JUDGMENT Chowdhary, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 03.12.2012 and order dated 04.12.2012, whereby the appellant Sonam Dorjay @ Jamwang Tashi has been convicted for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 376 RPC and sentenced to death by the court of learned Principal District & Sessions Judge Leh (hereinafter called 'trial court'), holding that the appellant was proved to have, during the night of 27/28th August 2002, raped the deceased Mst. Tsomo and thereafter strangulated her to death, which amounts to culpable homicide amounting to murder. The trial court also made Reference in terms of Section 374 J&K Cr.PC to this Court for confirmation of sentence. 2. It appears that the appellant had not filed appeal against the judgment whereby he was convicted and with the intervention of J&K Legal Services Authority, the instant appeal was filed on his behalf in the year 2017 against the impugned JUDGMENT. 3. The impugned judgment has been assailed on the ground that the appellant has been convicted on a weak evidence of circumstantial nature, as it was stated that there was no eye-witness to the crime; that there was no attribution of direct motive behind the crime; that the recovery of the fact of alleged confessional statement did not relate to the commission of offence; that the trial court had not appreciated the fact that both the PWs i.e., PW-3 Chuchot and PW-5 Skarma Stanzin who had been employed by the deceased as shepherds for grazing her live-stock and who claimed to be the first persons to have the knowledge about killing of the deceased were just 50 fts. away from the deceased that night, and why they had not heard her shrieks and the barking of dogs; that the circumstantial evidence led by the prosecution was very shaky with missing chain of links connecting the appellant with crime, as many circumstances virtually remained unexplained and inconclusive; that the version of PW-2 Tundup Namgyal regarding the last seen of the appellant around the scene of occurrence had not been corroborated by any other witness as the star witnesses PW-1 Sonam Ringbo (village headman), PW-3 Chuchot and PW-5 Sharma Stanzin denied that they had seen the appellant around the scene of occurrence; that in absence of complete chain of circumstances which remained unexplained, the appellant-accused was undoubtedly entitled to the benefit of doubt; that the medical evidence also did not suggest any inference towards the guilt of the appellant, as the semen and the blood samples of the appellant had been taken, however, report of those samples had not been shown to the trial court and this matter has also remained unexplained; that the examination of the appellant in terms of Section 342 of J&K Cr.PC was not conducted as per the requirement of law and the incriminating evidence had not been put to him properly so as to seek explanation thereof. 4. The case was registered against the appellant in the month of August 2002 on the basis of an information that on 28.08.2002 dead body of a lady namely Mst. Tsomo, who had been rearing the sheep and goats of different people of Leh in Ganglas area of upper Leh and was living in a tented shelter, was noticed by PW-Chuchot, who was working as shepherd with the said lady. In view of her death under suspicious circumstances, inquest proceedings under Section 174 Cr.PC were initiated. 5. During the course of enquiry and on receipt of postmortem report, it transpired that the deceased was strangulated to death after she was sexually assaulted and that the cause of death was asyphyxia leading to cardio respiratory arrest. Based on this report, the case was registered vide FIR No. 86/2002 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 376 and 404 RPC. 6. On investigation it was found that the appellant-accused had been seen around the scene of occurrence by PW-2 Tundup Namgyal on the morning of 28.08.2002. Based on this report, the case was registered vide FIR No. 86/2002 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 376 and 404 RPC. 6. On investigation it was found that the appellant-accused had been seen around the scene of occurrence by PW-2 Tundup Namgyal on the morning of 28.08.2002. He disclosed that he had gone to Ganglas to provide garments to PW-Chuchot, who did not meet him. The appellant-accused was arrested on 18.09.2002 and during investigation he confessed his involvement in the occurrence and also disclosed that he had kept the blanket, that he removed from the tent during the night of occurrence, concealed and that on his disclosure the blanket was recovered seized. On conclusion of the investigation, the charge-sheet for commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 376 and 404 RPC, was filed in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Leh, who committed the same to the Sessions Court Leh for trial. 7. Appellant -accused, on being charge-sheeted for the commission of aforementioned offences by the trial court, denied the charge and prosecution examined 16 prosecution witnesses in order to bring home the charge against the appellant-accused. There being no eye-witness to the crime, the case was based on circumstantial evidence only. 8. In his statement under Section 342 Cr.PC, the appellant-accused stated that on his false implication he was forced to make the disclosure and that the deceased was mother-like-figure to him, as he had worked with her as shepherd for around one year. He also examined three witnesses in his defense. The trial court, however, after completion of trial, held the appellant-accused guilty for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 376 RPC and sentenced him to capital punishment. Appellant-accused has been in custody for last more than 20 years. 9. Ms. Masooda Jan, Panel Lawyer of Legal Services, appearing for the appellant submitted at the bar that in view of the long incarceration of the appellant, she has been instructed not to argue the case with regard to its merits of conviction and instead advance arguments to the quantum of sentence. She has argued that the appellant-accused has been convicted on the material whose entire web of evidence is circumstantial. She has argued that the appellant-accused has been convicted on the material whose entire web of evidence is circumstantial. She has further argued that in a case based on such a weak type of evidence, which is called circumstantial evidence, the penalty, which is extreme, cannot be imposed on a convict and that the instant case was not the 'rarest of the rare' so as to attract capital punishment. 10. Mr. T.M.Shamsi, DSGI, appearing for the respondents (now UT of Ladakh), on the other hand, argued that since the appellant had accepted his conviction for the commission of offences, of which he was charged, and the prosecution had succeeded to prove its case to bring home the charge against the appellant-accused that he had strangulated the deceased to death after assaulting her sexually, the convict does not deserve any misplaced sympathy. He further argued that the victim was an elderly widow and the commission of offences by the appellant against her can be dubbed as diabolical and cruel as recorded by the trial court to attract capital punishment and prayed that the sentence imposed by the trial court against the appellant-accused be maintained and confirmed. 11. Heard, perused the record and considered. 12. Since the appellant has chosen, through his counsel, not to argue the appeal regarding conviction, on merits, we are of the view that the conviction recorded by the trial court is maintained and upheld. 13. So far as contention of learned counsel for the appellant for altering of quantum of sentence is concerned, it is noticed that the trial court while recording the sentence vide impugned order dated 04.12.2012 and awarding death sentence, had not recorded as to under which offence the same is being awarded. The convict had been convicted for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 376 RPC, the trial court seems to have recorded sentence for the commission of offence punishable under Section 302 RPC only and the order is silent with regard to commission of offence punishable under Section 376 RPC. 14. Hon'ble Apex Court in a case titled Sushil Sharma Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported as (2014) 4 SCC 317 , commuted the sentence of death awarded to the appellant therein to life imprisonment keeping in view the following factors and trends in sentencing policy: '101. 14. Hon'ble Apex Court in a case titled Sushil Sharma Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported as (2014) 4 SCC 317 , commuted the sentence of death awarded to the appellant therein to life imprisonment keeping in view the following factors and trends in sentencing policy: '101. We notice from the above judgments that mere brutality of the murder or the number of persons killed or the manner in which the body is disposed of has not always persuaded this Court to impose death penalty. Similarly, at times, in the peculiar factual matrix, this Court has not thought it fit to award death penalty in cases, which rested on circumstantial evidence or solely on approver's evidence. Where murder, though brutal, is committed driven by extreme emotional disturbance and it does not have enormous proportion, the option of life imprisonment has been exercised in certain cases. Extreme poverty and social status has also been taken into account amongst other circumstances for not awarding death sentence. In few cases, time spent by the accused in death cell has been taken into consideration along with other circumstances, to commute death sentence into life imprisonment. Where the accused had no criminal antecedents; where the State had not led any evidence to show that the accused is beyond reformation and rehabilitation or that he would revert to similar crimes in future, this Court has leaned in favour of life imprisonment. ... 103. In the nature of things, there can be no hard-andfast rules which the court can follow while considering whether an accused should be awarded death sentence or not. The core of a criminal case is its facts and, the facts differ from case to case. Therefore, the various factors like the age of the criminal, his social status, his background, whether he is a confirmed criminal or not, whether he had any antecedents, whether there is any possibility of his reformation and rehabilitation or whether it is a case where the reformation is impossible and the accused is likely to revert to such crimes in future and become a threat to the society are factors which the criminal court will have to examine independently in each case. Decision whether to impose death penalty or not must be taken in the light of guiding principles laid down in several authoritative pronouncements of this Court in the facts and attendant circumstances of each case.' 15. Decision whether to impose death penalty or not must be taken in the light of guiding principles laid down in several authoritative pronouncements of this Court in the facts and attendant circumstances of each case.' 15. Apex Court in another case titled Kalu Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan reported as (2015) 16 SCC 492 , held that the first and foremost effort of the court should be to continue the life till its natural end and the delegated divine authority should be exercised only after arriving at conclusion that no other punishment but for death will serve the ends of justice. 16. Having regard to recording of conviction based on circumstantial evidence only, long incarceration of the appellant for more than two decades, and after critical appreciation of the entire evidence in its minute detail, we are of the considered opinion that the present case does not warrant award of extreme sentence of death to the appellantaccused, as the sequence of alleged crime is not that diabolical or cruel so as to attract the extreme penalty of capital punishment. The convict is stated to be in the middle of his age and was a young-man when he is alleged to have committed the crime. He is also stated to be belonging to the poor strata of society and cannot be said to be a threat to the society at large, which may warrant to eliminate him to save the society. 17. In the backdrop of reformatory approach which is the policy in vogue, the sentence of life imprisonment would be adequate and will meet the ends of justice with the objectives which the State intends to achieve namely deterrence, prevention, retribution and reformation. Since the factual matrix of the case does not make it the 'rarest of the rare', we are of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met by altering the sentence from death to life imprisonment for the commission of offence punishable under Section 302 RPC. Death sentence is, thus, ordered to be commuted to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5000/- under Section 302 RPC. In default of payment of fine, the appellant-convict shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. 18. Death sentence is, thus, ordered to be commuted to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5000/- under Section 302 RPC. In default of payment of fine, the appellant-convict shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. 18. On perusal of the sentencing order dated 04.12.2012, passed by the trial court, it is found that the convict was sentenced to capital punishment of death for the commission of murder punishable under Section 302 RPC, however, no sentence has been awarded for the conviction of rape punishable under Section 376 RPC, though the conviction was recorded for the commission of both the aforesaid offences. Though it could be a justifiable reason to remand the case to the trial court to decide this aspect of the case, however, in view of the inordinate delay in disposal of the case by the trial court and long incarceration spanning over two decades, instead of remanding the case to trial court, it is proposed to decide the same by this Court. The convict is, thus, sentenced to undergo eight years imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5000/- for the commission of offence punishable under Section 376 RPC. In default of payment of fine, the appellant-convict shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. Both the sentences of imprisonment are directed to run concurrently. 19. For the foregoing reasons, discussion and observations made hereinabove, the impugned judgment of recording conviction of the appellant-accused for the commission of rape and murder, is maintained and upheld, however, the impugned order of sentence, is modified in terms of the above order. 20. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of along-with all connected applications. 21. Ms. Masooda Jan, Panel Counsel of J&K Legal Services Authority, who represents the appellant in the instant case, has rendered valuable and satisfactory assistance to this Court for disposal of the appeal. She submitted at this stage that the appellant-convict, who has already undergone the sentence of more than 20 years, be ordered to be released having regard to the remission policy. Since the power of granting remission is with the Executive, the Executive shall be well advised to consider the case of the appellant-convict for remission in terms of the remission policy as contained in the Ladakh Jail Manual. Since the power of granting remission is with the Executive, the Executive shall be well advised to consider the case of the appellant-convict for remission in terms of the remission policy as contained in the Ladakh Jail Manual. Copy of this judgment shall be sent to the Superintendent of Jail concerned, who shall take note of the same and process the case of the appellant-convict expeditiously for consideration of remission by the concerned authorities. CRREF No. 11/2012 22. For the reasons assigned for disposal of the appeal, the Reference made by the trial court for confirmation of the death sentence is rejected, commuting death sentence into life imprisonment. Reference is, answered, accordingly. 23. Trial court record along-with a copy of this judgment shall be sent down to the trial court, expeditiously, for issuance of warrant of imprisonment in terms of this judgment, for execution of sentence.