JUDGMENT : V.N. Sinha, J. Instant Death Reference Cr. Appeal arise out of judgment of conviction, order of sentence dated 23/30.3.2015 passed by additional district Sessions Judge-1, Sheohar in Sessions Trial Case No. 58 of 2011, where under appellants herein have been convicted for the offence under Sections 302/149, 307/149, 436/149, 323/149 read with 120(B), 147 of the Penal Code, sentenced to suffer Capital punishment under Section 302/149 of the Penal Code, Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years with further direction to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each under Section 307/149 of the Penal Code, in default of payment of fine to suffer further imprisonment for a period of six months, Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years with further direction to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 436/149 of the Penal Code, in default of payment of fine to suffer further imprisonment for a period of six months, one year for the offence under Sections 323/149, 147 of the Penal Code respectively. Appellant Nos. 1, 2 have further been convicted for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act, sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for three years with direction to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer further imprisonment for three months. The sentences, however, have been directed to run concurrently. 2. Prosecution story, as set out in the fardbeyan of Subodh Kumar Yadav, son of late Siyaram Yadav, resident of Village Ramban, P.S. Shyampur, Bhataha, District- Sheohar, recorded by Jitendra Prasad, Officer-in-Charge, Piprahi Police Station on 22.05.2010 in Sub-Divisional Hospital, Sheohar at 7:00 A.M. is that on 21.05.2010 at 7:30 P.M. he was at the entrance door of his house situate in Village Ramban, was engaged in chit-chat with his family members. Meanwhile, three persons riding a motorcycle, number whereof is not known to the informant, suddenly came to his entrance door from eastern side, moving towards west. Out of the three motorcycle riders two were identified by the informant as Suresh Sahni, son of Gagan Sahni, resident of Kararia, Hamid Ansari, son of not known to the informant, resident of Gorhia Tola in the solar/generator light. Both were armed with carbine, swiftly came to the entrance door, resorted to indiscriminate firing causing through and through injury to his father. In presence of the informant his father succumbed to the injury. Both were armed with carbine, swiftly came to the entrance door, resorted to indiscriminate firing causing through and through injury to his father. In presence of the informant his father succumbed to the injury. At the same time Maoists, 60-70 in number not only approached, surrounded the house of the informant from eastern side but also attacked with fire-arm, bombs and other lethal weapons. One shot each caused injury to his brother Bhola Yadav, uncle Bhagwan Rai, Villager Manohar Thakur, all residents of Ramban, P.S. Shyampur Bhataha and riddled their body. Dead body of all the persons strewn around. The miscreants also cut the dead bodies into pieces which the informant could see in the generator/solar light. Amongst the miscreants, informant could identify Pankaj Singh, son of Sri Bijali Singh, resident of Ramban armed with double barrel gun, Binay Singh, son of late Ram Devi, resident of Ramban was identified firing from his rifle, Wali Mohammad, son of late Mazhar was also identified firing from the rifle, Birendra Sahni, son of not known to the informant, resident of Gorhia Tola within Shyampur Bhataha Police Station was seen with Petrol Container which was used for setting ablaze the house. Gagandeo Sahni, son of late Bhuali Sahni, resident of Gorhia Tola was identified firing from sophisticated A.K. 47, Ugan Ram, son of not known, resident of Village Benipur, P.S. Shyampur Bhataha was identified firing from gun. Santosh Kumar Sah, son of Shukdeo Sah, resident of Village- Gorhia Tola was seen cutting dead bodies into pieces with a sword. Bhagirath Sah, son of not known to the informant, resident of Village Rohua within Shyampur Police Station was seen sprinkling petrol on the house, jeep as also setting the two ablaze. Dinesh Das, son of not known to the informant, resident of Village Rohua was found wielding farsa. Suren Paswan, son of not known to the informant, resident of Village Rohua was seen carrying oil container, sprinkling oil and setting ablaze the house. All the extremists having formed an unlawful assembly with the help of weapons, cartridge, bomb and after sprinkling oil set ablaze the house and the vehicle. The dead bodies of the four deceased were riddled with bullets, cut into pieces. All the extremists while raising slogan were not only asking about the whereabouts of Subodh Rai but also resorted to indiscriminate firing. The dead bodies of the four deceased were riddled with bullets, cut into pieces. All the extremists while raising slogan were not only asking about the whereabouts of Subodh Rai but also resorted to indiscriminate firing. One of the shots first caused injury on the right hand of the informant and then hit his stomach, the wound began to ooze blood. Informant somehow showing courage bandaged the wound with the help of a towel, continued to see the occurrence. The entire belongings of the informant including that of all his family members i.e. clothes, boxes, saree, jewelry, were destroyed in the fire. The documents concerning the land, motorcycle, driving licence kept in a box were also destroyed in the fire. The wheat, maize kept in the bamboo storage in front of the house was also destroyed in the fire. Commander Jeep parked at the entrance door of the informant was also set ablaze. The entire family members of the informant as also his neighbours could not retaliate as fear prevailed. Aforesaid named and other(s) unknown extremist killed the father of the informant, his brother and uncle as also villager by firing shot on them, cut their dead bodies into pieces. The entire belongings of the informant including his house, vehicle was set ablaze after sprinkling petrol over the same. All the accused persons named in the fardbeyan as also unknown extremists let loose bloody violence at the house of the informant for 45 minutes. All the extremists after committing the occurrence raised slogan in the name of victory for Maoism and wished ill to the agents of the policemen, went towards south. After reaching Ramban Market, forcibly took Vishwar Thakur, son of Prabhu Thakur, resident of Ramban Bazaar, P.S. Shyampur Bhataha in a field nearby and cut him to pieces, threw his dead body. His house was also sprinkled with kerosene oil and set ablaze which was completely destroyed. Informant claimed in his fardbeyan that all the named extremists as also the unknown having planned the occurrence because they were aggrieved by the conduct in the Panchayat elections killed his father, brother, uncle and two villagers as also injured him. Informant also stated that his entire property, house, vehicle (Jeep), ornaments, utensil, papers were destroyed by sprinkling petrol, setting the same ablaze. Informant also stated that his entire property, house, vehicle (Jeep), ornaments, utensil, papers were destroyed by sprinkling petrol, setting the same ablaze. By raising the slogan in the name of Maoism, the miscreants have been able to establish a reign of terror. Informant not only read his fardbeyan but the same was also read over to him, he having found the contents correctly recorded, put his signature over the same. 3. Officer-in-Charge, Piparahi Police Station having recorded the fardbeyan forwarded the same to Officer-in-Charge Shyampur Bhataha Police Station for necessary action and on the basis of the fardbeyan Shyampur Bhataha P.S. Case No. 27/10 dated 22.05.2010 for the offences under Section 302 and other allied Sections of the Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act, Sections 3, 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, Section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act was registered by Sub Inspector Sri Ram Dubey of Shyampur Bhatahan Police Station on 22.05.2010 at 11:25 A.M. stating that he has already taken up the investigation of the case and thereafter forwarded the First Information Report to the court but from Column No. 15 of the First Information Report it does not appear as to when the same was sent to the court. The First Information Report was, however, received in the court on 24.05.2010. The inquest over the three dead bodies of Sri Bhagwan Rai, Bhola Kumar Rai alias Mukesh Rai and Siya Ram Rai found in the Sahan of the informant was conducted at the place of occurrence in the morning of 22.05.2010 at 7:40, 7:50 and 8:00 A.M. respectively in presence of Shambhu Rai, Santosh Rai, the two co-villagers of the informant. Inquest over the dead body of Manohar Thakur was also conducted on the same day at 8:15 A.M. Inquest over the dead body of Vishwar Thakur found in the Ramban Market was conducted on the same day at 8:30 A.M. in presence of M/s Ramroop Rai, Sudhir Kumar Singh, resident of Village Ramban. Perusal of the five Inquest Report (Exhibit-13 series) indicate that the four deceased were done to death by inflicting fire-arm injuries and the 5th deceased Vishwar Thakur was inflicted sharp cut injuries. Perusal of the five Inquest Report (Exhibit-13 series) indicate that the four deceased were done to death by inflicting fire-arm injuries and the 5th deceased Vishwar Thakur was inflicted sharp cut injuries. After inquest proceedings over the five dead bodies the dead bodies were sent for conducting post mortem to Sadar Hospital, Sitamarhi on 22.05.2010, post mortem was also conducted on the same day, as would appear from the five Post Mortem Reports (Exhibit-4 series). The Post Mortem Reports also confirm that the four deceased were done to death by inflicting fire-arm injuries, Vishwar Thakur was killed by inflicting sharp cut injuries. After dispatch of the dead body place of occurrence was inspected, incriminating materials like empty cartridge, blood soaked soil etc. were also seized from the place of occurrence vide seizure-list dated 22.05.2010 at 10:00, 11:00 A.M. vide Exhibits-9, 8. During investigation of the case materials suggesting that the accused persons were members of the extremist organization were also recovered and seized on different dates vide seizure-list (Exhibit-10, 12). 4. In the light of the fardbeyan statement, police statement of the witnesses as also the contents of the inquest, post mortem reports Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against the four persons put on trial keeping the investigating pending against the eight accused persons named in the fardbeyan as also 60 unknown. In the light of the charge-sheet cognizance was taken, after supply of police papers case was committed to the court of sessions. Trial court framed charge against the four accused persons under order dated 05.04.2011 to which the four accused persons pleaded not guilty, claimed to be tried. 5. In support of the charge prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. P.W. 1 Santosh Kumar @ Santosh Yadav is son of the deceased Bhagwan Rai, has witnessed Part-1 of the occurrence which took place at the door of the informant. P.Ws. 2 Dr. Santosh Kumar Verma is the Medical Officers, Sadar Hospital, Sitamarhi who examined the injury on the person of P.Ws. 7, 6 and one Kanchan Kumari. P.W. 3 Dr. Shakil Anjuman is the Medical Officer, Sadar Hospital, Sitamarhi, has conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of the five deceased. P.W. 4 Ashok Yadav is the brother of P.W. 1, is also a witness of the first part of the occurrence. 7, 6 and one Kanchan Kumari. P.W. 3 Dr. Shakil Anjuman is the Medical Officer, Sadar Hospital, Sitamarhi, has conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of the five deceased. P.W. 4 Ashok Yadav is the brother of P.W. 1, is also a witness of the first part of the occurrence. P.W. 5 Sanju Devi is a housewife, wife of deceased Vishwar Thakur who was done to death in the second part of the occurrence in a Shisham orchard near Ramban Market. P.W 6 Sumitra Devi is mother of Vishwar Thakur, both the ladies are the witnesses of the second part of the occurrence when their husband, son Vishwar Thakur was killed in the Shisham orchard. P.W. 7 Subodh Kumar Yadav is the Mukhia of Ramban village, in front of his house the first part of the occurrence has taken place, is the informant of the case, cousin of P.Ws. 1, 4, son of deceased Shiya Ram Yadav. P.W. 8 Uday Narayan Singh is the A.S.I. of police, stated in his evidence that the Investigating Officer of the present case is dead, identified the handwriting of Shriram Dubey, who registered the First Information Report (Exhibit 6) of the instant case as also the handwriting of Jitendra Prasad, the scribe of the fardbeyan (Exhibit-5), as he was also assisting the Investigating Officer during investigation of the case. P.W. 9 Vinod Kumar Singh is also Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, identified his signature over the seizure-list and the three pamphlets containing Maoists literature which was recovered, seized by him. P.W. 10 Abhimanyu Yadav is also a police officer who is incharge of the Malkhana, produced the material exhibits during trial. Besides the prosecution witnesses, defence has also examined as many as four witnesses. D.W. 1 Bipin Sah is a cultivator, uncle of appellant Santosh Kumar. He has proved the Admit Card of Santosh Kumar as also certificate granted in his favour by Mukhiya of the village that Santosh Kumar at the relevant time was a student. D.W. 2 Ashutosh Kumar Rohit is a teacher in Primary School, Benipur, has come to the witness-box to prove the alibi of appellant Ugan Ram. D.W. 3 Ajay Kumar is the Block Development Officer who has proved the certificate given in favour of appellant Hamid Ansari that he is a Ward Member, Up-Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat. D.W. 2 Ashutosh Kumar Rohit is a teacher in Primary School, Benipur, has come to the witness-box to prove the alibi of appellant Ugan Ram. D.W. 3 Ajay Kumar is the Block Development Officer who has proved the certificate given in favour of appellant Hamid Ansari that he is a Ward Member, Up-Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat. D.W. 4 Raju Kumar is an Advocate Clerk, a formal witness, has come to the witness-box to prove the certificate issued by the District President of Rashtriya Janta Dal, Sheohar certifying that Hamid Ansari is a district office-bearer of R.J.D. Party. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the evidence of prosecution witnesses and submitted that perusal of not only the fardbeyan but also the evidence of the informant P.W. 7 and the other eye-witnesses of first part of the occurrence P.Ws. 1, 4 and the eye-witnesses of the second part of the occurrence P.Ws. 5, 6 would indicate that they are not the eye-witnesses of the occurrence. Neither the informant nor any of the eye-witnesses i.e. P.Ws. 1, 4 have stated that they saw the appellants inflicting injury to a particular deceased. There is omnibus allegation of resorting to firing by the two out of three motorcycle borne accused persons who arrived at the Sahan of the informant where informant, his family members were chit-chatting amongst themselves. Out of the three motorcycle borne accused persons two were armed with carbine, were identified as Suresh Sahni, Hamid Ansari with further assertion that they resorted to indiscriminate firing with carbine killing the father of the informant Shiya Ram Yadav. No sooner father of the informant was killed as a result of firing resorted to by the two motorcycle-borne assailants, 60-70 miscreants came from eastern direction raising slogan. Amongst the 60-70 miscreants who came from the eastern side informant, the two witnesses identified appellant Ugan Ram, Santosh Kumar Sah, Bhagirath Sah and six others. The unlawful assembly of the 60-70 persons also resorted to indiscriminate firing killing Bhagwan Rai, Bhola Rai, Manohar Thakur who were also sitting in the Sahan of the informant, chitchatting with his father and the informant. Informant also suffered injury in the first part of the occurrence, was removed to the hospital after arrival of the police party in the night itself. Informant also suffered injury in the first part of the occurrence, was removed to the hospital after arrival of the police party in the night itself. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that if the informant had suffered the injury in the first part of the occurrence, removed to the Sub-Divisional Hospital soon thereafter, there was no reason for him not to record his fardbeyan in the night of the occurrence itself but the delay of more than 12 hours in lodging the fardbeyan is for the reason that prosecution party had no idea about the identity of the assailants. Learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that the motorcycle-borne assailants as also the mob of 60-70 persons after inflicting injury on the person of the father of the informant and three others as also the informant and after setting ablaze the house retreated towards south, came to the house of Vishwar Thakur who was forcibly taken away by the miscreants towards Shisham orchard near Ramban Market where he was done to death by inflicting sharp cut injuries by the miscreants in presence of his wife Sanju Devi, mother Sumitra Devi P.Ws. 5, 6 and others. It is submitted that those who witnessed the second part of the occurrence i.e. assault on Vishwar Thakur in presence of P.W. 5 Sanju Devi, P.W. 6 Sumitra Devi wife, mother has not identified the assailants of Vishwar Thakur. The son, daughter of Vishwar Thakur who were also taken away along with Vishwar Thakur by the miscreants, suffered injury while being dragged along with their father but spared, have also not been examined. It is submitted that the assailants of Vishwar Thakur are the same who committed the first part of the occurrence as it is the definite case of the prosecution that after committing the first part of occurrence, setting ablaze the house, vehicle of the informant the miscreants retreated towards south, came to the house of Vishwar Thakur, forcibly took him to the Shisham orchard and cut him to pieces in the orchard. The wife, mother of Vishwar Thakur P.Ws. 5, 6 though examined but have categorically deposed that they could not identify the assailants as they had covered their face. The wife, mother of Vishwar Thakur P.Ws. 5, 6 though examined but have categorically deposed that they could not identify the assailants as they had covered their face. It is submitted that if the assailants in the first, second part of the occurrence were common, it is not understandable as to how the informant and other witnesses of the first part of the occurrence have been able to identify them though they are said to have covered their face while committing the second part of the occurrence. 7. Learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment and submitted that in view of the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 4 and 7 who clearly identified the assailants, conviction of the appellants cannot be set aside on the ground that P.Ws. 5, 6 the two ladies could not identify the assailants of the second part. It is submitted that P.Ws. 5, 6 the two ladies had no source of identification in the Shisham orchard where Vishwar Thakur was cut into pieces. In the circumstances, their evidence cannot be a ground to reject the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 4 and 7. Learned counsel for the State, however, submitted that this Court may consider the plea of the appellants to convert the Capital punishment into life sentence but may award imprisonment for their whole life as life has been defined under Section 45 of the Indian Penal Code to mean whole life of the convict. 8. The submission that if the assailants in the first, second part of the occurrence were common, it is not understandable as to how the informant and other witnesses of the first part of the occurrence identified them though they are said to have covered their face while committing the second part of the occurrence is required to be examined in the light of the earlier submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that police having come to the place of occurrence in the night, referred the informant and other injured to the hospital in the night itself, why the investigation did not begin in the night as admittedly from perusal of the fardbeyan itself it appears that the same was recorded in the morning. Aforesaid question could have been best answered by the Investigating Officer but he being dead we are not in a position to ascertain such fact, however, we have examined the evidence of Dr. Aforesaid question could have been best answered by the Investigating Officer but he being dead we are not in a position to ascertain such fact, however, we have examined the evidence of Dr. Santosh Kumar Verma who examined the informant in the night of occurrence in Sub Divisional Hospital, Sheohar on 22.05.2010 at 1:30 A.M., found the following injuries vide Injury Report (Exhibit-3): (1). Lacerated wound right palm in between thumb and index finger 3”x1/2” bone deep with charring. X-ray shows many pellets in palm. (2). Small hole with red margin four in number right to the umbilicus hole ½ cm. diameter. (3). Small hole right below nipple three in number with red margin 1½ cm. diameter. The doctor has also indicated that all the injuries suffered by the informant were grievous in nature and caused by fire-arm. The O.D. slip issued by P.W. 8 A.S.I. Uday Narayan Singh indicates that the same was issued in the evening of occurrence i.e. on 21.05.2010. From perusal of the O.D. slip (Exhibit-7) read with Injury Report of Subodh Kumar Yadav (Exhibit-3) coupled with the evidence of P.W. 2 Dr. Santosh Kumar Verma we are satisfied that informant was in such condition that he could not have recorded his fardbeyan during the night of occurrence although police had reached the village, around 12 mid night, referred him to the hospital for treatment which was also promptly provided in the morning of 22.05.2010 at 1:30 A.M. 9. The delay in lodging the fardbeyan having been explained because of the injury suffered by the informant now we proceed to examine the evidence of the three eye-witnesses of the first part of the occurrence i.e. P.Ws. 1, 4 and the informant P.W. 7. P.W. 1 Santosh Kumar @ Santosh Yadav has stated in his Examination-in-Chief that the occurrence had taken place on 21.05.2010 at 7:30 P.M. when he was at the house/door/Sahan of his uncle Shiya Ram Rai, was engaged in chit-chat with his cousin (P.W. 7) Subodh Rai, P.W. 4 Ashok Rai, Mukesh @ Bhola, Manohar Thakur, Shambhu Rai and other family members. Meanwhile on a motorcycle three riders arrived, resorted to firing with carbine killing his uncle Shiya Ram Rai. In Paragraph 2 P.W. 1 has identified the two of the motorcycle riders as Suresh Sahni (absconder), Accused No. 1 Hamid Ansari having carbine in their hand in the solar, generator light. Meanwhile on a motorcycle three riders arrived, resorted to firing with carbine killing his uncle Shiya Ram Rai. In Paragraph 2 P.W. 1 has identified the two of the motorcycle riders as Suresh Sahni (absconder), Accused No. 1 Hamid Ansari having carbine in their hand in the solar, generator light. In the same paragraph P.W. 1 has further stated that almost at the same time while the two motorcycle riders Suresh Sahni (absconder), Hamid Ansari resorted to firing by the carbine 60-70 miscreants came to the Sahan from the eastern side and from amongst those 60-70 miscreants P.W. 1 could identify Accused No. 3 Santosh Sah armed with sword, Wali Mohammad, resident of Gorhia Tola (absconder) armed with rifle, Birendra Sahni also resident of Gorhia Tola (absconder) was identified as one who was setting ablaze the house of the informant in Sahan whereof P.W. 1 and others were chit-chatting, Gagan Deo Sahni also resident of Gorhia Tola was armed with A.K. 47, Accused No. 2 Ugan Ram resident of Athkoni was armed with gun, Pankaj Singh, co-villager was armed with double barrel gun, Vinay Singh also co-villager was armed with rifle, Bhagirath Sah resident of Village Rohua was holding the petrol container. The miscreants also set ablaze the house of the informant and P.W. 1. The miscreants not only set ablaze the house of the informant and P.W. 1 but also killed the father of P.W. 1 Bhagwan Rai, Bhola @ Mukesh Rai, Manohar Thakur by fire-arms. P.W. 1 identified amongst the assailants who fired shot at the deceased as Ugan Ram, Pankaj Singh, Vinay Singh, Gagan Sahni and Wali Mohammad. In the same paragraph P.W. 1 also stated that his cousin Subodh Kumar Yadav suffered fire-arm injury in his belly. P.W. 1 also stated in the same paragraph that deceased Manohar Thakur was assaulted by Santosh Sah, Dinesh with sword, farsa respectively. P.W. 1 has been subjected to lengthy cross-examination from Paragraph 9 to 19 but perusal thereof does not indicate that any substantial contradiction has been taken from him. In the circumstances, we are satisfied that P.W. 1 is a credible eye-witness. 10. P.W. 1 has been subjected to lengthy cross-examination from Paragraph 9 to 19 but perusal thereof does not indicate that any substantial contradiction has been taken from him. In the circumstances, we are satisfied that P.W. 1 is a credible eye-witness. 10. P.W. 4 Ashok Yadav at the time of occurrence was also sitting at the house/door/Sahan of his uncle Shiya Ram Rai, was engaged in chitchatting with the family members, meanwhile the occurrence took place, his evidence is also on the similar lines as that of P.W. 1. P.W. 4 has also been subjected to lengthy cross-examination from Paragraph 9 to 33 and we are satisfied that in the lengthy cross-examination of this witness the defence has not been able to extract anything substantial, as such, we are satisfied that he is also a credible eyewitness of the first part of the occurrence. 11. Having gone through the evidence of the informant we also found that he has reiterated his fardbeyan version, has also been subjected to lengthy cross-examination but the defence has not been able to extract anything substantial, as such, we are satisfied that he is also a credible eye-witness of the occurrence. 12. In our considered opinion, the evidence of the informant and the two eye-witnesses i.e. P.Ws. 1, 4 does not suffer from the criticism which the learned counsel for the appellants has raised that they have not stated the truth that the appellants resorted to firing causing injury to the four deceased as the presence of the informant and the witnesses at the date, time, place of occurrence is not in doubt, their deposition is indicative of the fact that they have rendered the ocular version of the first part of the occurrence before the court and they had no reason to falsely implicate these appellants. 13. Having considered the rival submission of the parties, in view of our consideration of the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 4 and the informant P.W. 7 in paragraphs above, we are satisfied that they are full fledged eye-witness of part-1 of the occurrence, have also identified the assailants of the four deceased. The delay in lodging the fardbeyan has already been explained by the informant because of injury sustained by him during the occurrence. In the circumstances, we have no reason to disbelieve the evidence of prosecution witness Nos. The delay in lodging the fardbeyan has already been explained by the informant because of injury sustained by him during the occurrence. In the circumstances, we have no reason to disbelieve the evidence of prosecution witness Nos. 1, 4 and 7 on the ground that according to P.Ws. 5, 6 the assailants had covered their face. The circumstances in which the two ladies had deposed that they could not identify the assailants as they had covered their face may not persuade us to disbelieve the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 4 and 7. In the circumstances, though we maintain the conviction of the appellants, we are satisfied that the instant case is not a case which can be categorized as rarest of rare case and that the appellants deserve grant of Capital punishment, accordingly, answer the reference made under Section 366 Cr.P.C. in negative, set aside the Capital sentence imposed on the appellants, award the appellants Rigorous Imprisonment for life. The appellants shall, however, be entitled for grant of remission under Section 432 Cr.P.C. after completing 14 years of jail custody including pre-trial period for the reasons indicated in Paragraphs 9 to 18 of the judgment dated 14.09.2015, passed in Death Reference No. 02 of 2015. 14. With the aforesaid modification in the sentence imposed on the appellants, the appeal is dismissed.