JUDGMENT SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. These appeals and the reference arise out of a common judgment dated 25th of April, 2013 passed in Sessions Trial No. 16/2009 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli, District Bilaspur (C.G.). By the impugned judgment, the appellants/accused persons have been convicted and sentenced in the following manner with a direction to run the sentences concurrently : Conviction Sentence Appellant-Hariram (A-1) : u/S. 303, IPC Death sentence (in three counts) (Capital punishment) u/S. 201, IPC R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs. 500/- with default sentence of imprisonment for 3 months Appellant-Suresh Kumar Rai, Raju alias Rajesh Rai and Smt. Fansh Bai (A-2 to A-4) : u/Ss. 302/34, IPC Imprisonment for life (in three counts) and fine of Rs. 2,000/- with default sentence of imprisonment for 6 months. u/S. 201, IPC R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs. 500/- with default sentence of imprisonment for 3 months (Other sentences awarded to all the appellants A-1 to A-4) u/Ss. 307/34, IPC R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default sentence of imprisonment for 3 months u/Ss. 307/34, IPC R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default sentence of imprisonment for 3 months u/S. 449, IPC R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default sentence of imprisonment for 3 months u/S. 436, IPC R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default sentence of imprisonment for 3 months. 2. The Facts of the Case : 2.1 Three persons namely Naindas, Motilal and Dasoda Bai lost their lives in the incident which took place on 20-11-2008 at about 8.00 a.m. Two witnesses namely Umendram (P.W. 10) and Manisha (P.W. 11) got injured as their lives were also attempted. 2.2 Appellants (A-1 to A-4) and the deceased and injured persons were members of two branches of the same family. Appellant-Hariram (A-1) is father of appellants-Suresh Kumar (A-2) and Raju alias Rajesh (A-3), Appellant-Fansh Bai (A-4) is wife of Hariram (A-1). Deceased-Naindas was father of deceased-Motilal and Deceased-Dasoda Bai was wife of Motilal. The two injured witnesses namely Umendram (P.W. 10) and Manisha (P.W. 11) are son and daughter of deceased-Motilal. 2.3 The deceased(s) and accused persons were residing in two separate houses in village Chamari. Their houses were situated in close proximity. Deceased-Naindas was father of deceased-Motilal and Deceased-Dasoda Bai was wife of Motilal. The two injured witnesses namely Umendram (P.W. 10) and Manisha (P.W. 11) are son and daughter of deceased-Motilal. 2.3 The deceased(s) and accused persons were residing in two separate houses in village Chamari. Their houses were situated in close proximity. The case of the prosecution is that members of both the families were engaged in brokerage and there was a dispute among them regarding payment of brokerage money. On 20-11-2008 at about 8.00 a.m. the deceased persons were present in their house. The allegations are that the appellants came there having sword, tabbal, lathi and attacked over the deceased persons who sustained multiple serious injuries and succumbed to those injuries. When the children of Motilal tried to intervene, they were also attacked by the appellants (A-1 to A-4). They had also sustained serious injuries. There are allegations of attempting their lives. After the death of the deceased persons, kerosene was poured on the dead body of deceased-Naindas and his dead body and the house of the deceased persons were put to fire. Their entire house was burnt. The dead bodies of two deceased persons-Naindas and Motilal had sustained burn injuries. 2.4 Manisha (P.W. 11) lodged First Information Report (FIR Ex.P/51) and Merg intimations (Ex. P/52, P/53 and P/54). 2.5 The Investigating Officer reached to the place of occurrence, gave notices (Ex.P/36, P/37 & P/38) to the Panchas and prepared inquest(s) (Ex.P/33, P/34 & P/35) on the dead body of the deceased persons. A Panchnama (Ex.P/3) of the place of occurrence (house of the deceased persons) was prepared. The house of the deceased was found in burnt condition. Many articles were still burning. The dead body of Motilal (deceased) was found in the inner Verandah. The dead body of Naindas (deceased) was found in front of his house. It was in burnt condition. The cloths were burning. Huge amount of blood was spread below the dead body. The dead body of Dasoda Bai (deceased) was found at some distance in back portion of their house. Her bangles were found in broken condition at a distance of about 15 feet from the dead body. Huge amount of blood was spread in nearby area. Fire-brigade was called to extinguish the fire. Blood was seen in the way between houses of the accused and deceased party. Another Panchnama (Ex. Her bangles were found in broken condition at a distance of about 15 feet from the dead body. Huge amount of blood was spread in nearby area. Fire-brigade was called to extinguish the fire. Blood was seen in the way between houses of the accused and deceased party. Another Panchnama (Ex. P/31) of the house of the accused persons was also prepared. Their house was also found in burnt condition. 2.6 The dead bodies of the deceased persons were sent for post-mortem. The post-mortem examinations were conducted by Dr. Suresh Ratre (P.W. 3). He found following injuries on the dead bodies of the deceased persons : Deceased-Naindas : (i) Incised wound of 4 x 2 cm x muscle deep on left portion of face; (ii) Lacerated wound of 4 x 2 cm x muscle deep on left temporal region; (iii) Incised wound of 4 x 2 cm x bone deep on right portion of face; (iv) Lacerated wound of 4 x 2 cm x bone deep on right portion of face; (v) Lacerated wound of 5 x 1 cm x bone deep on right tempero-parietal region; (vi) There was fracture on the corresponding bone of tempero-parietal region; (viii) Burn injuries were found on face, chest, right thigh, left thigh, right knee, buttock and neck; and (viii) They were post-mortem (sic) burn injuries. He opined that the cause of death was injuries to the skull and the death was homicidal in nature. The post-mortem report is Ex-P/16. Deceased-Motilal : (i) Incised wound of 8 x 3 cm x muscle deep on right portion of face; (ii) Incised wound of 4 x 1 cm x skin deep on left portion of skull; (iii) Incised wound of 8 x 4 cm x bone deep on right portion of neck; (iv) Incised wound of 4?½ x 1 cm on right clavicle bone; (ii) There was a fracture on first cervical vertebrae; (vi) Incised wound of 3?½ x ?½ cm x skin deep on right forearm; and (vii) Incised wound of 5 x 1 cm x skin deep on right forearm. All the injuries were ante-mortem. Besides the above, burn injuries were also on the stomach, both forearms and entire face. Hair were completely burnt. These were post-mortem (sic) burn injuries. All the injuries were ante-mortem. Besides the above, burn injuries were also on the stomach, both forearms and entire face. Hair were completely burnt. These were post-mortem (sic) burn injuries. He opined that the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage on account of injury to the neck and the death was homicidal in nature. The post-mortem report is Ex. P/17. Deceased-Dasoda Bai : (i) Incised wound of 8 x 2?½ cm on left portion of face; (ii) Incised wound 10 x 4 cm x bone deep on left portion of face; (iii) Incised wound of 7 x 2 cm x bone deep on right portion of neck; (iv) Incised wound of 7 x 2 cm x bone deep on left clavicle region; (v) Incised wound of 19 x 2?½ cm x bone deep extending to the left ear-pinna on left portion of face; (vi) Incised wound of 3 x 1 cm on index finger of left forearm; (vii) Incised wound of 10 x 4 cm x skin deep on right palm; (viii) Incised wound of 10 x 4 cm x skin deep on lower portion of right elbow; and (ix) Upper and lower jaws were fractured. There was also a fracture on left clavicle bone. There was also fracture on middle finger of left forearm. All the injuries were ante-mortem, caused by hard and sharp object. The cause of death was haemorrhage and shock on account of injury to the neck and it was homicidal in nature. The post-mortem report is Ex. P/18. 2.7 Injured-Umendram (P.W. 10) and Manisha (P.W. 11) were also sent for their medical examination. They were also examined by Dr. Suresh Ratre (P.W. 3). He found following injuries on their persons : Injured-Umendram (P.W. 10) : (i) Incised wound on right forearm. Infact, the right forearm was chopped; (ii) Incised wound of 8 x ?½ cm x bone deep on right occipital and parietal regions; (iii) Incised wound of 4 x ?½ cm on left parietal region; (iv) Incised wound of 5 x ?½ cm on tempero-parietal region; (v) Incised wound of 10 x ?½ cm x bone deep on left elbow; and (vi) Incised wound of 8 x ?½ cm on left wrist. All the injuries were ante-mortem, caused by hard and sharp object. The injuries were grievous. He was referred to CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur. A fracture was confirmed on left ulna bone. All the injuries were ante-mortem, caused by hard and sharp object. The injuries were grievous. He was referred to CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur. A fracture was confirmed on left ulna bone. The X-ray report is Ex.P/50 and his MLC report is Ex. P/15. Injured Manisha (P.W 11) : (i) Incised wound of 4 x ?½ cm on middle portion of skull; (ii) Incised wound of 4 x ?½ cm x bone deep on right wrist; (iii) Incised wound of 5 x 1 cm on left thumb. She was in state of shock on account of above injuries. She was also referred to CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur. Her MLC report is Ex.P/214. 2.8 Accused persons were taken into custody and their discovery statements (Ex.P/1), P/2, P/3 & 2/4) were recorded under Section 37 of the Evidence Act and wooden portion of sword was seized from the possession of Hariram (A-1); tabbal was seized from the possession of Suresh Kumar (A-2); a lathi was seized from the possession of Raju alias Rajesh (A-3) and container of kerosene etc. was seized from the possession of Fansh Bai (A-4). The seizure memo(s) are Ex. P/5, P/6, P/7 & P/8. 2.9 The seized articles were sent for their chemical examination to Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), Raipur, from where reports (Ex. P/58 & P/59) were received. According to the FSL reports, blood stains were found on almost all the articles except the plain soil etc. Presence of kerosene was also confirmed in the mud substance. The blood stained articles were sent for their further examination to Serologist Laboratory and saree, blouse, shirt and baniyan of the deceased were found stained with human blood, however, the origin of the blood stains found on other articles could not be determined on account of disintegration. The serologist report is Ex. P/60. 2.10 The case of the prosecution was based on eye-witness account of Mehatra (P.W. 9), Umendram (P.W.10), Manisha (P.W.11), Rajeshwari (P.W.12), Amrika Bai (P.W. 17) and Patrika Bai (P.W. 18). The Sessions Judge relied on the testimonies of these witnesses and held that it was proved beyond all reasonable doubts that the appellants had attacked over the deceased & injured persons and had caused above injuries. Accused-Hariram (A-1) was a life-convict, therefore, they were liable for punishment as above. The appellants, thus, were convicted and sentenced as above. The Sessions Judge relied on the testimonies of these witnesses and held that it was proved beyond all reasonable doubts that the appellants had attacked over the deceased & injured persons and had caused above injuries. Accused-Hariram (A-1) was a life-convict, therefore, they were liable for punishment as above. The appellants, thus, were convicted and sentenced as above. 2.11 As the death sentence was awarded to Hariram (A-1), therefore, the learned Sessions Judge has submitted the matter for confirmation u/S. 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which is subject-matter of Criminal Reference No. 07 of 2013. Simultaneously, accused persons (A-1 to A-4) have also filed two Criminal Appeals challenging the conviction and sentences awarded to them being subject matters of Criminal Appeal Nos. 545 of 2013 and 628 of 2013. Therefore, all these matters are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. Submission on behalf of the Appellants: 3.1 The two injured eye-witnesses namely-Umendram (P.W. 10) and Manisha (P.W. 11) are son and daughter of deceased-Motilal, therefore, they are interested witnesses and their testimonies cannot be relied; 3.2 The testimonies of other eye-witnesses are also unreliable; 3.3 The accused persons had also sustained injuries which remained unexplained, thus, the case of the prosecution is doubtful; 3.4 The accused persons had inflicted injuries in right of private defence; 3.5 Section 303, IPC was struck down by the Supreme Court in Mithu v. State of Punjab and other Connected Matters, (1983) 2 SCC 277 : ( AIR 1983 SC 473 ) and the death sentence awarded u/S. 303, IPC cannot be sustained; and 3.6 Even otherwise, it was not a rarest of rare case, therefore, death sentence cannot be sustained. 4. Submission on behalf of the State : 4.1 The eye-witnesses are reliable. There is no material discrepancy in their evidence; 4.2 Their evidence is supported by the medical evidence; 4.3 Two eye-witnesses are injured; 4.4 Their evidence assumes importance; 4.5 The injury reports of the accused were not proved, moreover, those injuries were not serious injuries; 4.6 The accused party was aggressor. They attacked over the house of deceased party and after commission of murder, they put their house on fire and many houses of the vicinity came into lap of the fire and huge loss was caused to the village; 4.7 It was not a case of right of private defence exercised by the accused persons. They attacked over the house of deceased party and after commission of murder, they put their house on fire and many houses of the vicinity came into lap of the fire and huge loss was caused to the village; 4.7 It was not a case of right of private defence exercised by the accused persons. Firstly, they killed two male members (Naindas and Motilal) and thereafter they chased Dasoda Bai and brutally committed her murder, and 4.8 Even if the conviction was not possible u/S. 303, IPC it was a rarest of rare case and accused-Hariram (A-1) may be held guilty u/Ss. 302/34, IPC and looking to his individual role, the death sentence imposed upon him may be maintained. 5. We have heard Mr. Praveen Das for the State, Mrs. Indira Tripathi for accused-Hariram and Mr. Anoop Kumar Sharma for accused-Suresh Kumar, Raju alias Rajesh and Fansh Bai. 6. Interested Witnesses : 6.1 It has been held in catena of decisions that relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness. Nobody can claim that the relatives are to be treated as untruthful witnesses. If one claims like that, the reason has to be shown. A close relative of victim or the deceased cannot be simply characterized as an interested witness so as to discredit his evidence. He may be a natural witness of an offence. Thus, his evidence has to be scrutinized carefully. The Supreme Court held vide Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra, 2007 AIR SCW 1835 : (AIR 2007 SC (Supp) 100) that if on a careful scrutiny of a relative witness, his evidence is found to be intrinsically reliable, inherently probable or wholly trustworthy, conviction can be based on the sole testimony of such witness. But, close relationship of witness with the deceased or victim is not a ground to reject his evidence. (Also see Harbans Kaur v. State of Haryana, 2005 AIR SCW 2074 : ( AIR 2005 SC 2989 ); Sonelal v. State of M.P., 2008 AIR SCW 7988 : ( AIR 2009 SC 760 and Dharnidhar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and other connected appeals. (2010) 7 SCC 759 ) : (2010 AIR SCW 5685). (Also see Harbans Kaur v. State of Haryana, 2005 AIR SCW 2074 : ( AIR 2005 SC 2989 ); Sonelal v. State of M.P., 2008 AIR SCW 7988 : ( AIR 2009 SC 760 and Dharnidhar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and other connected appeals. (2010) 7 SCC 759 ) : (2010 AIR SCW 5685). Therefore, we cannot accept the argument that the testimonies of the two eye-witnesses (P.W. 10 and P.W. 11) cannot be relied on only on the ground that the deceased persons were grand-father, father and mother of these witnesses. However, we note that their evidence has to be scrutinized with due care and caution. 7. Manisha (P.W. 11) is daughter of Motilal (deceased). She deposed in clear words that her grand-father, father and mother were murdered by the accused persons. It was a day time incident of about 8.00 a.m. She was present in her house. Hariram (A.1) came there abusing them. Thereafter Suresh (A-2) and Raju alias Rajesh (A-3) came to their house and caught him and took him to his house. Then the three accused namely-Hariram (A-1), Suresh (A-2) and Raju (A-3) came to their house. Hariram (A-1) was armed with sword, Suresh (A-2) was armed with tabbal and Raju (A-3) was armed with lathi. They attacked over her grand-father. When she tried to intervene, Hariram (A-1) assaulted her by sword, Raju (A-2) assaulted her by tabbal. She had sustained injuries over her hands and skull. Thereafter the accused persons (A-1 to A-3) entered inside the premises of their house. They started assaulting Motilal (deceased). The accused persons then also assaulted her mother. She had sustained multiple serious injuries on account of their assault. When she along with her brother, Umendram (P.W. 10), tried to flee away, they were chased by the accused persons who had assaulted them. The right hand of her brother (P.W.10) was chopped. He had sustained other injuries also. Fansh Bai (A-4) then brought kerosene. Her grand-father was put to fire by them after pouring kerosene. They also burnt their house. Their entire house was burnt. She any how ran away to Damapur, where she was rescued and was taken to police station Mungeli, where she lodged merg intimation and FIR. 8. He had sustained other injuries also. Fansh Bai (A-4) then brought kerosene. Her grand-father was put to fire by them after pouring kerosene. They also burnt their house. Their entire house was burnt. She any how ran away to Damapur, where she was rescued and was taken to police station Mungeli, where she lodged merg intimation and FIR. 8. In cross-examination, in Para 17, suggestions were given to her Manisha (P.W. 11) that, in fact, the deceased persons had assaulted the accused, but she clearly denied those suggestions. She also denied the suggestions that they had gone to the house of the accused persons. The house of the accused persons was also burnt, therefore, a suggestion was given to her that, in fact, their house was burnt by the deceased persons which suggestion, she clearly denied. 9. Mrs. Tripathi has argued that the prosecution did not inquire as to how the house of the accused persons was burnt. She referred to the Panchnama (Ex. P/31) which shows that the house of the accused persons was also burnt. Except the above suggestions to Manisha (P.W. 11) there is no material on record to show that, in fact, the deceased persons had played any role in burning the house of the accused persons. If the map filed in the case is looked into, it would appear that the houses of the accused and the deceased persons were situated in close proximity. Not only the house of the deceased was completely burnt, but many surrounding houses in the locality also caught fire and a big area of the village was affected by fire and fire-brigade was called to extinguish the fire. In such situation, in absence of any material on record to show that the deceased persons or any member of their family had put the house of the accused on fire, a possibility of the fire catching the house of the accused in spread as it caught the other houses of the locality, cannot be fully ruled out. Moreover, the accused persons did not lodge any report that how their house was burnt. Even they did not offer any explanation. Only on account of the above situation, the evidence of Manisha (P.W. 11) cannot be held unreliable. We find no infirmity in her evidence. 10. Umendram (P.W. 10) is son of Motilal (deceased). He was aged about 18-19 years. Even they did not offer any explanation. Only on account of the above situation, the evidence of Manisha (P.W. 11) cannot be held unreliable. We find no infirmity in her evidence. 10. Umendram (P.W. 10) is son of Motilal (deceased). He was aged about 18-19 years. He deposed in clear words that Naindas, Motilal and Dasoda Bai (deceased persons) were murdered by Raju (A-3), Suresh (A-2) and Hariram (A-1). He was also assaulted by them by sword due to which his head was chopped. Fansh Bai (A-4) had put their house on fire. The accused persons had also assaulted his sister, Manisha (P.W. 11). It was argued that in cross-examination, in one line, he admitted that the incident took place in the house of Hariram (A-1). Thus, the deceased were aggressors and the accused persons were at the defending end. If we appreciate his evidence in light of the other material on record, the above casual admission does not make any difference. In the instant case, the incident took place in 3-4 parts. Firstly, the accused persons attacked over the deceased-Naindas who was present outside the house. When he was badly injured on account of their assault, he was left there and the accused persons (A-1 to A-3) entered inside the house, where they found Motilal (deceased). They attacked over him by sword, tabbal and lathi. He also sustained multiple serious injuries and then the two children and female member of the house, deceased-Dasoda was attacked by them. Dasoda had tried to run away from the house. She was chased to some distance and then, was assaulted by the accused persons (A-1 to A-3). Thus, the above one line admission that the incident took place in the house of Hariram (A-1), without any introduction as to about which incident the suggestion was made, would not affect the credibility of this witness. We further note that the Sessions Judge has observed that while asking the question in examination-in-chief, he used to become fickle and he was unsettled. The evidence of a witness is to be read as a whole. It is not that a part of evidence of a witness, in isolation, is to be taken out without any context of that. We further note that the Sessions Judge has observed that while asking the question in examination-in-chief, he used to become fickle and he was unsettled. The evidence of a witness is to be read as a whole. It is not that a part of evidence of a witness, in isolation, is to be taken out without any context of that. We are of the view that simply on above casual admission, it cannot be held that the incident had taken place in the house of Hariram (A-1) and then the further incident took place in consequence thereof. 11. Injured Witnesses : 11.1 The above two eye-witnesses had sustained serious injuries. In fact, their all family members were killed. They have taken the names of the accused persons who had assaulted three deceased persons and who also assaulted them. Where the witnesses to the occurrence were themselves been injured in the incident, the testimony of such witnesses is generally considered to be very reliable, as they are the witnesses who come with an in-built guarantee of their presence at the scene of the occurrence and are unlikely to spare their actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone. In law testimony of an injured is always given importance (Vide : Balraje alias Trimbak v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 6 SCC 673 : (2010 Cri LJ 3443) and Abdul Sayeed v. State of Madhya Pradesh connected matters, (2010) 10 SCC 259 ) : (2010 AIR SCW 5701). We have no reason to disbelieve the testimonies of the above two injured eye-witnesses. Their testimonies appear to be reliable. We are of the view that the Sessions Judge has rightly placed reliance on the evidence of these injured witnesses. 12. Other witnesses : 12.1 Mehatra (P.W. 9) was neighbour of the deceased persons. He deposed that on the fateful day, the accused (A-1 to A-3) came to the house of Motilal (deceased). They were abusing him. They were armed with sword, tabbal and lathi. Hariram (A-1) was armed with sword, Suresh (A-2) was armed with tabbal and Raju (A-3) was armed with lathi. They assaulted deceased-Naindas and Motilal who succumbed to the injuries sustained by them. Thereafter they chased deceased-Dasoda Bai. He immediately went to the police station. There he came to know that Dasoda was also murdered. Hariram (A-1) was armed with sword, Suresh (A-2) was armed with tabbal and Raju (A-3) was armed with lathi. They assaulted deceased-Naindas and Motilal who succumbed to the injuries sustained by them. Thereafter they chased deceased-Dasoda Bai. He immediately went to the police station. There he came to know that Dasoda was also murdered. He also came to know that Manisha (P.W. 11) had also sustained injuries and hand of Umendram (P.W. 10) was chopped. The house of Naindas and Motilal (deceased persons) was put to fire, even two calf had died. 12.2 Amrika Bai (P.W. 17) had also witnessed the incident. According to her, the three accused persons (A-1 to A-3) came to the house of deceased persons and killed Naindas. Thereafter they killed Motilal. Dasoda Bai was trying to flee away. The accused persons also killed her, and thereafter they put the house of the deceased on fire. Umendram and Manisha (P.W. 10 & P.W. 11) were also assaulted by the accused persons. Manisha (P.W. 11) had sustained injuries on her skull and hand and Umendram (P.W. 10) had sustained injuries on his hand. 12.3 Patrika Bai (P.W. 18) was also a neighbour. According to her, in the morning, accused-Hariram (A-1) came to the house of Naindas (deceased). He was asking for some money of the land. Hariram (A-1) was abusing Naindas. Then, accused-Suresh (A-2) and Raju (A-3) came there and took Hariram (A-1) with them. Thereafter all the three accused (A-1 to A-3) came to the house of Naindas and attacked over him by sword, tabbal and lathi. Hariram (A-1) was holding sword, Suresh (A-2) was holding tabbal and Raju (A-3) was holding lathi. After killing Naindas (deceased), they left him in the gali and entered in the courtyard of his house. They assaulted Motilal (deceased). He also died. Then, Fansh Bai (A-4) came there. She poured kerosene on Naindas and put him on fire. The accused persons also put the house of Naindas on fire. When Manisha (P.W. 11), Umendram (P.W. 10) and Dasoda Bai (deceased) tried to flee away, they were also assaulted by the accused persons. Dasoda Bai was killed in the badi of one Khellan. Umendram (P.W. 10) and Manisha (P.W. 11) were also assaulted there. Manisha (P.W. 11) thereafter ran away towards Damapur. When Manisha (P.W. 11), Umendram (P.W. 10) and Dasoda Bai (deceased) tried to flee away, they were also assaulted by the accused persons. Dasoda Bai was killed in the badi of one Khellan. Umendram (P.W. 10) and Manisha (P.W. 11) were also assaulted there. Manisha (P.W. 11) thereafter ran away towards Damapur. 12.4 These witnesses were put to cross-examination by the defence, but nothing material could be brought in their cross-examination, on which, either their testimonies may be discarded or it may be said that they were falsely implicating the accused persons. 13. In appreciation of evidence of these witnesses, we find uniformity in their evidence. The evidence of Manisha (P.W.11) is duly corroborated by the FIR. The evidence of eye-witnesses is further corroborated by the medical evidence and there is no discrepancy between them. 14. Injuries to the accused not explained: 14.1 So far as non-explanation of injury(s) caused to the accused are concerned, in State of Gujarat v. Bai Fatima, (1975) 2 SCC 7 : (1975 Cri LJ 1079) and in catena of decisions, it has been held by the Supreme Court that if it is shown that accused sustained injuries in the course of the occurrence, prosecution has duty to offer an explanation so as to satisfy the court about the circumstances under which the injuries were caused. If the prosecution fails to do so, it may mean that : (i) the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and development and truth of the occurrence and has not presented the true version; or (ii) The witnesses who denied the presence of such injuries are lying in regard to a material part of the occurrence and therefore cannot be believed; or (iii) The defense version which explains the injuries is rendered probable, so as to throw doubt on the truth of the prosecution case. These inferences may not be drawn if (a) the injuries are not serious; or (b) if the evidence as a whole is so cogent, clear, consistent, creditworthy that it outweighs the effect of omission on the part of prosecution witnesses to explain the injuries. 15. In the instant case, the three accused persons (A-1 to A-3) were sent for their examination vide memo(s) Ex. P/55, P/56 and P/57. 15. In the instant case, the three accused persons (A-1 to A-3) were sent for their examination vide memo(s) Ex. P/55, P/56 and P/57. It is mentioned on the overleaf of these requisitions that the accused persons (A-1 to A-3) had sustained some injuries, but the above injury reports were not proved. Except the injury of Suresh (A-2), the injuries of other accused persons were superficial injuries. Thus, the injuries were not serious injuries. If the witnesses, who saw the incident from some distance which took place in 3 parts, could not notice the above injuries on the persons of the accused, the entire evidence of these witnesses cannot be discarded. We have already examined the evidence of eye-witnesses. Their evidence as a whole is cogent, clear, consistent and creditworthy which, in our opinion, outweighs the facts of omission on the part of these witnesses to explain the injuries. We further note that none of the witnesses could get a chance to see accused persons face to face from such a short distance from which any prudent person would be able to notice such superficial injuries sustained by the accused persons. We are of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the above omission will make no difference to the prosecution case. 16. Right of Private Defence: 16.1 Section 96 of the IPC provides that nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence. Every person has a right, subject to the restrictions contained in section 99 to defend his own body, and the body of any other person, against any offence affecting the human body. Section 102 provides that the right of private defence of the body commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attempt or threat to commit the offence though the offence may not have been committed; and it continues as long as such apprehension of danger to the body continues. 16.2 In Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab, 2010 Cri LJ 1393 : ( AIR 2010 SC 1212 ) the Supreme Court held that the Court dealing with the plea of right of private defence has to weigh the material to conclude whether the plea is acceptable. It was said that it is essentially a finding of fact. 16.2 In Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab, 2010 Cri LJ 1393 : ( AIR 2010 SC 1212 ) the Supreme Court held that the Court dealing with the plea of right of private defence has to weigh the material to conclude whether the plea is acceptable. It was said that it is essentially a finding of fact. The Supreme Court enumerated the following principles relating to the right of private defence : (i) Self-perservation is the basic human instinct and is duly recognized by the criminal jurisprudence of all civilized countries. All free, democratic and civilized countries recognize the right of private defence within certain reasonable limits. (ii) The right of private defence is available only to one who is suddenly confronted with the necessity of averting an impending danger and not of self-creation. (iii) A mere reasonable apprehension is enough to put the right of self-defence into operation. In other words, it is not necessary that there should be an actual commission of the offence in order to give rise to the right of private defence. It is enough if the accused apprehended that such an offence is contemplated and it is likely to be committed if the right of private defence is not exercised. (iv) The right of private defence commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension arises and it is coterminous with the duration of such apprehension. (v) It is unrealistic to expect a person under assault to modulate his defence step by step with any arithmetical exactitude. (vi) In private defence the force used by the accused ought not to be wholly disproportionate or much greater than necessary for protection of the person or property. (viii) It is well settled that even if the accused does not plead self-defence, it is open to consider such a plea if the same arises from the material on record. (viii) The accused need not prove the existence of the right of private defence beyond reasonable doubt. (ix) The Indian Penal Code confers the right of private defence only when that unlawful or wrongful act is an offence. (x) A person who is in imminent and reasonable danger of losing his life or limb may in exercise of self defence inflict any harm even extending to death on his assailant either when the assault is attempted or directly threatened. 17. (x) A person who is in imminent and reasonable danger of losing his life or limb may in exercise of self defence inflict any harm even extending to death on his assailant either when the assault is attempted or directly threatened. 17. It was argued on behalf of all the accused that, in fact, the deceased persons had attacked over their house and when they conceived reasonable apprehension of danger to their bodies, they inflicted injuries to the deceased persons. The question is, whether in fact any such right has accrued in favour of the accused persons? The evidence on record would show that except the suggestion given to Manisha (P.W. 11) that the deceased persons had attacked over the house of the accused persons and deceased persons had burnt their house, there is no iota of evidence to show that even the accused persons had gone to their house or they did any such act, on which, the accused persons would conceive reasonable apprehension that they would exercise right of private defence. It was argued that the house of the accused persons was also burnt by the deceased persons. But there is no material to show that, in fact, the incident took place in the manner suggested by the accused persons. The dead body of deceased-Naindas was found in front of his house and the dead body of deceased-Motilal was found inside his house. The dead body of deceased-Dasoda Bai was found in the badi of her neighbour at some distance from her house. Thus, there was no evidence to show that either the deceased persons had gone to the house of the accused persons or they put their house on fire or did some overt act on which the accused persons conceived reasonable apprehension which gave rise to right of private defence. Though it is not required and the question can be looked into in appeal, but, in trial, the accused persons did not show even the probability that the incident of killing three deceased persons and attempting to lives of two injured persons took place on account of some overt act done by the deceased persons or injured persons due to which they had to exercise their right of private defence. 18. 18. As per Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, the burden is on the accused persons of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within any of the General Exceptions in the Indian Penal Code, or within any special exception or proviso contained in any other part and the Court shall presume the absence of such circumstance. Mrs. Tripathi has argued that while preparing Panchnama, the I.O. has found blood stains at various places from the house of the accused persons to the dead body of deceased-Naindas. This shows that Naindas had gone to the house of the accused persons and injuries were inflicted to him who ran away and fell down in front of his house and blood lining was found. This argument is completely hypothetical. There is no material to substantiate the said argument except that some blood lining was found. It is a case in which the accused persons had also sustained some injuries, therefore, nobody could say that the blood-stains found on the way were that of the deceased only. We have already held that it was not proved that any of the deceased persons had gone to the house of accused persons or had put the house of accused persons on fire. In fact, a casual argument has been advanced by the counsel for the appellants, which is not supported by the materials available on record. Thus, we are unable to accept the argument of right of private defence raised by the counsel for the appellants. 19. Conviction under Section 303, IPC and the case not being The Rarest of Rare Cases 19.1 Section 303, IPC was struck down by Five Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in Mithu and other Connected Matters ( AIR 1983 SC 473 ) (supra). It was held by the Supreme Court that Section 303, IPC violates the guarantee of equality contained in Article 14 as also the right conferred by Article 21 of the Constitution. The sentence of death described by Section 303, IPC for the offence of murder committed by a person who is sentenced of life imprisonment is arbitrary and oppressive. It was also observed that all the cases of murder would fall u/S. 302 of the IPC and there shall be no mandatory sentence of death for the offence of murder. 20. The sentence of death described by Section 303, IPC for the offence of murder committed by a person who is sentenced of life imprisonment is arbitrary and oppressive. It was also observed that all the cases of murder would fall u/S. 302 of the IPC and there shall be no mandatory sentence of death for the offence of murder. 20. In the instant case, the learned Sessions Judge has convicted only one accused, Hariram (A-1), u/S. 303, IPC on the sole ground that he was earlier convicted u/S. 302, IPC and the appeal against his conviction was pending. During the course of arguments, it was brought to our notice by counsel for appellant-Hariram (A-1) that the appeal filed by appellant-Hariram (A-1) in the High Court, vide Cr. A. No. 1850 of 1997, has already been disposed of and the appellant has been acquitted. The other appellants have been convicted u/Ss. 302/34, IPC. Thus, it is clear that according to the Sessions Judge, all the four accused persons had shared common intention to commit murder of the deceased persons, and the case of Hariram (A-1) was a special case only on the ground that he was a life-convict which would call for punishment u/S. 303, IPC and for this only, death punishment was awarded to him. Since Section 303 was already struck down, therefore, no punishment under this Section was possible and the judgment and order to this effect deserves to be set-aside. 21. Section 354, Cr. P.C. deals with language and contents of judgment. Sub-section (3) of Section 354 provides that when the conviction is for an offence punishable with death or, in the alternative, with imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of years, the judgment shall state the reasons for the sentence awarded, and, in the case of sentence of death, the special reasons for such sentence. 22. In Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab Connected Matters, (1980) 2 SCC 684 : (1980 Cri LJ 636) a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, in one line of that case, held that death sentence can be imposed in a very exceptional class of cases i.e. the rarest of rare cases. The Sessions Court has recorded only one special reason for awarding death, sentence to appellant-Hariram (A-1) i.e. he was a life-convict. Except the above no other special reason has been assigned for awarding death sentence to Hariram (A-1). The Sessions Court has recorded only one special reason for awarding death, sentence to appellant-Hariram (A-1) i.e. he was a life-convict. Except the above no other special reason has been assigned for awarding death sentence to Hariram (A-1). After the aforesaid judgment of Muthu ( AIR 1983 SC 473 ) (supra) the reason of being a life convict is not meaningful. Thus, if the said reason is kept out of consideration, even according to Sessions Court, the case of Hariram (A-1) would be similar to the case of other accused persons i.e. Suresh Kumar (A-2), Raju alias Rajesh (A-3) and Fansh Bai (A-4), who have been convicted u/Ss. 302/34, IPC. 23. Conclusions : 23.1 We do not confirm the death sentence imposed upon accused-Hariram (A-1). The criminal reference (Cr. Re. No. 07 of 2013) is disposed of in above terms. 23.2 Conviction and death sentence awarded to accused-Hariram (A-1) u/S. 303, IPC are set-aside. Instead thereof, he is convicted u/Ss. 302/34, IPC (in three counts) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- with default sentence of imprisonment for 6 months. Other sentences awarded to him are maintained. 23.3 Criminal Appeal No. 545 of 2013 filed by appellant-Hariram (A-1) is allowed to the extent indicated above. 24.4 Criminal Appeal No. 628 of 2013 filed by appellants-Suresh Kumar (A-2), Raju alias Rajesh (A-3) and Smt. Fansh Bai (A-4) is dismissed. Order accordingly.