http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  116 of 2003

PETITIONER: Dayanidhi Bisoi                                          

RESPONDENT: Vs. State of Orissa                                          

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23/07/2003

BENCH: N.Santosh Hegde & B.P.Singh.  

JUDGMENT:

                               J U D G M E N T   SANTOSH HEGDE,J.

       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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

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 â\200\223  (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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

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.