Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1487 (KAR)

Hanifsab v. State Of Karnataka

2020-07-24

B.A.PATIL, M.G.UMA

body2020
JUDGMENT B.A.Patil, J. - Criminal Appeal No.100226/2016 has been preferred by the appellant/accused challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment passed by the II Addl. District Sessions Judge, Haveri, sitting at Ranebennur, (for short 'the trial Court) in S.C.No.53/2014 dated 15.04.2016 convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentencing him with death sentence by hanging till death. Crl.R.C.No.100001/2017 has been registered on the basis of the reference made by the trial Court under Section 366 (1) of the Cr.P.C. seeking confirmation of the death sentence imposed on the accused. 2. We have heard learned counsel Sri J.Basavaraj, appointed as Amicus Curiae by this Court to represent the accused and Sri. V.M.Banakar, learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 3. The genesis of the case of the prosecution in brief is that the accused was residing along with his family at old Shidenur. He had two sons and two daughters. The daughters were given in marriage and his two sons were residing separately along with their family members. Accused used to reside by the side of the house in which his son and wife were residing. When the deceased wife was residing along with accused, the accused used to pick up quarrel with her and used to ill-treat her. In spite of that, she led marital life with accused by tolerating all the ill treatment. Very recently prior to the incident, she failed to withstand the ill treatment and harassment meted out by the accused and she started residing with her sons and occasionally she used to come to the house of the accused. 15 days prior to the alleged incident, the accused picked up quarrel with the deceased by holding the chopper in his hand and threatened her with dire consequences. The elderly persons in the community and the neighbourers have pacified the quarrel. Thereafter, after two days the son of the accused had gone to Mangalore along his wife for her treatment and at that time, the deceased was living along with her grand children. On 01.05.2014 at about 6.30 a.m., when the deceased was in her son's house along with her grand children and was cooking food, the accused holding the chopper rushed to the kitchen and picked up quarrel with the deceased, abused and assaulted her and finally chopped her neck with the chopper. On 01.05.2014 at about 6.30 a.m., when the deceased was in her son's house along with her grand children and was cooking food, the accused holding the chopper rushed to the kitchen and picked up quarrel with the deceased, abused and assaulted her and finally chopped her neck with the chopper. The grand children who were present there have witnessed the incident. In the meanwhile, on hearing the galata, neighbourers rushed to the spot but they could not enter the house since the accused had locked the house from inside and they saw the incident through the window and brake open the door but unfortunately, the accused came out of the house holding the separated portion of the head of the deceased in one hand and the chopper in the other hand. On seeing the same, the neighbourers and the persons who had gathered there got afraid, left the spot and thereafter that the accused went towards Byadagi town. 4. On receipt of the information, police rushed to the house of the deceased and on the way to the house of the accused, they saw him holding the separated portion of the head and the chopper. Thereafter, they intercepted him and on drawing the mahazar, the said chopper and the separated head of the deceased were seized and subsequently, the police came near the house of the deceased and there the complainant filed the complaint. On the basis of the complaint, a case was registered in Cr.No.89/2014. Thereafter, after investigation, the chargesheet has been filed. The learned Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court and the Sessions Court took cognizance and made over the same to the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge. The said Court secured the presence of the accused and after hearing both the sides, charge was framed. As the accused pleaded not guilty, the trial was fixed. 5. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution got examined 19 witnesses, got marked 28 documents and 11 material objects. Thereafter, the statement of the accused was recorded by putting incriminating material as against him. Though, the accused denied the same, has not lead any defence evidence nor produced any material to prove his case. 6. 5. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution got examined 19 witnesses, got marked 28 documents and 11 material objects. Thereafter, the statement of the accused was recorded by putting incriminating material as against him. Though, the accused denied the same, has not lead any defence evidence nor produced any material to prove his case. 6. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the trial Court convicted the accused by imposing death sentence to him for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and also convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC. Challenging the said judgment of conviction and order of death sentence, the accused has preferred the appeal in Crl.A.No.100226/2016 and a reference in Crl.R.C.No.100001/2017 has also been made by the State as contemplated under Section 366 of the Cr.P.C. Since the appeal as well as the reference arise out of the same judgment, both have been clubbed together and have been heard and taken up for consideration. 7. It is the submission of Sri J.Basavaraj, learned amicus curiae appearing for the accused that the judgment of the trial Court is contrary to law and the material placed on record. It is his further submission that the evidence of PW-11 is not trustworthy and reliable and so also PW-9 is not an eye witness to the alleged incident. It is his further submission that the accused is residing separately in a residential house. The deceased used to reside along with her son. Under such circumstances, accused going to the place of incident and causing her death by separating her head from the body is not acceptable. It is his further submission that the complaint-Ex.P.14 does not speak with regard to the presence of PW-12 at the place of incident. PWs-7, 9 and 11 have not stated the presence of PW-12 and Ex.P.14 also depicts that they were not present at the spot as stated. Under such circumstances, the trial Court ought to have given the benefit of doubt to the accused and ought not have relied upon the evidence of PW-12. 8. PWs-7, 9 and 11 have not stated the presence of PW-12 and Ex.P.14 also depicts that they were not present at the spot as stated. Under such circumstances, the trial Court ought to have given the benefit of doubt to the accused and ought not have relied upon the evidence of PW-12. 8. It is his further submission that since 40 years the accused and the deceased were living together and only for the purpose of this case, that a story has been built up stating that the accused used to ill-treat and harass the deceased and in that light, on the alleged date of incident, he has picked up a quarrel, assaulted the deceased and separated her head from the body. It is his further submission that carrying the head of the deceased has not been established by producing cogent and acceptable evidence. In that light, the trial Court ought not to have imposed the death penalty. It is his further submission that the death sentence has to be imposed in rarest of rare cases. What are the tests that have to be adopted for the purpose of imposing death penalty has been discussed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MACHHI SINGH AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF PUNJAB, (1983) 3 SCC 470 . He has also relied upon the judgment in the case of RAM PAL VS. STATE OF U.P., (2003) 7 SCC 141 . Relying on these decisions, the learned counsel submitted that no such incriminating materials are placed before the Court to impose death sentence and that there is nothing on record to term this offence as rarest of rare case. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the appeal and to set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 9. Per contra, Sri V.M.Banakar, learned Addl. SPP vehemently argued and submitted that there is sufficient evidence to show that the accused was ill-treating and harassing the deceased throughout and in that light, on the alleged date of incident again he had entered the house wherein the deceased was residing and picked up the quarrel and assaulted her with a chopper and thereafter he has separated the head of the deceased and carried the same. This incident has been witnessed by PWs-7, 11 and 12 and they have also categorically deposed with reference to the said fact. This incident has been witnessed by PWs-7, 11 and 12 and they have also categorically deposed with reference to the said fact. It is his further submission that the act of the accused separating the head of the deceased and coming out from the house and moving around itself is nothing but inhuman act and it is a brutal murder which has been committed by the accused. Taking into consideration the factual situation and the materials on record, the trial Court has rightly convicted the accused and has imposed the death sentence. On these grounds, he prayed to confirm the judgment of conviction and the order of death sentence and prays to dismiss the appeal preferred by the accused. 10. We have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records including the trial Court records. 11. To prove the case of the prosecution, it has got examined as many as 19 witnesses. It is the specific case of the prosecution that the accused suspecting the fidelity of the deceased used to pick up quarrel with her, ill treat and harass her. In order to substantiate the said fact, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PWs-7, 9, 11 and 17. On perusal of the evidence of these witnesses, it is seen that they have categorically deposed before the Court that the accused suspecting the fidelity of the deceased, used to ill-treat and harass her. They have further deposed that the accused and the deceased used to quarrel often and in that light, deceased used to reside in the house of her younger son and they had been advised to lead a peaceful life. 12. Though, PW-7 has been partly treated as hostile, he has admitted during the course of his cross-examination that they had called the accused and advised him to lead peaceful life. During the course of cross-examination of this witness by the Public Prosecutor, nothing has been elicited. This witness has not been cross-examined by the accused for the reasons best known to him. Even, on perusal of the evidence of PW-9, it is seen that he has reiterated the evidence of PW-7. During the course of cross-examination of this witness by the Public Prosecutor, nothing has been elicited. This witness has not been cross-examined by the accused for the reasons best known to him. Even, on perusal of the evidence of PW-9, it is seen that he has reiterated the evidence of PW-7. He has been treated as partly hostile and in the cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor he has admitted that all the elderly persons had advised the accused to lead peaceful life with his wife. This witness has been cross-examined by the accused but nothing has been elicited so as to discard his evidence. 13. Pw-11 has also reiterated the evidence of PW-9 and he has further deposed that the ill treatment meted out to the deceased was intolerable and as such, the deceased started residing in the house of her son and there also the accused used to come and quarrel. This witness has been partly treated as hostile. During the course of crossexamination by the learned Public Prosecutor, he has admitted that they had advised the accused to lead cordial life with the deceased but the accused had uttered that one or the other day he will chop her head, finish her and that always he used to carry a 'kandli' with him. 14. Pw-12 has also spoken with regard to the galata which had taken place between the accused and the deceased. PW-17 is the neighbour/sister-in-law of the accused and she has also spoken with regard to the illtreatment and harassment meted out to the accused. In that light, the evidence which has been produced by the prosecution substantiates the case of the prosecution that the accused used to ill-treat and harass her and in that light, the ingredients of Section 498-A are complied. Even the prosecution has got examined the eye-witnesses who have witnessed the alleged incident. 15. Pws-7, 9 and 12 are the eye-witnesses to the alleged incident. PW-12 is a minor child of the son of the deceased. In his evidence, he has deposed that his grand father (accused) was residing by the side of the house and when the grandmother was living in the house of the accused, he used to ill-treat, harass and he also used to assault the deceased and the said incident had taken place 2 years prior to the incident. In his evidence, he has deposed that his grand father (accused) was residing by the side of the house and when the grandmother was living in the house of the accused, he used to ill-treat, harass and he also used to assault the deceased and the said incident had taken place 2 years prior to the incident. He has further deposed that when his parents had been to hospital at Shidenoor and at that time, he and his deceased grandmother were there in the house. At about 6.30 a.m., when the deceased was heating the water, the accused came inside and by holding her hairs, cut the neck and thereafter, along with the chopped head and 'kandli' he went out and on seeing the same, he got afraid and immediately he came out and informed his elder uncle. During the course of his crossexamination, nothing has been elicited so as to discard his evidence. 16. We are conscious of the fact that the evidence of child witness is not required to be rejected on the ground that he is a child witness. But the Court as a rule of prudence if considers such witness and only on being convinced about the quality thereof and reliability, can record the conviction. Keeping in view the said ratio, on perusal of the evidence of PW-7 it is seen that he has clearly deposed about the act of the accused. This witness has been partly treated as hostile but during the course of crossexamination, he has deposed that when he peeped through the window, the accused was holding a big 'kandli' in his hand and was quarrelling with the deceased and they advised him but immediately thereafter they heard the screaming voice of the deceased and within a short time, accused came out of the house by holding the separated head of the deceased in one hand and the 'kandli' in the other hand. This witness has not been cross-examined by the accused. Even, the evidence of PW-9 corroborates with the evidence of PW-12. On perusal of the evidence, it clearly goes to show that the accused had entered the house of the deceased, picked up quarrel and thereafter he assaulted her with 'kandli' and has separated the head. This witness has not been cross-examined by the accused. Even, the evidence of PW-9 corroborates with the evidence of PW-12. On perusal of the evidence, it clearly goes to show that the accused had entered the house of the deceased, picked up quarrel and thereafter he assaulted her with 'kandli' and has separated the head. Though, it is contended by the learned counsel for the accused that separation of the head and carrying the head in his hand is not proved by the prosecution but the fact remains that it is the accused who has committed the murder of the deceased wife. The seizure mahazar-Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.5-the inquest panchanama of the dead body also clearly corroborate with the evidence of this witnesses. In that light, it can be safely held that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 17. The next question which arises for consideration of this Court is: 'whether the death sentence imposed by the trial Court is justifiable and acceptable?' 18. In order to determine whether the death sentence imposed by the trial Court is proper or not, certain guidelines have been provided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in MACHHI SINGH's case stated supra wherein it has held at paragraphs 32, 34 to 40 and 42 to 45 as under: "32. The reasons why the community as a whole does not endorse the humanistic approach reflected in "death sentence-in-no-case" doctrine are not far to seek. In the first place, the very humanistic edifice is constructed on the foundation of "reverence for life" principle. When a member of the community violates this very principle by killing another member, the society may not feel itself bound by the shackles of this doctrine. Secondly, it has to be realized that every member of the community is able to live with safety without his or her own life being endangered because of the protective arm of the community and on account of the rule of law enforced by it. The very existence of the rule of law and the fear of being brought to book operates as a deterrent of those who have no scruples in killing others if it suits their ends. Every member of the community owes a debt to the community for this protection. The very existence of the rule of law and the fear of being brought to book operates as a deterrent of those who have no scruples in killing others if it suits their ends. Every member of the community owes a debt to the community for this protection. When ingratitude is shown instead of gratitude by 'Killing' a member of the community which protects the murderer himself from being killed, or when the community feels that for the sake of self preservation the killer has to be killed, the community may well withdraw the protection by sanctioning the death penalty. But the community will not do so in every case. It may do so (in rarest of rare cases) when its collective conscience 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 community may entrain such a sentiment when the crime is viewed from the platform of the motive for, or the manner of commission of the crime, or the anti-social or abhorrent nature of the crime, such as for instance: I. Manner of Commission of Murder 33. xxx xxx xxxx 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. III. Anti Social or Socially abhorrent nature of the crime 35. (a) When murder of a Scheduled Caste or minority community etc., is committed not for personal reasons but in circumstances which arouse social wrath. For instance when such a crime is committed in order to terrorize such persons and frighten them into fleeing from a place or in order to deprive them of, or make them surrender, lands or benefits conferred on them with a view to reverse past injustices and in order to restore the social balance. For instance when such a crime is committed in order to terrorize such persons and frighten them into fleeing from a place or in order to deprive them of, or make them surrender, lands or benefits conferred on them with a view to reverse past injustices and in order to restore the social balance. (b) In cases of 'bride burning' and what are known as '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. IV. Magnitude of Crime 36. 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. V. Personality of Victim of murder 37. When the victim of murder is (a) an innocent child who could not have or has not provided even an excuse, much less a provocation, for murder. (b) a helpless woman or a person rendered helpless by old age or infirmity (c) when the victim is a person vis-a vis whom the murderer is in a position of domination or trust (d) when the victim is a public figure generally loved and respected by the community for the services rendered by him and the murder is committed for political or similar reasons other than personal reasons. 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 sentences arises. The following propositions emerge from Bachan Singh's case: (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. 39. 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 ? 40. If upon taking an overall global view of all the circumstances in the light of the aforesaid proposition and taking into account the answers to the questions posed here in above, the circumstances of the case are such that death sentence is warranted, the court would proceed to do so. 41. xxx xxx xxx Machhi Singh: 42. The High Court in its extremely well considered judgment has assigned the following reasons for imposing death penalty on appellant Machhi Singh in the context of each of the six crimes. We can do no better than to quote the said reasons in the very words employed by the High Court in the context of each crime: Crime No. 1 (Crl. Appeal No. 78-79/81, Common) " Machhi Singh killed Biban Bai and Jagtar Singh whereas Mohinder Singh killed Balwant Singh and Gurcharan Singh which has attracted on them death penalty. Now the circumstances of the case do reveal that it was a cold- blooded murder and the victims were helpless and undefended. And what was their fault, except that they were the immediate family of Amar Singh. The offence committed was of an exceptionally depraved and heinous character. The manner of its execution and its design would put it at the level of extreme atrocity and cruelty. And what was their fault, except that they were the immediate family of Amar Singh. The offence committed was of an exceptionally depraved and heinous character. The manner of its execution and its design would put it at the level of extreme atrocity and cruelty. The deceased woman and her children had offered no offence to Machhi Singh and Mohinder Singh." CRIME NO.11 (Crl Appeal No.80-84/81 Common) " We have found that two innocent helpless women named Ghamo Bai and Rajo Bai were brutally killed in a helpless and defenceless state in their own house and similarly a veteran couple namely Bishan Singh and his wife Paro Bai were killed by Machhi Singh and Jagir Singh appellants in similar circumstances. The crime committed carries features which could be utterly horrendous especially when we know the weapons and the manner of their use. The victims could offer no resistance to the accused appellants. The law clamours for a sterner sentence; the crime being heinous, atrocious and cruel." CRIME NO. 111 (Crl. Appeal No. 85-86/81, Common) "An old man Wanjar Singh and young man Satnam Singh were put to death for which Machhi Singh was sentenced to death for committing the murder of the latter and Mohinder Singh was sentenced to death for committing the murder of the former. These two defenceless and helpless men were put to death while asleep. The crime was gruesome and cold-blooded revealing the propensity of the accused appellants to commit murder." CRIME NO. IV (Crl. Appeal No. 87/81, Common) " A young man named Mohinder Singh, a bread-earner of the family, was put to death by Machhi Singh while asleep in his blissful abode. The crime was pre-mediated and hair- raising to the society at large in the sequence of which it came to be committed creating a great risk of serious bodily harm and death to many persons." CRIME NO.V (Crl. Appeal Na. 88-89/81. Common) 'Sahib Singh, Mukhtiar Singh, Manto Bai, Palo Bai and Jita Singh were killed by five men including Machhi Singh and Jagir Singh appellants. Both these appellants pursued a course of utter cruelty and atrocity. Not only were the crimes coldblooded, calculated and gruesome in features, these had been committed while spreading horror of a killing spree. They put to death a young newly married couple and rendered a young woman a widow. Both these appellants pursued a course of utter cruelty and atrocity. Not only were the crimes coldblooded, calculated and gruesome in features, these had been committed while spreading horror of a killing spree. They put to death a young newly married couple and rendered a young woman a widow. The helpless state of the victims and the circumstances of the case lead us to confirm the death sentence." Jagir Singh: 43. Insofar as appellant Jagir Singh is concerned death sentence has been imposed on him by the Sessions Court and confirmed by the High Court in relation to Crime No.II-A-B and V. The High Court has observed thus in the context of the relevant crime: CRIME NO. 11A & B (Crl. Appeal No. 80-84/81. Common) " We have found that two innocent helpless women named Ghamo Bai and Rajo Bai were killed in a helpless and defenceless state in their own house and similarly a veteran couple namely Bishan Singh and his wife Paro Bai were killed by Machhi Singh and Jagir Singh appellants in similar circumstances. The crime committed carries features which could be utterly horrendous especially when we know the weapons and their manner of use. The victims could offer no resistance to the accused appellants. The law clamours for a sterner sentence; the crime being heinous, atrocious and cruel." CRIME NO. V (Crl. Appeal No. 88-89/81. Common) 'Sahib Singh, Mukhtiar Singh, Manto Bai, Palo Bai and Jita Singh were killed by five men including Machhi Singh and Jagir Singh appellants. Both these appellants pursued a course of utter cruelty and atrocity. Not only were the crimes coldblooded, calculated and gruesome in features, these had been committed while spreading horror of a killing spree. They put to death a young newly married couple and rendered a young woman a widow. The helpless state of the victims and the circumstances of the case lead us to confirm the death sentence." Kashmir Singh: S/o Arjan Singh 44. In so far as appellant Kashmir Singh s/o Arjan Singh is concerned death sentence has been imposed on him by the Sessions Court and confirmed by the High Court for the following reasons: " Similarly, Kashmir Singh appellant caused the death of a child Balbir Singh aged six years while asleep, a poor defenceless life put off by a depraved mind reflecting grave propensity to commit murder." 45. We are of the opinion that insofar as these three appellants are concerned the rarest of rare cases rule prescribed in Bachan Singh's case (Supra) is clearly attracted and sentence of death is called for. We are unable to persuade ourselves that a sentence of imprisonment for life will be adequate in the circumstances of the crime. We therefore fully uphold the view concurrently taken by the Sessions Court and the High Court that extreme penalty of death requires to be imposed on appellants (1) Machhi Singh (2) Kashmir Singh son of Arjan Singh (3) Jagir Singh. We accordingly confirm the death sentence imposed on them and dismiss their appeals. 19. On perusal of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the extreme penalty of death need not be inflicted except in gravest cases of extreme culpability. The Court has to take into consideration the circumstances of the 'offender' along with the circumstances of the crime which has been committed by the accused. It is further observed that the life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is an exception and the Court must feel that life imprisonment is inadequate having regard to the brutality with which the offence was committed and the Court has to draw a mitigating circumstance and after all the material satisfies the said weightage, then under such circumstance, the Court can grant the death sentence. 20. The circumstances under which the incident in the present case has taken place, is that the accused and the deceased used to quarrel frequently and even the deceased also used to come and stay for sometime and after quarrel, she used to go back and even many a times that the accused has been advised with regard to the ill-treatment and harassment caused to the deceased. Even as could be seen from the evidence of PW-12 no brutality has been urged in his evidence, who is the main eye witness to the incident. Immediately, the accused has assaulted the deceased with the help of a sharp edged 'kandli' and it might have cut the head of the deceased from her body and thereafter he has moved around by taking the head and the 'kandli' in his both hands. Immediately, the accused has assaulted the deceased with the help of a sharp edged 'kandli' and it might have cut the head of the deceased from her body and thereafter he has moved around by taking the head and the 'kandli' in his both hands. So in that light, we are of the considered opinion that the present case on hand does not fall within the category of rarest of rare cases, so as to impose the death penalty. 21. Taking into consideration the above said facts and circumstances, there is material produced by the prosecution to come to the conclusion that it is the accused who has committed the murder of the deceased with an intention to take away her life, suspecting her fidelity and he is liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. But, however, instead of imposing death sentence, if imprisonment for life till his death is imposed, it would meet the ends of justice. 22. We have gone through the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Even though the trial Court is right in concluding that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, beyond reasonable doubt, it has committed an error in imposing the death sentence on the accused which is disproportionate to the crime committed. 23. In that light, we pass the following: ORDER Appeal is allowed in part. The judgment of conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC is confirmed. But the order of sentence imposing death sentence on the accused is set aside. Accused is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life which shall mean imprisonment for the reminder of his natural life. Further, the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 498-A is confirmed. Both sentences shall run concurrently. Criminal reference is rejected. The remuneration of the learned counsel Sri J.Basavaraj, amicus curiae appointed by this Court is fixed at Rs.10,000/-.