JUDGMENT Pushpa V. Ganediwala, J. - The accused Gajanan, Nandesh and Deepak were prosecuted for committing four murders, as per the charge sheet filed by Police Station, Ural, Dist Akola. The Additional Sessions Judge - 3, Akola found the accused guilty and sentenced them to death and referred the case for confirmation to this Court vide letter O.W. No. 5024 of 2018 dated 27.11.2018. 2. The accused have also impugned the judgment and order of the Sessions Court dated 23.11.2018 in S.T. No. 150/2013 in appeal against their conviction. 3. Both the Confirmation Case and the appeal preferred by the accused are heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 4. For the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, all the three accused have been sentenced to death by hanging by neck till death with fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand) each and default sentence of R.I. for one year. 5. For the offence punishable under Section 450 read with Section 34 of the IPC, accused have been sentenced to suffer seven years R.I. with fine of Rs.5,000/-and default sentence of S.I. for two years. 6. The prosecution case, in brief, may be stated as under : (i) Accused No. 1 - Gajanan Vasudeo Mali is the father of accused Nos. 2 and 3 - Nandesh Gajanan Mali and Deepak Gajanan Mali. There was a dispute between Gajanan Mali and one Bhagwantrao Mali with regard to ownership of one agriculture land situated at Bhakarabad. (ii) Bhagwantrao Mali had filed a suit for Specific Performance of Contract against the accused Gajanan. It was the case of Bhagwantrao Mali that accused No. 1 - Gajanan Mali had executed an agreement to sell the suit field in his favour. While it was the case of the accused that Bhagwantrao was doing illegal business of money lending and for security of the loan transaction he got executed the alleged agreement to sell from the accused. The suit was decreed in favour of Bhagwantrao. Bhagwantrao got possession of the suit field through the bailiff of the Court on 02.04.2014. (iii) It is the case of the prosecution that in spite of decree against him, the Accused Gajanan Mali ploughed the disputed field on 13.04.2014. He also gave threats of life to the sons of Bhagwantrao if they dared to enter the disputed field. Bhagwantrao got possession of the suit field through the bailiff of the Court on 02.04.2014. (iii) It is the case of the prosecution that in spite of decree against him, the Accused Gajanan Mali ploughed the disputed field on 13.04.2014. He also gave threats of life to the sons of Bhagwantrao if they dared to enter the disputed field. (iv) At the relevant time, Bhagwantrao and his two sons Yogesh and Rajesh (both deceased) were residing in Akola. Bhagwantrao, after retiring from service and was leading a retired life. (v) Deceased Vishwanath Mali was brother of Bhagwantrao and was residing at Bhakarabad with his family. Deceased Vanmala was married daughter of Vishwanath and was residing with him at Bhakarabad due to her matrimonial dispute. (vi) Deceased Yogesh and deceased Rajesh Mali had been to Bhakrabad on 13.04.2014. The accused gave them threats of life if they dare to enter the disputed field. On 14.04.2014, at 4.00 O'' clock both deceased Yogesh and Rajesh along with their cousin deceased Vanmala lodged report of threats of life by accused to Police Station, Ural. They came back at about 5.00 P.M. Thereafter, Yogesh and Vanmala went to the disputed field to clean it. Rajesh was in the house and was sitting on the cot in the front room opposite porch. (vii) At about 3.30 P.M. PW-1 - Dattaram Mali (informant) s/o Vishwanath Mali (deceased) had gone to his field for ploughing with tractor driver Ajay Dhawale. (viii) PW-2 - Prabhavati Mali (w/o the deceased Vishwanath Mali) was sitting in the varandha with her grand daughter. (ix) P.W.-5 - Sau. Kiran Mali (daughter in law of deceased Vishwanath) had gone to fetch water from hand pump situated towards Durga Square which was at a distance of five minutes walk from their house. (x) The deceased Vishwanath was latching the door of cattle shed which was adjacent to their house, at the relevant time. (xi) At about 6.30 P.M., all the three accused rushed towards their house with weapons in their hands. Accused No. 1 - Gajanan was holding fodder cutter blade fixed to a pipe. Accused No. 2 - Nandesh was holding a farsha axe and Accused No. 3 - Deepak was holding an axe. They attacked Rajesh with these weapons. Rajesh died on the spot instantly. Accused No. 1 - Gajanan was holding fodder cutter blade fixed to a pipe. Accused No. 2 - Nandesh was holding a farsha axe and Accused No. 3 - Deepak was holding an axe. They attacked Rajesh with these weapons. Rajesh died on the spot instantly. Thereafter the accused left and immediately turned back and attacked Vishwanath Mali with those weapons and committed his murder. (xii) The news about this incident reached to Dattaram Mali (PW-1), who was at the relevant time in his field by name - Kashtavara. Dattaram Mali was Police Patil of the village. He immediately informed about the incident to PSO Shri Ingole (PW-8) of Ural Police Station. Dattaram came to his house along with Ajay Dhawale in his tractor. From the people gathered there, they came to know that the accused had first killed Yogesh and Vanmala in the disputed field and thereafter had come to kill Rajesh and Vishwanath. (xiii) In the meantime, Police had also reached the spot. Police prepared spot panchnama in the presence of Panch witnesses and collected blood stained earth and simple earth from the spots. (xiv) Dattaram Mali lodged report of the incident at Police Station, Ural. On the basis of his report,FIR at Sr. No. 39 of 201 4 came to be registered against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 452, 302, 120(B) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 25 of the Indian Arms Act, on 14.04.2014. (xv) PSI Shri Ingole started investigation. On 15.04.2014, he arrested all the accused. Blood samples of the accused were collected through Medical Officer and were sent for Chemical Analyser''s report. Inquest panchnama of all the dead bodies were also conducted and bodies were sent for post mortem. Clothes of all the four deceased were also collected through seizure panchnama. At the instance of accused, weapons used in the crime were recovered through recovery panchnama (Exhs. 65 to 67) from the places as shown by the accused. The clothes of the accused were also seized, as produced by them from their houses at the time of seizure panchnama (Exhs. 68 to 70). (xvi) On 16.04.2014, statements of Prabhavati Mali (PW2) and Kiran Mali (PW-5) and other witnesses came to be recorded. All seized articles were sent for Forensic report. The clothes of the accused were also seized, as produced by them from their houses at the time of seizure panchnama (Exhs. 68 to 70). (xvi) On 16.04.2014, statements of Prabhavati Mali (PW2) and Kiran Mali (PW-5) and other witnesses came to be recorded. All seized articles were sent for Forensic report. After investigation, charge sheet came to be filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class. (xvii) As the offence of murder is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions. The Court of Sessions framed charge against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 450 read with Section 34, Section 302 read with Section 120(B) and Section 4 read with Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act (vide Exh. 4). The charge was read over to the accused in their vernacular. They denied the charge and claimed to be tried. The pleas of the accused were recorded. (xviii) To establish the charge, the prosecution examined in all eight witnesses. PW-1 - Dattaram Vishwanath Mali - (informant) PW-2 - Prabhavati Vishwanath Mali - (eye witness) PW-3 - Gopal Ramkrishan Sabde - (Panch) PW-4 - Gopal Sudampant Wanare - (Panch) PW-5 - Sau. Kiran Dattaram Mali - (eye witness) PW-6 - Dr. Chaitanya Sitaram Kulkarni (Medical Officer who conducted Post mortem. PW-7 - Suresh M. Yadao - (Police Constable) PW-8 - Aatmaram Nathuji Ingole, Investigation Officer. (xix) Besides the oral testimony, the prosecution has also brought on record some documents, the reference which has already come in the earlier part of this judgment. (xx) The learned Sessions Judge recorded statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The defence of the accused is of total denial. (xxi) The accused, in their turn also examined one defence witness - Ramesh Kashiram Davale on the point that the prosecution eyewitnesses were not present at the time of incident. (xxii) The Trial Court, on the basis of evidence on record and submissions on behalf of both the sides passed the impugned judgment of conviction and imposed capital punishment on the accused. 7. We have heard Shri Avinash Gupta, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the accused and Shri T.A. Mirza, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 8. (xxii) The Trial Court, on the basis of evidence on record and submissions on behalf of both the sides passed the impugned judgment of conviction and imposed capital punishment on the accused. 7. We have heard Shri Avinash Gupta, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the accused and Shri T.A. Mirza, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 8. Shri Avinash Gupta, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the accused can not be held responsible for the murders of Yogesh and Vanmala for want of sufficient evidence. Firstly, undisputedly, there is no eye witness to the alleged incident. Secondly, the only circumstance against the accused is the Chemical Analyser''s report, however, that too is not conclusive in as much as group B of blood which was allegedly found on the clothes of the accused matched with blood group of not only deceased Yogesh and Vanmala (who were killed in the field) but also the accused Deepak and deceased Rajesh who was allegedly killed in the house of Vishwanath. There is no other circumstance against the accused to prove the guilt. 9. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that, there is a discrepancy in sending blood bottles of the deceased for C. A. report. Learned Senior Counsel argued that evidently, eight bottles of blood of the deceased persons were collected, however, only four bottles of blood were sent for Chemical Analyser''s report. The learned Senior Counsel raised doubt on the prosecution case and submitted that the possibility of using the remaining four bottles of blood for sprinkling on the clothes of accused cannot be ruled out. 10. The learned Senior Counsel prayed to acquit the accused from the charge of murder of deceased Yogesh and Vanmala in the disputed field for want of sufficient evidence. 11. As regards murders of Rajesh and Vishwanath, learned Senior Counsel doubted the presence of PW-5 - Kiran Mali on the spot as PW-2 - Prabhawati did not speak a word about the presence of Kiran, as admittedly, she had gone to fetch water from hand pump which was at the outskirts of the village Bhakrabad. The learned Senior Counsel at the same time also doubted the testimony of Kiran - PW-5 also as she had not stated anything about the presence of Prabhawati - PW-2 on the spot. Except these two witnesses who are interested witnesses, the prosecution failed to examine any independent witness. The learned Senior Counsel at the same time also doubted the testimony of Kiran - PW-5 also as she had not stated anything about the presence of Prabhawati - PW-2 on the spot. Except these two witnesses who are interested witnesses, the prosecution failed to examine any independent witness. The alleged weapons used in the crime are the common agricultural tools used by all the agriculturists in the village. None of the witnesses say that the clothes of the accused were stained with blood, therefore, sprinkling of blood on the clothes of the accused by the prosecution cannot be ruled out since four bottles of blood of the deceased remained with the Investigating Officer. 12. The Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the alleged recovery of weapons was not as per law and weapons were recovered from the open spaces. No blood stains were found on the first weapon i.e. fodder cutter. 13. As regards topography of the spot of the second incident, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the cattle shed was the alleged place of murder of the deceased - Vishwanath which was not visible from varandha where PW-2 - Prabhawati Mali was allegedly sitting. At the same time, it could not have been possible for PW-5 - Kiran Mali to witness the incident as according to her testimony, she was coming from Durga square, which is towards passageway (varandha) side. 14. As regards death sentence, the learned Senior Counsel laid much emphasis on the conduct of accused in jail. He submitted that since 5 years, the accused are in jail and report of the Superintendent of Jail, Central Prison, Nagpur, is positive with regard to the behavior of accused in jail. This, according to the learned Senior Counsel, is a mitigating circumstance in favour of the accused. Furthermore, accused No. 1 is of 60 years of age while accused Nos. 2 and 3 are of 19 and 24 years respectively, both are unmarried and they don''t have criminal antecedents and in all probabilities accused can be reformed and rehabilitated and they would not commit any offence further. 15. The learned Senior Counsel relied on bunch of authorities wherein the Apex Court commuted death sentence to life imprisonment. 16. 2 and 3 are of 19 and 24 years respectively, both are unmarried and they don''t have criminal antecedents and in all probabilities accused can be reformed and rehabilitated and they would not commit any offence further. 15. The learned Senior Counsel relied on bunch of authorities wherein the Apex Court commuted death sentence to life imprisonment. 16. On the contrary, Shri T.A. Mirza, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, while supporting the impugned judgment and order has brought to the notice of this Court NC Complaint No. 116 of 2014 lodged by the deceased - Yogesh just prior to the incident on the same day at about 4.00 O'' clock to Police Station, Ural, District - Akola, stating therein about threats of life given by the accused. The learned APP urged to read this report under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act. The learned APP also took us through the relevant part of the oral evidence of the witnesses to show that weapons recovered were not accessible to the general public and how the testimonies of these witnesses are reliable to prove the guilt against the accused. 17. On the point of death sentence, the learned APP referred to a bunch of case laws of the Hon''ble Apex Court and this Court in order to convince us that the facts and circumstances of the present case which are brought on record by the prosecution are sufficient to treat it as the ''rarest of rare'' case to justify death penalty. 18. We have considered the submissions on behalf of both the sides and perused the record minutely. All the eight prosecution witnesses supported the prosecution story. Undisputedly, there was a property dispute for 2 acres of agriculture land between accused and Bhagwantrao Mali. It is also not disputed that Civil Court passed a decree in the said dispute for Specific Performance of Agreement of sale in favour of Bhagwantrao Mali and the Sale deed came to be executed through Court and possession of the suit field was handed over to Bhagwantrao through court bailiff on 02.04.2014. PW1 Dattaram Mali, being Police Patil of the village Bhakarabad was also present at the time of handing over of the possession to Bhagwantrao Mali. 19. The relations between the accused inter se and the deceased and witnesses PW-1, PW-2 and PW-5 inter se are not disputed. PW1 Dattaram Mali, being Police Patil of the village Bhakarabad was also present at the time of handing over of the possession to Bhagwantrao Mali. 19. The relations between the accused inter se and the deceased and witnesses PW-1, PW-2 and PW-5 inter se are not disputed. At the cost of repetition, accused No.1 Gajanan is father, aged 60 yrs and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are his two bachelor sons aged 19 and 24 resp. It is also not disputed that at the relevant time deceased Vishwanath (aged 85 yrs) was residing in Bhakarabad along with his wife Prabhavati (PW2), his son Dattaram (PW1), Dattaram''s wife Kiran(PW5), grand daughter Bhavika and deceased Vanmala - married daughter of Vishwanath. Bhagwantrao was in service and was living a retired life along with his deceased sons Yogesh and Rajesh in Gokul Colony, Akola. 20. Before proceeding to discuss the evidence on record with regard to the incident of murders, a few facts with regard to the properties of the parties, brought on record in the cross examination of the prosecution witnesses, need to be mentioned here. Bhagwantrao had 20 to 30 acres of agricultural land in village Bhakarabad in his name and in the names of his deceased sons Yogesh and Rajesh. Apart from the disputed 2 acres of land, Bhagwantrao had purchased 4 acres of other land from accused No. 1 - Gajanan. It is the defence of the accused that Bhagwantrao was doing an illegal money lending business and used to get signed the property documents for extending loans to the needy and the same thing he had done with accused No. 1 and got the decree for specific performance of contract from the court for the disputed land. It is also brought on record in the cross examination of PW-2 that Bhagwantrao had purchased one land from one Vasudeo in Bhakarabad in the same way and the possession of the said land is still with Vasudeo but the witness PW-2 showed his ignorance as to whether any dispute is pending in the Court about this land. 21. Now, we proceed to assess the prosecution evidence as regards the two incidents of double murders. As per the prosecution case, the first incident of double murder took place in the disputed field whereby Yogesh and Vanmala were murdered. There is no eye witness to this incident. 21. Now, we proceed to assess the prosecution evidence as regards the two incidents of double murders. As per the prosecution case, the first incident of double murder took place in the disputed field whereby Yogesh and Vanmala were murdered. There is no eye witness to this incident. Evidently, both these deceased had gone to the disputed field just after lodging report at Ural Police station about threats of life by accused. 22. The second incident of murders was in the house of Vishwanath wherein Rajesh and Vishwanath were killed. The homicidal death of all the 4 deceased is not disputed. 23. Evidently, at the relevant time Rajesh was sitting on the cot in the room adjacent to the porch while Vishwanath , at the time of his murder, was latching the door of the cattle shed which was adjacent to the house of Vishwanath. PW-2 - Prabhavati and PW-5 - Kiran claimed to have witnessed this incident. Except these two eyewitnesses, the prosecution has not examined any other eyewitness. 24. Pw-1 - Dattaram Mali is the informant, who is not the eyewitness to both the incidents of murders. At the relevant time, he was in his field ''Kastawar'' along with Ajay Dhawale with his tractor. He was Police Patil of the village Bhakarabad. PW-1 testified that, accused No. 1 Gajanan, being dissatisfied with the decree of the court ploughed the field on 13.04.2014 and gave threats of life to Yogesh and Rajesh. Hence, on 14.04.2014 Yogesh lodged report to police station Ural about threats of life given by accused to them. The said report is brought on record through PW-8, the Investigation officer. It is at Exh. 116 and NCR extract is at Exh. 117. 25. As regards first incident in the disputed field, as stated earlier, there is no eyewitness. The following are the chain of circumstances as emerge from the evidence on record. "(i) There was dispute with regard to agriculture land between accused No. 1 and Bhagwantrao, the father of deceased Yogesh and Rajesh. (ii) The accused has lost the case in the court. (iii) The Court had directed accused No. 1 to execute sale deed in favour of Bhagwantrao. As the accused failed to execute it, the same was executed through the Court and the possession of the said agricultural land was handed over to Bhagwantrao through court Bailiff. (ii) The accused has lost the case in the court. (iii) The Court had directed accused No. 1 to execute sale deed in favour of Bhagwantrao. As the accused failed to execute it, the same was executed through the Court and the possession of the said agricultural land was handed over to Bhagwantrao through court Bailiff. (iv) It was the defence of the accused in the said suit that Bhagwantrao was doing illegal money lending business and accused had not executed any agreement to sell in favour of Bhagwantrao. (v) On 13.04.2014 in the evening, accused gave threats of life to the sons of Bhagwantrao, if they entered the disputed field. (vi) On 14.04.2014 at about 4.00 pm Yogesh (deceased) along with Vanmala (deceased) went to Ural Police Station and lodged report. They came home and thereafter left for the disputed field for throwing garbage. (vii) At about 6.30 P.M., the accused committed murders of Rajesh and Vishwanath with deadly weapons by inflicting multiple injuries. (viii) Before that the murders of Yogesh and Vanmala were already committed in the disputed field. (ix) As per C. A. report, stains of the blood of deceased Yogesh and Vanmala were found on the clothes of the accused. (x) The weapons which were used for the offence were recovered at the instance of the accused. (xi) Human blood was found on weapon fodder cutter and axe. (xii) The accused failed to give any explanation about blood on their clothes and the weapons (xiii) The first incident of murder in the field is in proximity of time with the second incident of murder. (xiv) There were enemical relations between the deceased and the accused. (xv) Motive behind commission of the murders is established. (xvi) Multiple injuries with the similar weapons which were used for the commission of all the four murders. 26. The aforesaid circumstances, in our view, in the specific facts and circumstances of the present case are sufficient to complete the chain of circumstances. For the murders of Yogesh and Vanmala in the field, no other person except the present accused can be held responsible. The cumulative effect of the above circumstances conclusively establishes the guilt of the accused and no other person. There is absolutely no chance of any other person committing murders of deceased Yogesh and Vanmala except these accused. For the murders of Yogesh and Vanmala in the field, no other person except the present accused can be held responsible. The cumulative effect of the above circumstances conclusively establishes the guilt of the accused and no other person. There is absolutely no chance of any other person committing murders of deceased Yogesh and Vanmala except these accused. Though, the blood group of the deceased on the field and blood group of one of the the accused is matching i.e. blood group B, however, this alone circumstance is not sufficient to extend benefit of doubt to the accused for the murders of Yogesh and Vanmala. Lodging N.C. report at Police Station, Ural by Yogesh and Vanmala, just prior to their murders in the disputed field is the strongest circumstance against the accused. Just 12 days prior to the incident, the possession of the disputed field was given to the father of deceased Yogesh by the Court Bailiff in execution of the decree of the court. In order to take revenge, the accused used deadly weapons against the deceased. In view of the aforesaid discussion, in our considered view, the prosecution could prove the first incident of murders of Yogesh and Vanmala. 27. With regard to the second incident of murders of Rajesh and Vishwanath, there are two eyewitnesses for this incident i.e. PW-2 - Prabhavati and PW-5 - Kiran. PW- 2 - Prabhavati Mali testified that on the day of incident, her nephew Yogesh and Rajesh had been to their house at 2.00 P.M. At that time, they came to know that accused Gajanan had ploughed the disputed field. Hence, Rajesh, Yogesh and Vanmala went to Police Station, Ural, for lodging report. They came back at 5.00 P.M. Rajesh was sitting on the cot lying in the room. Yogesh and Vanmala left to go to the disputed field to throw away garbage and she sat in Varandha by keeping her legs on the staircase which is towards lane beside the house. At that time, at about 6.30 P.M., all the accused rushed towards their house having weapons in their hands. Gajanan Mali was holding fodder cutter blade affixed to the pipe. Accused Nandesh was possessing farshi axe and Deepak was holding Axe. Hence, she made shouts. Deepak stated to her that he will do nothing to her. Thereafter, they assaulted on the entire body of Rajesh with the weapons. Gajanan Mali was holding fodder cutter blade affixed to the pipe. Accused Nandesh was possessing farshi axe and Deepak was holding Axe. Hence, she made shouts. Deepak stated to her that he will do nothing to her. Thereafter, they assaulted on the entire body of Rajesh with the weapons. Hence, Rajesh died on the cot immediately. The cot was situated in the room near the door. Thereafter, they left and again came back. At that time, her husband was putting latches on the cattle shed. The accused assaulted her husband by the weapons and hence he died there. Thereafter, the accused left the spot. She was sitting weeping there. At the time of incident, her daughter-inlaw (PW-5) had gone to fetch water at hand pump. Her son - Dutta (PW-1) was at field. Thereafter, Dutta came to house and she narrated entire incident to him. From the crowd gathered there, she came to know that the accused first killed Yogesh and Vanmala in the field and thereafter they came to their house. 28. Her testimony further corroborated with the testimony of PW-1 Datta and PW-5 Kiran with regards to the facts that Datta had been to the field and Kiran had gone to fetch water from hand-pump and Yogesh, Rajesh and Vanmala came from Police Station after lodging report and thereafter, Yogesh and Vanmala went to the disputed field. 29. Pw-5 Sau. Kiran Dattaram Mali, with regard to incident deposed that when she was returning from hand- pump through Durga Chowk, at that time, accused Gajanan was holding fodder cutter blade and other two accused were holding axe. Thereafter, she came little forward and threw away the pots. She saw accused attacking Rajesh with weapons and committing his murder. Thereafter, they started walking towards their house and again, they came back and accused Gajanan gave blow of fodder cutter blade on the neck of her father in law who was at that time, putting latches to the door of cow shed and milk pot was in his hand, and two accused gave blow of axe on his person. Her father in law Vishwanath died on the spot. Thereafter, accused had left the spot. 30. In her cross-examination, she has denied all material suggestions and nothing could be brought on record through her cross-examination by the defence to discredit her testimony. 31. Her father in law Vishwanath died on the spot. Thereafter, accused had left the spot. 30. In her cross-examination, she has denied all material suggestions and nothing could be brought on record through her cross-examination by the defence to discredit her testimony. 31. She has denied the suggestion that if any person sat in the first room on a cot, then he was not visible from the road. Though, some minor omissions have been brought on record by the defence, however, there are no omissions with regard to the actual incident of murders of Rajesh and Vishwanath. 32. Though, PW-2 and PW-5 are relatives of the deceased, their testimonies inspire confidence. The cogent and consistent testimonies of these witnesses cannot be discarded only because they are related and interested witnesses. The learned Senior Counsel raised doubt on their presence on the spot. In our opinion, the doubt is unfounded. PW-5 Kiran deposed that her mother in law, being old aged, used to be in the house. PW-5 had gone to fetch water from the hand pump which is at a distance of 5 minutes walk from their house. She deposed, she witnessed the incident from the road, while returning. She deposed that she threw away the pots of water and came ahead. Her version is highly probable. Evidently, both these witnesses witnessed the incident from two different places. Therefore, they may not be knowing about each others presence. Only for this reason their presence and their testimonies can not be doubted. 33. Pw-3 - Gopal Ramkrishna Sable is the panch witness for spot and seizure panchnama Exh.44. He is also a panch witness for the spot of the second incident i.e. house of Vishwanath Mali. He deposed that house of Vishwanath Mali is at a height of 2 feet from the lane. One had to enter into the house by stair-case. It had two steps. The said staircase was in the lane. After landing from the stair-case, one was required to enter the varandha. He further deposed about the seizure of blood and soil from the spot by the police. From his testimony, coupled with spot panchnama Exh.44, the topography of the house of Vishwanath matches with the spot map Exh.43 and the testimony of PW-2 and PW-5. All adverse suggestions are denied by this witness in his cross-examination. 34. He further deposed about the seizure of blood and soil from the spot by the police. From his testimony, coupled with spot panchnama Exh.44, the topography of the house of Vishwanath matches with the spot map Exh.43 and the testimony of PW-2 and PW-5. All adverse suggestions are denied by this witness in his cross-examination. 34. Pw-4 is the panch witness for seizure of blood samples, clothes of accused and viscera bottles of deceased. He is also a witness to the memorandum and recovery panchnama for accused Gajanan Mali, Nandesh Mali and Dipak Mali. He deposed that at the instance of accused - Nandesh an axe was recovered from the cattle shed, at the instance of accused Dipak an axe was recovered from the cattle shed and at the instance of accused Gajanan, fodder cutter blade was recovered from his house. Perusal of his cross-examination would reflect that there is nothing to disbelieve this witness. The learned Senior Counsel argued that the submission that the weapons were not recovered from the places allegedly stated by the accused cannot be accepted as on scrutiny of panchanama Exh. 62 to 67 it shows that two axe were recovered from cattle shed at the instance of accused no. 2 and 3 while fodder cutter blade was recovered from the house of accused Gajanan as stated by him. There is nothing on record to show that these weapons were having open access to the people. The recovery of weapons at the instance of the accused is an additional circumstance to prove the guilt against the accused and it is not considered as a substantive piece of evidence. 35. Pw-6 is Dr. Chaitnya Shriram Kulkarni, who at the relevant time was working as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Forensic in Government Medical College and Hospital, Akola. He had performed post-mortem on the four dead bodies of Yogesh, Rajesh, Vanmala and Vishwanath on 15/04/2014. He recorded multiple injuries on all the dead bodies. (i) On the body of Yogesh, he found 22 external injuries in the nature of chop wounds, incise wounds, abrasions and lacerations. He found two internal injuries. (ii) On the body of Vanmala, he found 10 external injuries in the nature of incise chop wounds, abrasions and lacerations and three internal injuries. (i) On the body of Yogesh, he found 22 external injuries in the nature of chop wounds, incise wounds, abrasions and lacerations. He found two internal injuries. (ii) On the body of Vanmala, he found 10 external injuries in the nature of incise chop wounds, abrasions and lacerations and three internal injuries. (iii) On the body of Vishwanath, he found 4 external injuries in the nature of chop wounds, incise wounds, abrasions and lacerations. (iv) On the body of Rajesh, he found 16 external injuries in the nature of chop wounds, incise wounds, abrasions and lacerations. He found two internal injuries. 36. He deposed that all the aforesaid injuries were ante mortem and internal injuries were corresponding to external injuries. These injuries were sufficient in the normal course to cause death of any person and were possible with the weapons axe and blade of fodder cutter. The evidence of this witness would reflect that the injuries on the body of all the four deceased were multiple and more or less of similar nature and caused by means of similar kind of weapons. This evidence further strengthen the case of the prosecution that the accused committed murder of all the four deceased. 37. The testimonies of P.W. 7 and 8 are formal in nature, they being police witnesses. The learned defence counsel laid much emphasis on the point that the prosecution has failed to prove with clinching evidence the existence of blood stains of deceased on the clothes of the accused. It is stated that there is variance in the evidence of P.W. 4 - Gopal (Panch) and P.W. 8 - Investigating Officer with regard to seizure of blood of the deceased. The perusal of the impugned judgment of the trial Court shows that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has adequately dealt with this submission in paragraphs 86 and 87 of its judgment. 38. With regard to conviction of all these accused for the murder of the deceased, the prosecution has proved without any reasonable doubt, the guilt against the accused. The accused could not create a reasonable doubt in the otherwise strong prosecution story by examining defence witness DW-1. The accused are also silent in their statements recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. They could not explain the incriminating circumstances brought on record by the prosecution. 39. The accused could not create a reasonable doubt in the otherwise strong prosecution story by examining defence witness DW-1. The accused are also silent in their statements recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. They could not explain the incriminating circumstances brought on record by the prosecution. 39. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has meticulously dealt with the oral and documentary evidence of prosecution and also the submissions on behalf of the defence. The prosecution evidence which has been brought on record abundantly established the guilt against the accused. 40. With regard to the non-examination of independent witnesses, it is a common fact that the people in the society more particularly in small villages show apathy and apprehension to come forward and depose against the accused fearlessly. After all, in criminal cases the quality of evidence matters than the quantity. Testimony of single eyewitness to the satisfaction of the court is sufficient to convict the accused. It is also not a thumb rule that the testimonies of partisan witnesses have to be discarded and an independent witness should be looked for. More often, it is difficult for the Investigation Officer to search for independent witness and to convince him to come forward to depose before the Court. There are instances where prosecution witnesses receive threats of life from the accused and there is no policy of the Governmrnt in action to protect the witnesses. In such a scenario, insistence for independent witness to prove the prosecution case would lead to injustice to the victims of the crime. There cannot be a straight jacket formula. After all, it is for the Courts to sift the truth, to separate the grain from the chaff. 41. With regard to the imposition of death penalty, the learned Senior counsel Shri Gupta submitted that the facts and circumstances in the present case do not deserve the category of rarest of rare. He submitted that the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Bachan Singh (Supra) and Macchi Singh (Supra) still hold the field. 42. A perusal of the impugned judgment and order would reflect that the following facts impressed the learned Additional Sessions Judge to award the death sentence to the appellants:- "(i) The accused used weapons like fodder cutter blade and axe. The blade of fodder cutter was heavy, hard, blunt sharp edged of 34 x 6 cms. 42. A perusal of the impugned judgment and order would reflect that the following facts impressed the learned Additional Sessions Judge to award the death sentence to the appellants:- "(i) The accused used weapons like fodder cutter blade and axe. The blade of fodder cutter was heavy, hard, blunt sharp edged of 34 x 6 cms. (ii) All injuries were possible with these weapons. (iii) After committing murder of Yogesh and Vanmala, accused walked for 10 - 15 minutes by carrying blood stained weapons to the house of Vishwanath and thereafter killed Rajesh and then Vishwanath. The injuries sustained by the deceased were on vital parts. (iv) None of the deceased got the chance to save himself/ herself. All were killed on the spot. (v) By flouting court''s order, the accused deprived the decree holder to enjoy the fruits of decree. (vi) It was pre-planned, cold blooded and calculated murders. (vii) One old aged man, one young lady and two young men were killed. (viii) The possibility that the accused may commit the similar act to obtain possession of two acres of land, cannot be ruled out." 43. In the instant case, undisputedly, the accused are residents of Bhakarabad and they are farmers. Accused No. 1 is the father and Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are his sons aged 24 and 19 years. They earn their livelihood through agriculture. There is not a single crime registered against them. Even the certificate issued by the Jail Superintendent would reflect that the behaviour of the accused in the jail is satisfactory. Evidently, except the tools which are used for agricultural activities, they did not carry any other deadly weapon. It is also not the case of the prosecution that apart from axe and fodder cutter blade, the accused used any other deadly weapon for inflicting injuries to the deceased. 44. Evidently, the accused did not touch P.W.-2 - Prabhawati and her grand daughter - Bhavika, who were sitting in the varandha at the relevant time. After committing murder of Rajesh, they left the house and again turned back to assault Vishwanath, who was at that time latching door of cattle shed. Spot panchnama shows the door of cattle shed was opening towards the road and the dead body of Vishwanath was just in front of door of cattle shed on the road. After committing murder of Rajesh, they left the house and again turned back to assault Vishwanath, who was at that time latching door of cattle shed. Spot panchnama shows the door of cattle shed was opening towards the road and the dead body of Vishwanath was just in front of door of cattle shed on the road. This fact would reflect that they had no plan to commit murder of Vishwanath and it developed immediately on the spot and they executed it. It has come through the testimonies of prosecution witnesses that deceased Vishwanath and deceased Vanmala were looking after the field of Bhagwantrao at Bhakarabad. It is not disputed that Bhagwantrao and his two sons were residing at Akola and Bhagwantrao was leading a retired life. Accused No. 1 and his sons i.e. accused Nos. 2 and 3, who earned their livelihood through agriculture, might have felt dejected after loosing agricultural land dispute in Court and they might have been provoked with the acts of deceased Yogesh and Vanmala of going to the disputed field even though they had warned them not to go there. It is true that the decree was against the accused, however, they being farmers without understanding the gravity of breach of orders of court, they dared to execute their threats into action. 45. But four murders of members of a family at a time is a cruel and inhuman act. The crucial question to be decided in the instant case is whether this case falls under the category of rarest of rare attracting capital punishment. In our clear opinion, it does not fall under the rarest of rare category. 46. To extinguish the appellants from this world is not the ultimate remedy. There is nothing uncommon in it except enormousness of the crime. The Trial Court in the impugned judgment referred various pronouncements of Apex Court and reproduced the aggravating and mitigating circumstances which according to the Hon''ble Apex Court are expected to be considered to convict the accused for death penalty. The following are the aggravating circumstances which are generally considered to decide question of imposing death sentence by the Court:- i. The offences relating to the commission of heinous crimes like murder, rape, armed dacoity, kidnapping, etc. The following are the aggravating circumstances which are generally considered to decide question of imposing death sentence by the Court:- i. The offences relating to the commission of heinous crimes like murder, rape, armed dacoity, kidnapping, etc. by the accused with a prior record of conviction for capital felony or offences committed by the person having a substantial history of serious assaults and criminal convictions. ii. The offence was committed while the offender was engaged in the commission of another serious offence. iii. The offence was committed with the intention to create a fear psychosis in the public at large and was committed in a public place by a weapon or device which clearly could be hazardous to the life of more than one person. iv. The offence of murder was committed for ransom or like offences to receive money or monetary benefits. v. Hiring killings. vi. The offence was committed outrageously for want only while involving inhumane treatment and torture to the victim. vii. The offence was committed by a person while in lawful custody. viii. The murder or the offence was committed to prevent a person lawfully carrying out his duty like arrest or custody in a place of lawful confinement of himself or another. For instance, murder is of a person who had acted in lawful discharge of his duty under Section 43 Cr. P.C. ix. When the crime is enormous in proportion like making an attempt of murder of the entire family or members of a particular community. x. When the victim is innocent, helpless or a person relies upon the trust of relationship and social norms, like a child, helpless woman, a daughter or a niece staying with a father/uncle and is inflicted with the crime by such a trusted person. xi. When murder is committed for a motive which evidences total depravity and meanness. xii. When there is a cold-blooded murder without provocation. xiii. The crime is committed so brutally that it pricks or shocks not only the judicial conscience but even the conscience of the society. 47. On the contrary, in the case of Bachan Singh (Supra) and Macchi Singh (Supra), the following principles were laid down for awarding death penalty:- "(i) The extreme penalty of death need not be inflicted except in gravest case of extreme culpability. 47. On the contrary, in the case of Bachan Singh (Supra) and Macchi Singh (Supra), the following principles were laid down for awarding death penalty:- "(i) The extreme penalty of death need not be inflicted except in gravest case 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 must be imposed only when life imprisonment appears to be in 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 can not 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. 48. The present case is not the gravest case of extreme culpability warranting death penalty. Further, it is also not the case that life imprisonment to the appellants would be altogether an inadequate punishment in view of the facts and circumstances, as stated earlier. 49. Upholding the constitutional validity of death penalty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Bachan Singh (Supra) has laid down certain principles of rarest of rare case. However, the Hon''ble Apex Court in the said case refrained from laying down fixed standards or norms restricting the area of the imposition of the death penalty to a narrow category of murders. The Hon''ble Apex Court gave the following four reasons for not laying down the standards or norms:- "(i) There is a little agreement among penologists and jurists as to what information about the crime and criminal is relevant and what is not relevant for fixing the dose of punishment for a person convicted of a particular offence. (ii) Criminal cases do not fall into set behavioristic patterns. There are infinite, unpredictable and unforeseeable variations. No two cases are exactly identical. They are countless permutations and combinations which are beyond the anticipatory capacity of the human calculus. (ii) Criminal cases do not fall into set behavioristic patterns. There are infinite, unpredictable and unforeseeable variations. No two cases are exactly identical. They are countless permutations and combinations which are beyond the anticipatory capacity of the human calculus. Each case presents its own distinctive features, its peculiar combinations of events and its unique configuration of facts. (iii) A standardisation of the sentencing process which leaves little room for judicial discretion to take account of variations in culpability within single offence category ceases to be judicial. It tends to sacrifice justice at the altar of blind uniformity. (iv) Standardisation or sentencing discretion is a policy matter which belongs to the sphere of legislation. 50. In the concluding para of the said judgment, the Hon''ble Apex Court has observed as under:- "We cannot obviously feed into a judicial computer all such situations since they are astrological imponderables in an imperfect and undulating society".Nonetheless, it cannot be over-emphasized that the scope and concept of mitigating factors in the area of death penalty must receive a liberal and expansive construction by the Courts in accord with the sentencing policy writ large in Section 354(3). Judges should never be bloodthirsty. Hanging of murderers has never been too good for them." 51. The Hon''ble Apex Court in para 39 of the judgment in the case of Machhi Singh has said that in order to apply these guidelines inter alia the following questions may be asked and answered:- (a) Is there something uncommon about the crime which renders sentence of imprisonment for life inadequate and calls for a death sentence? (b) Are the circumstances of the crime such that there is no alternative but to impose death sentence even after according maximum weightage to the mitigating circumstances which speak in favour of the offender? 52. Considering the overall global view of all the circumstances in the light of the aforesaid prepositions, we do not find that there is something uncommon about the crime in the present case which renders sentence of imprisonment for life inadequate and calls for a death sentence. 53. Recently, the Hon''ble Apex Court while reviewing its judgment in the case of M. A. Antony @ Antappan (Supra) accepted the defence arguments to the effect that "collective conscience of the society" and reference to it for the purposes of imposition of a sentence is totally misplaced. 53. Recently, the Hon''ble Apex Court while reviewing its judgment in the case of M. A. Antony @ Antappan (Supra) accepted the defence arguments to the effect that "collective conscience of the society" and reference to it for the purposes of imposition of a sentence is totally misplaced. It is not possible to determine public opinion through evidence recorded in a trial for an offence of murder and it is even more difficult, if not impossible, to determine something as amorphous as the collective conscience of the society. The Hon''ble Apex Court approved the view that a judicial opinion does not necessarily reflect the moral attitudes of the people. The Judges should not take upon themselves the responsibility of becoming oracles or spokesmen of public opinion. Not being representatives of the people, it is often better, as a matter of judicial restraint, to leave the function of assessing public opinion to the chosen representatives of the people in the legislature concerned. 54. In the said judgment, while promoting socio-economic factors as one of the considerations for the purpose of deciding whether to award life sentence or death sentence, the Hon''ble Apex Court said that although Bachan Singh (Supra) does not allude to socio-economic factors for being taken into consideration as one of the mitigating factors in favour of a convict, the development of the law in the country, particularly through the Supreme Court, has introduced this as one of the factors to be taken into consideration. In para 16 of this judgment, the Hon''ble Apex Court endorsed and accepted that socio-economic factors must be taken into consideration while awarding a sentence particularly the ground realities relating to access to justice and remedies to justice that are not easily available to the poor and the needy. 55. The judgments cited by the learned APP on behalf of the State are the judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court wherein death penalty was confirmed by the Courts, while the judgments cited on behalf of the convict are the judgments wherein death penalty was commuted into life imprisonment. 56. We have already considered the broad principles necessary to be taken into consideration while deciding the sentence in murder case. After all, it is a question of judicial discretion to be applied on the basis of sound judicial principles. The facts of the cases cannot be identical. 56. We have already considered the broad principles necessary to be taken into consideration while deciding the sentence in murder case. After all, it is a question of judicial discretion to be applied on the basis of sound judicial principles. The facts of the cases cannot be identical. As we have already reached to the conclusion that the present case is not the rarest of rare case requiring awarding death penalty and considering the circumstances which led to commission of the crime, they deserve life imprisonment instead of death. 57. For all the aforesaid reasons, the death penalty is not the ultimate solution in this case. We find the alternative punishment of life imprisonment with direction not to release them till their natural death would be just and proper vis-a-vis the nature of crime. In the circumstances, the case referred by the learned Sessions Judge does not deserve confirmation. The conviction of the appellants is maintained, however, their sentence of death is commuted to life imprisonment with direction not to release them till their natural death. Rest of the operative part of the impugned judgment shall remain unchanged. The appeal against sentence of the appellants is accordingly partly allowed. 58. The Registry is directed to send the copies of this judgment to the jail for furnishing the same to the accused.