JUDGMENT L. Narasimha Reddy, J. A tragedy of earth shaking magnitude took place in the family of Kasturi Siva Shankar Rao of Sangamjagarlamudi Village, Tenali Mandal, Guntur District, on 04.10.2011. The family comprised of Siva Shankar Rao; his mother Suseela; wife Siva Leela; their sons Siva Nageswara Rao and Srinivasa Rao; Anuradha, wife of Nageswara Rao, and their two minor children – Akhila and Sri Lakshmi, Subba Rao, his brother and sister-in-law - Lakshmi Kumari. Siva Shankar Rao was working as Mutha Worker in the local market. From about six months prior to the incident, he is said to have stopped the work. His son Siva Nageswara Rao was working on a lorry, as Cleaner, and thereafter, as Driver. One month prior to the incident, Siva Nageswara Rao – the accused, is said to have beaten his mother - PW.1, his wife – PW.2 and daughter – PW.3, with a grinding pestle and in relation to that, a complaint was given. He is said to be absconding since then. On 04.10.2011, at about 11.00 A.M., when Siva Leela – PW.1 was cleaning utensils in the house, and when Siva Shankar Rao was taking rest on a cot near the Hibiscus plant at the house of his brother, Subba Rao, loud sounds of Siva Shankar Rao and Suseela were said to have been heard, and then, she came out and found her husband lying on the cot with bleeding injuries. She is also said to have heard the loud sounds of her mother-in-law and Lakshmi Kumari, wife of Subba Rao and found both of them seriously injured. Her son, the accused was said to be armed with a big iron rod and chased her and when she reached the open place, where some people were playing cricket, he beat her on the head and in the meanwhile, the persons playing cricket intervened and nabbed him. Suseela and Lakshmi Kumari were said to have been shifted to hospital and that both of them died, while undergoing treatment. At about 1.30 P.M., PW.1 submitted a complaint before the Inspector of Police (Rural), Tenali, narrating the incident, that is said to have taken place on that day. Crime No.196 of 2011 was registered under Sections 302 and 307 I.P.C. The gruesome incident has naturally drawn the attention of the police and the local people alike. At about 1.30 P.M., PW.1 submitted a complaint before the Inspector of Police (Rural), Tenali, narrating the incident, that is said to have taken place on that day. Crime No.196 of 2011 was registered under Sections 302 and 307 I.P.C. The gruesome incident has naturally drawn the attention of the police and the local people alike. The scene of offence panchanama and inquests on the dead bodies were conducted and all the three corps were sent for post-mortem. The sole accused was apprehended and after completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed alleging that he committed the murder of his father, Siva Shanaka Rao - D.1, his grandmother, Suseela – D.2, and wife of his paternal uncle, Lakshmi Kumari – D.3, and that he attempted to commit the murder of his mother, Siva Leela - PW.1, on 04.10.2011. The trial Court framed necessary charges, in this behalf. The accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 20 and filed Exs.P.1 to P.29. M.Os.1 to 14 were taken on record. Through its judgment, dated 26.02.2013, the trial Court convicted the accused, of the offences alleged against him. By treating it as a rarest of the rare cases, the trial Court imposed death penalty, on the accused, under Section 302 I.P.C. Punishment of Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 10 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months, was imposed for the offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. The trial Court referred the case to this Court, under Section 366 of Cr.P.C., for confirmation of the death sentence. The accused, on the other hand, filed Crl.A.No.635 of 2013. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) advanced arguments to convince the Court to confirm the death sentence awarded by the trial Court. She contends that by any standard, this is a rarest of the rare cases, and that there exists every justification for imposition of death penalty on the accused. Learned APP submits that there was absolutely no justification or provocation whatever for the accused to have killed his father and two innocent women i.e. his grandmother and aunt. She contends that by any standard, this is a rarest of the rare cases, and that there exists every justification for imposition of death penalty on the accused. Learned APP submits that there was absolutely no justification or provocation whatever for the accused to have killed his father and two innocent women i.e. his grandmother and aunt. She contends that even if one takes into account, the gist of the cross-examination on behalf of the accused that his parents, D.1 and PW.1 have driven his wife – PW.2 to prostitution, he could have taken such steps as are open to him in law or to part ways with PW.2, but has committed the beastly act of killing as many as three inmates of the family. She further submits that but for the timely intervention of third parties, like PW.9, the accused would have killed his mother - PW.1 also and that his criminal conduct is evident from the fact that one month prior to the incident, he attacked PWs.1 to 3. Ms.VasudhaNagaraj, learned counsel for the accused-appellant, apart from opposing the plea of the learned APP for confirmation of the sentence, has also advanced arguments assailing the conviction and sentence ordered by the trial Court against the accused. She submits that the family of the accused comprising of the deceased, PWs.1 and 2 and others was virtually shattered and brought disrepute on account of the illegal and shameful activities of D.1 and PWs.1 and 2, taking advantage of the absence of the accused, when he went on duty. She contends that D.1 and PW.1 have encouraged PW.2 to prostitution, to such an extent that the people in the locality have driven the entire family out and even after the accused took steps to prevent it, by requiring his parents to live separately and asking PW.2 to reside in the house of her parents for sometime, the activity continued. She submits that PW.1, the mother of the accused, did not at all share the responsibility to maintain the family in a respectful manner, and in her attempt to justify her otherwise illegal activities, did not hesitate to send her son to gallows. She submits that PW.1, the mother of the accused, did not at all share the responsibility to maintain the family in a respectful manner, and in her attempt to justify her otherwise illegal activities, did not hesitate to send her son to gallows. Learned counsel further submits that PW.3, the daughter of accused and PW.2, is said to have witnessed the entire occurrence and according to her evidence, the alleged attack was only on D.1 and she did not make any mention about the attack on D.2 and D.3. She further submits that the statement made by PW.3 in the cross-examination that her father - accused used to like and look after her and her sister well, belies the allegations made by PWs.1 and 2. Learned counsel further submits that in the event of the Court coming to the conclusion that the murders of D.1 to D.3 and attempt to murder PW.1 was committed by the accused, the sentence of imprisonment for life can be imposed, than the sentence of death. She submits that the record discloses that the accused was suffering from epilepsy and viral fever at the relevant point of time and added to that, he was enraged on account of the nefarious activities of his father and mother in driving his wife into prostitution. It is indeed with a heavy heart that we had to handle this case. It presents shirking social dimensions. The accused is alleged to have committed the murder of his father, grandmother and wife of his paternal uncle, apart from attempting to commit the murder of his mother. Added to this, the principal witness, who wanted the accused to be sent to gallows, is none other than his mother – PW.1. One can easily imagine the reaction of anyone, who just happens to hear the episode. The last thing, which a mother would expect in her life would be the death of her child, whatever be the age. In the instant case, the son was not only married, but also was blessed with two female children. The incident was first reported by PW.1 to the police by submitting Ex.P.1. She gave a detailed account of the state of affairs that existed in the family and the wrath, they incurred from the accused. In the instant case, the son was not only married, but also was blessed with two female children. The incident was first reported by PW.1 to the police by submitting Ex.P.1. She gave a detailed account of the state of affairs that existed in the family and the wrath, they incurred from the accused. It was mentioned that D.1, who was a mutha worker stopped his activities for about six months prior to the incident, was remaining in the house. It was alleged that the accused used to suspect the fidelity of his wife, and in the process, he not only beat her on several occasions, but also harassed the other members of the family. It was stated that unable to bear the ill-treatment of the accused, his wife – PW.2, went to the house of her parents, together with the two minor children. PW.1, the mother of the accused, is said to have intended to bring PW.3, the elder daughter of accused, and in the context, mooted the proposal through PW.11, and that when he brought the proposal to the notice of the accused, the latter did not raise any objection. In the process, PW.3 is said to have been brought to the house of PW.1. One month before the incident, PW.3 is said to have fallen ill and PW.2 came from her parents’ house to see PW.3. On that day, the accused is said to have beat all the three with a pestle and that a case was registered. What happened on the day of occurrence i.e. on 04.10.2011 has already been mentioned in the preceding paragraphs. The causing of death of D.1 by accused is proved beyond any pale of doubt. It was spoken to by PW.3, a child witness, the daughter of the accused. She stated that when D.1 was taking rest on a cot near the Hibiscus tree, the accused beat him with M.O.1 on the head. The injury noticed on the dead body of D.1 corresponds to this. Nothing serious was elicited from PW.3 to doubt the statement made by her in the evidence. On the other hand, she was so truthful that despite the gruesome incident, she stated that the accused used to be fond of her and her sister and he used to spend time with them whenever he was at home. Nothing serious was elicited from PW.3 to doubt the statement made by her in the evidence. On the other hand, she was so truthful that despite the gruesome incident, she stated that the accused used to be fond of her and her sister and he used to spend time with them whenever he was at home. PW.1 cannot be said to be an eye-witness in respect of the killing of D.1 to D.3. Soon after hearing the noises, she went to the place where D.1 was sleeping, but found him with serious injuries already. Thereafter she is said to have gone to the place where her mother-in-law and co-sister, D.2 and D.3, were found with serious injuries. From the fact that the accused chased her, i.e. PW.1 and gave a blow on her head, she inferred that the injuries to D.2 and D.3 were caused by A.1 himself. There is every reason to believe it, since the person who has gone to the extent of killing his father and attempting to kill the mother, would not hesitate to do away with other persons, whom he feels that they are responsible for the shattering of his nuclear family. D.2 and D.3 were said to have been shifted to the hospital with serious injuries. However, no attempt was made to get their statements recorded, obviously because the time was too short, for that purpose. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW.1, at least in relation to injury caused to her by the accused. Whatever may be the tendency or propensity of an individual to implicate others for crimes committed against him or her, a mother would never implicate her son, going to the extent of stating falsehood. Added to that, PW.9, who was playing cricket in the open area abutting the house of PW.1, stated that when himself and others saw, the accused chasing PW.1, he jumped from the fence and nabbed the accused, but when the latter admonished by stating that it is none of his business, he left him out of fear. No motive can be suggested to this witness, to speak falsehood against the accused. The injury that was found on the body of D.1 also corresponded to M.O.1. So is the case with the injuries that were found on the persons of D.2 and D.3. No motive can be suggested to this witness, to speak falsehood against the accused. The injury that was found on the body of D.1 also corresponded to M.O.1. So is the case with the injuries that were found on the persons of D.2 and D.3. Though some of the witnesses who are mostly the neighbours, did not support the case of the prosecution, we are of the view that the evidence on record is sufficient to hold that the accused is the person, who caused the death of D.1 to D.3, and injuries to his mother -PW.1. To that extent, the finding recorded by the trial Court does not warrant interference. Now comes the more important aspect, the sentence. If a person is found to have committed the murder of three persons, including that of his father and attempted to kill his mother, it can certainly be a rarest of rare cases. However, here comes the relevancy and importance of the circumstances that prompted or have driven the accused to act in such a cruel and dastardly manner. Here itself, we add a caveat that a person does not have any justification to cause harm, much less to put to death another person whatever be the provocation. At the same time, the settled law is that the highest punishment of the death sentence, which brings the life of an accused to an end, can be imposed only when it is proved beyond any pale of doubt that such person committed the murder of another, in a pre-mediated manner and in the absence of any justification, or any provocation whatever, from the deceased. The principles of criminal law recognize the existence of a provocative factor as a circumstance either to mitigate the seriousness of the crime or even to absolve the person, who is otherwise found to have committed the crime, liable to be punished. Various exceptions carved out in Chapter IV of I.P.C. vouch for this. However, one cannot expect uniform standard in this behalf. Much would depend upon the nature of provocation and the immediate reaction. The conduct of an ordinary person needs to be taken into account. It is trite that the reaction must be commensurate with the provocation. Another aspect is that the victim in a crime may have done something without any intention to cause harm to the accused. Much would depend upon the nature of provocation and the immediate reaction. The conduct of an ordinary person needs to be taken into account. It is trite that the reaction must be commensurate with the provocation. Another aspect is that the victim in a crime may have done something without any intention to cause harm to the accused. However, if the latter feels the brunt or the consequences of such acts, they certainly become relevant, in the context of recording a finding against the accused or determining the sentence. Left to himself, the accused did not entertain any enmity with his parents, or for that matter D.2 and D.3. It was not even suggested that there were any property disputes or quarrels of any other type. The source of friction and disharmony between the accused and his parents was that the latter have driven his wife – PW.2 to prostitution. Being the accused in the case, he was not in a position to lead evidence in this behalf. However, if one takes into account, the nature of suggestions in the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses and the purport of the answers to some of them, the version of the accused cannot be brushed aside. In the extensive cross-examination of PW.1, it was suggested that, on one occasion, D.1 caught PW.2 red-handed when she was indulging in prostitution with a stranger and when he i.e. D-1 suspected that PW.1 and her co-sister – D.3, were encouraging it, both of them, gave a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to D.1 and with that amount, he was doing money lending business. The fact that D.1 stopped doing any work for about six months, adds strength to this. It was also suggested to PW.1 that on one occasion, the accused came to his house after a gap of about 20 days, that he slept in the varandah on account of power cut, and in the midnight, he found D.1 in compromising position with PW.2, the wife of accused. It was also suggested to PW.1 that on one occasion, the accused came to his house after a gap of about 20 days, that he slept in the varandah on account of power cut, and in the midnight, he found D.1 in compromising position with PW.2, the wife of accused. A reading of the evidence of PW.1 also discloses that frustrated and disgusted with the collusive acts of his parents, in driving his wife – PW.2, to prostitution, he has driven away PW.1 and D.1 from his house, but they started living in the first floor of the same premises on rent, and then he asked his wife PW.2 to remain in the house of her parents together with the children so that he can also shift his residence. PWs.1 and 2 tacitly admitted that they had to shift the residence from one locality on being objected by the neighbours. The patience of the accused can be said to have been put to test, when he heard that right in the first floor, the prostitution was being continued by PW.2 with the encouragement of PW.1. Though PW.1 stated that one month prior to the occurrence the deceased attacked herself, PW.2 and PW.3, the accused had a different version, as is evident from the purport of the cross-examination. According to him, he noticed the activity of prostitution on the first floor and when he went there, PW.1 resisted him with a pestle in one hand and chilli powder in the other, and once he was beaten, he took the pestle and chilli powder from PW.1 and gave a blow to her in retaliation. It was suggested that PW.3 – daughter, received a small injury in the process of quarrel with PW.1, but PW.2 did not receive any injuries at all. A suggestion was also made to PW.1 that the accused was suffering from epilepsy and other related diseases. If this background is taken into account, it is difficult to come to the conclusion that the accused caused the death of D.1 to D.3 and caused serious injury to his mother, just with an intention to accomplish his premeditated plans. The record also discloses that the entire family was being maintained by the accused particularly after D.1 stopped working. He naturally expected some respect for him and his family, for the arduous duties performed by him to maintain them. The record also discloses that the entire family was being maintained by the accused particularly after D.1 stopped working. He naturally expected some respect for him and his family, for the arduous duties performed by him to maintain them. The accused was affectionate in character, as is evident from the statement of PW.3. She stated that the accused used to spend his time with both the daughters and used to be affectionate and look after them, well. The Court, as any other human being, may be tempted to choose the option of imposing death sentence, if the number of deaths is more. However, what needs to be taken into account, is the mind set and the motive of the accused, in causing the death. Even if one death is caused, with a clear motive to kill an otherwise innocent person and for the pleasure or gain of the accused, the case can be treated as rarest of rare and death sentence can be imposed. If, on the other hand, the accused was driven to a distressful condition to such an extent that he lost control on him and was unmindful of what he was doing, and against whom, it may not be advisable to treat it as the rarest of rare cases, inviting death penalty. After a great deal of analysis of the facts of the case with reference to the record, and deep thought over the entire episode, we are unable to convince that hanging the accused or sending him to gallows, is only alternative. The accused no doubt committed the crimes alleged against him, but certain acts and omissions from the deceased, PW.1 and PW.2 contributed in making him to act in such a manner. Hence, the appeal is partly allowed upholding the conviction ordered by the trial Court against the accused, but modifying the sentence to be the one of imprisonment for life, and fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C., for causing the murder of D.1 to D.3, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month, in the place of death sentence imposed by the trial Court. We confirm the sentence for the offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. In view of the judgment rendered by us in the appeal, the reference stands answered, as indicated above. We confirm the sentence for the offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. In view of the judgment rendered by us in the appeal, the reference stands answered, as indicated above. To be precise, the death sentence imposed by the trial Court against the accused is not confirmed, and it is commuted to be the one of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1,000/- The miscellaneous petition filed in this appeal shall also stand disposed of.