JUDGMENT : ARVIND SINGH CHANDEL, J. 1. The Special Judge for trial of the cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (henceforth ‘the POCSO Act’) Bhanupratappur, Uttar Bastar Kanker vide judgment dated 30.10.2018 passed in Special Criminal Case (POCSO Act, 2012) No. 17 of 2017 convicted and sentenced the accused/Appellant as under: Conviction Sentence Under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code Rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs. 500 in default of payment thereof additional rigorous imprisonment for 3 months Under Section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000 in default of payment thereof additional rigorous imprisonment for 6 months Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code Death sentence and fine of Rs. 1000 in default of payment thereof additional rigorous imprisonment for 6 months Under Section 6 of the POCSO Act In view of the provisions contained in Section 42 of the POCSO Act alternatively greater sentence is awarded under Section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code All the jail sentences are directed to run concurrently 2. The Special Judge, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 366(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, after passing the sentence of death, has submitted the proceedings to this Court for confirmation and this is how the instant reference is before us for consideration along with an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 1889 of 2018 moved by the Appellant whereby he has challenged the conviction and sentence imposed upon him by the Special Judge. 3. According to the case of prosecution, at the time of incident, the victim girl child (deceased) was aged about 4½ years. On 4.3.2015, PW4 Jaitaram, grandfather of the victim reported that the accused/Appellant kidnapped the victim at about 7 p.m. On the basis of the said, a missing report of the victim under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code was registered at Police Station Durgkondal, District Uttar Bastar Kanker. Accordingly, search was made and during investigation the Appellant was taken into custody on 7.3.2015. His disclosure statement (Ex.P1) was recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and at his instance body of the victim was recovered vide Ex.P2. The body was duly identified by Complainant PW4 Jaitaram vide identification panchnama (Ex.P3). The inquest panchnama (Ex.P10) was prepared. Accordingly, search was made and during investigation the Appellant was taken into custody on 7.3.2015. His disclosure statement (Ex.P1) was recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and at his instance body of the victim was recovered vide Ex.P2. The body was duly identified by Complainant PW4 Jaitaram vide identification panchnama (Ex.P3). The inquest panchnama (Ex.P10) was prepared. From the spot, a green colour legging, blood stained soil and plain soil were seized. The dead body of the victim was sent for post mortem examination, which was conducted by PW9 Dr. Bhagyalaxmi Kosma. Post mortem examination report is Ex.P17. It was opined by the doctor that death of the victim was homicidal in nature. It was further opined that the victim was subjected to sexual offence and ultimately it was opined that cause of death was asphyxia due to upper airway obstruction. Vaginal slide, swab, blood stained frock were also seized. Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The undergarment stained with semen and blood, which was worn by the Appellant at the time of incident, was also seized. The Appellant was also examined by PW10 Dr. A.K. Dhruw. Accordingly, semen slides were prepared and seized. The seized articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination. FSL Report is Ex.P37. On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed. 4. The Trial Court framed charges. The prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 37 documents. In examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the Appellant denied the guilt and pleaded innocence. However, no defence witness was examined. After conclusion of the trial, the Special Judge convicted and sentenced the Appellant as mentioned earlier in this judgment. 5. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, the Appellant preferred an appeal, being Criminal Appeal No. 1889 of 2018 under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. challenging his conviction and sentence for the abovementioned offences, particularly, the capital punishment. However, in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 366(1) Cr.P.C. the Special Judge submitted the sentence of death to this Court for confirmation and this is how both the cases have been clubbed and heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 6. However, in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 366(1) Cr.P.C. the Special Judge submitted the sentence of death to this Court for confirmation and this is how both the cases have been clubbed and heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 6. It was submitted by Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused/Appellant that the Trial Court has convicted the Appellant without there being sufficient and clinching evidence on record. The conviction of the Appellant is based upon the circumstantial evidence and apart from the last seen theory no other circumstantial evidence is available on record. Only on the basis of last seen theory, the conviction is not sustainable. It was further argued that from the evidence on record, it reveals that dead body of the victim was recovered after 3 days of the incident from an open place. Surprisingly, nobody saw the dead body for 3 days. Therefore, the recovery of the dead body of the victim at the instance of the Appellant is also suspicious. Alternatively, it was submitted that if the Court finds that the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC is established against the Appellant, the offence, if any, would be covered by Section 300 fourthly of the IPC and, therefore, the death sentence can be commuted to life sentence. Reliance was placed on Pappu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2022) 10 SCC 321 and Harendra vs. State of U.P. 2022 Cri. L.J. 417. 7. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State submitted that the Trial Court, on due appreciation of the evidence available on record, has rightly convicted the accused/Appellant for the aforesaid offences. The theory of last seen together is fully established. Dead body of the victim girl was recovered at the instance of the Appellant. The Appellant has not offered any explanation regarding the injuries occurred on his body which would occur while trying to have forcible sexual intercourse. The Appellant has also not offered any explanation that after taking the victim with him where did he take her and thereafter what happened with her. The entire chain of circumstances clearly shows that the Appellant only is the person who is responsible for the offence. The Appellant has also not offered any explanation that after taking the victim with him where did he take her and thereafter what happened with her. The entire chain of circumstances clearly shows that the Appellant only is the person who is responsible for the offence. As regards the death sentence imposed upon the Appellant, it was argued that there are so many aggravating circumstances against the Appellant as under: (1) The Appellant was holding a relationship of a guest in the house (utmost trust bestowed by the family). (2) The Appellant took the victim girl child with him to fetch her a biscuit. (3) The victim trusted the Appellant. (4) The Appellant had a well planned cool headed scheme for commission of the offence, (5) The victim of such tender age could not have aroused the Appellant so as to have provoked him for commission of the offence. (6) The victim was helpless to resist the savage design of the Appellant for commission of the offence who physically dominated her. (7) The Appellant committed rape on the child/victim and in order to ensure that his identity is not disclosed killed the child by throttling. (8) The Appellant had no remorse and tried to deviate the investigation. (9) The Appellant gave a wrong information to police in order to deviate the investigation which also demonstrates his ill plan. (10) The Appellant committed the offence with cool mind and planning without there being any act of instigation in any manner. Therefore, looking to the above aggravating circumstances, the act committed by the Appellant is clearly the act which falls within the category of the rarest of the rare cases and deserves death penalty. 8. We have heard the rival contentions put-forth on behalf of the parties as well as the contentions raised by Learned Amicus Curiae. We have also perused the entire evidence available on record both oral and documentary including the other material available with utmost circumspection. 9. We have also perused the conduct reports of the accused/Appellant received from the Superintendent, Central Jail, Raipur dated 13.11.2020 and the report dated 12.11.2020 received from the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jagdalpur submitted by the Learned State Counsel in which conduct of the Appellant has been reported to be good and normal during the present incarceration in jail. 10. First, we shall examine the evidence with regard to the age of the victim. 10. First, we shall examine the evidence with regard to the age of the victim. Relying upon the statement of the Investigating Officer PW11 I. Tirkey, further considering the statement of PW9 Dr. Bhagyalaxmi Kosma and further relying on the birth certificate of the victim which is marked as “A” the Trial Court has arrived at the conclusion that at the time of incident, the victim was aged about 4½ years, which is a correct finding of fact based on the evidence available on record and which has also not been disputed by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant. Thus, in our considered view, the Trial Court has rightly arrived at the conclusion that on the date of incident the age of the victim was 4 years 9 months and 17 days. We affirm this finding. 11. Next question for consideration is whether the death of victim was homicidal in nature and whether prior to her homicidal death any penetrative sexual assault was done on her. 12. According to the case of prosecution, after recovery of the dead body of the victim, inquest proceeding was done and thereafter the dead body was sent for post mortem examination. The post mortem examination was conducted by PW9 Dr. Bhagyalaxmi Kosma. Her report is Ex.P17. At the time of post mortem examination, the following injuries were present over the dead body of the victim: (1) Contused abrasion over left mastoid prominence of size 1.3 cm x 2 cm, three (3) contused abrasion present over right mastoid prominence of size 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm, contused abrasion produced by pud of index finger, 3 cm x 1.5 cm contused abrasion produced by middle finger, 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm contused abrasion produced by ring finger respectively. Whereas, two crescentric nail marks of index and middle finger were present over right mastoid prominence. (2) Two (2) contused abrasion over anteromedial medial aspect of left arm of size 5 cm x 5 cm and size 2.5 cm x 2.5 cm were present. (3) Two contused abrasion in medial aspect of right thigh 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm were present. (4) Multiple small abrasion in both buttocks were found. (2) Two (2) contused abrasion over anteromedial medial aspect of left arm of size 5 cm x 5 cm and size 2.5 cm x 2.5 cm were present. (3) Two contused abrasion in medial aspect of right thigh 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm were present. (4) Multiple small abrasion in both buttocks were found. It was also found by the doctor that small abrasion in both medial aspect of thighs, contused abrasion and profuse swelling of lateral and posterior vaginal wall, irregular ruptured hymen, torn hymen extended through the perineal body, posterior vaginal wall, upto anterior wall of anorectal canal were also found. According to the opinion of the doctor, the injuries found on the body were ante mortem and indicating towards commission of sexual offence with the victim and were of duration of 3 to 5 days prior to the post mortem examination. It was opined by the doctor that cause of death of the victim was asphyxia due to upper airway obstruction and mode of death was both throttling and sexual offence committed with her and the nature of the death was homicidal. There is nothing in the cross-examination of PW9 on the basis of which her statement could be disbelieved or questioned. Accordingly, we affirm the finding of the Court below that the nature of the death of the victim was homicidal and also affirm the finding that before causing her homicidal death the offence of penetrative sexual assault was committed with the victim. 13. Now, further question for consideration before us is whether the Appellant is the person who committed the alleged offence of kidnapping, penetrative sexual assault and homicidal death of the victim. 14. The entire case of the prosecution is based upon the circumstantial evidence. The law with regard to circumstantial evidence is well settled. In a case where the prosecution relied upon the circumstantial evidence it must not only prove the circumstances but also should link them in such a fashion so as to form an unending chain, i.e., the guilt of the accused, but, if there is any chance of the accused being innocent or the crime has been committed by some other person then the accused has to be given benefit of doubt and on the basis of circumstantial evidence he cannot be convicted. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 , the Supreme Court held the following: (1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must or should be and not merely ‘may be’ fully established. (2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. (3) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (4) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. (5) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 15. In Sharad Birdhichand (supra), the Supreme Court has further held that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of legal proof. It has also been held that the well established rule of criminal justice is that “fouler the crime higher the proof” and in case of capital sentence, a very careful, cautious and meticulous approach was necessary to be made. It has been observed in paragraph 180 of the report thus: “180. It must be recalled that the well established rule of criminal justice is that “fouler the crime higher the proof”. In the instant case, the life and liberty of a subject was at stake. As the accused was given a capital sentence, a very careful, cautious and meticulous approach was necessary to be made.” 16. The first circumstance which has been relied upon by the prosecution and found proved by the Trial Court is that the Appellant was lastly seen together with the victim (deceased) on 4.3.2015 at about 7 p.m. and thereafter she was found dead on 7.3.2015 when her dead body was recovered. 17. The prosecution has relied upon the statements of PW1 Anil Kumar Gawde, PW2 Kumbhkaran, PW4 Jaitaram, PW5 Mesram and PW7 Aayto Bai. PW1 Anil Kumar Gawde, who is father of the victim, in his Court statement deposed that on 4.3.2015 the Appellant along with Rajesh Kureti and PW5 Mesram came to their village for taking their motorcycle and all stayed in his house and also consumed liquor with his father PW4 Jaitaram. PW1 Anil Kumar Gawde, who is father of the victim, in his Court statement deposed that on 4.3.2015 the Appellant along with Rajesh Kureti and PW5 Mesram came to their village for taking their motorcycle and all stayed in his house and also consumed liquor with his father PW4 Jaitaram. This witness further deposed that thereafter PW4 Jaitaram, PW5 Mesram, Rajesh Kureti and the Appellant went to the shop of the basti (locality) for consuming gutkha. At that time, the Appellant had kept the victim in his lap. This witness further deposed that after consuming gutkha, PW4 Jaitaram, PW5 Mesram and Rajesh Kureti returned and on being asked PW4 Jaitaram told that the Appellant will brought the victim back after giving her biscuit. Corroborating the statement of PW1 Anil Kumar Gawde, his father PW4 Jaitaram deposed that after consuming gutkha they returned and the Appellant stopped at the Atal Chowk along with the victim. According to this witness, the Appellant had kept the victim in his lap. This witness further deposed that when they saw the Appellant 10-15 minutes later, he was not found there. PW5 Mesram, who is a resident of Village Kahgaon and who had come along with the Appellant to the village of victim Dhanpatari also deposed that when they returned to the house of PW4 Jaitaram after consuming gutkha, at that time, the Appellant keeping the victim in his lap had told that he will take the victim to the shop for giving her biscuit, but, he did not return. PW7 Aayto Bai, wife of Jaitaram also deposed that the Appellant had taken the victim in his lap and she had seen the Appellant taking the victim with him. 18. A careful perusal of the statements of the above witnesses clearly shows that on the date of incident, the Appellant along with PW5 Mesram and Rajesh Kureti had come to Village Dhanpatari, which was the village of PW1 Anil Kumar Gawde, father of the victim. Thereafter, all of them stayed in the house of PW1 Anil Kumar Gawde. They also consumed liquor with PW4 Jaitaram, father of Anil Kumar Gawde. Thereafter, they went to a Gutkha Shop for consuming gutkha. At that time, the Appellant had kept the victim in his lap. Thereafter, all of them stayed in the house of PW1 Anil Kumar Gawde. They also consumed liquor with PW4 Jaitaram, father of Anil Kumar Gawde. Thereafter, they went to a Gutkha Shop for consuming gutkha. At that time, the Appellant had kept the victim in his lap. Thereafter, all the person returned from the Gutkha Shop except the Appellant and the victim and as deposed by the witnesses the Appellant had taken away the victim with him telling that he will give her biscuit from the shop, but, he did not return. PW2 Kumbhkaran also deposed that on the date of incident at about 7 p.m. PW4 Jaitaram along with his three guest boys had come to his shop and one of the said guest boys had kept the victim in his lap. Considering the statements of the witnesses, it is well established that the Appellant was lastly seen with the victim at about 7 p.m. on 4.3.2015. At that time, the Appellant had taken away the victim with him in his lap, but, he did not return and thereafter dead body of the victim was found on 7.3.2015. Therefore, the theory of last seen together is well established in this case. 19. Next circumstance which has been relied upon by the prosecution and found proved by the Trial Court is that on 7.3.2015 on the basis of disclosure statement (Ex.P1) of the Appellant dead body of the victim was recovered vide Ex.P2. The dead body was duly identified by PW4 Jaitaram vide Ex.P3. Investigating Officer PW11 I. Tirkey deposed that during the course of investigation he took the Appellant in custody and recorded his disclosure statement (Ex.P1) and at the instance of the Appellant dead body of the victim was recovered vide Ex.P2 and according to this witness dead body of the victim was duly identified by PW4 Jaitaram vide Ex.P3. PW3 Siyaram Gawde, who is a witness of the disclosure statement (Ex.P1) of the Appellant and recovery of the dead body has supported the case of the prosecution and deposed that on 7.3.2015 in his presence the disclosure statement (Ex.P1) of the Appellant was recorded by police. He categorically stated that before him it was narrated by the Appellant that the dead body of the victim was lying in the field of Banshilal. He categorically stated that before him it was narrated by the Appellant that the dead body of the victim was lying in the field of Banshilal. This witness further stated that thereafter the Appellant was taken to the spot and at the instance of the Appellant dead body of the victim was recovered vide recovery memo (Ex.P2) and the dead body has also been identified by them. PW1 Anil Kumar Gawde and PW7 Aayto Bai also deposed that dead body of the victim was recovered at the instance of the Appellant only. Though these witnesses admitted the fact that dead body of the victim was found in the field of Banshilal and that field was an open place, there is nothing on record to show that the place where the dead body was found was accessible for the public and that place could easily be seen. Rather, from the statements of the witnesses, it is established that the said field was out of the village and was away from the common path of the village. Therefore, we do not find any substance in the argument raised by Learned Counsel for the Appellant that the recovery of dead body of the victim was not done at the instance of the Appellant. 20. Next circumstance which has been relied upon by the prosecution and found proved by the Court below is that the Appellant has not offered any explanation to the injuries found on his body. According to the prosecution, after arrest of the Appellant, he was also subjected to medical examination and his medical examination was conducted by PW10 Dr. A.K. Dhruw. At the time of examination, on the left side of the face of the Appellant, an abrasion of 2 cm x 1 cm was present. Abrasions were also found on both his knees. It was opined by the doctor that these injuries could occur during committing sex. The Appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has not explained that how the said injuries on his body occurred. According to us, the Trial Court has rightly found proved this circumstance against the Appellant. 21. During the course of investigation, one underwear of the Appellant was seized vide Ex.P7 and this seizure has been duly proved by the witnesses of the said seizure. According to us, the Trial Court has rightly found proved this circumstance against the Appellant. 21. During the course of investigation, one underwear of the Appellant was seized vide Ex.P7 and this seizure has been duly proved by the witnesses of the said seizure. The said recovered underwear, swab of the victim and semen of the Appellant were sent for chemical examination and as per the FSL Report (Ex.P37) sperm and blood were found on the underwear of the Appellant. The Appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has not offered any explanation in this regard also. 22. Considering the entire evidence available on record, the circumstances which have been duly proved against the Appellant are as under: (1) Theory of last seen together is duly established. (2) At the instance of the Appellant dead body of the victim was recovered on 7.3.2015. (3) According to the post mortem report, death of the victim was homicidal in nature and cause of death was asphyxia due to upper airway obstruction. (4) Before the death of the victim penetrative sexual assault was done on her. (5) Human sperm and blood were found on the underwear of the Appellant, but, he has not offered any explanation how the sperm and the blood were found in his underwear. (6) Injuries were found on the face and both the knees of the Appellant, but, he has not offered any explanation in this regard also. 23. Considering the above and after appreciating the entire evidence available on record, in our considered view, the chain of circumstances have been duly established against the Appellant and we do not find any illegality in appreciation of oral, medical and circumstantial evidence or in arriving at the conclusion as to the guilt of the Appellant by the Trial Court warranting interference by this Court and accordingly we hereby affirm the conviction of the Appellant for the offences mentioned in first paragraph of this judgment. 24. Now, next question is the question of death sentence awarded to the Appellant by the Court below directing that he should be hanged till death and it has been sent to us for confirmation in accordance with the provision contained in Section 366(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 25. Now, it is to be seen whether this case falls within the category of the rarest of the rare cases justifying capital punishment. 25. Now, it is to be seen whether this case falls within the category of the rarest of the rare cases justifying capital punishment. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in a catena of judgments have laid down principles for awarding capital punishment for which the balance between aggravating circumstances and mitigating circumstances has to be struck. While convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC or for any conviction for an offence punishable with death or in alternative for awarding imprisonment for life, the Court is required to assign special reason for awarding such penalty and special reason for awarding death sentence in accordance with sub-section (3) of Section 354 Cr.P.C. 26. The Supreme Court in Manoj vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2023) 2 SCC 353 , reviewing the entire case laws on the point beginning from Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684 held in paragraph 237 as under: “237. Mitigating factors in general, rather than excuse or validate the crime committed, seek to explain the surrounding circumstances of the criminal to enable the Judge to decide between the death penalty or life imprisonment. An illustrative list of indicators first recognised in Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684 itself: (SCC p. 750, Para 206) “206........Mitigating circumstances - In the exercise of its discretion in the above cases, the court shall take into account the following circumstances: (1) That the offence was committed under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance. (2) The age of the accused. If the accused is young or old, he shall not be sentenced to death. (3) The probability that the accused would not commit criminal acts of violence as would constitute a continuing threat to society. (4) The probability that the accused can be reformed and rehabilitated. The State shall by evidence prove that the accused does not satisfy Conditions (3) and (4) above. (5) That in the facts and circumstances of the case the accused believed that he was morally justified in committing the offence. (6) That the accused acted under the duress or domination of another person. The State shall by evidence prove that the accused does not satisfy Conditions (3) and (4) above. (5) That in the facts and circumstances of the case the accused believed that he was morally justified in committing the offence. (6) That the accused acted under the duress or domination of another person. (7) That the condition of the accused showed that he was mentally defective and that the said defect impaired his capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct.” These are hardly exhaustive; subsequently, this Court in several judgments has recognised, and considered commutation to life imprisonment, on grounds such as young age Mahesh Dhanaji Shinde vs. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 4 SCC 292 , as relevant indicators on the questions of sentence. Many of these factors reflect demonstrable ability or merely the possibility even, of the accused to reform [i.e. (3) and (4) of the Bachan Singh list], which make them important indicators when it comes to sentencing. 246. However, this too, is too little, too late and only offers a peek into the circumstances of the accused after conviction. The unfortunate reality is that in the absence of well-documented mitigating circumstances at the trial level, the aggravating circumstances seem far more compelling, or overwhelming, rendering the sentencing court prone to imposing the death penalty, on the basis of an incomplete, and hence, incorrect application of the Bachan Singh test. 247. The goal of reformation is ideal, and what society must strive towards - there are many references to it peppered in this Court’s jurisprudence across the decades - but what is lacking is a concrete framework that can measure and evaluate it. Unfortunately, this is mirrored by the failure to implement prison reforms of a meaningful kind, which has left the process of incarceration and prisons in general, to be a space of limited potential for systemic reformation. The goal of reformative punishment requires systems that actively enable reformation and rehabilitation, as a result of nuanced policy-making. As a small step to correct these skewed results and facilitate better evaluation of whether there is a possibility for the accused to be reformed (beyond vague references to conduct, family background, etc.) this Court deems it necessary to frame practical guidelines for the courts to adopt and implement, till the legislature and executive, formulate a coherent framework through legislation. As a small step to correct these skewed results and facilitate better evaluation of whether there is a possibility for the accused to be reformed (beyond vague references to conduct, family background, etc.) this Court deems it necessary to frame practical guidelines for the courts to adopt and implement, till the legislature and executive, formulate a coherent framework through legislation. These guidelines may also offer guidance or ideas, that such a legislative framework could benefit from, to systematically collect and evaluate information on mitigating circumstances. 248. There is urgent need to ensure that mitigating circumstances are considered at the trial stage, to avoid slipping into a retributive response to the brutality of the crime, as is noticeably the situation in a majority of cases reaching the appellate stage. 249. To do this, the trial court must elicit information from the accused and the State, both. The State, must - for an offence carrying capital punishment–at the appropriate stage, produce material which is preferably collected beforehand, before the Sessions Court disclosing psychiatric and psychological evaluation of the accused. This will help establish proximity (in terms of timeline), to the accused person’s frame of mind (or mental illness, if any) at the time of committing the crime and offer guidance on mitigating factors (1), (5), (6) and (7) spelled out in Bachan Singh. Even for the other factors of (3) and (4) - an onus placed squarely on the State-conducting this form of psychiatric and psychological evaluation close on the heels of commission of the offence, will provide a baseline for the appellate courts to use for comparison i.e. to evaluate the progress of the accused towards reformation, achieved during the incarceration period. 250. Next, the State, must in a time-bound manner, collect additional information pertaining to the accused. 250. Next, the State, must in a time-bound manner, collect additional information pertaining to the accused. An illustrative, but not exhaustive list is as follows: (a) Age (b) Early family background (siblings, protection of parents, any history of violence or neglect) (c) Present family background (surviving family members, whether married, has children, etc.) (d) Type and level of education (e) Socio-economic background (including conditions of poverty or deprivation, if any) (f) Criminal antecedents (details of offence and whether convicted, sentence served, if any) (g) Income and the kind of employment (whether none, or temporary or permanent, etc.) (h) Other factors such as history of unstable social behaviour, or mental or psychological ailment(s), alienation of the individual (with reasons, if any), etc. This information should mandatorily be available to the trial court, at the sentencing stage. The accused too, should be given the same opportunity to produce evidence in rebuttal, towards establishing all mitigating circumstances. 251. Lastly, information regarding the accused jail conduct and behaviour, work done (if any), activities the accused has involved themselves in, and other related details should be called for in the form of a report from the relevant jail authorities (i.e. Probation and Welfare Officer, Superintendent of Jail, etc.). If the appeal is heard after a long hiatus from the trial court’s conviction, or High Court’s confirmation, as the case may be – a fresh report (rather than the one used by the previous court) from the jail authorities is recommended, for a more exact and complete understanding of the contemporaneous progress made by the accused, in the time elapsed. The jail authorities must also include a fresh psychiatric and psychological report which will further evidence the reformative progress, and reveal post-conviction mental illness, if any. 252. It is pertinent to point out that this Court in Anil vs. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 4 SCC 69 has in fact directed criminal courts to call for additional material: (SCC p. 86, Para 33) “33.......Many a times, while determining the sentence, the courts take it for granted, looking into the facts of a particular case, that the accused would be a menace to the society and there is no possibility of reformation and rehabilitation, while it is the duty of the court to ascertain those factors and the State is obliged to furnish materials for and against the possibility of reformation and rehabilitation of the accused. The facts, which the courts deal with, in a given case, cannot be the foundation for reaching such a conclusion, which, as already stated, calls for additional materials. We, therefore, direct that the criminal courts, while dealing with the offences like Section 302 IPC, after conviction, may, in appropriate cases, call for a report to determine, whether the accused could be reformed or rehabilitated, which depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case.” (Emphasis supplied) We hereby fully endorse and direct that this should be implemented uniformly, as further elaborated above, for conviction of offences that carry the possibility of death sentence.” 27. Reverting to the facts of the present case, in light of the aforesaid guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in Manoj (supra), it is quite vivid that the Trial Court has convicted the Appellant and sentenced him to death on the same date, i.e., 30.10.2018. The Trial Court has not taken into consideration the probability of the Appellant to be reformed and rehabilitated and only took into consideration the crime and the manner in which it was committed by the Appellant. The Trial Court has also not given effective opportunity of hearing to the Appellant on the question of sentence. Further, no evidence was brought on record to prove before the Court that the Appellant cannot be reformed and rehabilitated by producing material about his conduct in jail and no opportunity of hearing was given to the Appellant also to produce evidence in this regard. Before this Court, reports from the concerned jails have been produced in which the behaviour of the Appellant has been found to be good and normal. No offence in jail as has been said to have been committed by the Appellant. There is no evidence on record that the Appellant cannot be reformed and rehabilitated as at the time of offence, he was aged about 20 years only and he is also a member of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and his chances of being reformed and rehabilitated cannot be ruled out. Considering the jail reports and further considering that no criminal antecedents has been shown against the Appellant, further considering the young age of the Appellant, upon thoughtful consideration, we are of the view that extreme sentence of death is not warranted in this case. Considering the jail reports and further considering that no criminal antecedents has been shown against the Appellant, further considering the young age of the Appellant, upon thoughtful consideration, we are of the view that extreme sentence of death is not warranted in this case. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that this is not the rarest of the rare cases in which major penalty of death has to be confirmed. In our view, imprisonment for life would completely be adequate and would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, we direct commutation of death sentence into imprisonment for life. We further direct that the life sentence must extend to the imprisonment for remainder of natural life of the Appellant. 28. Consequently, Criminal Reference No. 3 of 2018 made by the Learned Special Judge to the extent of confirmation of imposition of the death sentence to the Appellant is rejected. 29. Criminal Appeal No. 1889 of 2018 preferred on behalf of the accused/Appellant is partly allowed. The conviction of the Appellant under Sections 363, 376(2)(i) and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act is confirmed, but, his sentence of death is commuted to imprisonment for life by maintaining the fine amount. 30. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to send a duly attested copy of this judgment to the concerned Special Judge as mandated in Section 371 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for needful.