JUDGMENT A.K. Sikri, J. Leave granted. 2. We have heard the counsel for the parties at length, with their consent. Insofar as conviction of the appellant is concerned, after perusing the record and going through the evidence produced against the appellant, we are of the opinion that it does not call for any interference, in fact, after some arguments, Mr. Grover did not seriously press the issue of conviction and concentrated on the award of death penalty to the appellants. Even otherwise, we are convinced that the conviction is rightly recorded. 3. Reverting to the issue of death penalty, we have given our serious thoughts on this aspect. After examining the matter at length, we are of the opinion that the instant case would not fall in the category of rarest of rare cases and it would be in the interest of justice if the death sentence is commuted into life imprisonment. More so, the appellant has no history of any other criminal activity, possibility of reform, as the learned senior counsel for respondent-State could not point out blameworthy conduct depicted by him in jail. At the same time, we are also of the opinion that life sentence should be with a cap of 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment (RI) which would mean that the appellant shall not be entitled to make any representation for remission till he completes 20 years of RI. 4. The appeal is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms. Insofar as sentences given under Sections 376 and 302, IPC are concerned, those are maintained with clarification that all the sentences shall run concurrently.