Banerjee, J. - (1.)The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 931/2000 faced trial along with his father Hari Chand before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad under Ss. 302, 452, 386 and 324, I.P.C. in Sessions Case No. 3 of 1996. The learned Sessions Judge whereas recorded a finding of guilt as against Ravi Virmani under Ss. 452, 324 and 302, I.P.C. and sentenced him to death under S. 302, I.P.C. and for a period of imprisonment already undergone by him under Ss. 452 and 324, I.P.C. The learned Judge, however, acquitted Hari Chand, the father of the present appellant being, the other accused.
(2.)Subsequently, the death reference came up before the High Court for confirmation and by a detailed judgment, the High Court, however, upon a consideration of the materials declined the death reference and modified it to life imprisonment under S. 302, I.P.C. and the appellant herein (Ravi Virmani), however, aggrieved thereby moved this Court in appeal against the order of conviction and sentence. Complainant, Deepak Kumar, has also moved this Court in appeal against the modification of sentence and thus is the appellant in Criminal Appeals Nos. 927 and 928 of 2000. State of Haryana has also preferred an appeal against the order of acquittal of Hari Chand as also the modification of sentence in Criminal Appeals Nos. 929 and 930 of 2000. All these appeals, since directed against the same judgment, stand consolidated and being disposed of by a common judgment as more fully discussed hereinafter.
(3.)The facts depict the gruesome murder of four persons : the father aged 50 years, the mother aged 45-46 years, the wife aged 25-26 years and the brother aged 24-25 years of the appellant-Deepak Kumar (in Criminal Apepals Nos. 927-928 of 2000); the prosecutor alleged Ravi Varmani is the murderer : date of occurrence being 8th January, 1996 at about 8.15 p.m. and the place of occurrence being the residence of the victims. The prosecutor's definite evidence is that one part of hacksaw blade was used and the other part was recovered on the basis of a disclosure statement said to have been effected after three days. Fortunately, a three months' old child, however, was safe. It has been the prosecutor's mother and the wife had an instantaneous death, the brother survived for some time and died shortly thereafter. Mr. Sushil Kumar, the learned Senior Advocate appearing in support of the appeal of the State contended that two brothers, who were not in the house, namely,Deepak (being the appellant in the other appeal) and Sanjay had a providential escape and in the event the accused is let off, he would not only be a menace but a danger to Deepak and other members of the family - Society cannot and ought not to be submitted. Mr. Sushil Kumar accept such an offender back into the society, therefore, the High Court was wrong in the modification of the sentence from death penalty to life imprisonment; we shall deal with the issue in detail in this judgment but presently two other incidental facts may be noticed, the first being recovery of blood stained clothes from the body of the accused and secondly it is strong piece of evidence, which according of Mr. Sushil Kumar, stand uncontradicted to the effect that the accused left his car at a distance and came to the place of occurrence on a rickshaw - this piece of evidence stands highlighted to emphasis the deliberate motive and the intent to commit the offence of murder.