Abrasion two in numbers on the chin 2” x 1.1/2” (c) Body swollen. (d) Froth from mouth and nostril. (e) Generalized visceral congestion. (f) Stomach contains plenty of fluid and food material. (g) Both arms were tied behind with the piece of cloth appears to be Lungi. (h) Cause of death – Asphyxia due to drowning and time since death was within 24 to 48 hours. Post-Mortem Examination Report has been marked as Ext.1/A. (3) During the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Krishna Kumar, the following ante-mortem injuries were found :–– (a) Bruising 3” x 2” on the back in the inter scapular area. (b) Bruise 1” x 1” on the Dorsum of left forearm. (c) Whole body swollen. (d) Froth from mouth and nostril. (e) Trachea congested, generalized visceral congestion. (f) Stomach contains plenty of fluid (watery) with food material, both arms were tied behind with the piece of cloth behind the body just above the elbow appears to be Lungi. (g) Cause of death – Asphyxia due to drowning and time since death was within 24 to 48 hours. Post-Mortem Examination Report has been marked as Ext.1/B. (4) During the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Biplav Kumar Singh, the following ante-mortem injuries were found :–– (a) Lacerated wound ½” x ½” x D2 media sternum above the sternum. (b) Bruise 3” x 2” below the left ear. (c) Bruise 2” x 1” on the dorsum of the left hand. (d) Body swollen. (e) Froth from mouth and nostril. (f) Stomach contains plenty of fluid (watery) and food particles. (g) Generalized visceral congestion. (h) Both arms were tied behind body with the piece of cloth looking like Lungi. (b) Bruise 3” x 2” below the left ear. (c) Bruise 2” x 1” on the dorsum of the left hand. (d) Body swollen. (e) Froth from mouth and nostril. (f) Stomach contains plenty of fluid (watery) and food particles. (g) Generalized visceral congestion. (h) Both arms were tied behind body with the piece of cloth looking like Lungi. (i) Cause of death – Asphyxia due to ante-mortem drowning. (j) Time since death was within 24 to 48 hours. Post-Mortem Examination Report has been marked as Ext.1/C. (5) During the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Om Prakash Gupta, the following ante-mortem injuries were found :–– (1) Bruising 3” x 2” on the right part of the forehead. (2) Whole body swollen. (3) Froth from mouth and nostril. (4) Stomach contains plenty of water fluid with food. (5) Trachea congested. (6) Both arms were tied behind the body with the piece of cloth which appears to be a piece of Lungi. (7) Cause of death – Asphyxia due to drowning. (8) Time since death was within 24 to 48 hours. Post-Mortem Examination Report has been marked as Ext.1/E. (6) During the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Lalan Gupta, the following ante-mortem injuries were found :–– (1) Bruise 2” x 2” over left maxillary area. (2) Bruise 2” x 1” on right shin of tibia. (3) Whole body swollen. (4) Froth from mouth and nostril. (5) Stomach contains plenty of water fluid with food material. (6) Trachea congested. (7) Other viscera congested. (8) Both arms were tied behind the body with the piece of cloth which appears to be a piece of Lungi. (9) Cause of death – Asphyxia due to drowning. (10) Time since death was within 24 to 48 hours. Post-Mortem Examination Report has been marked as Ext.1/D. (7) During the post-mortem examination on the dead body of unknown person, the following ante-mortem injuries were found :–– (1) Incised wound 4” x 1.1/2” x 2” on the left Mandible region. (2) Fracture of Mandible both side. (3) Fracture of tibial condilar reason. (4) Abrasion 1” x 1” over the anterior aspect of the both knees. (5) Whole body swollen. (6) Froth from mouth and nostril. (7) Stomach contains plenty of water fluid with food. (8) Trachea congested with visceral congestion. (2) Fracture of Mandible both side. (3) Fracture of tibial condilar reason. (4) Abrasion 1” x 1” over the anterior aspect of the both knees. (5) Whole body swollen. (6) Froth from mouth and nostril. (7) Stomach contains plenty of water fluid with food. (8) Trachea congested with visceral congestion. (9) Both hands were tied behind the body with the piece of cloth which appears to be a piece of Lungi. (10) Cause of death – Asphyxia due to drowning. (11) Time since death was within 24 to 48 hours. Post-Mortem Examination Report has been marked as Ext.1/F. 17. P.W.11 is a Judicial Officer, who had conducted Test Identification Parade on 9.04.1997 of the suspected (1) Karu Khaira, (2) Jabir @ Langra, (3) Sabir Miya @ Lutania Miya and (4) Riyasat Miya in Sub-jail, Banka. Witness Dasrath Pandit (P.W.4) had identified only suspect Sabir Miya and said that he was throwing the person. He did not identify the remaining suspects. Witness Mahesh Pandit (P.W.1) identified the suspect Jabir @ Langra, Sabir Miya @ Lutania Miya and Riyasat Miya and said that they were throwing the person. Witness Subhash Sah (P.W.6) had not identified any one of the suspects. He has proved the Test identification chart as Ext.2. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he conducted the Test Identification Parade on 4.09.1997. This T.I.P. was conducted by him following the established principle. No signature of the person, who was present with suspect, was taken. He has stated that it is wrong to suggest that present T.I.P. chart was not prepared as per rules. 18. The learned counsel for the appellant Sabir Mian has submitted that there is contradiction with regard to time of occurrence. It has been further submitted that it is highly improbable that 10 persons have been thrown in the water of the Dam by 5-6 persons. There are discrepancies in holding the T.I.P. as one of the Magistrates, who conducted the T.I.P. was not examined. The I.O. and two doctors, who had held the post-mortem examination of seven dead persons, have not been examined. There are discrepancies in holding the T.I.P. as one of the Magistrates, who conducted the T.I.P. was not examined. The I.O. and two doctors, who had held the post-mortem examination of seven dead persons, have not been examined. He has further submitted that the learned trial court has failed to appreciate that the transaction of dacoity has ended, thereafter, another transaction have taken place of throwing the victims in the water in the Dam, as such, the appellant Sabir Mian should not have been convicted under Section 396 of the I.P.C. Lastly, he has submitted that it is not a fit case in which the capital punishment should be awarded to the appellant Sabir Mian. 19. The learned counsel for the State has submitted that innocence passerby have been looted and assaulted by the accused including the appellant Sabir Mian one after another and after looting their articles, they have been mercilessly thrown in the water one by one with intention to kill them. Seven persons have died in the water. They have been killed after commission of dacoity by throwing the victims in the water of the dam. Only 3 persons namely P.Ws. 5, 7 and 8 have survived due to their good luck. The accused including the appellant Sabir Mian has committed a heinous offence and the death punishment of the appellant Sabir Mian is justified and appropriate in the present case. As such, the punishment of death should be confirmed by this Court. 20. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the records, it appears that the accused including the appellant Sabir Mian has committed dacoity of the passerby who were crossing through that way in the evening on 7.07.1997. After looting their articles and assaulting the victims have been thrown in the water one by one after tying their hands and legs. The act of the accused including the appellant Sabir Mian is heinous in nature as they have looted the passerby and after tying their hands and legs have mercilessly thrown in the water of the dam for drowning them in the water. Out of them, only three have survived. They are P.Ws, 5, 7 and 8. The occurrence has been supported by the prosecution witnesses. P.Ws. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8 have supported the occurrence. Out of them, P.Ws. Out of them, only three have survived. They are P.Ws, 5, 7 and 8. The occurrence has been supported by the prosecution witnesses. P.Ws. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8 have supported the occurrence. Out of them, P.Ws. 1, 5, 6, 7 and 8 are the victims of the occurrence and they have supported the occurrence. P.Ws.5, 7 and 8 are the victims and have given the details about the occurrence. The appellant Sabir Mian has been identified by P.Ws. 5, 7 and 8. P.Ws. 5 and 8 had also participated in the T.I.P. and have identified the accused including the appellant Sabir Mian. P.W.11 was the Judicial Magistrate, who has conducted the T.I.P. and he has also stated that Dasrath Pandit (P.W.4), who has become hostile had also identified the appellant Sabir Mian and has said that he was throwing the person. P.W.1 Mahesh Pandit identified the other accused including this appellant Sabir Mian @ Lutania and had also said that they were throwing the person. The T.I.P. chart is Ext. 2. P.W.10 has stated that a Medical Board was constituted to conduct the post mortem examination on the dead body of the victim of this occurrence. Number of deceased was seven. The Medical Board was consisted of three doctors namely Dr. Uday Shankar Bhagat, Dr. Vishwanath Prasad and Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh (P.W.10). The post mortem examination was conducted by Dr. Vishwanath Prasad and the rest two P.W.10 and Dr. Uday Shankar Bhagat were present as observers. This witness has given the description about the injuries sustained to the victims of the occurrence. The post mortem examination report of the six named deceased and one known deceased are Exts. 1 to 1/F. The caused of death is asphyxia due to drowning. The details of which, has already been stated in earlier paragraphs while dealing with the evidence of P.W.10. 21. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, we find that the prosecution has been able to substantiate its charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 396 of the I.P.C. As such, we do not find any ground to interfere so far the conviction of the appellant Sabir Mian under Section 396 of the I.P.C. is concerned. 22. In the result, Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.331 of 2011 of Sabir Mian @ Lutonia Mia is dismissed. 23. 22. In the result, Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.331 of 2011 of Sabir Mian @ Lutonia Mia is dismissed. 23. So far the death reference is concerned, it will be dealt with alongwith the another death reference with respect to the appellant Dehri Khaira @ Naiya @ Naiya while dealing with the Death Reference no.2/2011. Death Reference Case No.2 of 2011 with Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.140 of 2012 (Dehri Khaira @ Laiya @ Naiya Vs. State of Bihar). 24. This appellant has been convicted under Sections 396 and 201 of the I.P.C. and has been awarded death sentence in Sessions Trial No.355 of 2010 as already stated above. This appellant was charged for the offence punishable under Sections 396 and 201 of the I.P.C. on 22.04.2010. 25. The learned counsel for the appellant Dehru Khaira @ Naiya @ Laiya has submitted that there is contradiction with regard to time of occurrence. It has been further submitted that it is highly improbable that 10 persons have been thrown in the water of the Dam by 5-6 persons. There are discrepancies in holding the T.I.P. as one of the Magistrates, who conducted the T.I.P. was not examined. Two doctors, who had held the post-mortem examination of seven dead persons, have not been examined. He has further submitted the learned trial court has failed to appreciate that the transaction of dacoity has ended. Thereafter another transaction have taken place of throwing the victims in the water in the Dam. As such, the appellant Dehru Khaira @ Naiya @ Laiya should not have been convicted under Sections 396 and 201 of the I.P.C. Lastly, he has submitted that it is not a fit case in which the capital punishment should be awarded to the appellant Dehru Khaira @ Naiya @ Laiya. 26. The learned counsel for the State has submitted that innocence passerby have been looted and assaulted by the accused including the appellant Dehru Khaira @ Naiya @ Laiya one after another and after looting their articles, they have been mercilessly thrown in the water one by one with intention to kill them. Seven persons have died in the water. They have been killed after commission of dacoity in the water of the dam. Out of the persons relieved from the belonging only 3 persons namely P.Ws. 6, 7 and 8 have survived due to their good luck. Seven persons have died in the water. They have been killed after commission of dacoity in the water of the dam. Out of the persons relieved from the belonging only 3 persons namely P.Ws. 6, 7 and 8 have survived due to their good luck. The accused including the appellant Dehru Khaira @ Naiya @ Laiya has committed a heinous offence and the death punishment of the appellant Dehru Khaira @ Naiya @ Laiya is justified and appropriate in the present case. As such, the punishment of death should be confirmed by this Court. 27. Now, this Court is required to reappraise the evidence and to see as to whether the prosecution has been able to substantiate its case beyond reasonable doubt and charges have been proved? Whether the award of death sentence is justified in the facts and circumstances of the case or not? The facts of the case have already been narrated above and as such, it is not required to repeat them. 28. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined 10 witnesses. They are namely, P.W.1 Sukar Pandit, P.W.2 Mahesh Pandit, P.W.3 Dasrath Pandit, P.W.4 Raj Kumar Sah, P.W.5 Subhash Sah, P.W.6 Mrigendra Kumar Singh, P.W.7 Ramji Yadav, P.W.8 Shishupal Singh, P.W.9 Dr. Uday Shankar Bhagat and P.W.10 Durga Prasad Singh. No defence evidence has been adduced. However, the defence of the appellant is that he is quite innocent and has committed no offence and has been falsely implicated by the police. 29. P.W.1 has stated that he has no knowledge about the occurrence. He has been declared hostile. 30. P.W.2 has stated that after loading sand on truck, he reached Badua Dam at about 6.00 P.M. 15-16 persons had tied legs and hands of some persons and laid them on the ground. Hands and the legs of P.W.2 was also tied and he was assaulted by them. He identified Jabir and Sabbir. He has also identified Dehru Khaira (appellant), who was armed with bomb. Safli Khaira was armed with pistol. He has identified Dehru Khaira in the court also. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he, Bibhash (not examined), Raj Kumar Shah (P.W.4), Mahesh Pandit (P.W.2), Dashrath Pandit (P.W.3) and Sukar Pandit (P.W.1) were sitting on the trailer of the tractor which was stopped by 5-6 criminals. Sukan Pandit (P.W.1) was the driver of the tractor. He has identified Dehru Khaira in the court also. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he, Bibhash (not examined), Raj Kumar Shah (P.W.4), Mahesh Pandit (P.W.2), Dashrath Pandit (P.W.3) and Sukar Pandit (P.W.1) were sitting on the trailer of the tractor which was stopped by 5-6 criminals. Sukan Pandit (P.W.1) was the driver of the tractor. The criminals assaulted them by climbing at the trailer. He did not identify the accused, who has assaulted him. In paragraph 11, he has stated that he saw Dahru Khaira armed with bomb in the light of tractor. 31. P.W.3 has stated that he was on the tractor and reached near the Badua Dam at about 6.00 P.M. Mahesh Pandit (P.W.2), Raj Kumar Sah (P.W.4), Subhash Sah (P.W.5) were also boarding on the tractor. Sukar Pandit (P.W.1) was its driver. When they came near the dam saw that there were 15-16 criminals. They had tied hands and legs of some persons. He clearly identified Dehru Khaira and Safli Khaira. Safli Khaira was armed with pistol and Dehru Khaira was armed with Chura and bomb. He has also identified Dehru Khaira in the court. In his cross-examination, he has also stated that Dehru Khaira was present at the place of occurrence. He had also seen the victims being thrown in the dam by the criminals. In paragraph 6, he has stated that Dehru Khaira (appellant) was armed with bomb and has assaulted him with fists. 32. P.W.4 has also stated that he was boarding on the tractor with other workers Mahesh Pandit, Dashrath Pandit, Subhash Sah. Sukar Pandit was the driver of the tractor. At about 6.00 P.M., they reached near the Badua Dam. 15-16 persons were armed with bow and arrow, dagger etc. They had tied legs and hands of 5-6 persons and placed on the ground. When P.W.4 and others reached there, they were also assaulted by them. He identified Safli and Dehru (appellant) among the criminals. Safli Khaira was armed with pistol. Dehru Khaira was armed with dagger. He has further stated that the criminals had thrown 5-6 persons in the water whose hands were tied on their back. They directed us not to disclose the occurrence and on this condition, he was released. He has identified the appellant Dehru Khaira in the court. In his cross-examination, he has stated that darkness has started. He has further stated that the criminals had thrown 5-6 persons in the water whose hands were tied on their back. They directed us not to disclose the occurrence and on this condition, he was released. He has identified the appellant Dehru Khaira in the court. In his cross-examination, he has stated that darkness has started. He saw the criminals in the light of the tractor. He has denied the suggestion of the defence that he did not identify any of the criminals due to darkness and Dehru Khaira was not armed with Chura among the group of criminals of 15-16 persons. 33. P.W.5 has stated that he was sitting on the tractor loaded with sand with other labourers. As soon as the tractor reached at Badua Dam, two persons stopped the tractor. The criminals were 15-16 in number. P.W.5 and others were assaulted by them. They asked not to disclose their identity, failing which, they would be killed. The criminals stopped them on the place of occurrence till 9.30 P.M. He has further stated that these criminals threw 5-6 persons in the Dam. He identified Safli Khaira and Dehru Khaira. Safli Khaira was armed with pistol and Dehru Khaira was armed with dagger. He has also identified Dehru Khaira (appellant) in the court. In his cross-examination, he has stated that Dehru Khaira has slapped him and others four labourers. Dehru Khaira had bomb in his left hand. The criminals were gossiping themselves from which he got information that they had already thrown some persons in the water and some persons have to be thrown. He was knowing Dehru Khaira by name. 34. P.W.6 is the informant of this case. He has stated that on 7.07.1997 he, Biplav Kumar (since deceased), Shishupal (P.W.8), Santosh Singh and four persons riding on two motorcycles from Biji Kharba to purchase fish on the occasion of marriage. While they were returning came to Hanumana Dam. There was one way for going to Dam which is called spillway. They were going through spillway. On this spillway criminals were standing armed with weapons. The criminals stopped both the motorcycles. The criminals looted their watch, cash, ring. Thereafter, they tied P.W.6 and his four companions on the back with piece of Lungi and the criminals threatened them to kill. In the meantime, 3 more persons riding on scooter came there. They were going through spillway. On this spillway criminals were standing armed with weapons. The criminals stopped both the motorcycles. The criminals looted their watch, cash, ring. Thereafter, they tied P.W.6 and his four companions on the back with piece of Lungi and the criminals threatened them to kill. In the meantime, 3 more persons riding on scooter came there. Out of them, he was knowing Pankaj Bhagat (since dead). The criminals asked all the persons to sit in the bridge. They also assaulted Pankaj Bhagat and his companions and looted them. In the meantime, a tractor came there. The occupants of the tractor were also assaulted. The hands and legs of Pankaj Bhagat and his companions were also tied. Thereafter, one of the criminals asked their companions to throw the victims of the occurrence in the water. First of all, they throw Biplav Kumar Singh in the water from the bridge. Thereafter, He (P.W.6) was thrown in the water. Again all the victims were thrown in the water one by one by the criminals. P.W.6 anyhow came in the contact of the pillar of the bridge. After some time, Ramji Yadav (P.W.7) also came out from the water. P.W.6 saved Shishupal (P.W.8) by extending his leg. All these persons untied their hands one after another and remained hide in the water for about two hours and came out from water on the western bank. At 12.00 P.M., he went to the police station by taking the lift of Kaushal Bhagat in his vehicle and informed the police. The police came to the place of occurrence. In the morning, Jhaggar was put in the dam and seven dead bodies were taken out one by one. He identified the dead bodies of Biplav Kumar Singh, Santosh Kumar Singh and Pankaj Bhagat. He could not identify four dead bodies. He has identified his written report (Ext.1). He has further stated that Dehru Khaira was armed with pistol and was threatening to kill and he was the leader of the gang and he had asked his gang-men to throw the victims in the water. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he cannot say as to how many labourers were boarding on the tractor. He has also identified Dehru Khaira in the Court also. He has also stated that he had participated in the Test Identification Parade and identified some criminals. 35. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he cannot say as to how many labourers were boarding on the tractor. He has also identified Dehru Khaira in the Court also. He has also stated that he had participated in the Test Identification Parade and identified some criminals. 35. P.W.7 has stated that at about 6.30 P.M. on 7.07.1997, he was going to Dam with five persons riding on two motorcycles. Shishupal Singh, Pappu Singh and Biplav Singh were also there. He was riding on the motorcycle, which was being driven by Biplav Kumar Singh. Pappu Singh was sitting in the middle and he was riding behind his back. When they reached at the bridge spillway he was stopped by 2-3 persons. In the meantime, another motorcycle also came there on which two persons were sitting. Again 2-3 criminals came there. Total 7-8 accused armed with pistol, iron chain, bow and arrow and iron rod came there. P.W.7 was bearing Lungi. One of the criminals untied his Lungi and at the point of pistol, tied hands of all the five persons on the back and they also tied their legs. In the meantime, 3 persons riding on a scooter came there. They were also assaulted and their articles were looted. In the meantime, a tractor loaded with sand came there. On query, the driver disclosed his name as Sukar Pandit and asked that it belongs to Saloni Murmu. He has further stated that Biplav Kumar Singh was thrown by two of the criminals in water below 30-40 feet. He (P.W.7) was also thrown in the water. Pappu Singh was also thrown. Shisupal Singh was also thrown. He has stated that altogether ten persons were thrown in the water. Two motorcycles and a scooter were also thrown in the water. The Kawasaki Motorcycle was taken by the criminals. He has further stated that he, Pappu Singh, Shishupal Singh came out from water. Shishupal Singh became senseless. He and Pappu Singh came out. He has further stated that anyhow Pappu Singh went to village Bijo Khorba and informed the villagers. 30-40 villagers came there with rope, Jhaggar, Patromax light. At about 2.00 A.M, P.W.7 was taken out from the water. In the morning, the police came there. Seven dead bodies were taken out from water. He and Pappu Singh came out. He has further stated that anyhow Pappu Singh went to village Bijo Khorba and informed the villagers. 30-40 villagers came there with rope, Jhaggar, Patromax light. At about 2.00 A.M, P.W.7 was taken out from the water. In the morning, the police came there. Seven dead bodies were taken out from water. He has identified the appellant Dehru Khaira, who was armed with pistol and was directing the co-accused to commit the offence. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he, Pappu @ Mrigendra Singh (P.W.6), Shishupal Singh (P.W.8), Viplab Singh (deceased) and one another altogether five persons had gone to the Dam to purchase fish. He has further stated that it was evening but not so dark. 36. P.W.8 has also supported the prosecution case as P.W.7. He has also identified the appellant Dehru Khaira. 37. P.W.9 has stated that on 9.07.1997 he was posted as Medical Officer, Sadar Hospital, Banka. A medical Board by the order of Civil Surgeon was constituted to conduct the post-mortem of dead bodies brought by constables. The Medical Board was headed by Dr. Vishwanath Pd., Deputy Superintendent, Banka and other members were Dr. Uday Shankar Bhagat and Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh. He has stated that they jointly conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead bodies. The post-mortem examination on the dead bodies of the following persons were held, (1) Pankaj Kumar Bhagat, (2) Shankar KumarSingh, (3) Krishna Kumar, (4) Biplav Kumar Singh (5) Om Prakash Gupta, (6) Lalan Gupta and (7) Unknown persons aged about 32 years. The Post-mortem examination report which has been written by Dr. Vishwanath Prasad, which has been identified and marked as Exts. P.W.9/(2), P.W.9/ (2a), P.W.9/ (2b), P.W.9/(2c), P.W.9/ (2d), P.W.9/ (2e) and P.W.9/(2f) respectively. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the post-mortem examination report does not show as to how bruise and abrasion were caused. Wound appeared on the dead bodies of deceased. The details of the findings of the post-mortem report has already been mentioned in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.331 of 2011 while discussing the evidence of P.W.10 Dr. Ashok Kumar Sinha in that case and as such it is not necessary to repeat the same discussion in this appeal as the post-mortems are the same. 38. P.W.10 is the Investigating Officer of this case. Appeal (D.B.) No.331 of 2011 while discussing the evidence of P.W.10 Dr. Ashok Kumar Sinha in that case and as such it is not necessary to repeat the same discussion in this appeal as the post-mortems are the same. 38. P.W.10 is the Investigating Officer of this case. He has stated that on 8.07.1997, he was posted as Officer-in-charge of Belhar Police Station. P.W.6 had given written information about the occurrence which was registered as Belhar P.S. Case No.78 of 1997 under Sections 396 and 201 of the I.P.C. and he himself took the investigation. The written report is Ext. (P.W.10/3). The formal FIR is also in his writing and signature which has been marked as Ext. P.W.10/4. He took the re-statement of the informant. Thereafter, he took the statement of Shishupal Singh (P.W.8). The place of occurrence is the spillway of Badua Dam on which a bridge was constructed. The place of occurrence is the eastern end of the dam. There is road on the spillway whose height is 150 feet and 9 feet wide. The depth is 60 feet in which at the time of occurrence depth of water was 30 feet. For the safety, there is railings in the spillway. During investigation, the motorcycle and scooter were taken out from water. Seven dead bodies were recovered, who were thrown in the water by the criminals. He prepared the inquest reports which have been marked as Exts. P.W.10/5, P.W.10/5A, P.W.10/5B, P.W.10/5C, P.W.10/5D, P.W.10/5E and P.W.10/5F. The seizure lists of motorcycle and the scooter were also prepared. The eye witnesses of the occurrence are Mrigendra Kumar Singh (P.W.6), Shishupal Singh (P.W.8), Ramji Yadav (P.W.7), Sukar Pandit (P.W.1), Subhash Sah (P.W.5), Mahesh Pandit (P.W.2), Raj Kumar (P.W.4) and Dashrath Pandit (P.W.3). They supported the prosecution case. During investigation on 12.07.1997, he went to Jhajha police station and accompanied by the Officer-in-charge and went to village Bela and raided the house of Dehru Khaira (appellant) and recovered the Bajaj motorcycle bearing Registration No.BR-1E-6084 from his house. A seizure list was prepared by the officer-in-charge, Jhajha police station in his presence, which has been marked as Ext. P.W.10/6. During investigation, it has come to notice that motorcycle belongs to Biplav Kumar (since deceased). The statements of the aforesaid witnesses were taken in the court under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and they had supported the prosecution case. A seizure list was prepared by the officer-in-charge, Jhajha police station in his presence, which has been marked as Ext. P.W.10/6. During investigation, it has come to notice that motorcycle belongs to Biplav Kumar (since deceased). The statements of the aforesaid witnesses were taken in the court under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and they had supported the prosecution case. The witnesses have stated that Dehru Khaira (appellant) was also involved in the case with criminals. After investigation, he submitted charge-sheet no.12/97. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the dead bodies were recovered in his presence. He has not stated that for how much time, he remained at the place of occurrence. The accused Dehru Khaira is also known as Dehru Laiya, son of Jago Khaira. After investigation, he submitted charge-sheet showing Safali Khaira, Karu Khaira, Sabbir Mian @ Lutania, Jabir Miya @ Langra, Riyasat Mian and Dehru Khaira as absconders. 39. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that P.Ws.2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 have supported the prosecution case. The ocular evidence has also been corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.9. P.W.10 (I.O.) has also stated that the aforesaid witnesses had supported the prosecution case before him. On careful consideration, we find that the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses is quite natural and convincing and their evidence has rightly been accepted by the learned trial court. 40. For the aforesaid reasons, we find that the prosecution has been able to substantiate its case also against this appellant Dehru Khaira beyond all reasonable doubts. We do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment so far as the conviction of the appellant is concerned. We do not find any merit in this appeal and it is dismissed. 41. After conviction of appellant Sabir Mian @ Lutania under Section 396 and the appellant Dehru Khaira @ Naiya @ Laiya guilty under Sections 396 and 201 of the I.P.C. both of them have been awarded death sentence by the learned trial court and the matter has been referred to the High Court for confirmation of the death sentence under Section 366 of the Cr.P.C. No separate sentence has been awarded to the appellant Dehru Khaira under Section 201 of the I.P.C. 42. In the opinion of the learned trial court, the appellants have committed brutal murder of seven innocent persons by making them helpless by tying up their hands and legs with rope of Lungi. The act of the accused was immediate provocation and in the opinion of the trial court, it was a fit case in which the convicts should be given the maximum sentence which may satisfy the society. 43. The extreme penalty of death has been considered in a number of cases and in the recent decision also, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the matter in case of Neel Kumar Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2012) 5 Supreme Court Cases 766 and has considered a number of cases on this point. It has been held in paragraph 32 of the judgment as follows : “The extreme penalty of death need not be inflicted except in gravest cases of extreme culpability. Before opting for the death penalty the circumstances of the offender also require to be taken into consideration along with the circumstances of the crime for the reason that life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is an exception. The penalty of death sentence may be warranted only in a case where the court comes to the conclusion that imposition of life imprisonment is totally inadequate having regard to the relevant circumstances of the crime. The balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances has to be drawn up and in doing so the mitigating circumstances have to be accorded full weightage and a just balance has to be struck between the aggravating and mitigating circumstances before the option is exercised”. 44. In the case of Neel Kumar Vs. State of Haryana (supra), a number of decisions have been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In case of Haresh Mohandas Rajput Vs. State of Maharastra, it has been observed in paragraph 34 which is as follows: “20. The rarest of the rare case comes when a convict would be a menace and threat to be harmonious and peaceful coexistence of the society. The crime may be heinous or brutal but may not be in the category of "the rarest of the rare case". The rarest of the rare case comes when a convict would be a menace and threat to be harmonious and peaceful coexistence of the society. The crime may be heinous or brutal but may not be in the category of "the rarest of the rare case". There must be no reason to believe that the accused cannot be reformed or rehabilitated and that he is likely to continue criminal acts of violence as would constitute a continuing threat to the society. The accused may be menace to the society and would continue to be so, threatening its peaceful and harmonious coexistence. The manner in which the crime is committed must be such that it may result in intense and extreme indignation of community and shock the collective conscience of the society. Where an accused does not act on any spur-of-the-moment provocation and indulges himself in a deliberately planned crime and meticulously executes it, the death sentence may be the most appropriate punishment for such a ghastly crime. The death sentence may be warranted where the victims are innocent children and helpless women. Thus, in case the crime is committed in a most cruel and inhuman manner which is an extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting and dastardly manner, where his act affects the entire moral fibre of the society e.g. crime committed for power or political ambition or indulging in organized criminal activities, death sentence should be awarded”. 45. Thus, it is evident that for awarding the death sentence, there must be existence of aggravating circumstances and the consequential absence of mitigating circumstances. As to whether death sentence should be awarded, would depend upon the factual scenario of the case in hand. The instant case is required to be examined in the light of the aforesaid settled legal propositions. 46. We find that there is no reason to disbelieve the above evidence and circumstances nor is there any reason to doubt the commission of offence by the appellants. So far as the sentence part is concerned, in view of the law referred to hereinabove, we are of the considered opinion that the case in hand does not fall within the rarest of rare cases. However, considering the nature of offence, the appellants cannot be awarded a lenient punishment. 47. In the case of Ramraj Vs. So far as the sentence part is concerned, in view of the law referred to hereinabove, we are of the considered opinion that the case in hand does not fall within the rarest of rare cases. However, considering the nature of offence, the appellants cannot be awarded a lenient punishment. 47. In the case of Ramraj Vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported in (2010) 1 SCC 573 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 842 : AIR 2010 SC 420 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court while setting aside the death sentence made a direction that the appellant therein would serve minimum period of 20 years including remissions earned and would not be released on completion of 14 years’ imprisonment. 48. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we set aside the death sentence and award life imprisonment to both the appellants. Both the appellants must serve a minimum of 20 years in jail excluding remissions earned and would not be released on completion of 14 years imprisonment. 49. In the result, both the references and both the appeals are disposed of.