ORDER : This appeal, under Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been preferred by appellant - State of Rajasthan, challenging sentence part of judgment dated 21.03.2016 of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Baran, in Sessions Case No.132/2011, whereby, for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, accused-respondent Ramcharan has been sentenced to suffer life imprisonment. It is prayed that accused-respondent Ramcharan be awarded capital punishment instead of life imprisonment. Facts of the case are that on 06.10.2010 at 9.10 PM a 'parcha bayan' was given by one Narendra Malav, H.C. 328, Police Line, Baran, to Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali Baran, stating therein that when he was making entries in 'rojnamcha' at the Police Line, accused Ramcharan, who was constable, came there with rifle and fired at him. Bajrang Singh, H.C., and other staff members, were also present there. Accusedrespondent had fired at him at 8.45 PM on that day with intention to commit his murder. The injured sustained fire arm injuries. The injuries were on left ribs with exit wound on its right side with blood. The informant stated that as usual he was on night duty. Accused-respondent Ramcharan was also on duty as magazine guard. Accused-respondent Ramcharan entered his room stating that informant had entered an adverse report in his service record 3-4 days ago and that he (accused) would finish him. The police, on the basis of 'parcha bayan', registered regular F.I.R. No.574/2010 for offence under Section 302 IPC. Soon after giving 'parcha bayan' but before registration of F.I.R., the injured succumbed to injuries. Prosecution produced 31 witnesses and got 51 documents exhibited. The defence got 12 documents exhibited. The trial court, on completion of trial, convicted the accused-respondent for offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000/-; in default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo simple imprisonment of one month. Mrs. Sonia Shandilya, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for appellant State, argued that learned trial court ought to have awarded death penalty to the accused-respondent because he was found guilty of committing cold blooded murder of a police personnel, where a fellow constable in uniform, while on duty, murdered his superior by using the official weapon. The offence against accused-respondent is proved by dying declaration of the deceased. The offence against accused-respondent is proved by dying declaration of the deceased. According to learned Public Prosecutor, present case squarely falls in the category of rarest of rare cases, as per the law enunciated by the Supreme Court in Bachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab – (1980) 2 SCC 684 . Only if maximum punishment of death penalty is awarded to the accused-respondent, it would have a strong deterrent effect on others. The accused-respondent was a member of the armed police force of the State and if the maximum punishment is awarded to him, it would have a strong deterrent effect on others not to take law in their own hands and commit murder of their superior. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that the trial court, even though has taken note of the argument of the Public Prosecutor appearing before it for the State, but it has not recorded satisfactory finding as to why present matter does not fall in the category of rarest of rare cases so as to award death penalty. On hearing learned Public prosecutor and perusing the impugned judgment, we find from the statement of Bajrang Singh (PW-2), Head Constable, that on 06.10.2010 the accused was on duty in the night between 3.00 am to 6.00 am. While deceased Narendra Malav was making certain entries in 'rojnamcha' and this witness was listening to a phone call at 8.45 pm. He suddenly heard the sound of a fire. He immediately rushed towards the room and caught hold of the accused-respondent and by the time he had already loaded another round. Had this witness not caught hold of accused Ramcharan, he would have again fired. Shambhu Dayal (PW-4) has stated that since 02.02.2007, he had been working as Havaldar Major at Police Line, Baran. He used to allot duties to various constables. The duty was assigned at the time of roll call. Four constables were assigned duties as guard, out of which one constable would take weapon from rifle coath and go on duty and remaining three constables would stay in duty room to take rest. Accused-respondent Ramcharan was required to remain on duty from 3.00 am to 6.00 am. This witness further stated that he went to his house for taking meals around 8.30 in night, where he received a telephonic message at 9.25 pm that accused Ramcharan had fired at Narendra Malav, Head Constable. Accused-respondent Ramcharan was required to remain on duty from 3.00 am to 6.00 am. This witness further stated that he went to his house for taking meals around 8.30 in night, where he received a telephonic message at 9.25 pm that accused Ramcharan had fired at Narendra Malav, Head Constable. This witness has stated that accused was annoyed with Narendra Malav, Head Constable, for the reason that on 19.09.2010 Head Constable Heerachand, Ram Charan and certain other Constables had taken few accused to hospital for check up, and on their check-up, two of the accused were admitted. Head Constable Heerachand was required to deploy four constables there in the hospital to guard the accused and he also asked accused Ramcharan to stay there on duty. Ramcharan, however, refused to obey. Heerachand entered adverse report of insubordination against him in 'rojnamcha'. Narendra Malav, Head Constable, was In-charge of making entries in 'rojnamcha'. The accused entertained a doubt that it was at the instigation of Narendra Malav that aforesaid entry was made in 'rojnamcha'. Ashok Kumar (PW-6), who was coath assistant, also stated that they took Narendra Malav, Head Constable, to hospital in official vehicle and informed the superiors. Accused Ramcharan was taken into custody and he was saying that Narendra Malav had made adverse entries against him in 'rojnamcha', therefore, he fired at him. Gyanendra Singh (PW-17), another constable posted at Police Line Baran, also made a similar statement that Ramcharan was annoyed with Narendra Malav for his making adverse entries against him in 'rojnamcha'. Ram Kishan (PW-19) was also posted as Constable at Police Line, Baran. He also made a similar statement that Heerachand and Narendra Malav made adverse entry against the accused for his act of insubordination, owing to which, the accused was annoyed with Narendra Malav. In our considered view, the punishment has to be prescribed according to culpability of criminal conduct of an accused. The sentencing system has to operate in such a manner as may reflect collective conscience of the society and should be as stern as the facts of given case demand. In what kind of cases sentence of death should be awarded has been subject matter of discussion in various judicial pronouncements so much so the guidelines that were laid down by the Supreme Court in Bachan Singh Vs. In what kind of cases sentence of death should be awarded has been subject matter of discussion in various judicial pronouncements so much so the guidelines that were laid down by the Supreme Court in Bachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab – (1980) 2 SCC 684 , while upholding the validity of Section 302 of the IPC, which authorizes imposition of penalty of death sentence, while concurring with the view expressed by it in earlier judgment in Ediga Annamma Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh – (1974) 4 SCC 443 , are adhered to till date, which are that (i) extreme penalty of death need not be inflicted except in gravest cases of extreme culpability, (ii) Before opting for the death penalty the circumstances of the 'offender' also require to be taken into consideration along with the circumstances of the 'crime', (iii) Life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is an exception. In other words, death sentence must be imposed only when life imprisonment appears to be an altogether inadequate punishment having regard to the relevant circumstances of the crime, and provided, and only provided, the option to impose sentence of imprisonment for life cannot be conscientiously exercised having regard to the nature and circumstances of the crime and all the relevant circumstances, and (iv) A balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances has to be drawn up and in doing so the mitigating circumstances have to be accorded full weightage and a just balance has to be struck between the aggravating and the mitigating circumstances before the option is exercised. The Supreme Court in Devender Pal Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi – (2002) 5 SCC 234 , while detailing out the circumstances and the relevant principles on this aspect by revisiting Bachan Singh's case, supra, and Machhi Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 470 , observed in Para 58 as under:- “58. From Bachan Singh's case (supra) and Machhi Singh's case (supra) the principle culled out is that when the collective conscience of the community is so shocked, that it will expect the holders of the judicial power centre to inflict death penalty irrespective of their personal opinion as regards desirability or otherwise of retaining death penalty, the same can be awarded. From Bachan Singh's case (supra) and Machhi Singh's case (supra) the principle culled out is that when the collective conscience of the community is so shocked, that it will expect the holders of the judicial power centre to inflict death penalty irrespective of their personal opinion as regards desirability or otherwise of retaining death penalty, the same can be awarded. It was observed: The community may entertain such sentiment in the following circumstances: (1) When the murder is committed in an extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting, or dastardly manner so as to arouse intense and extreme indignation of the community. (2) When the murder is committed for a motive which evinces total depravity and meanness; e.g. murder by hired assassin for money or reward; or cold-blooded murder for gains of a person vis-a-vis whom the murderer is in a dominating position or in a position of trust; or murder is committed in the course for betrayal of the motherland. (3) When murder of a member of a Scheduled Caste or minority community, etc. is committed not for personal reasons but in circumstances which arouse social wrath; or in cases of `bride burning' or ‘dowry deaths’ or when murder is committed in order to remarry for the sake of extracting dowry once again or to marry another woman on account of infatuation. (4) When the crime is enormous in proportion. For instance when multiple murders, say of all or almost all the members of a family or a large number of persons of a particular caste, community, or locality, are committed. (5) When the victim of murder is an innocent child, or a helpless woman or old or infirm person or a person vis-`-vis whom the murderer is in a dominating position, or a public figure generally loved and respected by the community.” The Supreme Court in Machhi Singh's case, supra, while following its earlier dictum in Bachan Singh's case, supra, held that life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is an exception, to which guidelines we have already made reference herein-above. Apart from guidelines in Bachan Singh's case, referred to above, the Supreme Court in Machhi Singh's case, supra, in Para 33 and 34, additionally observed that in making a choice between the death penalty and that of life imprisonment, the court has also to take into consideration manner and motive of commission of murder. Apart from guidelines in Bachan Singh's case, referred to above, the Supreme Court in Machhi Singh's case, supra, in Para 33 and 34, additionally observed that in making a choice between the death penalty and that of life imprisonment, the court has also to take into consideration manner and motive of commission of murder. There Lordships found that the circumstances of that case were not such where the act of the accused can be said to be a case of such extreme culpability, where the life imprisonment would be altogether inadequate punishment, having regard to the nature of those circumstances. While drawing a balance sheet of all the aggravating circumstances as against mitigating circumstances of this case, their Lordships rather felt more inclined to maintain the sentence of life imprisonment than to award death penalty. The argument advanced by learned counsel for the accused therein that he did not have premeditation and it was accidental death and therefore, he must be held guilty of offence under Section 304 Part II IPC, was held to be wholly erroneous. The Supreme Court in Shankar Kisanrao Khade v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 5 SCC 546 , dealt with various aggravating as well as mitigating circumstances, which should weigh with the court in deciding whether or not case would fall in the category of rarest of rare cases so as to award death penalty. Their Lordships, in para 52 of the report, held as under:- “Aggravating Circumstances as pointed out above, of course, are not exhaustive so also the Mitigating Circumstances. In my considered view that the tests that we have to apply, while awarding death sentence, are “crime test”, “criminal test” and the R-R Test and not “balancing test”. To award death sentence, the “crime test” has to be fully satisfied, that is 100% and “criminal test” 0%, that is no Mitigating Circumstance favouring the accused. If there is any circumstance favouring the accused, like lack of intention to commit the crime, possibility of reformation, young age of the accused, not a menace to the society no previous track record etc., the “criminal test” may favour the accused to avoid the capital punishment. Even, if both the tests are satisfied that is the aggravating circumstances to the fullest extent and no mitigating circumstances favouring the accused, still we have to apply finally the Rarest of Rare Case test (R-R Test). Even, if both the tests are satisfied that is the aggravating circumstances to the fullest extent and no mitigating circumstances favouring the accused, still we have to apply finally the Rarest of Rare Case test (R-R Test). R-R Test depends upon the perception of the society that is “society centric” and not “Judge centric” that is, whether the society will approve the awarding of death sentence to certain types of crimes or not. While applying that test, the Court has to look into variety of factors like society’s abhorrence, extreme indignation and antipathy to certain types of crimes like sexual assault and murder of minor girls intellectually challenged, suffering from physical disability, old and infirm women with those disabilities etc.. Examples are only illustrative and not exhaustive. Courts award death sentence since situation demands so, due to constitutional compulsion, reflected by the will of the people and not the will of the judges.” It is common knowledge that constables in the Police Department are made to work round the clock and that nature of their duty is really very hard. A policeman happens to be the most over worked employee of the government. In an hour of need, danger, crisis and difficulty, a policeman happens to be the most appropriate and approachable person. His duties are natural to be varied, multifarious and complicated. When Head Constable Heerachand asked the accused to stay in the hospital along-with other constables to have a watch on the admitted two accused, the accused must have been tired enough and therefore he objected to assignment of this duty and did not obey the same. This was taken by Head Constable Heerachand as disobedience, who asked deceased Head Constable Narendra Malav to make adverse entry against him, which was entered by deceased in 'rojnamcha'. This caused huge anguish and frustration to accused. It thus appears that out of this frustration, the accused-respondent opened fire at Narendra Malav, which led death of Narendra Malav. Although, it is true that this was an extreme and highly disproportionate reaction to a small issue, by a Constable in uniform using official weapon, but this fact by itself does not bring this case within the category of 'rarest of rare cases'. Although, it is true that this was an extreme and highly disproportionate reaction to a small issue, by a Constable in uniform using official weapon, but this fact by itself does not bring this case within the category of 'rarest of rare cases'. Applying the parameters of law enumerated by the Supreme Court in afore discussed cases, we are not inclined to uphold the argument that matter falls in the category of rarest of rare cases. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.