Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Amar Saran, J.) This Capital Appeal along with connected Criminal Reference under section 366 Cr. P. C. arises from the judgement of the Additional Sessions Judge (Ex Cadre), Rampur dated 1.6.2011 convicting and sentencing the appellant to death under section 302 I.P.C.
An F.I.R. was lodged by Mohd. Ismail alleging that the appellant Shaukat Saifi's daughter Naseem had left her house in Village Kirmacha without obtaining her father's permission to live in the house of Yasin, whom she wanted to marry. However, her father the appellant Shaukat Saifi persuaded her to return, but Naseem was adamant to marry Yasin. On the date of incident, i.e. 19.6.09 at about 7 a.m. Nanhe, Israr, Yasin and others had come to the house of Shaukat and tried to persuade him to allow Naseem to marry Yasin. Shaukat was not agreeable and on the refusal of Naseem to listen to his suggestions, he cut her neck and tore her stomach with a hasia at about 9 a.m. and had gone away from his house. Her dead body was lying in a room in the house. P.W. 4 Mohd. Ismail lodged this report at Police Station Milak, on the same day where a case was registered at 10.30 a.m. against the appellant.
Rahis Pal Singh, P.W.9, In-charge Inspector, Kotwali Milak commenced investigation of the case on the report. He reached the spot and got the inquest conducted by P.W. 7 S.I. Sushil Kumar and had the body sent for post mortem to the District Hospital, Rampur. He inspected the place of incident and prepared the site plan on the pointing out of the informant and collected the plain and blood stained earth from the spot. On the same night at about 9 p.m., the appellant was arrested from the jungle of village Kirmacha from a poplar grove opposite the house of Bhoop Ram Gutpa, P.W. 8. The appellant is said to have confessed to his guilt and got the blood stained clothes that he was wearing and hasia recovered from a bed in which they were concealed under a large pile of beddings and clothes. (vide recovery memo: Ext. Ka-13).
P.W. 5 Dr. Parag Agrawal conducted the post-mortem on the body of the deceased on 20.6.2009 at 10.30 a.m. The death had taken place about one day earlier. The body was of average built. Rigor mortis was present all over the body. There was an incised wound 12 cm x 8 cm x bone deep on the back of the neck and another incised wound 24 x 10 cm on the abdomen about 1 cm above the umbilicus in a transverse line. In the organs of generation there was no injury. The trachea was cut through and through. The abdominal cavity contained one litre of blood. Oesophagus, small intestines, large intestines, spleen were cut.
In his evidence P.W. 4 Ismail, who was a co-villager reiterated his aforesaid F.I.R. version, which he claims to have given to the police on the spot at about 9.30 a.m. on 19.6.2009. He further mentioned that blood was scattered around the dead body. In his cross examination, he further admitted that he had reached Shaukat's house at about 9 a.m. on learning about the incident. A crowd of about 40 to 50 persons had gathered there. Within 5 to 10 minutes the police had arrived at the spot. He further stated that his house was at a distance of 500 meters from the house of Shaukat. He left the place after writing and handing over the report to the police. He did not know on whose information the police had reached the spot. When he reached Shaukat's house, Shaukat's wife and daughter-in-law were present there.
P.W. 1 Nanhe @ Hashmat Ali deposed that he was the neighbour of Yasin. He was an uncle of Yasin being the brother of Yasin's father Bhoora. The deceased Naseem had come to Yasin's house on 17.6.2009 at about 3 a.m. in the night. Yasin had woken him up at about 3 a.m. on the same night and broken the news to him. Thereafter at about 8 a.m. Shaukat had come along with his son Quayum, Wasim and Guddu, and they had forcibly taken away Naseem with them. Naseem was insisting that she would marry Yasin. There was some talk in the village that Shaukat was threatening to kill his daughter Naseem. On 19.6.2009 he had gone along with his son Israr to Shaukat's house and tried to persuade him to allow Naseem to marry Yasin. Shaukat had sought two days' time, and then they had gone home. On the same day at 9 a.m. there was a cry that Shaukat had killed his daughter Naseem. His house was two or three houses away from Shaukat's house. The witnesses had gone to Shaukat's house, where they saw Naseem lying in a room. Her stomach had been torn and her neck was cut with a hasia. Shaukat had run away from his house, but the women folk of the house were present. Within 15 minutes the police had arrived.
P.W. 2 Israr, son of Nanhe Lala alias Hashmat Ali deposed that Yasin had woken him at about 3 a.m. on 17.6.2009 and announced that Naseem had come to his house and was insisting that he perform nikah with her. He and his father tried to persuade her that without a proper nikah, she should not come to Yasin's house, but she was adamant to marry Yasin in the night itself. They had sent information to Naseem's family members. Then, Quayum, who was Naseem's brother and her mother arrived at their house and tried to persuade Naseem, but Naseem had refused to go back with them and insisted that she would marry Yasin. At about 7.30 a.m. Naseem's brother Quayum, her father the appellant Shaukat, Wasim cousin (phoophera bhai) and Guddu a friend of Quaym came to their house and had forcibly taken away Naseem, whilst she was crying that she be married to Yasin. On the 18th there was a talk in the village that Shaukat was pressurising, beating and threatening to kill Naseem. Still she was insisting that she would marry Yasin. On 19.6.2009 he had gone with his father to Shaukat's house at 7.30 a.m. and tried to persuade him to allow Naseem to marry Yasin. Shaukat had sought two days' time, but on the same day at about 9 a.m. there was an outcry that Shaukat has murdered his daughter. On hearing this news Israr had gone to Shaukat's house, where he found Naseem lying in the room. Her neck was cut through and through and her stomach was torn and she was splattered in blood.
P.W. 3 Yasin has deposed that Naseem and he were in love with each other. Naseem had disclosed this fact to her father Shaukat, but Shaukat was not willing to allow Naseem to marry Yasin. Naseem had come to his house on 17.6.2009 at about 2.00 a.m. or 2.30 a.m. and insisted that she would marry him. Yasin had told her that he would not have physical relations with her, until they were married and that she should try and persuade her father. At about 3 a.m., he woke up his uncle Hashmat Ali alias Nanhe Lala, and his cousin Israr Ahmad. They again tried to reason with Naseem, but she was adamant. Then his family members sent news to Shaukat's house. Shaukat's wife and son Quayum arrived at their house. They also tried to explain things to Naseem, but she did not listen to them and kept insisting that she would only marry Yasin. Shaukat came with others in the morning and tried to persuade his daughter, but she kept on insisting that she would marry Yasin. Then Shaukat forcibly took Naseem to his house. He learnt on 19.6.2009 that at about 7.30 a.m. Hashmat Ali alias Nanhe Lala and Israr Ahmad had visited Shaukat's house and had tried to persuade him to allow Naseem to marry Yasin and not to beat her. Shaukat asked them for two days' time for getting the nikah done. Thereupon these two persons returned home. At about 9 a.m. on the same day he learnt that Shaukat had murdered his daughter. He also visited Naseem's house and found her dead body lying in the room with her neck cut and stomach torn. Shaukat and his son Quayum and his wife had absconded, but Quayum's children were at home.
The formal witnesses in this case were P.W. 5 Dr. Parag Agrawal, P.W. 9 S.I. Rahis Pal Singh and P.W.7 S.I. Sushil Kumar who conducted inquest on Naseem's dead body, P.W. 6, Constable Ayub Khan, Head Moharrir, who prepared the check F.I.R. and the G.D. entry of the report on 19.6.2009 at 10.30 a.m. P.W. 10 Constable Dharampal Singh, who carried the relevant recoveries on 8.7.2009 in a sealed condition from the Malkhana to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Agra, after taking permission from the C.O. Milak. P.W. 8 Bhoop Ram, who is a public witness of the recoveries and of the arrest of Shaukat. Bhoop Ram, PW 8 has however turned partly hostile and has denied that the blood stained and plain earth and hasia were recovered in front of him, though he admits appending his signature to the recovery memo (Ext. Ka-11). He further admits that the appellant was arrested from the poplar grove in front of his house. He denies that he was an eyewitness or that the appellant had appended his signature to his alleged confessional statement. He could not remember whether the bedsheets and other clothes were present on a bed in the concerned room, but he saw the hasia and clothes etc., of the appellant in a sealed condition. He denies that the appellant had taken out the hasia and clothes from under the clothing and bedsheets and bed covers on the bed. He also admits in his cross examination by the defence after he was declared hostile that he was going to check his tube well in the field where he saw the appellant running away. On inquiry, the appellant had revealed that he had murdered his daughter.
In his 313 Cr. P. C. statement, the appellant has denied all the allegations against him. He claims that the witnesses have deposed against him on account of enmity. He further stated that his house was near the mosque and he used to reside there. He used to go to his house only for the purpose of eating food. He did not know how his daughter had died.
Khalil a neighbour of the appellant and Khatun Begum, wife of the appellant and Ibrahim, another neighbour have appeared as D.W. 1, D.W. 2 and D.W. 3 in this trial.
D.W. 1 Khalil deposed that he was the neighbour of the appellant and belonged to the Saifi caste like the appellant. There was no love affair between Shaukat Saifi's daughter Naseem and Yasin, son of Bhoora. In fact Naseem did not like Yasin, but Yasin was pursuing her. Yasin's family members would encourage their relationship. A Panchayat had taken place as Yasin used to tease Naseem, because of which Bhoora and others had become inimical to the appellant. He further stated that Hashmat @ Nanhe Lal had said in the panchayat that if Shaukat Saifi did not marry his daughter to Yasin, the consequence would be bad. On hearing a noise on the date of incident, he had gone to Shaukat's house, where he met Shaukat's wife, who told him that Hashmat, Israr and Yasin had entered into her house and tried to pull Naseem, who ran up stairs. The three persons followed her there and someone killed Naseem. Naseem's mother had told him that Shaukat was in the pepper mint field. At that time, he went to the field and informed Shaukat, who came running to his house. When he was returning after calling Shaukat, he saw Hashmat, Israr and Yasin on the way. When he arrived at Shaukat's house, the police had reached there and Naseem's mother informed the police about the incident, but the police only arrested Shaukat and no action was taken against Hashmat and others. They were prepared to complain against the police, but Hashmat and others warned them that if they complained against the police, they would meet the same fate. In his cross examination, he denied having any knowledge of the fact that Naseem had gone to the house of Yasin.
Khatun Begum, D.W. 2 gave the same version as D.W. 1, Khalil. She claimed that at the time of incident, her daughter-in-law, and younger daughter Nazis were at her house along with the deceased Naseem. Her husband and son had gone for irrigating their peppermint field. Hashmat, Israr and Yasin had come to his house in the morning and were looking for Shaukat. She claims to have told them that Shaukat had gone to irrigate his peppermint field. Immediately thereafter the three persons had entered into the house, whereupon Naseem started running upstairs. Hashmat was armed with a knife, Yasin was carrying a tabal with which he gave a blow on the neck of Naseem and Hashmat plunged a knife into her stomach. Her daughter-in-law and her daughter Nazis followed Hashmat, Israr and Yasin, but they did not allow these persons to enter the kotha and pushed them out. She claimed to be hurt. The I.O. had come to their house and she had disclosed this matter to him, but she did not know whether the I.O. had called these three persons to the police station or not. In the cross examination by the A.D.G.C., she stated that the police had taken her husband from her house. There was a lot of blood on the clothes of Yasin and Hashmat and a blood stained tabal and chhoori were carried by them. Yasin and Hashmat had run away carrying the blood stained tabal and chhoori. There were no blood stains on Shaukat, though there was some blood on Khatun Begum's clothes because she had gone near her daughter. The I.O. had taken her blood stained clothes. She further admitted that Yasin and others were not inimical to her. They were inimical to her daughter Naseem because Yasin used to tease her, about which she had complained to Naseem's father Shaukat. Shaukat had complained about the harassment of Naseem to Yasin's father Bhoora, but she had not made any complaint to any Police Officer.
D.W. 3 Ibrahim, claims that on the date of incident at about 6 or 7 a.m. when he was passing Shaukat's house along with his cousin brother Shahadat, he saw Yasin, Israr, and Hashmat coming out of Shaukat's house. Hashmat had a knife and Yasin was carrying a tabal, which were blood stained. In his cross-examination by the ADGC he admits to doing agricultural work for Shaukat, who also belonged to the Saifi caste. He further admitted that he had learnt about Shaukat's arrest on the date of incident, but even though Shaukat's son Qayum was a little educated, he had made no complaint to the police. He denies not having made any report to the police or making a complaint, because Shaukat had murdered his daughter.
Analysis of the evidence and contentions of parties From the post mortem report it is clear that the deceased has died a homicidal death. None of the parties dispute this fact. The corpse of Naseem was also found lying in a "kotha" in her house, in a pool of blood with incised injuries on her neck and abdomen.
What needs to be decided is whether the version of the prosecution that the appellant Shaukat who belonged to the 'Saifi' caste had killed his daughter because of her entanglement with Yasin, a person of the "burji" caste, whom she was insisting to marry disregarding his advice, or whether the version mentioned by the defence witnesses Khalil, Khatoon Begum and Ibrahim that Yasin used to harass and tease Naseem, about which she had complained to her father Shaukat, leading to Yasin, Israr, and Hashmat coming to her house on the date of incident and Yasin giving a tabal blow on the neck of the deceased and Hashmat giving her a knife blow on her abdomen was correct.
Admittedly, the dead body of the deceased was found in her room in the house of the appellant Shaukat Saifi. The report of the crime, which had taken place on 19.6.2009 at 9.00 AM was also lodged within one and a half hours at 10.30 a.m. at PS Milak, which was 8 kms away, by an independent person PW 4 Ismail. As stated by the investigating officer PW 9, R.P. Singh and the partly hostile witness PW 8, Bhoop Ram, the appellant was arrested from a poplar grove in front of the house of Bhoop Ram on the same day. i.e. 19.6.2009 at 9.00 PM. Thereafter the Hasia with which the appellant is said to have struck the neck and abdomen of the deceased was got discovered from under the bedding, which was kept on a long bed in his house and from the said bedding the bloodstained clothes of the appellant were also recovered (Ext Ka-12), which bore the signature of Bhoop Ram, PW 8 and also the appellant.
Although PW 8 Bhoop Ram denied that the plain and bloodstained earth was taken from the room in Shaukat's house, which contained a large bed, but he admitted signing the recovery memo prepared by the investigating officer ( Ext. Ka- 11) in the house itself. He also saw the recovered mud items in a sealed packet in the room. He admitted that the appellant was arrested in his presence from the poplar grove in front of his house, though he denied that the appellant had confessed to have committed the murder of his daughter or any fact about the weapon used, but he admitted that he had signed on the recovery memo (Ext. Ka 12) regarding the arrest and the recovery of the Hasia etc. He also admitted that in the room in which there was a large bed, which contained bedding etc. the Hasia and clothes were lying in a sealed condition though he stated that the appellant had not retrieved the "Hasia" in his presence. After he was declared hostile, on the request of the DGC, when he was cross-examined by the State, he stated that there was a rumour in the village that Shaukat Saifi has committed the murder of his daughter. When he was proceeding with his engine towards his field, he had seen Shaukat Saifi running. When he enquired from Shaukat Saifi, then Shaukat admitted to him that he had murdered his daughter.
Even though this witness could be described as a vacillating witness, this Court is still required to find out those nuggets of truth from the testimony of the witness, which would corroborate the other facts and circumstances of this case and which would either support the case set up by the prosecution or the defence.
The defence version as set out in the testimonies of DWs 1, 2 and 3 was that PW 3, Yaseen used to stalk the deceased Nasim and Yaseen's family members had encouraged this relationship. A Panchayat had taken place about Yaseen stalking Nasim wherein witness PW 1, Hashmat alias Nanhey had threatened that if Shaukat did not marry his daughter with Yaseen, the consequences would be grave. This had made Yaseen and his father Bhure inimical to the appellant and the deceased. Hashmat alias Nanhey, Israr and Yaseen had come to Shaukat's house in the morning on the date of incident. They had asked about Shaukat. Khatoon Begum, wife of the appellant Shaukat had told them that he had gone to his peppermint field. The aforesaid three persons entered into the house of the appellant and tried to pull the deceased Nasim, who ran inside her house. When the three persons went inside the house, Hashmat alias Nanhey was armed with knife, with which he gave a a knife blow on the stomach of the deceased, Yasin was carrying a tabal with which he assaulted Nasim on the neck. The three persons, Yaseen, Israr and Nanhey then ran away with the knife and tabal with which they were armed.
Significantly, no FIR was lodged by any of the defence witnesses at the police station alleging that Nanhey, Israr and Yaseen had committed the murder. This defence version was not even put to the investigating officer in his cross-examination. More significantly, the appellant Shaukat when he was asked in his examination under section 313 Cr.P.C., only denied the allegations against himself and had simply stated that at that time he was residing in the Mosque and he only used to dine at his house. He had no idea as to how his daughter had died and who had murdered her. Thus, he did not even care to support the version set up by the defence in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. He has completely failed to discharge the required burden under section 106 of the Evidence Act, as to how the deceased whose dead body was lying there was murdered in her own house, how blood stained earth was collected from his house and how the blood stained hasia, and human blood stained clothes of the appellant were recovered from under the bedding in the masahari (large bed) in his house When DW 2 Smt. Khatoon Begum was asked as to how the Hasia was recovered from the big bed from her house and from where it was recovered, she stated that she had no idea. She however does not deny the recovery of the hasia from her house. Also this defence witness stated that Nanhey, Israr and Yaseen ran away with the knife and tabal, which they were carrying, in which case the recovery of Hasia from under the bedding from the house of the appellant becomes completely unexplainable on the prosecution version. As per the Serologist's report, (Ext. Ka 20) on the clothes of the appellant and the Hasia, there was blood, which was also found on the clothes and other items worn by the deceased and also on the appellant's shirt and pant which was discovered under the bedding in the cot in his room. Although the blood had disintegrated on the Hasia found in the room, but on the shirt and pant of the appellant human blood was seen.
As we have reached a conclusion that the defence version that the Nanhey, Israr and Yasin commited the murder of Naseem in her house is incorrect, we further think that the defence has not at all been able to discharge its burden under section 106 of the Evidence Act, as these were facts within its own knowledge.
Therefore, in these circumstances, there appears to be no force in the defence submission that the deceased had been murdered by Nanhey, Israr and Yaseen in the house of the appellant, but we are of the view that the trial judge had rightly arrived at the conclusion that it was the appellant, who had caused the death of his daughter in his house on account of the fact that she was insistent on marrying Yaseen and was unheeding to the appellant's advice to the contrary and apparently in a fit of anger the appellant appears to have murdered his daughter Nasim by assaulting her on the neck and abdomen with a Hasia, which was recovered from his house on his pointing out from under the bedding on a cot along with his blood stained clothes and the appellant and the defence were unable to give any satisfactory explanation of the said discoveries.
The prosecution has therefore been able to establish the following circumstances for showing the complicity of the appellant in this offence:
1.The love affair of Naseem with Yaseen because of which Naseem had gone to Yasin's house in the night of 17.6.09 to marry him, and of Naseem being forcibly brought back by the appellant to his house the next morning. This allegation was supported by PW 1 Nanhey, PW 2, Israr and PW 3 Yaseen although it was denied by DW 2 Naseem the mother of the deceased.
2.The resentment of the appellant as the deceased was unwilling to give up her intention to marry Yasin, who belonged to another caste.
2.The murder of the deceased on 19.6.2009 at 9 a.m. in the house of her father, the appellant, when she refused to agree to his suggestion not to marry Yasin.
3.The arrival of witnesses PWs 1 to 4 on 19.6.2009 at 9.00 a.m. after the outcry in the village regarding Naseem's murder by her father, and their finding her dead in a kotha (room) in his house.
4.The lodging of a prompt report at the police station by an unconnected witness Mohd. Ismael, on the same day at 10.30 a.m. alleging the aforesaid facts.
5.The absconding of the appellant from his house after the incident
6.The appellant's arrest in the poplar grove opposite the house of Bhoop Ram, and his subsequent recovery of a blood stained hasiya, and his blood stained clothes, from under the bedding and clothes in the Masahari (large cot) in his house.
7.The said Hasia contained blood as determined by the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory. (Ext. Ka 20). The clothes of the appellant, which were also recovered from under the bedding contained human blood. Plain and bloodstained mud was also collected from the room where the deceased was assaulted.
8.The falsity of the defence version set up by DW 1 Khalil, DW 2 Khatoon Begum and DW 3 Ibrahim about Yasin stalking Nasim and of threats being extended by Hashmat @ Nanhey in some panchayat that if the appellant did not marry Naseem with Yasin, the consequences would be grave, and the alleged murder of Naseem in her house by Yasin, Israr and Nanhey after which they fled away with the murder knife and gandasa and which assertion was contradicted by the recovery of the blood stained hasia and the blood stained clothes of the appellant from under the bedding in the appellant's house.
9.The absence of any report by the wife or other family members of the deceased mentioning this defence version and the failure even to suggest that the occurrence had taken place in the manner suggested by the defence to the I.O. in his cross-examination by the defence, and the absence of any corroboration of the defence version by any independent person.
10.The admission by the partly hostile witness PW 8 Bhoop Ram that the appellant was arrested from the poplar grove in front of his house, the appellants bloodstained clothes and hasia were recovered in the room in the appellant's house where they were sealed, his signature on the recovery memo, (although his denial that the same were recovered at the appellant's instance). His further admission in his cross-examination by the ADGC after the witness was declared hostile that the appellant had made an extra-judicial confession when running away, that he had murdered his daughter.
11.The failure of the appellant to furnish any explanation as to how the deceased, his daughter had died in his house, how blood stained earth was collected from his house and how his bloodstained clothes and hasia were recovered from under the bedding on the masahari (large cot), which amounts to a failure to discharge his burden under section 106 of the Evidence Act regarding these facts about which the accused should have had exclusive knowledge.
12.The falsity of the defence, including the appellant's claim of residing at the mosque and only dining at his house, and absence of explanation as to how the incident had taken place in his house and regarding the defence version set up by the appellant's defence witnesses was an additional circumstance for connecting the appellant with this offence.
In view of the aforesaid incriminating circumstances, it is abundantly clear that the circumstances which have been gathered in this case lead to only an inference of the complicity of the appellant in this offence and admit of no other reasonable hypothesis. The chain of circumstances for establishing the complicity of the appellant in this offence are thus fully established.
We therefore see no illegality in the order of the learned Trial Judge for recording the conviction as above.
However, one last question remains as to what should be the appropriate sentence to be awarded in this case. Whether the sentence of death awarded by the trial court be upheld or whether the same be substituted with a sentence of imprisonment for life.
The Trial Judge has considered the brutality and barbarity of the murder of the daughter by her father simply because she was not willing to comply with his wishes not to marry Yaseen to be a good reason for awarding the sentence of death. The Trial Judge has also cited a number of decisions including the decision in Bhagwan Das vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2011) 6 SCC 396 in which the Apex Court has considered the cases of honour killings which signify a barbaric and feudal mind set as being the rarest of rare cases which calling for the deterrent death penalty.
We are however of the view that only the circumstances of the crime have been taken into account by the trial judge, whereas the extenuating circumstances relating to the appellant's antecedents have been ignored.
We are of the view that there are some circumstances in this case because of which the lesser option of awarding a sentence of imprisonment for life was not unquestionably foreclosed. The appellant does not appear to have run away after the crime as he was arrested on the same day. He is not said to have had any criminal antecedents and the crime appears to have been committed by the appellant in an uncontrollable fit of anger because his daughter had left his house against his wishes and was insisting on marrying Yaseen. He is also said to be illiterate and poor. The appellant, who belongs to the Saifi caste was unwilling to marry his daughter with a person of the Bhurji caste. In our view that feudal mind set alone cannot be a ground for awarding the extreme penalty.
Recently the Apex Court in the case of Sangeet Vs. State of Haryana (2013) 2 SCC 452, which has been reiterated in Shanker Kisanrao Khade vs. State of Maharashtra, (2013)5 SCC 546, has held that not only the circumstances of the crime, but also the circumstances of the criminal highlighted in the Constitutional Bench decision in Bachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR1980 SC 898 have to be taken into account before awarding the death penalty.
It may be noted that in Bachan Singh (supra) three of the mitigating circumstances for not awarding the death penalty were (1) that the offence was committed under the influence of extreme, mental or emotional disturbance, (2) the probability that the accused will not commit criminal acts and violence as would constitute a threat to society and (3) the probability that the accused can be reformed and rehabilitated. The State is required to rule out the circumstances (2) and (3) mentioned above by affirmative evidence. But no evidence in this regard has been led by the State. The appellant father would also have been under great mental and emotional stress (even though he may not have been rationally justified in forcibly restraining his daughter from marrying Yaseen), but which circumstance would have brought his case within the first mitigating condition for not awarding the death penalty mentioned in Bachan Singh.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, while upholding the conviction of the appellant under section 302 IPC, we are of the opinion the sentence of death awarded to the appellant be commuted to a sentence of imprisonment for life.
The reference for confirming the death sentence under section 366 Cr.P.C is rejected.
Subject to the aforesaid observations, this appeal is dismissed.
Order Date :- 13.2.2014 sfa/ishrat.