Judgment

THAKKAR, J.:- Protagonists of the "an eye for an eye" philosophy demand "death-for death". The Humanists on the other. hand press for the other extreme viz., "death in-no-case". A synthesis has emerged in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684 wherein the "rarest-of-rare-cases" formula for imposing death sentence in a murder case has been evolved by this Court. Identification of the guidelines spelled out in Bachan Singh in order to determine whether or not death sentence should be imposed is one of the problems engaging our attention, to which we will address ourselves in due course.

2. A feud between two families has resulted in tragic consequences. Seventeen lives were lost in the course of a series of five incidents which occurred in quick succession in five different villages, situated in the vicinity of each other in Punjab, on a night one would like to forget but cannot forget, the night between August 12 and August 13, 1977. The seventeen persons who lost their lives and the three who sustained injuries included men, women and children related to one Amar Singh and his sister Piaro Bai.

3. In this connection one Machhi Singh and his eleven companions, close relatives and associate were prosecuted in five sessions cases, each pertaining to the concerned village in which the killings took place. Machhi Singh was the common accused at each trial. The composition of his co-accused differed number-wise and identity-wise from trial to trial. At the conclusion of the series of trials the accused found guilty were convicted under appropriate provisions. Four of them were awarded death sentence, whereas sentence of imprisonment for life was imposed on nine of them. They were also convicted for different offences and appropriate punishment was inflicted on each of them in that behalf. The order of conviction and sentence gave rise to five murder references and fourteen appeals by the convicts before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The High Court heard every individual appeal separately, but disposed of the group of appeals by a common judgment for the sake of convenience. The present group of appeals is directed against the aforesaid judgment rendered by the High Court. We will treat each of the appeals compartmentally, and separately, on its own merits, on the basis of the evidence recorded at the trial in each sessions case giving rise to the respective appeal. But for the sake of convenience we will dispose of the appeals by this common judgment. In order to avoid confusion, the occurrence in each village will be adverted to in the same manner in which the High Court has done viz. Crime No. I, IIA, IIB, III, IV and V. Motive:

4. The aspect regarding motive has been discussed exhaustively in the third paragraph of the elaborate judgment rendered by the High Court. We need not set out this aspect at length or examine it in depth. This aspect need not therefore be adverted to in the context of each crime over and over again so as to avoid avoidable repetition, Suffice it to say that reprisal was the motive for the commission of the crime.

Common Criticism :

5. The most serious criticism pressed into service by learned counsel for the appellants in each of the appeals is common. Instead of dealing with the identical criticism, in the identical manner, repeatedly, in the context of each matter, we propose to deal with it at this juncture. The criticism is this. It was a dark night. Electricity had not yet reached the concerned village at the material time. In each crime the appreciation of evidence regarding identification has to be made in the context of the fact-situation that a lighted lantern was hanging in the court-yard where the victims were sleeping on the cots. The light shed by the lantern cannot be considered to be sufficient enough (such is the argument) to enable the eye witnesses to identify the culprits. This argument has been rightly rebuffed by the Sessions Court and the High Court, on the grou