JUDGMENT Mohammad Rafiq, J. - These two appeals are directed against the common judgement dated 06.07.2010 by which the accused-appellant Rajendra Jakhmi and his son Bharat Gaur Prince were convicted for offence under section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 100, in default of which, they were to further undergo simple imprisonment of six months. They were also convicted for offence under section 201 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of seven years with a fine of Rs. 5,000, in default of which, they were to further undergo simple imprisonment of six months. While accused-appellants have approached this Court for setting aside the judgement and order of conviction and sentence in appeal No. 581/2010, the complainant-Asheesh Sharma has filed appeal No. 669/2010 praying for awarding death penalty to the accused-appellants for their conviction on the count of Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Both the appeals are heard together and are being decided by this common judgement. 2. It may be at the outset noted that appellant Rajendra Jakhmi has died. This Court by order dated 13.02.2017 had required the Chief Judicial Magistrate to submit his report. As per his report dated 21.02.2017, the accused Rajendra Jakhmi has indeed died. The appeal No. 581/2010 as far as accused-appellant Rajendra Jakhmi is concerned, is abated. However, the appeal survives only in respect of appellant No. 2-Bharat Gaur Prince. 3. Brief facts giving rise to these appeals are that on 2.11.2008, a first information report No. 693/2008 was registered with Police Station Dausa for offence under section 302 and 201 IPC inter alia on the allegations that on that day, the SHO received information from Ashish Sharma, resident of Ajmer that the accused Rajendra Jakhmi was trying to cremate his sister Nisha, who had died in mysterious circumstances, without informing him. On receiving such information SHO along with other police officials went to the cremation ground and found that both the accused-appellants Rajendra Jakhmi and Bharat Gaur Prince were trying to lit the pyre of Nisha with fire to destroy the evidence. The funeral was immediately stopped. On enquiry from accused-appellants, they told that Nisha had died due to ailment of blood pressure. The funeral was immediately stopped. On enquiry from accused-appellants, they told that Nisha had died due to ailment of blood pressure. When she was being taken to hospital at Jaipur, another death took place in their neighbourhood and, therefore, their family members did not come to attend the funeral of Nisha. The dead body was burnt partially from the side of head. The fire was extinguished and the dead body was taken to hospital for postmortem. The inquest of the dead body was prepared, site plan was also prepared and photographs were taken. The police after investigation filed charge sheet against accused-appellant for offence under section 302 and 201 IPC and against one Ramesh Kumar for offence under section 201 IPC. Investigation against Virendra Kumar and Smt. Saroj was kept pending under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., 1973 Subsequently, supplementary charge sheet was filed against them for offence under section 201 IPC. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions, which by order dated 13.03.2009 discharged Ramesh Kumar, Virendra and Smt. Saroj. The charges against the accused for offence under section 302 and in the alternate, under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and 201 IPC were framed, which they denied and claimed trial. Subsequently, the trial of the case was transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Bandikui. Prosecution produced 14 witnesses and exhibited 59 documents. The accused in their statement under section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 denied the allegations and alleged false implication and set up a defence that deceased died due to head injury on account of accidental fall from a stool. The learned trial court on conclusion of the trial, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as indicated above. Hence these appeals. 4. We have heard Shri Satish Khandal, learned counsel for the accused-appellant, Smt. Sonia Shandilya, learned Public Prosecutor and Shri Mahesh Gautam, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the material on record. 5. Shri Satish Khandal, learned counsel for the accused-appellants has argued that whole focus of allegations is against Rajendra Jakhmi, who has now died and accused-appellant No. 2- Bharat Gaur Prince has been made accused only because he happens to be his son and was found present when funeral of deceased Nisha was taking place. For mere participation in funeral his mother, he cannot be convicted for offence under section 302 IPC with the aid of Section 34 IPC. For mere participation in funeral his mother, he cannot be convicted for offence under section 302 IPC with the aid of Section 34 IPC. He can be at the maximum held guilty for offence under section 201 IPC. The evidence in the present case falls short of the required proof beyond reasonable doubt not finding the allegation of murder against accused-appellant Bharat Gaur Prince. 6. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submitted that the learned trial court has based its finding solely on the handwritten letter (Ex.P6), which, in fact, cannot be described as letter allegedly written by the deceased and the handwriting, which has been found to match with the handwriting of inland letter (Ex.P7), which as per the prosecution was written by both Rajendra Jakhmi in part from ''C'' to ''D'' and at the back of it from ''E'' to ''F'' by deceased Nisha. Learned counsel argued that the trial court has relied on the handwriting report of FSL (Ex.P59) to hold that the handwriting of Nisha in letter (Ex.P7) has matched with her handwriting in Ex.P6 whereas there is no evidence on record to prove that the two letters, which first Ashish (PW6) has claimed to have produced before the Investigating Officer were, in fact, in the handwriting of Nisha. 7. Learned counsel argued that Ashish (PW6) has contended that deceased had taken formal education upto higher secondary, but in cross examination when it was put to him as to in which school she studied, he fumbled and did not give the name of the school and if at all, she had studied higher education, the Investigating Officer ought to have procured her handwriting. However, when it was put to Investigating Officer Chandra Bhan Sharma (PW12) in cross examination, he could not explain why he did not make any investigation from the school or from any other place to procure the admitted handwriting of the deceased. Learned counsel argued that even in the letter (Ex.P6), it is mentioned that they were tenant in the house and that once when the deceased was subjected to beating by the accused-appellant, she even took shelter in her aunt''s ("bua''s") house, but neither any tenant nor the Aunt has been produced. Learned counsel argued that even in the letter (Ex.P6), it is mentioned that they were tenant in the house and that once when the deceased was subjected to beating by the accused-appellant, she even took shelter in her aunt''s ("bua''s") house, but neither any tenant nor the Aunt has been produced. Ex.P6 as such does not furnish any proof against the accused-appellants because this cannot be considered a letter as it is not addressed to any person inasmuch as this does not contain name of accused-appellants. Moreover, to say that part of the main leaf of the inland letter (Ex.P7) contains the handwriting of Rajendra Jakhmi, also cannot be believed on mere ipse dixit of the prosecution unless his admitted handwriting is procured and compared with Ex.P7. 8. Learned counsel has argued that genesis of the document Ex.P6 and Ex.P7 is doubtful because complainant Ashish (PW6), who happens to be brother of deceased who has stated that he did not come to Dausa on 2.11.2008, but came to Dausa 2-3 days after 2.11.2008 and gave both the letters to the police on the same day. He stated that he found letter (Ex.P6) from beneath the bed of his sister on the day of ''dhan teras'' in 2008, next day after he came from Dausa. The letter (Ex.P7) from place ''C'' to ''D'' is in the handwriting of accused-appellant Rajendra Jakhmi. He did not give any other letter in the handwriting of the deceased to police except Ex.P6 and Ex.P7. The marriage of Nisha was solemnised with Rajendra Jakhmi in 1978 and thereafter no other letter except Ex.P7 was found in their possession. Learned counsel submitted that this witness has also stated that when he offered to give letter Ex.P6 to the police, they asked him to also bring another document in the handwriting of deceased Nisha for the purpose of comparison. When he searched out, he found letter Ex.P7 under her bed and handed over the same to the police 2-3 days thereafter. When he searched out, he found letter Ex.P7 under her bed and handed over the same to the police 2-3 days thereafter. Learned counsel submitted that this submission stands vindicated as the Investigating Officer Chandra Bhan Sharma (PW12) has categorically proved that both the letters were submitted to him by complainant (PW6) on 4.11.2006, whereas (PW6) has stated that he went to Dausa only one day i.e. on 4.11.2006, that means that if he searched for the letter Ex.P7, 2-3 days after he came from Dausa, it could be 6th or 7th November and not 4th of November. Recovery of aforesaid letters is thus result of police peddling. 9. Learned counsel submitted that Sunil Kumar (PW7) falsifies Ashish (PW6). According to prosecution, Sunil Kumar, cousin of Ashish had accompanied Ashish from Ajmer to Dausa on 4.11.2006. In cross examination, he has stated that on receipt of information about death of Nisha on 2.11.2008, he went to Dausa on 3rd day thereafter. Ashish did not tell him on the way that they had to go to police to register the case. After they reached Dausa, they did not even went to the house of accused Rajendra. That was the only time when they went to Dausa. It is thus clear that the assertion by Ashish that he came twice to the police; first with letter Ex.P6 and thereafter went to Ajmer and then came back with letter Ex.P7 is not correct. Even he has proved that both letters were taken by him together to be given to Investigating Officer. 10. Learned counsel submitted that the police constable Suresh Chand (PW8) has stated that when they reached the house of accused-appellants, lots of people were assembled in front of the house. If that was so, why not a single person from that crowd was produced by the prosecution as a witness. Learned counsel submitted that Bharat Singh (PW9), the Assistant Sub-Inspector has stated that when first of all he went to the house of accused, at that time he did not find any belt or blood stain lathi, blood stain rajai, blood stain piece of green cloth, blood stain kurta & paijama, blood stain dupatta and blood stain towel on 2nd November, 2006. However, surprisingly all these articles were recovered from the same house of the accused-appellants by the police three days thereafter on 5.11.2008 vide Ex.P15, Ex.P16, Ex.P17, Ex.P18, Ex.P19, Ex.P20 & Ex.P21. Learned counsel submitted that Suresh Chand (PW8) in the opening of his statement has stated that C.O. and ASI told him that information has been received that Rajendra Jakhmi has murdered his wife. Similarly, Investigating Officer Chandra Bhan Sharma (PW12) has also stated that he received information from the control room that Rajendra Jakhmi has murdered a lady and was trying to cremate her. The allegation thus all throughout has been against Rajendra Jakhmi. This argument is also supported from statement of Dr. Om Prakash Bansal (PW1) to whom accused-appellant Rajendra Jakhmi went to get a prescription for treatment and reference of the deceased to Government Hospital at Jaipur and also Dr. Tej Bhan Meena (PW2), who was posted as Block C.M.O. in Dausa and stated that accused Rajendra alone came to him along with Dr. Hari Mohan Gupta and insisted on giving a prescription of treatment of anxiety for Nisha. Learned counsel also referred to the statement of Mosin Khan (PW3), the driver of the vehicle, whose car was hired by the appellants, Raghu Sharma (PW4), Dr. Uma Shanker Chouhan (PW5), the Junior Specialist and Psychiatric Government Hospital, Dausa. It is argued that Ashish (PW6), the maternal uncle of appellant Bharat Gaur Prince has tried to subsist the issue by stating that the accused Prince had ever sexual desire on his own mother and it is he, who has fabricated the letter Ex.P6. Conviction of accused-appellant Bharat Gaur Prince has thus been recorded on mere surmises and conjectures, there being no cogent evidence linking him with the crime. 11. Referring to the statement of Dr. Hari Mohan Gupta (PW11), learned counsel argued that this witness has categorically stated that deceased died due to injury No. 1, which was a single injury and this injury could have been caused by fall from height on hard surface. He has also stated that had the deceased been treated timely, she would not have died. In the first place, this single injury must be attributed to Rajendra Jakhmi, who was principal accused and secondly because deceased has died due to fact that she could not be treated timely. He has also stated that had the deceased been treated timely, she would not have died. In the first place, this single injury must be attributed to Rajendra Jakhmi, who was principal accused and secondly because deceased has died due to fact that she could not be treated timely. Had the deceased been provided treatment in time, her life could have been saved, which goes to show that the injury was not the primary cause of her death. In the facts of the case, the guilt of the accused-appellant Bharat Gaur Prince cannot be held to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. The offence would at the maximum fall within the purview of Section 304 Part-I IPC. Accordingly, by converting the conviction of the accused-appellant Bharat Gaur Prince, he be sentenced to the period already undergone by him. Learned counsel in support of his arguments has relied on the judgements of Supreme Court in Ram Chandra & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh- AIR 1957 SC 381 , the State of Gujarat v. Vinaya Chandra Chhota Lal Pathi- AIR 1967 SC 778 , Sucha Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab- (2003) 7 SCC 643 , Musheer Khan @ Badshah Khan & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh- (2010) 2 SCC 748 and judgement of this Court in Sanjay v. State of Rajasthan-2006 (2) WLC (Raj.) 632 . 12. Smt. Sonia Shandilya, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and Shri Mahesh Gautam, learned counsel for the complainant opposed the appeal and supported the impugned judgement. They have referred to the testimony of all the prosecution witnesses and also the various prosecution exhibits. 13. Smt. Sonia Shandilya, learned Public Prosecutor in particular argued that benefit of doubt cannot be extended to the accused-appellant Bharat Gaur Prince as it is objected that there is no convincing and clinching evidence to pin point his role in the alleged crime. It is further argued that a duty has to be cast on prosecution to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt and not by doubts. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely possible doubt; but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. It must grow out of the evidence in the case. It is further argued that a duty has to be cast on prosecution to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt and not by doubts. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely possible doubt; but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. It must grow out of the evidence in the case. Learned Public Prosecutor in support of her arguments has relied on the judgements of the Supreme Court in Nagesh v. State of Karnataka- (2012) 6 SCC 477 and Yogesh Singh v. Mahabeer Singh & Ors., AIR 2016 SC 5160 . 14. Shri Mahesh Gautam, learned counsel for the complainant placing the appeal No. 669/2010 for enhancement of sentence argued that the kind of allegation which the deceased has made against her own son accused-appellant Bharat Gaur Prince in letter Ex.P6 are quite serious. The accused used to strip his own mother''s clothes and beat her mercilessly and this was a routine for quite some time. He used to consume liquor and ''charas'' with his father and that whenever the deceased made complaint to her husband, he would not bother for her and would rather take side of his own son. The deceased even told her brother Ashish (PW6) that accused Prince wanted to do with her what normally a husband would do with his wife, which means that accused wanted to even sexually exploit his own mother. Such a heinous crime ought to be dealt with an iron hand. 15. Shri Mahesh Gautam, learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that learned trial court has miserably failed to consider and appreciate the gravity of the most heinous crime committed by the accused respondents against humanity in home. The accused respondent No. 2 in active connivance with accused respondent No. 1 compelled his own mother to have abnormal sex with him for the satisfaction of his carnal lust. This type of sex in the prohibited degrees is abhorrent. Even animals do not indulge in this category of prohibitory sexual relations. The respondents thereafter murdered his mother in cold blood and did not stop even here but as if this heinous act was not sufficient to satisfy their perturbed minds. 16. This type of sex in the prohibited degrees is abhorrent. Even animals do not indulge in this category of prohibitory sexual relations. The respondents thereafter murdered his mother in cold blood and did not stop even here but as if this heinous act was not sufficient to satisfy their perturbed minds. 16. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that as has been established by the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in numerous cases and more particularly in the case of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1980 SC 898 has held that if the murder is committed after previous planning and involve extreme brutality along with exceptional depravity then these facts and circumstances should be considered as aggravating circumstances for granting capital punishment. On the basis of the facts narrated above, this case falls in this category. This case is a gravest case of extreme culpability where life imprisonment is altogether an inadequate punishment. The dastardly act committed by the accused respondent has shaken the conscious of the society as a whole and all the acts constitute the aggravating circumstances without any mitigating circumstances in favour of the accused respondent. The balance sheet of both would make the aggravating circumstances heavy. In fact crime committed by the accused respondent is a crime on society as a whole and the degree of criminality cannot be defined in this case. Thus, in the facts and circumstances there can be no other punishment for the accused respondents lesser than the capital punishment. 17. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. 18. Apparently the police in the present case swung into action when they received a fax message from Ashish, brother of the deceased, which is Ex.P4, which he sent from Ajmer to C.O., Police Station Dausa alleging that his sister Nisha, wife of Rajendra Prasad, aged 48 years has been murdered and they have received an information that his sister has been murdered and that accused used to ill-treat and harass her and used to also threaten the complainant. Since the mother of the complainant was seriously ill, he could not immediately come to Dausa. He requested that the police should ensure that her postmortem is conducted before she is cremated. Since the mother of the complainant was seriously ill, he could not immediately come to Dausa. He requested that the police should ensure that her postmortem is conducted before she is cremated. Chandra Bhan Sharma, the Investigating Officer has admitted this fact that he received the information from police control room that accused Rajendra Jakhmi was trying to cremate a woman after murdering her. He (this witness) also received a fax from C.O., Dausa to this effect. Additional S.P. directed him to immediately go to the spot and make an enquiry to find out the truth. He went along with Constable Bhoop Singh, ASI Bharat Singh, Pradeep and Suresh in government jeep. When he reached the cremation ground, he found that only two persons were standing by pyre, which had been lit. He requested the Senior Police Officer and SDM Dausa to immediately reach on the spot and took permission from SDM to put off the fire, the written permission of which was later received vide Ex.P27. A written application was submitted by accused Rajendra Jakhmi on the funeral ground that he is ready to get the postmortem of the deceased conducted. The postmortem of the deceased was got conducted, her clothes were recovered and photographs of the deceased were also taken and thereafter the dead body was handed over to the accused-appellants. This witness has also stated in cross examination that the information about this was given to Additional S.P. and Dy. S.P. Dausa by Ashish, brother of the deceased. He has stated that the letter Ex.P6 and the inland letter Ex.P7 were produced before him by the complainant Ashish on 4.11.2008. The letter (Ex.P7) was written by accused Rajendra Jakhmi to his father in law on 29.7.1978 from place ''C'' to ''D'' and the later part from place ''E'' to ''F'', was written by the deceased to her father. 19. Ashish (PW6) has narrated the entire story with respect to the agony of the deceased Nisha that her marriage was solemnised with accused Rajendra Jakhmi in 1978. Accused-appellant-Bharat Gaur Prince was born out of their wedlock ten years after the marriage. Till 1996 from the date of marriage, their relations were cordial. Thereafter, when Rajendra was elected in as a member of Municipal Council, he started consuming liquor and also ''charas''. Gradually, his son also started drinking liquor and consuming ''charas''. Accused-appellant-Bharat Gaur Prince was born out of their wedlock ten years after the marriage. Till 1996 from the date of marriage, their relations were cordial. Thereafter, when Rajendra was elected in as a member of Municipal Council, he started consuming liquor and also ''charas''. Gradually, his son also started drinking liquor and consuming ''charas''. In 2005 when his father (this witness''s) died, all three of them came to Ajmer and thereafter the deceased came to Ajmer in 2006 on the occasion of ''bhai doj''. At that time, the situation had worsened because he noticed injury marks on the hands and legs of the deceased. When this witness enquired from deceased as to why she did not tell him before, she opened up and disclosed that both accused-appellants father and son after drinking alcohol subject her to beating so much so that she would be stripped naked and then beaten. When she cried for help, they used to increase volume of the television. Her son wanted to do with her what normally a husband would do to his wife. Owing to this kind of allegation, deceased stayed with them for as long as two years. Rajendra Jakhmi in between called him on telephone and insisted that deceased Nisha be sent back to the household, on which this witness would tell him that since accused were subjecting her to beatings, she would not come. Rajendra thereupon insisted that since Nisha had taken the keys of the store, they should send them. He (Ashish) then came with the keys to Dausa to handover the same. At that time, accused and his nephew Prince misbehaved with him. Rajendra favoured his son and stated that Nisha had made false accusation against him. At that time Sunil was also with him. Thereafter, Rajendra again telephoned him (this witness) on the occasion of ''holi'' in 2007 requesting that Nisha should be sent back. At his instance, he took Nisha to Dausa. At that time, Sunil was also with him. The accused asked that Sunil should stay out of the house and they would talk amongst themselves inside the house. When he was talking to his sister and his brother-in-law (Rajendra), Prince again intervened and started abusing. Things came to such a pass that he (Ashish) again took his sister to Ajmer. Thereafter, uncle of Rajendra telephoned Ashish that his another uncle Kedar has died. When he was talking to his sister and his brother-in-law (Rajendra), Prince again intervened and started abusing. Things came to such a pass that he (Ashish) again took his sister to Ajmer. Thereafter, uncle of Rajendra telephoned Ashish that his another uncle Kedar has died. On this he (Ashish) and the deceased came to Dausa. At that time also, Rajendra and Prince misbehaved and abused him and his sister. This witness and his sister then went to Ajmer. Prince would often telephone and threaten him of dire consequences. He would tell that he has purchased a pistol and would murder him. In 2008, two days before Deepawali, Rajendra Jakhmi telephoned him (Ashish) that now Nisha should come to the household on the auspicious occasion of Deepawali. On this Nisha also melted and agreed to go back to her house. On her instance, he (Ashish) brought Nisha to Dausa. 20. Immediately thereafter on 2.11.2008, someone telephoned him that his sister has been murdered. When he tried to talk to Rajendra Jakhmi, his telephone was found switched off. Thereupon, this witness informed the Police Station Kotwali, Dausa by sending Fax message to the C.O., Dausa. This witness has stated that he identified handwriting of his sister. He produced before the police, the letter Ex.P6 wrote to her father by deceased in which the deceased narrated the maltreatment given to her by both the accused. He has stated that during the period Nisha stayed at Ajmer from 2006 to 2008. The accused would often threat them on telephone. At that time, they did not make any complaint to the police and did not lodge any criminal case against them because his sister was not agreeable to go to the police as she thought that this would ruin off her matrimonial home. No doubt there is a slight discrepancy in the statement of this witness when he has stated that he came to Dausa 2-3 days after the incident, which took place on 2.11.2008 and that he handed over Ex.P6 and Ex.P7 together to police and that he found the letter Ex.P6 lying under the bed of his sister after she left for Dausa on the occasion of Deepawali and when he offered to give them to police, he was asked to produce any other document, which contained her handwriting. It is thereafter that he produced this piece. It is thereafter that he produced this piece. It is admitted fact that these two letters were written on two different occasions. However, the fact remains that the police gave these letters to the handwriting expert in FSL, who in their report (Ex.P52) has categorically opined that the handwriting in Ex.P6 where the deceased has narrated the pathetic story of her life and Ex.P7, the part which was written by deceased in the inland letter, which her husband send to her father Shri Banke Lal Sharma way back on 29.7.1978 have significant similarities. Since Banke Lal Sharma has died in 2007, this letter having been produced by his son PW6, who happens to be brother of deceased from the custody of a person where it was naturally to be found has diminished. Therefore, the defence may argue that some other handwriting of the deceased Nisha should have been obtained and not this. 21. We do not find any infirmity in the approach taken by the learned trial court in accepting the letters Ex.P6 and Ex.P7 to be genuine documents and relying on them for the purpose of recording conviction of the accused-appellants. The evidence of Dr. Om Prakash (PW1), Dr. Tej Bhan Meena (PW2), Mosin Khan (PW3) and Rahul Sharma (PW4) clearly show that having murdered the deceased, the accused conspired to cook up a story to make it look like a case of natural death, rather than a homicidal death. But their designs failed due to timely communication given by someone from Dausa to Ashish, who in turn not only sent fax message to police, Dausa but also to Deputy Superintendent of Police and Additional Superintendent of Police. It is therefore that when the police team went to cremation ground at Dausa. They found that only two accused-appellants were trying to cremate the dead body. Before they could succeed in their effort, the SHO got the fire put off with due permission from SDO. The postmortem was conducted of the deceased. The accused in this case was so cunning that they got two medical prescriptions in the name of deceased prepared even though the deceased was not physically taken to Doctors (PW1 and PW2). Dr. Before they could succeed in their effort, the SHO got the fire put off with due permission from SDO. The postmortem was conducted of the deceased. The accused in this case was so cunning that they got two medical prescriptions in the name of deceased prepared even though the deceased was not physically taken to Doctors (PW1 and PW2). Dr. Tej Bhan Meena (PW2), who at the relevant time was working as a Block CMO in Government Hospital, Dausa has stated that when he was sitting in general OPD on 1.11.2008 and attending the patients, a mid age person came to him with Dr. Hari Mohan Gupta. That person was holding a computer slip. Dr. Hari Mohan Gupta said that this man wanted to get the prescription for anxiety for a patient. He while treating him as patient, prescribed Capsule Omez-D and Tablet Zepro-M. The prescription given by him was Ex.P2, which, in fact, was in the name of Nisha. But this witness has stated that he did not check name on the prescription on that day. Dr. Om Prakash Bansal (PW1), a doctor of a private hospital has stated that Rajendra Jakhmi was known to him since 1992. He was a journalist and was also a Member of Municipal Board. On 11.11.2008, at about 6.00 PM, he came to him. He was feeling perturbed. He said that he wanted a slip for reference of his wife, who is seriously ill to SMS Hospital so that he could get her treated there. It was stated by Rajendra Jakhmi that her blood pressure was quite enhanced and that she was sitting in the car parked on the road. This witness has stated that believing the accused as genuine, he prepared a reference slip for Nisha (Ex.P1). 22. Raghu Sharma (PW4) has also stated that he was a medical practitioner in Rai Nursing Home. He received a telephone call from accused Prince on 1.11.2008 that his mother had fallen down from the table and had sustained a head injury. She was not feeling well. Dr. Bansal had prescribed certain medicines for her and referred her to Jaipur. He stated that we may have to go to Jaipur in evening. This witness then stated that he told Prince that he would be free at around 7.30 in the evening and thereafter he accompanied him to Jaipur. She was not feeling well. Dr. Bansal had prescribed certain medicines for her and referred her to Jaipur. He stated that we may have to go to Jaipur in evening. This witness then stated that he told Prince that he would be free at around 7.30 in the evening and thereafter he accompanied him to Jaipur. Prince then telephoned him at around 7.30 and told that he would be coming in front of a hospital in about 5 to 10 minutes and that this witness should meet him outside the hospital. Prince then came there in a maruti van. He (this witness) seated on the rear seat and started towards the house of the accused. His father was calling repeatedly to him on his mobile in between insisting that they should immediately reach the home. Prince then enquired from him whether he has taken the dinner. When this witness said ''no'', he halted the car in front of Jodhana hotel and sent him to bring the food. Thereafter, when he again started for the house of the accused, his father was frequently calling him. Then Prince took back the car to the market for purchase of the paper plates etc. so that they could have food on the way. When they reached the house, the accused-appellant Prince carried his mother who was fully covered with ''chaddar'' on his hands. She was laid on the rear seat of the car and the accused Rajendra sat by her side. This witness and Prince seated on the front side along the side of driver. On the way, Prince told him that Doctor has given heavy medicines and injections to his mother, therefore, she was unconscious. When they reached near Bhadana, the vehicle had a jump while passing over a speed breaker, thereupon, his father Rejendra told Prince that he should help him in settling his mother on the seat, who was about to fall. Thereafter, when they started again and reached Idgah, Prince asked the driver to stop the car. He (this witness), Prince and driver got down from the vehicle and his father continued to stay in the car and stated that he would feed his (Prince''s) mother and that they should go to ''dhaba'' and eat the food. After some time, his father Rejendra got down from the car and started having dinner with them. He (this witness), Prince and driver got down from the vehicle and his father continued to stay in the car and stated that he would feed his (Prince''s) mother and that they should go to ''dhaba'' and eat the food. After some time, his father Rejendra got down from the car and started having dinner with them. After the death, they again started for Jaipur and on the way near Kanota while they were passing through Sardar Memorial Hospital, this witness asked Prince that they could get his mother checked up from this hospital. Prince thereupon told him that they were going to Dr. B.L. Sharma, who was presently sitting in the home of his aunt (bua) in Mahesh Nagar. 23. When they reached Jaipur and were passing by SMS hospital, again this witness told Prince that they should take his mother to SMS hospital to get her treated there. Even then Prince insisted that they were to go to her aunt''s house, which was situated at some distance from there. At some distance, Prince got the vehicle halted and called her aunt on cellphone, who told that she has already reached Dausa and that they should come back to Dausa. Even at this juncture, this witness (PW4) has insisted that let his mother (Nisha) be taken to SMS hospital for treatment but Prince and his father insisted that they had very good Doctors in Dausa and now that his aunt has also reached Dausa, they should go back there. In this manner, they reached back Dausa around 12.30 am. Not only this PW4 has stated that Prince even told him that he should stay in his house during night so that in case of any emergency, he could check up his mother, who may have been taken back to Jaipur. On this, he (this witness) has stated that he refused so by saying that he has to go to attend his duties in the hospital in morning. When they reached his house, Prince carried out his mother on his hands and even while climbing on the stairs of his house, he slipped and this witness asked him whether he needs any help, but Prince stated ''no'' to him. Prince and his father stayed in the house and he (this witness) came with the driver, who dropped him at the octroi post from where he went to his home. Prince and his father stayed in the house and he (this witness) came with the driver, who dropped him at the octroi post from where he went to his home. In the morning at about 7.30-8.00 am, Prince gave him about four missed calls and since he was sleeping that time, therefore, he could not take his calls. This witness (PW4) was subjected to intensive cross examination, but has remained unshaken. 24. The driver of the vehicle Mosin Khan (PW3), who was hired by the accused Rajendra Jakhmi has stated that accused Rajendra Jakhmi came to him at around 5.00 pm on the taxi stand and told that he had to carry his wife to Jaipur, who was serious and therefore he would call him. Rajendra Jakhmi took his phone number and called him at around 7-7.30 pm to come to his house, but told that he should not park his vehicle on the front side of his house as some death had taken place in the house situated in the neighbouring house. He (this witness) parked the vehicle in front of temple and called Rajendra Jakhmi. Thereupon, Prince came and told that we have to go to market first to get food from hotel. Then they came to Rai Nursing Home where Raghu, friend of Prince also boarded the car and went to Jodhana hotel and took food and thereafter went to the market to bought some plastic plates etc. In between, Prince got telephone call from his father several times that his mother was seriously ill and that they should come early. When they reached the house of Prince, he brought his mother on his hands. She was covered in a blanket. She was made to lie on the rear side of the vehicle. Rajendra Jakhmi told a neighbour, who was standing outside his house that his wife was not feeling well and he should therefore take care of his house. Mosin Khan (PW3) further stated that when his vehicle was running in a slightly high speed, Rajendra Jakhmi forbade him saying that this might cause discomfort to his wife. Before they halted the vehicle near a Dargah before reaching Kanota, they had food. Prince told that he would feed his mother. The vehicle was parked slightly away from the hotel because Prince was saying that his mother might vomit and the hotel owner could object to this. Before they halted the vehicle near a Dargah before reaching Kanota, they had food. Prince told that he would feed his mother. The vehicle was parked slightly away from the hotel because Prince was saying that his mother might vomit and the hotel owner could object to this. Prince, his father and Raghu all had food there. They asked this witness to have food, but he simple took a tea. Then they started for Jaipur. When he wanted to take them to SMS hospital, Prince refused saying that he had already talked to Doctor and the patient had to be shown to him in his home. Then they took the car to a colony named Adarsh Nagar behind assembly building. At that time Prince received a telephone call from his aunt (''bua'') that she had already reached Dausa. Thereupon, Prince and his father both asked this witness to return back to Dausa. This witness has stated that he again insisted for first going to SMS hospital, but both refused saying that they should now go back to Dausa. According to Mosin Khan (PW3) they reached Dausa at around 12.30 am. When Prince was carrying his mother on his hands inside the house, she fell on the ground. When this witness offered help, Prince declined saying that they would themselves carry her inside the house. This witness has stated that he did not see any activity. While deceased lay on the rear seat. She was not talking. When this witness dropped accused and Nisha at the house, Prince asked him that if need be, he might again call him in the night. This witness has stated that when Nisha fell on the ground from the hands of Prince, he did not hear any sound or voice from her mouth. Prince called him around 4-4.30 am that his mother had died. Thereupon this witness went with his vehicle to his house and they both went to fetch dry wood for funeral and dropped them in the cremation ground. In cross examination, this witness has stated that he did not notice any activity of deceased Nisha while she lay on the rear seat of his car. Therefore, he could not say whether she was alive or not. He did not see accused Prince giving water to his mother on the way. In cross examination, this witness has stated that he did not notice any activity of deceased Nisha while she lay on the rear seat of his car. Therefore, he could not say whether she was alive or not. He did not see accused Prince giving water to his mother on the way. In fact, both accused were addressing Nisha as if they were talking to her, but she did not reply to any of their conversations. 25. A conjoint reading of the statement of all the four witnesses namely; Dr. Om Prakash (PW1), Dr. Tej Bhan Meena (PW2), Mosin Khan (PW3) and Raghu Sharma (PW4) goes to show that the accused travelled with the dead boy in a planned way to establish that she was alive at that time and they were taking her to SMS hospital for his treatment at Jaipur and thereafter they tried to destroy the evidence by cremating the dead body clandestinely. The contention that for all these acts, Rajendra Jakhmi, husband of the deceased was responsible and that accused Bharat Gaur Prince was merely accompanying him and therefore at the best, he could be convicted for offence under section 201 IPC, is noted to be rejected. The evidence clearly show that he was an active participant in the entire incident and the case being based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances, which have been proved are such which not only create a doubt, but afford a reasonable basis for taking the inference that it is the accused who committed the murder of deceased with a common object and then they tried to destroy the evidence. Had there been no timely intervention by the police, the accused had nearly succeeded in their design. Mere fact that Rajendra, father of Prince had died, does not in any manner diminish the criminal liability of the accused Bharat Gaur Prince and this can in no way be taken as a mitigating circumstance as far as his guilt is concerned. 26. The judgements cited by accused-appellants are distinguishable on facts and therefore cannot provide any assistance to them. 27. However, coming now to the appeal filed by complainant whereby it was prayed that the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to accused-respondents be enhanced to death penalty, we hardly find any justification for awarding such an extreme penalty. 28. 26. The judgements cited by accused-appellants are distinguishable on facts and therefore cannot provide any assistance to them. 27. However, coming now to the appeal filed by complainant whereby it was prayed that the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to accused-respondents be enhanced to death penalty, we hardly find any justification for awarding such an extreme penalty. 28. On the aspect of proportionality of sentence, in our considered view, the same has to be prescribed according to culpability of criminal conduct of the 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 v. 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 Tdiga Annamma v. 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. 29. 29. Those principles that were laid down by the Supreme Court in Bachan Singh''s case, supra, were best summarized in Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab - (1983) 3 SCC 470 , in Para 38 of the judgment therein, which we reproduce as under:- "38. In this background the guidelines indicated in Bachan Singh''s case (supra) will have to be culled out and applied to the facts of each individual case where the question of imposing of death sentence arises. The following propositions emerge from Bachan Singh''s case (supra): (i) The 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. (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. 30. 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''s case, supra, 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-a-vis whom the murderer is in a dominating position, or a public figure generally loved and respected by the community." 31. In Rameshbhai Chandubhai Rathod v. State of Gujarat - (2009) 5 SCC 740 , judgment of High Court confirming death sentence awarded to the appellant was challenged before the Supreme Court. The appellant in that case was convicted for offence under Sections 363, 366, 376, 397 and 302 of the IPC. The matter was laid before two-Judges bench of the Supreme Court. The appellant in that case was convicted for offence under Sections 363, 366, 376, 397 and 302 of the IPC. The matter was laid before two-Judges bench of the Supreme Court. The Hon''ble Judges though upheld conviction of the accused but differed on the question of sentence with only one of them concurring with the judgment of the High Court confirming death penalty, another Hon''ble Judge observing that instead of death sentence, sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life will meet the ends of justice. The matter was therefore referred to a larger bench. A three judge bench of the Supreme Court in Rameshbhai Chandubhai Rathod (2) v. State of Gujarat - (2011) 2 SCC 764 , answered the reference by favouring life imprisonment. In doing so, their Lordships concurred with the view expressed in earlier two Supreme Court judgments, namely, Ramraj v. State of Chhattisgarh - (2010) 1 SCC 573 and Mulla and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh - (2010) 3 SCC 508 , and held that death sentence awarded to the accused shall stand commuted to life imprisonment which shall extend to the full life of the appellant but subject to any remission or commutation at the instance of the Government for good and sufficient reasons. 32. 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 here-in-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. We reproduce hereunder Para 33 and 34 of the judgment of Supreme Court in Machhi Singh, supra, in extenso:- "I. Manner of Commission of Murder 33. 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. For instance, (i) When the house of the victim is set aflame with the end in view to roast him alive in the house. 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. For instance, (i) When the house of the victim is set aflame with the end in view to roast him alive in the house. (ii) When the victim is subjected to inhuman acts of torture or cruelty in order to bring about his or her death. (iii) When the body of the victim is cut into pieces or his body is dismembered in a fiendish manner. II Motive for Commission of murder 34. When the murder is committed for a motive which evince total depravity and meanness. For instance when (a) a hired assassin commits murder for the sake of money or reward (b) a cold blooded murder is committed with a deliberate design in order to inherit property or to gain control over property of a ward or a person under the control of the murderer or vis-a-vis whom the murderer is in a dominating position or in a position of trust. (c) a murder is committed in the course for betrayal of the motherland." 33. In our considered view, the present matter does not fall within the parameters of "rarest of the rare cases" as per the law propounded by the Supreme Court in Bachan Singh, supra. We, therefore, find that the circumstances of this case are 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. 34. In view of above discussion, both the appeals fails and are hereby dismissed.