AMITversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

                   [2012] 1 S.C.R. 1009


                           AMIT                                A
                             v.
              STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
           (Criminal Appeal No. 1905 of 2011)

                   FEBRUARY 23, 2012
                                                               B
    [A.K. PATNAIK AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.]

     Penal Code, 1860: ss.364, 376, 377, 302 and 201 - Rape
followed by murder of minor girl - Allegation against the
appellant that he took away the victim from her house in the C
presence of her mother and grandmother on the pretext of
giving her biscuits and raped and murdered her - Courts below
convicted the appellant u/ss.364, 376, 377, 302 and 201 - On
appeal, held: There was no evidence to show that grandmother
of the victim was interested in having the appellant convicted o
- As the appellant was neighbour and known to the
grandmother of the victim, no Test Identification Parade was
necessary for her to identify the appellant - Recovery of
incriminating items made on disclosure statement made by
appellant supported prosecution case - As per the post E
mortem report, the injuries on the body of victim proved that
rape was committed on her and all the injuries together were
cause of her death - The report of the Forensic Science
Laboratory proved beyond all reasonable doubt that it was
the appellant alone who committed rape on victim and killed F
 her and thereafter caused disappearance of the evidence of
 the offences - Courts below rightly convicted the appellant.

     Witness: Interested witness - Reliability of - Held: An
interested witness must have some direct interest in having
the accused somehow convicted for some extraneous reason G
and a near relative of the victim is not necessarily an
interested witness.

     Sentence/Sentencing: Death sentence for offence of rape
                           1009                                H
     1010   SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2012] 1 S.C.R.


A and murder - Held: In the instant case, when the appellant
   committed the offence he was a young person aged about 28
   years only - There was no evidence that he had committed
   the offences of kidnapping, rape or murder on any earlier
   occasion - There was nothing to suggest that he is likely to
B repeat similar crimes in future - On the other hand, given a
  chance he may reform over a period of years - Following the
  judgment of the three-Judge Bench in *Rameshbhai
  Chandubhai Rathod, the death sentence awarded to the
  appellant is converted to imprisonment for life and the life
C sentence of the appellant is extended to his full life subject
  to any remission or commutation at the instance of the
  Government for good and sufficient reasons.

       The prosecution case was that on the fateful day, the
  appellant came to the house of PW-1 and while mother
D of PW-1 and his wife were present in the house, the
  appellant took away daughter of PW-1 aged 3 years
  (victim) on the pretext of giving her biscuits. In the
  evening when the appellant returned home, he was
  asked about the whereabouts of the victim, but the
E appellant did not reply and ran away. PW-1 lodged police
  complaint and the appellant was apprehended. His shirt
  bore blood stains. On the statement of the appellant, the
  dead body of the victim was recovered from the field in
  the presence of PW-1 and another person. The trial court
F convicted the appellant under Sections 364, 376, 377, 302
  and 201 IPC and awarded various sentences including
  death sentence for the offence under Section 302, IPC.
  The High Court confirmed conviction and the sentences
  awarded by the trial court.
G
      In the instant appeal, it was contended for the
  appellant that PW-3 was the only person who was
  witness to the appellant taking away the victim from the
  house of PW-1, but PW-3 was an aged woman and had
  admitted in her cross-examination that she could not see
H with her right eye; that PW-3 was an interested witness
        AMIT v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH             1011


inasmuch as she was the grandmother of the victim and A
her evidence should not be relied on;. that no Test
Identification Parade was conducted during investigation
for the witness to identify the appellant; that no
independent witnesses were taken by the Police for
recovery of the articles and instead PW-1 was made a B
witness to the recovery of various articles; and there was
evidence to show previous enmity between PW-1 and the
appellant due to which PW-1 planted the case against the
appellant and that the weapon by which the victim was
 killed was not recovered and therefore there was no proof c
that the appellant committed the offence under Section
 302 IPC.

    Partly allowing the appeal, the Court

     HELD: 1. PW-3 was no doubt the grandmother of the D
victim but she was not an interested witness. An
interested witness must have some direct interest in
having the accused somehow convicted for some
extraneous reason and a near relative of the victim is not
necessarily an interested witness. There is no evidence E
to show that PW-3 was somehow interested in having the
appellant convicted. PW-3, however, was an aged
woman and she has admitted in her cross-examination
that she could not see with her right eye but she had also
stated in her cross-examination that she could see with F
her left eye and the sight of her left eye was not
diminished on account of old age and she could fully see
everything and couid also pass a thread through the eye
of the needle and that she did not use spectacles and
 could see without spectacles. Therefore, the evidence of G
 PW-3 that the appellant came to her house and took away
 the victim from her lap on the pretext of giving biscuits
 to her cannot be disbelieved. [Para 6] [1018-C-G]

     2. Test Identification Parade would have been
                                                           H
    1012   SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2012] 1 S.C.R.


A necessary if the appellant was unknown to PW-3 but as
  the appellant was the neighbour of PW-3 and known to
  her, no Test Identification Parade was necessary for PW-
  3 to identify the appellant. In fact, when PW-1 returned
  home, he was told by PW-3 that the appellant had taken
B away the victim on the pretext of giving her biscuits
  because PW-3 knew the appellant. Moreover, on such
  information received from PW-3, PW-1 lodged the FIR
  naming the appellant as the person who had taken away
  the victim on the pretext of giving her biscuits. [Para 7]
c (1018-H; 1019-A-C]
       3. It is apparent from the memo Ex.Ka-10 recording
   the recovery of blood- stained shirt of the appellant that
  the recovery was made in presence of two Constables
   and PW-1 was not a witness to this recovery. Thereafter,
D the appellant made a confession that he had concealed
  the dead body of the victim in the wheat field and
  pursuant to this confession the dead body of the victim
  kept in a plastic bag was recovered in presence of not
  only PW-1 but also PW-4. The recovery memo (Ext.Ka-
E 2) with regard to the dead body of the victim and the
  recovery memo Ext.Ka-3 with regard to plastic bag bear
  the signatures of PW-1 and PW-4. Pursuant to the
  statement made by the appellant, the chappals which the
  victim was wearing at the time of murder were also
F recovered from the house of the appellant in presence of
  PW-1 and PW-4 and the recovery memo with regard to
  the chappals (Ext.Ka-5) also bore the signatures of PW-
  1 and PW-4. Thus, it is not correct, that only PW-1 was a
  witness to the recovery of various articles and that this
G was a case which PW-1 had planted on the appellant on
  account of previous enmity. PW-4 was also a witness
  to the recovery of the articles which implicated the
  appellant in the offence and it was not the case of the
  appellant that PW-4 was in any way inimical to the
H appellant. [Para 8] (1019-0-H; 1020-A]
       AMIT v. STATE OF UTIAR PRADESH              1013


     4. The evidence of the senior pathologist PW-5, who A
carried out the post mortem report on the body of the
victim showed that there were swelling marks on her
head and left side of the face which established that she
was hit on her head and her left side of the face. PW-5
also stated in his evidence that there was a ligature mark B
all around her neck which indicated that she was also
strangulated. PW-5 further deposed that there was a
lacerated wound on the anterior part of arms anus and
her vagina was inflamed and congested which proved
that unnatural offence and rape was committed on her. c
PW-5 opined that all the injuries together are the cause
of the death of the victim. The report of the Forensic
Science Laboratory (Ex.A-23) confirmed human blood
and human sperms on the underwear of the victim. Thus,
even if the object with which the victim was hit was not
                                                           0
identified and recovered, the evidence of PW-3, the
recovery of various articles made pursuant to the
confession of the appellant, the evidence of PW-5 and the
 report of the Forensic Science Laboratory Ex.A-23 proved
 beyond all reasonable doubt that it was the appellant
alone who after having kidnapped the victim committed E
 unnatural offence as well as rape on her and killed her
 and thereafter caused disappearance of the evidence of
the offences. The High Court has, therefore, rightly
confirmed the conviction of the appellant under Sections
 364, 376, 377, 302 and 201 IPC. [Para 9] [1020-B-G]       F

     5. When the appellant committed the offence he was
a young person aged about 28 years only. There was no
evidence to show that he had committed the offences of
kidnapping, rape or murder on any earlier occasion.       G
There was nothing on evidence to suggest that he is
likely to repeat similar crimes in future. On the other
hand, given a chance he may reform over a period of
years. Hence, following the judgment of the three-Judge
Bench in *Rameshbhai Chandubhai Rathod (2) v. State       H
    1014   SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2012) 1 S.C.R.


A of Gujarat, the death sentence awarded to the appellant
  is converted to imprisonment for life and the life sentence
  of the appellant is extended to his full life subject to any
  remission or commutation at the instance of the
  Government for good and sufficient reasons. While
B therefore sustaining the conviction of the appellant for
  the different offences as well as the sentences of
  imprisonment awarded by the trial court for the offences,
  the sentence of death is converted to life imprisonment
  for the offence under Section 302 IPC and further the life
c impri:ionment shall extend to the full life of the appellant
  but subject to any remission or commutation at the
  instance of the Government for good and sufficient
  reasons. [paras 12, 13] [1022-C-H]

      *Rameshbhai Chandubhai Rathod (2) v. State of Gujarat
D (2011) 2 sec 764: 2011 (1) SCR 829 - Followed.

       State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Kalki and another (1981) 2
  SCC 752 : 1981 (3) SCR 504; Myladimmal Surendran and
  others v. State of Kera/a (2010) 11 SCC 129 : 2010 (10) SCR
E 916; Takdir Samsuddin Sheikh vs. State of Gujarat and
  another (2011) 10 SCC 158; Sebastian Alias Chevithiyan v.
  State of Kera/a (2010) 1 SCC 58; State of UP. v. Satish
  (2005) 3 SCC 114 : 2005 (2) SCR 1132; Bantu v. State of
  Uttar Pradesh (2008) 11 SCC 113 : 2008 (11) SCR 184 -
F referred to.
                       Case Law Reference:
       1981 (3) SCR 504          referred to         Para 6
       2010 (10) SCR 916         referred to         Para 6
G
       (2011) 10 sec 158         referred to         Para 6
       (201 o) 1 sec 58          referred to         Para 10
       2011 (1) SCR 829          Followed            Para 10
H
        AMIT v. STATE OF UTIAR PRADESH                    1015


    2005 (2) SCR 1132            referred to          Para 11      A
    2008 (11) SCR 184            referred to          Para 11
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 1905 of 2011.
                                                                   B
    From the Judgment & Order dated 29.07.2009 of the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Crl. A. No. 7361 of 2007 in
Reference No. 26 of 2007.

    P.C. Aggarwala, Revathy Raghavan for the Appellant.

    R.K: Gupta, Rajeev Dubey, Kamlendra Mishra for the             C
Respondent.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

     A. K. PATNAIK, J. 1. This is an appeal by way of special      D
leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India against the
judgment dated 29.07.2009 of the Allahabad High Court in
Criminal Appeal No.7361 of 2007 and in Reference No.26 of
2007 confirming the conviction of the appellant under Sections
364, 376, 377, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (for short
'IPC') as well as the sentences of imprisonments and death         E
awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

     2. The facts very briefly are that on 19.03.2005, one
Radhey Shyam lodged a First Information Report (for short
'FIR') at the Daurala Police Station in District Meerut at 21:15   F
hours alleging that while his mother Manno and wife Shakuntala
were present at house, his neighbour Amit, the appellant
herein, took away his daughter Monika, aged 3 years, from his
house on the pretext that he would give biscuits to her but
neither his daughter nor the appellant returned and when at        G
about 5.00 p.m. the appellant came back to his house, he
inquired about the whereabouts of Monika, but the appellant did
not reply and ran away. Crime No.90 of 2005 for the offence
 under Section 364, IPC, was registered. The appellant was
 apprehended on 20.03.2005 near the Pawli Khas Railway             H
    1016     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012) 1 S.C.R.


A Station, Modipuram, P. S. Daurala in District Meerut and his
  shirt, which bore blood-stains on its right arm, was taken off
  from his person. On the statement of the appellant, the dead
  body of Monika kept in a plastic bag was recovered from the
  wheat field in the out skirts of village Palhara in the presence
B of Radhey Shyam and Iqbal Singh. A pair of green colour
  chappals, which were blood-stained, were also recovered
  from the corner of a room of the house of the appellant on the
  statement of the appellant in presence of Rad hey Shayam and
  Iqbal Singh. The shirt of the appellant and the chappa/s, frock,
c underwear of Monika and a back thread were sent to the
  Forensic Science Laboratory Uttar Pradesh, Agra, which
  confirmed presence of human blood and human sperms on
  some of these materials. After investigation, chargesheet was
  filed against the appellant under Sections 364, 376, 377, 302
D and 201, IPC, and charges were accordingly framed by the
  learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.12, Meerut, and
  Sessions Trial No.449 of 2005 was conducted.

          3. At the trial, Radhey Shyam was examined as PW-1. His
    wife and mother were examined as PWs-2 and 3. Iqbal Singh,
E   the witness to the seizures made pursuant to the statements
    of the appellant, was examined as PW-4. Dr. Vikrama Singh,
    Senior Pathologist, who carried out the post-mortem on the
    body of Monika, was examined as PW-5 and the Investigating
    Officer was examined as PW-6. In his statement under Section
F   313, Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), the appellant
    denied having committed the offences but no evidence was
    adduced by him in his defence. The trial court considered the
    evidence, heard the arguments and found the appellant guilty
    of the charges under Sections 364, 376, 377, 302 and 201,
G   IPC. After hearing the appellant on the question of sentence,
    the trial court imposed the punishment of life imprisonment and
    a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 364, IPC, and
    a further sentence of six months if the appellant failed to pay
    the fine. For the offence under Section 376, IPC, the trial court
H   also imposed the punishment of life imprisonment and a fine
         AMIT v. STATE OF UTIAR PRADESH                     1017
                  [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]

of Rs.5,000/- and on failure to pay the fine, a further sentence     A
of six months. For thP. offence under Section 377, IPC, the trial
court also imposed the punishment of life imprisonment and a
fine of Rs.5,000/- and on failure to pay the fine, an additional
sentence of six months' imprisonment. For the offence under
Section 201, IPC, the trial court imposed a sentence of five         B
years imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000/- and on failure to
pay the fine, an additional sentence of two months'
imprisonment. The trial court took the view that this is one of
those rarest of rare cases in which the appellant was not eligible
for any sympathy of the Court and imposed the sentence of            C
death and a fine of Rs.5,000/- on the appellant for the offence
 under Section 302, IPC. The High Court, as we have already
 noted, has not only confirmed the convictions under Sections
364, 376, 377, 302 and 201, IPC, but also the sentences
awarded by the trial court.
                                                                     D
     4. At the hearing of the appeal, learned counsel for the
appellant submitted that PW-3 was the only person who was
witness to the appellant taking away Monika from the house of
PW-1, but PW-3 was an aged woman and she has admitted
in her cross-examination that she cannot see with her right eye.     E
He submitted that PW-3 was an interested witness inasmuch
as she was the grandmother of Monika and her evidence
should not be relied on. He argued that no Test Identification
Parade was conducted during investigation for the witness to
identify the appellant. He further submitted that no independent     F
witnesses were taken by the Police for recovery of the articles
and instead the father of Monika (PW-1) was made a witness
to the recovery of various articles and there is evidence to show
previous enmity between PW-1 and the appellant and PW-1
has planted this case against the appellant. He also argued          G
that the weapon by which Monika was killed has not been
recovered and hence there is no proof that the appellant has
committed the offence under Section 302 IPC.

     5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, took
us through the evidence of PWs-1, 2, 3 and 4 as well as the          H
    1018     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 1 S.C.R.


A   three memoranda of recovery made on 20.03.2005 pursuant
    to the confessional statements of the appellant admissible
    under Section 27 of the Evidence Act as well as the report of
    the Forensic Science Laboratory to show that the trial court
    rightly convicted the appellant and the High Court rightly
8   confirmed the conviction under Sections 364, 376, 377, 302
    and 201, IPC.

          6. We may first consider the contention of the learned
     counsel for the appellant that the evidence of PW-3 who saw
    the appellant taking away Monika from her lap should not be
C    relied on. PW-3 is no doubt the grandmother of Monika but
    she is not an interested witness. As has been held by this Court
     in State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Kalki and another [(1981) 2 SCC
    752], Myladimmal Surendran and others v. State of Kera/a
    ((2010) 11 SCC 129] and Takdir Samsuddin Sheikh vs. State
D   of Gujarat and another [(2011) 10 SCC 158], an interested
    witness must have some direct interest in having the accused
    somehow convicted for some extraneous reason and a near
    relative of the victim is not necessarily an interested witness.
    There is no evidence to show that PW-3 was somehow
E   interested in having the appellant convicted. PW-3, however,
    is an aged woman and she has admitted in her cross-
    examination that she cannot see with her right eye but she has
    also stated in her cross-examination that she can see with her
    left eye and the sight of her left eye has not diminished on
F   account of old age and she can fully see everything and can
    also pass a thread through the eye of the needle and that she
    does not use spectacles and can see without spectacles.
    Hence, the evidence of PW-3 that the appellant came to her
    house and took away Monika from her lap on the pretext of
G   giving biscuits to her cannot be disbelieved.
       7. We may now deal with the contention of the learned
  counse! for the appellant that no Test Identification Parade was
  conducted during investigation for the witness to identify the
  appellant as the person who had taken away the child from her
H lap. Test Identification Parade would have been necessary if
        AMIT v. STATE OF UTIAR PRADESH                    1019
                 [A.K. PATNAIK, J.)

the appellant was unknown to PW-3 but as the appellant was         A
the neighbour of PW-3 and known to her no Test Identification
Parade was necessary for PW-3 to identify the appellant. In
fact when PW-1 returned home, he was told by PW-3 that the
appellant had taken away Monika on the pretext of giving her
biscuits because PW-3 knew th~ appellant. Moreover, on such        B
information received from PW-3, PW-1 lodged the FIR naming
the appellant as the person who had taken away Monika on the
pretext of giving her biscuits. Hence, the argument of learned
counsel for the appellant that no Test Identification Parade was
conducted for PW-3 to identify the appellant is misconceived       c
in the facts of this case.

     8. Regarding the contention of learned counsel for the
appellant that no independent witnesses were taken by the
police for recovery of the articles and PW-1, who was the father
of Monika and who was inimical to the appellant was made a D
witness to the recovery of the articles, we find from the memo
Ex.Ka-10 recording the recovery of blood- stained shirt of the
appellant that the recovery was made in presence of two
Constables, namely, Harender Singh and Jasbir Singh, and
PW-1 was not a witness to this recovery. Thereafter, the E
appellant made a confession that he had concealed the dead
body of Monika in the wheat field and pursuant to this
confession the dead body of Monika kept in a plastic bag was
recovered in presence of not only PW-1 but also PW-4 (Iqbal
Singh). The recovery memo (Ext.Ka-2) with regard to the dead F
body of Monika and the recovery memo Ext.Ka-3 with regard
to plastic bag bear the signatures of the two witnesses PW-1
and PW-4. Pursuant to the statement made by the appellant,
the chappals which Monika was wearing at the time of murder
were also recovered from the house of the appellant in G
presence of PW-1 and PW-4 and the recovery memo with
regard to the chappals (Ext.Ka-5) also bears the signatures of
PW-1 and PW-4. Thus, it is not correct, as has been submitted
by learned counsel for the appellant, that only PW-1 was a
witness to the recovery of various articles and that this was a H
    1020    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 1 S.C.R.


A case which PW-1 had planted on the appellant on account of
  previous enmity. PW-4 was also a witness to the recovery of
  the articles which implicate the appellant in the offence and it
  is not the case of the appellant that PW-4 was in any way.
  inimical to the appellant.
B      9. Coming to the argument of the counsel for the appellant
  that the weapon with which Monika was killed has not been
   recovered, it appears from the evidence of the senior
   pathologist Dr. Vikrama Singh, PW-5, who carried out the post
   mortem report on the body of Monika that there were swelling
C marks on her head and left side of the face which established
  that she has been hit on her head and her left side of the face.
   PW-5 has also stated in his evidence that there was a ligature
  mark all around her neck which indicates that she was also
  strangulated. PW-5 has further deposed that there was a
D lacerated wound on the anterior part of arms anus and her
  vagina was inflamed and congested which prove that unnatural
  offence and rape was committed on her. PW-5 has opined that
  all the injuries together are the cause of the death of Monika.
  The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory (Ex.A-23)
E confirms human blood and human sperms on the underwear
  of Monika. Thus, even if the object with which Monika was hit
  has not been identified and recovered, the evidence of PW-3,
  the recovery of various articles made pursuant to the confession
  of the appellant, the evidence of PW-5 and the report of the
F Forensic Science Laboratory Ex.A-23 prove beyond all
  reasonable doubt that it is the appellant alone who after having
  kidnapped Monika committed unnatural offence as well as rape
  on her and killed her and thereafter caused disappearance of
  the evidence of the offences. The High Court has, therefore,
G rightly confirmed the conviction of the appellant under Sections
  364, 376, 377, 302 and 201 IPC.
       10. We may now consider the contentions of the learned
  counsel for the parties on the sentence for the offence under
  Section 302, IPC. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted
H that the appellant was a young person aged about 28 years
        AMIT v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH                      1021
                 [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]

when he committed the offences and may reform in future. He          A
cited the judgments of this Court in Sebastian Alias
Chevithiyan v. State of Kera/a ((2010) 1 SCC 58] and
Rameshbhai Chandubhai Rathod (2) v. State of Gujarat
[(2011) 2 SCC 764] in which this Court in similar cases of
murder of a child after rape by a young person has held that         B
imprisonment for life and not death sentence is the appropriate
punishment. He submitted that the appellant, therefore, should
not be awarded death sentence.

      11. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,
submitted thatthe trial court has held that kidnapping and raping    C
a three years old daughter of a neighbour by another neighbour
on the pretext of offering biscuit is a heinous and inhuman act
and comes under the category of rarest of rare cases as has
been held by this Court in several decisions. He submitted that
the view taken by the trial court is consistent with the decisions   D
of this Court in State of U.P. v. Satish [(2005) 3 SCC 114] and
Bantu v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2008) 11 SCC 113).
According to him, death sentence is the appropriate
punishment for rape of a child followed by murder.
     12. We find that the trial court has relied on tile decision    E
of a two Judge Bench of this Court in State of U.P. v. Satish
(supra) in which the offence of rape of a child followed by brutal
murder of a child has been held to fall in the rarest of rare
category for which death sentence is appropriate. In Bantu v.
State of Uttar Pradesh (supra), a two-Judge Bench has                F
similarly awarded death sentence to the accused for having
committed murder after rape of a young girl of 5 years. In the
subsequent decision .in the case of Sebastian Alias
Chevithiyan v. State of Kera/a (supra), however, a two-Judge
Bench of this Court in a similar case of a rape followed by          G
murdar of a young child by a young man of 24 years has taken
a different view and has modified the sentence of death to one
imprisonment for the rest of his life. In Rameshbhai
Chandubhai Rathod (2) v. State of Gujarat (supra), which was
 also a case of a rape followed by murder of a girl child by a       H
    1022     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     (2012] 1 S.C.R.


A   young man, while Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. took the view that death
    sentence is the appropriate punishment, A.K. Ganguly, J. was
    of the view that as the accused was young in age and may be
    rehabilitated in future, death sentence is not the appropriate
    punishment. The difference between the two Judges was
B    referred to a three-Judge Bench of this Court and the three-
    Judge Bench held that in such cases of rape followed by murder
    by a young man, instead of death sentence a life imprisonment
    should be awarded with a direction that life sentence imposed
    will extend to the full life of the appellant but subject to any
C   remission or commutation at the instance of the Government
    for good and sufficient reasons. In the present case also, we
    find that when the appellant committed the offence he was a
    young person aged about 28 years only. There is no evidence
    to show that he had committed the offences of kidnapping,
    rape or murder on any earlier occasion. There is nothing on
D   evidence to suggest that he is likely to repeat similar crimes in
    future. On the other hand, given a chance he may reform over
    a period of years. Hence, following the judgment of the three-
    Judge Bench in Rameshbhai Chandubhai Rathod (2) v. State
    of Gujarat (supra), we convert the death sentence awarded to
E   the appellant. to imprisonment for l_ife and direct that the life
    sentence of the appellant will extend to his full life subject to any
    remission or commutation at the instance of the Government
    for good and sufficient reasons.

F        13. While therefore sustaining the conviction of the
  appellant for the different offences as well as the sentences of
  imprisonment awarded by the trial court for the offences, we
  allow the appeal in part and convert the sentence of death to
  life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 IPC and
G further direct that the life imprisonment shall extend to the full
  life of the appellant but subject to any remission or commutation
  at the instance of the Government for good and sufficient
  reasons. The appeal stands disposed of.

    D.G. ·                                     Appeal partly allowed.
H