JUDGMENT : RAJIV SHARMA, J. 1. Criminal Reference No. 01 of 2015 has been made by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vikas Nagar, Dehradun for confirmation of death sentence awarded on 4.9.2015 in Sessions Trial No.70 of 2011, whereby the appellant Shahjad Ali @ Ali-Ur-Rehman was convicted for the offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder u/s 302 IPC and sentenced to capital punishment with fine of Rs.10,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional six months’ imprisonment. Appellant was further convicted for the offence of Section 436 IPC and was sentenced to undergo 7 years’ R.I. with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo three months’ additional imprisonment. He was further sentenced to undergo one year R.I. u/s 506 IPC. For the offence of Section 392 IPC, the appellant was sentenced to undergo 7 years’ R.I. with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo three months’ additional imprisonment. He was further directed to undergo two years’ R.I. u/s 411 IPC. For the offence of Section 25/4 of Arms Act, the appellant was sentenced to undergo six months’ R.I. with fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment, he was directed to undergo one month additional imprisonment. 2. Criminal appeal No.333 of 2015 has been filed by the appellant assailing the selfsame judgment dated 4.9.2015 rendered in S.T. No.70 of 2011 whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced, as noticed hereinabove. 3. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that PW1 Anil Kumar lodged the report on 10.02.2011 to the effect that his brother Sanjay Kumar S/o Gulab Singh was running a motorcycle showroom-cum-workshop. Appellant was working as a Mechanic. Abid, Gulfam, Rajesh and Pradeep were also working in the show-room. Km. Lalita D/o Ranjeet Singh was working on the post of Supervisor. Lalita complained to Sanjay, on the basis of which, the appellant was removed from the job. The appellant requested number of times to his brother to re-engage him. However, his brother refused. Thereafter, he bore a grudge against him. On 10.02.2011, at about 4:25 P.M., appellant came to the showroom. He took out a knife from his trouser and struck a fatal blow on his brother’s neck. Thereafter, he chased Lalita and caught hold of her in an empty plot. He gave many knife blows on her body leading to her death. Thereafter, he bore a grudge against him. On 10.02.2011, at about 4:25 P.M., appellant came to the showroom. He took out a knife from his trouser and struck a fatal blow on his brother’s neck. Thereafter, he chased Lalita and caught hold of her in an empty plot. He gave many knife blows on her body leading to her death. The appellant ran away from the spot threatening the onlookers. However, before escaping from the spot, he put the show-room on fire. 4. The FIR was registered. Dead bodies were sent for post-mortem examination. The weapon of offence was also recovered. The investigation was completed. Challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities. 5. The prosecution has examined as many as 22 witnesses in support of its case. 6. The appellant was also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the case of the prosecution. He also produced one witness DW1 Imran Ali in his defence. 7. Appellant was convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court, as noticed hereinabove. It is in these circumstances, the reference has been made for confirmation of death sentence bearing Reference No.1 of 2015. Appellant has filed the criminal appeal no.333 of 2015 seeking his acquittal. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned judgment and record of the case carefully. 9. There are 4 eyewitnesses to the incident, namely, PW1 Anil Kumar, PW2 Pradeep, PW13 Gulfam and PW17 Harish Chandra. 10. PW1 Anil Kumar is the brother of the Sanjay. He testified that his brother Sanjay Kumar was running the showroom-cum-workshop under the name and style ‘Hari Om Automobile’. The appellant was working as a Mechanic. Abid, Gulfam, Rajesh and Pradeep were also working in the showroom. Lalita was working as Supervisor. Lalita lodged a complaint against the appellant to his brother. The appellant was removed from the job. The appellant requested his brother to re-engage him. Appellant bore a grudge against him. On 10.02.2011, appellant came to his brother’s showroom at around 4.25 p.m. He took out a knife and gave blow on his brother’s neck. Thereafter, he chased Lalita. Lalita tried to escape. He caught-hold of Lalita and gave many blows on her body. There was a commotion on the spot. The appellant brandished the knife and threatened the onlookers of dire consequences. He also put the showroom on fire before escaping. Thereafter, he chased Lalita. Lalita tried to escape. He caught-hold of Lalita and gave many blows on her body. There was a commotion on the spot. The appellant brandished the knife and threatened the onlookers of dire consequences. He also put the showroom on fire before escaping. Appellant snatched the motorcycle and escaped from the spot. His brother collapsed outside the showroom. Sanjay and Lalita died on the spot. He lodged the FIR. In his cross-examination, he deposed that some conversation took place between Sanjay and the appellant. Thereafter, he took out the knife and attacked his brother and Lalita. He informed the fire brigade. He did not call 108 on the spot, since his brother and Lalita had already died. The motorcycle, on which the appellant escaped, belonged to Harish Chandra. 11. PW2 Pradeep is also the eyewitness. He was working in the showroom. On 10.2.2011 at around 4 PM, Gulfam and Abid were on the spot. Sanjay, Anil and Lalita along with few customers were also present in the showroom. Appellant appeared on the spot at 4:15 PM. He attacked deceased. Thereafter, he followed Lalita and caught hold of her in the vacant plot and inflicted many knife blows on her body. 12. PW3 Randip Guleria has deposed that on 10.2.2011, he was in the showroom. He received the information that Sanjay has been murdered. He reached the spot. Inquest report was prepared. Blood soaked soil was also collected by the police from the spot. 13. PW4 Dr. Y.S. Thapliyal has conducted the post-mortem examination on Lalita’s body. He noticed the following injuries on her body: - 1. “Incised wound of size 13 cm x 9 cm on the front of neck just above thyroid cartilage cutting larynx, trachea, phalynx, external and internal jugular vein, external and internal carotid artery and muscle of neck. 2. Incised wound of size 3 cm x 2 cm on right breast muscle deep 3. Stab wound of size 3 cm x 2 cm cavity deep on the right side of chest on 7th inter-corporal region. Mid axillary line with profound clotted blood coming out of wound. 4. Stab wound of size 3 cm x 2 cm cavity deep on left side of 5th I.C. space mid axillary line. 5. Stab wound of size 3 cm x 2 cm cavity deep on the right side of chest on 7th inter-corporal region. Mid axillary line with profound clotted blood coming out of wound. 4. Stab wound of size 3 cm x 2 cm cavity deep on left side of 5th I.C. space mid axillary line. 5. Three incised wound of size 4 cm x 2, 5 cm x 2 cm 3 cm x 2 cm muscle deep on left breast. 6. Incised wound of size 5 cm x 2 cm, muscle deep on left upper forearm. 7. Incised wound of size 10 cm x 2 cm on palm of left hand. 8. Incised wound on back of right elbow, 2 cm x 10 cm, muscle deep. 9. I.W. of size 2 cm x 1.0 cm on dorsam of right hand. 10. I.W. of size 2 x 1.0 cm at base of left thumb dorsal aspect.” Her respiratory pipe was cut. Lungs had collapsed. Heart was punctured. Cause of death of Lalita was shock and hemorrhage due to excessive bleeding. Death was caused due to ante-mortem injuries. Death has occurred between 18-24 hours before the post-mortem examination. 14. PW4 Dr. Y.S. Thapliyal also conducted the post-mortem examination on the body of Sanjay Guleria. He found the following injuries on his body: - “An incised wound of size 30 cm x 10 cm placed on right side of neck and front of neck. Bone deep external and internal jugular vein are cut. External and internal carotid base over injury, phalynx and muscle of front of neck and right side of neck are inverted.” Cause of death was shock and excessive bleeding because of ante-mortem injuries. Death has occurred between 18-24 hours from the date of post-mortem examination. PW4 Dr. Thapliyal has proved the post-mortem reports. 15. PW5 Constable Lokendra Singh has deposed that he was posted as a Constable in Selakui Outpost on 10.2.2011. The SHO concerned was informed by the informer about the presence of appellant. They went in the direction as per the information of informant. When they reached near the government mental hospital, Selakui, appellant was found sitting on the motorcycle. Appellant was apprehended. Blood stained knife was recovered from his possession. Motorcycle was also taken into possession. 16. PW6 Constable Nitin Kumar deposed that the appellant was arrested and weapon of offence was also taken into possession. 17. When they reached near the government mental hospital, Selakui, appellant was found sitting on the motorcycle. Appellant was apprehended. Blood stained knife was recovered from his possession. Motorcycle was also taken into possession. 16. PW6 Constable Nitin Kumar deposed that the appellant was arrested and weapon of offence was also taken into possession. 17. PW7 Harkesh Singh testified that he scribed the FIR. Appellant was arrested with motorcycle and knife. 18. PW8 Jai Singh deposed that Lalita was his niece. She was engaged in Sanjay Guleria’ agency. She was murdered on 10.2.2011. 19. PW9 Sudesh Chandra has testified that he received information about the death of his cousin and Lalita. He reached on the spot. He signed the inquest report. 20. PW10 Rajesh Kumar has also signed the inquest report along with PW11 Sardar Singh and PW12 Tilakraj Sharma. 21. PW13 Gulfam is also an eyewitness. He testified that on 10.2.2011, he was working in the showroom as a Mechanic. Sanjay Guleria was present in the showroom around 4-4:15 PM. Appellant gave fatal blows on the neck of Sanjay. Thereafter, he killed Lalita by chasing her. Appellant then ran away. 22. PW14 Brijraj has deposed that he reached the spot and signed the recovery memo. 23. PW15 Sushil Kumar also reached the spot after hearing about the incident. The motorcycle was recovered. Stains of blood were present on the seat of motorcycle. 24. PW16 S.I. Thakur Singh Rawat reached the spot with other police personnel. He informed the higher authorities. He prepared the inquest report. The bodies were sent for post-mortem examination. 25. PW17 Harish Chandra is another eyewitness. He corroborated the statements of PW1 Anil Kumar, PW2 Pradeep and PW13 Gulfam. He has also deposed that the appellant attacked Sanjay and Lalita with knife and he also put the showroom on fire. Police has taken into possession his bloodstained trouser. 26. PW18 S.I. Lalit Singh has technically examined the motorcycle. 27. PW19 S.I. Manoj Kumar Nainwal has taken into possession the plain and bloodstained soil into possession. The appellant was arrested. The knife recovered from him was taken into possession. Arrest memo was prepared. The pant of Harish Chandra was taken into possession. Appellant was also medically examined. Bloodstained clothes of appellant were taken into possession. Clothes were sent for FSL examination. Dead bodies were lying in close proximity to each other. 28. The appellant was arrested. The knife recovered from him was taken into possession. Arrest memo was prepared. The pant of Harish Chandra was taken into possession. Appellant was also medically examined. Bloodstained clothes of appellant were taken into possession. Clothes were sent for FSL examination. Dead bodies were lying in close proximity to each other. 28. PW20 Sudhir Kumar Singh, the then Magistrate, has recorded the statements of Abid Ali u/s 164 Cr.P.C. He also recorded the statements of Harish Chandra, Abid and Pradeep. He has proved that these statements were recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. 29. PW21 Dr. Umesh Chand has medically examined the appellant. He has noticed the injuries on the body of appellant. 30. PW22 S.I. Praveen Singh is a formal witness. 31. Case of the prosecution is that the appellant was working in the showroom of deceased. Ms. Lalita was also working as Supervisor. She made a complaint to Sanjay Guleria about the appellant. Sanjay Guleria removed the appellant from the job which led to animosity between him and Sanjay. Appellant came on the spot on 10.2.2011. He attacked Sanjay with the knife on his neck and thereafter chased Lalita and also gave multiple stab wounds on her body. Sanjay and Lalita died on the spot. Appellant ran away from the spot by snatching the motorcycle. He also put the showroom on fire. He was arrested. The motorcycle with bloodstained seat and weapon of offence i.e. knife was recovered. The knife was sent for FSL examination along with bloodstained soil. Cause of death of both the deceased was due to ante-mortem injuries received by them which led to shock and hemorrhage. Bloodstained clothes of appellant were also recovered from his house. PW1 Anil, PW2 Pradeep, PW13 Gulfam and PW17 Harish Chandra are the eyewitnesses. They, in unison, have deposed that the appellant appeared on the spot. He gave knife blows on the neck of Sanjay. He was also seen chasing Lalita and inflicting multiple stab bounds on her. PW1 Anil is the brother of deceased Sanjay. PW2 Pradeep, PW13 Gulfam and PW17 Harish Chandra were working in the showroom. They were present on the spot. Statements of PW1 Anil, PW2 Pradeep, PW13 Gulfam and PW17 Harish Chandra are trustworthy. 32. There is no merit in the contention of learned Counsel for the appellant that the statement of PW1 Anil cannot be believed. PW2 Pradeep, PW13 Gulfam and PW17 Harish Chandra were working in the showroom. They were present on the spot. Statements of PW1 Anil, PW2 Pradeep, PW13 Gulfam and PW17 Harish Chandra are trustworthy. 32. There is no merit in the contention of learned Counsel for the appellant that the statement of PW1 Anil cannot be believed. PW1 Anil is the real brother of deceased. He reached the showroom of his brother at 1 PM. PW2 Pradeep, PW13 Gulfam and PW17 Harish Chandra are the independent witnesses. They did not have any enmity with the deceased. The inquest report was prepared and it was signed by independent witnesses, as noticed hereinabove. The appellant was apprehended under a bridge and from his possession, the weapon of offence and motorcycle was recovered. The weapon of offence was also sent for FSL examination. 33. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has vehemently argued that after receiving the fatal blows, the deceased Sanjay could not come out of showroom. There is no merit in this contention. Sanjay Guleria, even though was given blow on the neck, has come out to prevent the appellant from killing Lalita. 34. Learned Counsel for the appellant has further argued that the prosecution has not proved the trail of blood. There could not be any trail of blood for the simple reason that the appellant had put the showroom on fire. The post-mortem reports have been proved by PW4 Dr. Y.S. Thapliyal who conducted the post-mortem examination. According to him, the cause of death of deceased was as a result of ante-mortem injuries caused by sharp edged weapon leading to shock and hemorrhage. The death has occurred between 18-24 hours before the post-mortem examination. There were 10 injuries on the body of Lalita. Four witnesses i.e. PW1 Anil, PW2 Pradeep, PW13 Gulfam and PW17 Harish Chandra have seen the appellant killing Sanjay and Lalita with knife. CRLA No.333 of 2015- The prosecution has proved the case against the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt for the offences u/s 302, 436, 506, 392, 411 IPC and Section 25/4 of Arms Act. Accordingly, the CRLA No.333 of 2015 filed by the appellant, assailing his conviction and sentence, is dismissed. Criminal Reference No.01 of 2015- Appellant Sehzad Ali was convicted and sentenced by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vikas Nagar (Dehradun) in S.T. 70 of 2011. Appellant was the employee of Sanjay Guleria. Accordingly, the CRLA No.333 of 2015 filed by the appellant, assailing his conviction and sentence, is dismissed. Criminal Reference No.01 of 2015- Appellant Sehzad Ali was convicted and sentenced by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vikas Nagar (Dehradun) in S.T. 70 of 2011. Appellant was the employee of Sanjay Guleria. He was bearing grudge against Sanjay Guleria since Sanjay Guleria had removed him from service. Sanjay removed from service after receiving a complaint from Lalita, who was working as Supervisor in his showroom. On the day of incident, the appellant came on the spot with knife and gave fatal blows on the neck of Sanjay Guleria. Appellant also chased Lalita and killed her in an empty plot where he inflicted as many as 10 injuries on Lalita. PW4 Dr. Y.S. Thapliyal has conducted the post-mortem. According to him, the deceased had died due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of excessive bleeding. The appellant has also put the showroom on fire to destroy the evidence. The knife was recovered from his possession along with the motorcycle. He was also medically examined. The appellant has committed brutal murder of Sanjay Guleria and Lalita in presence of four witnesses, namely, PW1 Anil, PW2 Pradeep, PW13 Gulfam and PW17 Harish Chandra. This act committed by the appellant would fall within the category of “rarest of rare case”. He has not shown any repentance and has threatened the onlookers of dire consequence in case they tried to apprehend him. In the given facts and circumstances, the death sentence imposed upon the accused Shehzad in S.T. No.70 of 2011 vide judgment dated 4.9.2015 is confirmed. Criminal Reference stands answered accordingly. 35. Let a copy of this judgment and order along with LCR be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.