ORDER

1. The present appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 28-8-2007 passed by the Jharkhand High Court in Death Reference No.3 of 2007, whereby the High Court has confirmed the conviction and sentence of death passed by the trial court and dismissed the appeals filed by •the present appellant.

2. These appeals have been filed by the appellant from jail. An amices curiae was appointed to argue the case on behalf of the appellant, who is present today and who has argued the appeals• before us. The appellant has been sentenced to be hanged till death for causing death of five persons. His conviction has been ordered under Section 302 IPC by the trial court and the said order of conviction and sentence has been upheld by the High Court.

3. The appellant was the servant in the house of Shri Dhirendra Kumar, a serving Indian Forest Officer. It has also come on record that the appellant was brought to the said house when he was only about 15 years of age and he was a servant in that house for about 10 years. On the fateful day, Shri Dhirendra Kumar had gone to Bangalore whereupon the allegation is that the appellant laced the food with pesticides and thereafter assaulted the five inmates of the house and even thereafter burnt them and in the process the entire house was damaged by fire.

4. On receipt of the FIR, the police started investigation and during the course of investigation the appellant was arrested. A charge-sheet was filed against the appellant upon which he was tried and on completion of the trial, he was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to be hanged till death for causing death of the aforesaid five persons. Being aggrieved by the said order of conviction and sentence, the appellant filed an appeal before the High Court of Jharkhand. After hearing the appeal, the High Court dismissed the same and confirmed the death sentence in the death reference. Hence, these appeals have been filed before this Court.

5. The learned amicus curiae appearing for the appellant has drawn our attention to various facets and facts of the appeal. On going through the evidence on record, we find that the prosecution has been able to bring home the charge and was able to place sufficient evidence to prove and establish that the appellant has committed an offence which has been against him.

6. A number of circumstances have been brought on record by the prosecution to indicate that the appellant had laced the food items of the household with pesticides and then assaulted the said persons, which is I apparent from the fact that the ante-mortem injuries caused by a hard and blunt substance were found on all the five dead bodies. The appellant, thereafter, set the house on fire. The circumstances which are referred to and relied upon by the courts below in our considered opinion, sufficiently prove and establish that it is the appellant who had committed the offence alleged. Therefore, the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt of the accused.

7. The amicus curiae having found himself into the aforesaid situation and position, then submitted that so far as the sentence awarded to the appellant is concerned, he has a strong case. He has submitted that there are a number of mitigating circumstances, which not only absolve the appellant from getting a death sentence but would show to the Court that if at all a case exists against the appellant, it exists only under Section 304 IPC. He has submitted before us that the mitigating circumstances, like the fact that he was working in the same household for about 10 years and that' there was provocation from the landlady of the house before the occurrence, would make out a case for showing leniency so far as death sentence is concerned. He forcefully submitted that in the circumstances of the case it would be appropriate to sentence the appellant to life imprisonment and therefore the death sentence be converted to life sentence.

8. We have considered the facts of t