Dayanidhi Bisoi vs State Of Orissa

This appeal arises out of a judgment of the High Court of

Orissa at Cuttack made in Death Reference No.2 of 2002 and in

Jail Criminal Appeal No.244 of 2000. The reference in question

was made by the Additional Sessions Judge Jeypore in Sessions

Case No.8 of 1999 whereby the learned Sessions Judge having

found the appellant in this appeal guilty of an offence

punishable under Section 302 IPC came to the conclusion that

on facts of the case the appellant should be given the maximum

sentence of death, hence, referred the case for confirmation of

the sentence under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure to the High Court.

The appellant preferred the connected Criminal Appeal

No.244 of 2000 challenging his conviction and sentence

awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jeypore.

Both the matters came to be heard together in the High Court

and by the impugned judgment the High Court confirmed the

conviction awarded to the appellant as also accepted the

reference made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in

regard to awarding death penalty to the appellant.

It is against the above said judgment of the High Court of

Orissa at Cuttack, the appellant is before us in this appeal.

Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as

follows:

The prosecution alleges that the appellant was an agnetic

nephew of the deceased Anirudha Sahu who was working as a

Peon in the Sales Tax Department and residing in the Irrigation

Colony at Jeypore. The appellant is a resident of village

Niranguda and was carrying on turmeric and mustard business.

According to the prosecution, he used to come to Jeypore and

visit the deceased and often used to stay in the house of the

deceased. The prosecution further alleges that the deceased

Anirudha was married to Lata and had a three year old daughter

by name Puja who were all residing together in the flat at

Irrigation Colony. It is also the case of the prosecution that the

appellant had suffered loss in his business and was in constant

need of financial assistance. The visit of the appellant to their

house was not liked by Anirudha's wife Lata since she was

suspecting the character of the appellant. She had complained

about this to the brother of her husband (PW-15) who in turn

had spoken to Anirudha about the propriety of allowing the

appellant to stay with Anirudha and his family during the visits

of the appellant to Jeypore. According to the prosecution,

Anirudha, however, took a very sympathetic view of the

financial position of the appellant, hence, told his brother it is

not fair not to help a person like the appellant in his days of

trouble. Hence, against the wish of Lata and his brother,

Anirudha continued to entertain the appellant in his house.

The prosecution alleges that on 3rd June, 1998, the

appellant had visited Jeypore. On that day about 9 p.m. Lata

had gone to the house of one Babu Lenka (PW-1) to recall her

daughter Puja who was playing there. At that time when

Lenka's mother (PW-3) asked Lata to stay for a while, she

replied that they had a guest from the village at home and she

has to serve dinner, so saying she left for the house along with

daughter Puja. The prosecution also alleged that Goutam

Kumar Swain (PW-2) who was the owner of a Betel shop in the

Irrigation Colony had seen on 3rd June, 1998 Anirudha in the

company of the appellant at about 9 p.m. According to the said

witness, the deceased and the appellant had gone to his Betel

shop to purchase two Sachets of "Khaini" . The same witness

also says that on the next day i.e. on 4th June, 1998 he had seen

the accused going from the direction of the house of the

deceased. It is the further case of the prosecution that on 4th

June, 1998 having not seen the family members of Anirudha till

late in the morning, the neighbours got suspicious about the

welfare of the family of Anirudha, hence, tried to find out what

has happened to Anirudha and his family. In this process, it is

stated that one Kanhu Charan Lenka (PW-9) brother of the

neighbour of the deceased Babu Lenka PW-1 climbed a Guava

tree in front of the flat of the deceased and saw Anirudha, Lata

and Puja lying dead inside the house. Thereafter, the

prosecution alleges that the neighbours joined together broke

open the front door of the flat which was locked from outside

and entered the house where they found the dead bodies of the

above-mentioned persons having injuries in their neck. They

also noticed that the ornaments normally worn by Lata and Puja

were missing. They also saw the almirah in the flat was opened

and all the household articles were ransacked. Some of the

witnesses who had seen the appellant in the company of the

deceased on the previous evening also noticed that the appellant

was missing. Therefore, suspecting that he might have been the

assailant Babu Lenka (PW-1), the neighbour, filed a complaint

in Jeypore Town Police Station which was registered as Case

No.148 of 1998. The investigation of the case in question was

then taken up by PW-22 Ram Mohan Uttarkabat, who visited

the spot and held the inquest over the dead bodies. He also

requisitioned the assistance of scientific team from the office of

the Superintendent of Police, Koraput to collect blood scraping,

finger prints etc. from the place of incident. The bodies of the

deceased were sent for post mortem examination. The further

investigation was conducted by PW-18 Nathuram Sahani. The

post mortem of the dead bodies was conducted by PW-20 Dr.

Umesh Chandra Patnaik who noticed punctured wound on the

neck of all the three victims, consequent to which wound the

carotid artery, jugular veins, trachea and larynx of the victims

were cut into pieces. The doctor opined that the death was due

to shock and hemorrhage suffered due to the above injuries.

During the course of investigation, the prosecution alleges that

the police arrested the appellant and his finger prints, foot prints

etc. were collected by the scientific team. It is further stated that

on information given by the appellant, a knife M.O.VIII was

recovered from a bamboo bush near the hay-stack in the village

of the appellant. The prosecution also alleges that on the

information of the appellant they recovered some cash and a

ladies watch in small plastic box M.O.IX from the house of the

appellant. It is also stated that on information given by the

appellant gold ornaments M.Os. I to VI were recovered from

the goldsmith T.Rama Rao (PW-19) which according to the

prosecution belonged to the deceased Lata and Puja. In a Test

Identification Parrade conducted by the police, the appellant

was identified by the owner of the Pan shop PW-2, the

goldsmith who negotiated the transaction between the accused

Keshab Rao Acharya (PW-19) and T. Rama Rao (PW-17). The

ornaments recovered were also identified as belonging of the

deceased persons by PW-3 Tamala Lenka, the mother of PW-1

who used to meet deceased Lata frequently including the night

before the incident in question and had occasion to notice the

jewellery. The jewellery and the wrist watch were also

identified as belonging to the deceased by the brother-in-law of

Lata PW-15 Bidyadhar Sahu. On analysing the finger prints

found at the place of incident, the Finger Prints Bureau reported

that some of the finger prints recovered tallied with that of the

appellant. Based on such investigation, the prosecution charged

the appellant of offences punishable under Sections 394 and

302 of IPC before the learned Additional Sessions Judge

Jeypore as stated above.

The defence of the appellant in the courts below is one of

denial and false implication by the police. He admitted his

relationship with deceased Anirudha but denied that he had

visited him or his family.

Learned Sessions Judge after examining the material on

record and hearing the arguments addressed came to the

conclusion that though the case in hand is based on

circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has established each

and every circumstance placed against the appellant and the

links in the chain of circumstances without any doubt had

established the guilt of the appellant. Having so come to the

conclusion that the appellant is guilty of offences punishable

under Sections 302 and 394 of IPC and having heard the

learned counsel for the defence on the question of sentence and

after discussing the law on this point elaborately, and also

considering the facts of the case, the trial court came to the

further conclusion that the act of the appellant was a diabolical

and a pre-meditated murder, executed in a well planned

manner, causing the death of the entire family including a three

year old child. The court also came to the conclusion that the

action of the appellant was in no manner caused by any

provocation whatsoever from the victims and was motivated

solely by greed. The court also came to the conclusion that on

entire perusal of the material on record, there were no

extenuating circumstances and the case being one of the rarest

of the rare cases deserved the maximum punishment. The court

also came to the conclusion that since for an offence under

Section 302 IPC he was awarding the maximum punishment of

death, there is no need to sentence the appellant further for an

offence punishable under Section 394 IPC. Accordingly the

trial court sentenced the appellant to be hanged by neck till

death As required by law, the trial court referred the matter to

the High Court under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure for confirmation of the sentence.

The appellant preferred an appeal to the High Court

against the said judgment of the trial court. The High Court

heard the death reference case as also the appeal of the

appellant together and delivered the impugned judgment

dismissing the appeal of the appellant and accepting the

reference made by the trial court in regard to the death sentence

awarded by it to the appellant.

As noticed above, it is against this common judgment of

the High Court, the appellant is in appeal before us.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The

learned counsel for the appellant has adopted the same

argument as was addressed by his counter parts in the courts

below and contended that there being no direct evidence

implicating the appellant and the case being one founded on

circumstantial evidence the courts below ought to have

analysed each and every link in the chain of circumstances to

find out whether these links in the prosecution case have been

established beyond all reasonable doubts or not. Learned

counsel contended such an exercise has not been done by the

courts below. He also contended that the entire case of the

prosecution is based on suspicion and none of the links in the

chain have been really established nor are they safe enough to

rely upon to base a conviction. He also contended that the case

being one of circumstantial evidence the extreme penalty of

death ought not to have been awarded, that is assuming the

prosecution has established its case against the appellant. He

also contended that the courts below did not take into

consideration the facts which should have been treated as

extenuating circumstance not to award death penalty. His

further submission was that apart from the fact that the case in

hand was not a rarest of rare case, on facts of this case did not

deserve the extreme penalty of death. While the learned counsel

appearing for the State supported the judgment of the courts

below, both in regard to conviction as also in regard to

sentence.

The courts below in the absence of direct evidence have

relied upon 11 circumstances to come to the conclusion that the

appellant is guilty of the offence charged against him. The said

circumstances are as follow:-

i) At the relevant time the accused was in need of

money;

ii) On the night intervening between the 3rd and 4th

June, 1998 the accused was found absent from his

village;

iii) The accused was found in the company of

deceased Anirudha in the night of occurrence i.e.

3rd June, 98;

iv) On the next morning of 4.6.1998 the accused was

seen going away from the direction of the house of

the deceased;

v) On the night of 3.6.1998 the neighbours were told

by deceased Lata that a relative is present in their

house as guest;

vi) On the next morning the appellant was found

absent from the flat when the dead bodies of the

deceased persons were discovered.

vii) Homicidal nature of death of all deceased; similar

modus operandi.

viii) While in custody the accused led to the discovery

of:

(a) the weapon of offence.

(b) a wrist watch suspected to be belonging to

deceased Lata and cash.

(c) The ornaments of the deceased Lata and her

daughter Puja.

(ix) The accused was visiting the house of the

deceased and had weakness towards Lata.

(x) The nail clippings collected from the accused

were found to be stained with blood.

(xi) Matching of the blood stained finger prints and

chance finger prints found from the scene of

occurrence with specimen finger prints of the

accused.

The courts below have very elaborately discussed the

material produced by the prosecution while accepting each of

the above circumstances. In the normal course, there would

have been no need for us to go into these circumstances as

elaborately as was done by the two courts below in an appeal

filed under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, especially

when the finding in this regard is concurrent. But taking into

consideration that the appellant is facing a death sentence and

the case in hand is one of circumstantial evidence, we think it

appropriate and in the interest of justice to re-appreciate the

evidence brought on record by the prosecution to assure

ourselves that the finding of the two courts below is appropriate

on the material available on record.

The first link to be noticed in the chain of circumstantial

evidence is the factum of accused's presence in Jeypore in the

company of the deceased Anirudha and in the flat of the said

deceased in the evening and night intervening between 3rd and

4th June, 1998. While analysing this circumstance, we can

proceed on the basis that the appellant and deceased Anirudha

were related which factum is admitted by the appellant. While

so admitting the relationship, the appellant has taken a defence

that he has never visited Anirudha at any point of time. The

prosecution, however, relies on the evidence of PW-5 Trailokya

Bisoi, PW-6 Nilanchal Bisoi, PW-7 Prem Chandra Sahu all of

whom are common relations of the accused and the deceased to

show that the appellant was on visiting terms with Anirudha.

We find from the evidence of these witnesses that they have no

reason to depose falsely against the appellant.

The evidence of PWs. 5 to 7 find support on this aspect

of the case from the evidence of PW-15 who is the elder brother

of deceased Anirudha. From his evidence, it is seen that the

appellant was visiting the house of deceased many times, in

regard to which the deceased Lata had once complained to him

that she did not like the appellant visiting her house because she

suspected appellant's intentions. She also had requested PW-15

to tell her husband about this because of which PW-15 once had

told his brother not to entertain the appellant in his house. But

being a very kind man Anirudha told his brother that the

appellant being his relative he cannot forbid him for coming to

his house for a morsel of food. From the evidence of PW-15

coupled with the evidence of PWs. 5 to 7, it is clear that the

appellant was visiting the house of deceased Anirudha.

The question then arises whether on 3rd of June, 1998 the

appellant was in the company of deceased Anirudha. To

establish this part of its case the prosecution relies on the

evidence of PWs. 1, 2 and 3 who were the neighbours of the

family of the deceased. In their evidence, these witnesses state

that he had good relationship with the deceased and his family

and they were on visiting terms. PW-1 states that on 3.6.1998 at

9 p.m. deceased Lata had come to his house to take her

daughter Puja who was playing in the house. At that time his

mother PW-3 asked Lata to stay for a while to which Lata had

replied that she had a guest from her village to whom she had to

serve food, therefore, she was in a hurry to get back to the

house. So saying she went to her house. The evidence of PW-1

in this regard is supported by the evidence of PW-3 who is the

mother of PW-1 who also speaks about the visit of Lata on the

night of 3.6.1998 and having told her that she had a visitor from

the village whom she had to serve the dinner. From this

evidence, it is clear that on the night of 3.6.1998 the family of

the deceased had a visitor from the village. PW-2 Goutam

Kumar Swain is the owner of the Betel shop in the Irrigation

Colony. At about 9 p.m. on 3.6.1998, he had seen the appellant

and the deceased Anirudha because they had come to his Pan

shop to purchase 'Khaini'. After the said purchase, he noticed

these two persons going towards the house of the deceased

Anirudha. This part of his evidence, that the appellant and the

deceased Anirudha came to a shop and purchased two Sachets

of "Khaini", is further corroborated by the fact that during the

search of the flat of Anirudha, the Investigating Agency

recovered two Sachets of "Khaini" out of which one was partly

consumed and the other was found intact. This witness also

states that on the morning of 4.6.1998 at about 6 a.m. while he

was opening his Pan shop, he saw the accused coming from the

side of the house of the deceased and going away. He also

states that he had seen deceased earlier and he had identified

him after the incident in Sub-Jail, Jeypore in a T.I. Parrade.

PWs. 1 to 3 have no enmity with the appellant and as found by

the courts below, we find no reason why these independent

witnesses should speak against the appellant falsely. Accepting

the evidence of these witnesses, it is clear that the appellant was

seen in the company of Anirudha on the evening of 3.6.1998

and had dinner with him in his house. Therefore, presence of

the appellant in Irrigation Colony in Jeypore is established on

the night of 3rd of June, 1998 as also in the early morning of 4th

June, 1998. From the evidence of PWs. 5 to 7 and PW-15, we

have already noticed that the appellant being a relative of the

deceased was on visiting terms with the deceased Anirudha.

Hence, as held by the courts below the prosecution has

established that the appellant was with the deceased on the

night of 3rd of June, 1998 and was seen leaving the house in the

morning of 4th June, 1998. While examining this aspect of the

prosecution case as to the presence of the appellant in the house

of the deceased Anirudha on the date of incident, we will also

have to bear in mind the factum that the prosecution has

established through the evidence of PW-5 that the appellant was

not in his village on the said date and he has not been able to

prove where exactly he was on that day.

So far as the factum of the homicidal deaths of the

deceased are concerned, there can not be any dispute. From the

evidence of PW-1, it is seen that on 4.6.1998 even as late as 11

a.m. in the morning the neighbours did not see Anirudha and

his family members outside the house as was the normal

practice, hence, on being curious Kanhu Charan Lenka brother

of PW-1 was asked by his mother PW-3 to go upstairs and see

why the deceased have not come out of their flat. Therefore,

PW-9 climbed a guava tree and peeped through the window of

the flat when he found all the deceased persons lying dead in

their house. Having come to know of this, PW-1 went upstairs

and found the door of the flat locked from outside, therefore, he

broke open the said door with the help of a hammer and entered

the house along with other neighbours like PW-8 Puspalata

Mohanty, PW-9 etc. and found the deceased lying dead with

injuries on their neck. From the evidence of PW-20 the doctor,

it is seen that the deceased had suffered punctured wound on

their neck which had cut the carotid artery, jugular veins and

damaging the trachea and larynx. The doctor had opined that

injuries in question were anti- mortem in nature and could be

caused by heavy sharp cutting double edged weapon like

M.O.VIII. He stated that cause of death was due to shock and

haemorrhage because of the injuries to vital organs. The timing

of death noted by the doctor was about 36 hours at the time of

the autopsy on 5.6.1998 which fits into the prosecution case

that the deceased were done to death on the intervening night

between 3rd and 4th June, 1998. Therefore, link in the

prosecution case as to the cause and time of death of the

deceased also stands established.

The prosecution then has relied upon the financial

condition of the appellant as a motive for the murder in

question. It has come in evidence that the appellant was dealing

in turmeric and mustard business at the material time and had

suffered some loss. From the evidence of PW-12, it is seen that

the appellant had gone to him about 8 to 10 days prior to the

date of incident seeking a loan of Rs.5000/- but PW-12 did not

lend him the said amount. As a matter of fact, the appellant has

admitted this fact in Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code

statement which establishes the fact that the appellant was in

need of money.

The prosecution has alleged certain jewellery belonging

to Lata like gold chain, nose tops, a pair of ear tops and a ring

fitted with red stone some of which was gifted to her by her

elder brother PW-13 as also a gold chain given to Puja by PW-

13 were missing from the person of Lata and Puja. PW-13 also

had stated that a Titan ladies wrist watch given to Lata by him

was also missing. PW-3 the neighbour and mother of PW-1 has

stated that she had seen Lata and Puja wearing these gold

ornaments. The missing of these gold ornaments were

mentioned in the FIR (Ext.1). It is the case of the prosecution

that these ornaments were recovered at the instance of the

appellant which part of the prosecution case is spoken to by I.O.

PW-22 and PW-21 Goura Chandra Bisoi. From the evidence of

these two witnesses, it is seen that the accusd while in custody

revealed to the I.O. in the presence of panch witnesses that he

has concealed certain cash and wrist watch in the box in his

house. He had further revealed that he had sold the gold

ornaments to a goldsmith at Jeypore and further had stated that

if permitted he would lead the police to the place where the

knife used in the murder was concealed. It is pursuant to the

said statements of the appellant, the recoveries in question were

made.

M.O.VIII the knife which was recovered at the instance

of the appellant was seen to contain blood which on chemical

and serological examination was found to be human blood of

Group AB to which group the blood of Puja belonged.

PW-17 T. Keshab Rao Acharya and T.Rama Rao (PW-

19) another goldsmith in their statement have stated that on

4.6.1998 deceased met PW-17 and expressed his desire to sell

certain gold ornaments on the ground that his wife had died and

he required immediate cash for the purpose of funeral on which

request of the appellant PW-17 took him to PW-19 who agreed

to purchase the said ornaments for a sum of Rs.7200/- and

while doing so he asked the appellant to execute a receipt in

which appellant had signed as Dibakar Sahu. From the evidence

of these two witnesses, it is seen that the jewellery which

belonged to Lata and Puja were sold by the appellant on

4.6.1998 for a sum of Rs.7200/-. Though on behalf of the

appellant, it was contended that the entire evidence of PWs 17

and 19 are so artificial, the same cannot be accepted, we are not

inclined to accept this argument. From the perusal of the

evidence of PW-17 and 19 which is supported by Ext.15, the

document signed by the appellant establishes that these

ornaments belonging to the deceased were in fact sold by the

appellant under a false name to PW-19. From the evidence led

by the prosecution, it is seen that the amount paid by PW-19 to

the appellant as also the Titan watch belonging to Lata were

recovered from the house of the appellant which establishes the

prosecution case that the appellant was in possession of these

jewellery belonging to Lata and Puja immediately after their

death and sold the same to PW-19.

We have already noticed the recovery of M.O.VIII, the

weapon and the blood stains on it and as held by the two courts

below, in our opinion, the prosecution has proved beyond all

reasonable doubt that this recovery was also made at the

instance of the appellant and the said weapon was stained with

human blood of Group AB to which group Puja's blood

belonged.

The prosecution has also relied upon the evidence of PW-

23, the doctor, who examined the appellant and collected

certain samples and nail clippings from the person of the

appellant which when examined were found to contain blood.

The courts below have considered this piece of evidence rather

cautiously and have held that the same can be relied upon by

them only if all other circumstances put forth by the

prosecution are established beyond all reasonable doubt. We

agree with the said finding of the courts below that this

circumstance by itself would not assist the court to base a

conviction but when all other circumstances put forth against

the appellant are held to be established beyond reasonable

doubt, this circumstance can be used for corroborating those

circumstances which are otherwise held established. The

prosecution has also relied upon certain finger prints taken from

the place of incident which on examination were found by the

Finger Print Bureau to tally with the finger prints of the

appellant. This again is a circumstance which establishes the

presence of the appellant in the flat of the accused and blood

stains found in the said finger prints taken from the place of

incident indicates that the appellant must have been in the flat

after the assault had taken place on the deceased.

From the above circumstances discussed by us namely –

(a) that the appellant was related to the deceased and was on

visiting terms with them and on the evening of 3.6.98 he was in

the company of Anirudha and was seen leaving the house of

Anirudha on the morning of 4.6.1998 coupled with the fact that

he was not in his own village as also the statement of deceased

Lata made to PW-3 that she had a visitor from the village for

dinner shows that the appellant was in the company of the

deceased on the night of 3rd and was last seen leaving the place

in the morning of 4.6.1998 and that the appellant was in need of

money; (b) and that on that intervening night the deceased met

homicidal death because of the injuries caused by a weapon like

M.O.VIII containing blood of the same group as that of Puja

was recovered at the instance of the appellant; (c) and that the

appellant was in need of money; (d) and that the gold

ornaments belonging to deceased Lata and Puja were in the

possession of the appellant on 4.6.1998 and were sold to PW-17

for a sum of Rs.7200/- which money was recovered at the

instance of the appellant from his house; (e) and that the Titan

ladies wrist watch belonging to deceased Lata was recovered at

the instance of the appellant from his house; (f) and that the

finger prints of the appellant with blood stains were found in

the house of the deceased immediately after the murder was

discovered, in our considered opinion, show that the

prosecution has established beyond all reasonable doubt that

these incriminating circumstances indicate a hypothesis

consistent only with the guilt of the accused and each and every

such circumstance form a link completing a chain of

circumstances without break establishing the involvement of

the appellant in the murder of Anirudha, Lata and Puja.

Therefore, we have no hesitation in accepting the prosecution

case concurring with the finding of the two courts below in

regard to the guilt of the appellant.

Since the courts below have elaborately discussed the

case law applicable to various issues involved in this case, we

do not think it necessary for us to reconsider the same, having

independently considered the material produced by the

prosecution as against the appellant.

Having agreed with the conclusions of the courts below

in regard to their findings as to the guilt of the appellant, we

will now consider the merit of the sentence imposed on the

appellant by the two courts below. As noticed above, the

learned Judge on facts and circumstances of this case found it

appropriate to award the maximum sentence of death and on his

reference the High Court has agreed with him on the question

of sentence also. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant

submitted before us that the appellant's age is 35 years and

there is no material to show that he is involved in any other

crime prior to this. He submitted that the crime in question as

per the prosecution case itself is because of the acute financial

need of the appellant and that he has aged parents and minor

daughters and there is every possibility of he being rehabilitated

if given an opportunity. Therefore, he prays that the sentence of

death may be reduced to life imprisonment.

We have taken note of various judgments of this Court

like in the case of Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab (AIR 1980

SC 898), Surjvaram vs. State of Rajasthan (1997 12 CCR (SC)

214), Ravji alias Ram Chandra vs. State of Rajasthan (1996 2

SCC 175) and Dhananjoy Chatterjee alias Dhana vs. State of

W.B. (1994 2 SCC 220) which judgments have also been

considered by the courts below. A cumulative reading of these

judgments shows that for awarding a punishment of death

sentence, there must be some special reasons, the courts should

give relative weight to the aggravating and mitigating factors

available on the facts of the case, the case in question should be

a rarest of the rare case. Having noticed the above principles

broadly laid down by this Court to be borne in mind by the

courts while awarding death penalty, we find both the courts

below have considered each and every aspect required to be

taken note of by the courts before choosing to award the death

sentence in this case. On re-appreciation of those material on

record, we find no reason to differ from the said findings of the

courts below. The fact that the murder in question is committed

in such a deliberate and diabolic manner while the victims were

sleeping, without any provocation whatsoever from the victims'

side, that too having enjoyed the hospitality and kindness of the

victims, indicates the cold blooded and premeditated approach

of the appellant to put to death the victims which include a

child of three years age just to gain some monetary benefit. In

our opinion, the extenuating circumstances put forth by the

learned counsel for the appellant in regard to the age of the

appellant, his surviving relatives and the possibility of

rehabilitation would not, in our opinion, justify the courts to

impose a sentence of life imprisonment on the facts and

circumstances of this case. Hence, we have no hesitation in

agreeing with the findings of the courts below and coming to

the conclusion that the case in hand is a rarest of the rare case

involving a pre-planned brutal murder without provocation,

hence, we find no reason whatsoever to interfere even with the

quantum of punishment awarded by the courts below.

For the reasons stated above, this appeal fails and the

same is dismissed.