ORDER : 1. The accused-appellant has been, inter alia, convicted of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Ranbir Penal Code, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “RPC”) on four counts involving the death of Mohd. Yousuf Ganai and his family members. He has also been convicted for the same offence for the death of one Mohd. Ishaq Bhat. As death of five persons (four in the first incident and one in the second incident) had occurred in the two separate incidents which followed each other in places adjacent/close to each other, the accused-appellant has been sentenced to death. The said sentence had been affirmed by the High Court in appeal. Aggrieved, the present appeals have been filed under Article 136 of the Constitution. 2. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and considered the materials on record. We have read and considered the impugned judgments of the trial Court as well as the High Court. 3. Insofar as the first offence involving the death of Mohd. Yousuf Ganai and three others, namely, Guljani, Mohd. Hanief Ganai and Naseer Ahmad Ganai, the consistent evidence of witnesses examined by the prosecution including the evidence of Gazala Tabasum (PW-5), minor child of the deceased Mohd. Yousuf Ganai, makes it clear that the role that was attributed to the accused-appellant is participation in the offence by standing outside the door of the house. The evidence of the said witness do not attribute any overt act to the accused-appellant and does not show any active participation in the firing that took place resulting in the deaths in question. Hence, the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the RPC. 4. Insofar as the second incident involving the death of Mohd. Ishaq Bhat is concerned, the evidence of Ameena (PW-8), sister of the deceased, Abdul Gani Bhat (PW-9), father of the deceased and eye-witness Syeda (PW-10), mother of the deceased, is clear, cogent and consistent. It is the accused-appellant who had fired the shot resulting in the death of Mohd. Ishaq Bhat. There is no material forthcoming in the cross-examination of the said witnesses which could cast any doubt on the veracity of the statements made by the said witnesses in Court. 5. It is the accused-appellant who had fired the shot resulting in the death of Mohd. Ishaq Bhat. There is no material forthcoming in the cross-examination of the said witnesses which could cast any doubt on the veracity of the statements made by the said witnesses in Court. 5. In view of the clear and cogent evidence on record, we cannot find any fault with the conviction of the accused-appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the RPC in respect of both the incidents. 6. Coming to the question of sentence, having considered the matter, we are inclined to take the view that in the facts of the present case, the imposition of the sentence of death is not justified. The conviction of the accused-appellant in respect of first incident is with the aid of Section 34 of the RPC. As already noticed, no overt act and no active participation in the offence involved in the first incident had been attributed to the accused-appellant by the prosecution witnesses. The only role so attributed is that the accused-appellant had accompanied the other accused and he was standing outside the door with a fire arm. The role of the accused-appellant in respect of the second incident, however, is different as the eye-witness clearly implicate him and it isclear that it is the accused-appellant who had fired the shot on Mohd. Ishaq Bhat resulting in his death. In a situation where no active participation in respect of first incident in which four deaths had occurred can be attributed to the accused, though his conviction under Section 302 with the aid of Section 34 of the RPC cannot be faulted, we are of the view that so far as the sentence is concerned, the aforesaid fact i.e. absence of any active participation should go into the judicial determination of the question of appropriate punishment. 7. In view of what has been stated above and the active participation of the accused-appellant being in respect of the second incident, we are of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the death penalty is commuted to one of life imprisonment. Accordingly, while holding the accused-appellant guilty of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the RPC, we award the sentence of life imprisonment instead of death sentence. Accordingly, while holding the accused-appellant guilty of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the RPC, we award the sentence of life imprisonment instead of death sentence. Insofar as the conviction and sentence for the other offence i.e. under Section 449 of the RPC is concerned and the sentence awarded, we have no reason to interfere. We also make it clear that the sentence of life imprisonment on both counts shall run concurrently and will be subject to the power of remission etc. under the Ranbir Penal Code. 8. With the aforesaid modification in the sentence, we partly allow these appeals.