Mukul Mudgal, J.

1. Death Reference 01/2007 arises out of the impugned judgment dated 13th December, 2006 delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, by which the accused R.P. Tyagi posted as the SHO at the relevant time, was convicted under Sections 302/342/120-B IPC. Further, by his order dated 15th December, 2006 accused R.P. Tyagi was sentenced to death.

2. The Death Reference and the Appeal of the convicted accused R.P. Tyagi were taken up together for hearing and after hearing Mr. Sunil Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. R. N. Sharma, the learned Counsel for the accused, both the matters are now to be governed by this common judgment.

3. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the State, it is necessary to notice at the outset the main evidence relied upon by the prosecution and accepted by the learned trial court for convicting the appellant. Then we would ourselves analyze and assess the worth of that evidence for satisfying ourselves whether the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt or not, since it was held by the Honble Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Rajendran 1999 CriLJ 4552 that when a Death Reference is made by a court to the High Court for confirmation the High Court has to satisfy itself whether a case beyond reasonable doubt has been made out against the accused for imposition of the extreme penalty of death and for that the proceedings require a re-appraisal and reassessment of the entire facts and law so as to arrive at its independent conclusion.

In an earlier case also reported as Jumman and Ors. v. State of U.P. 1991 CriLJ 439 , it was held by Honble Supreme Court while dealing with a death penalty case as under:

12. In fact the proceedings before the High Court are a reappraisal and the reassessment of the entire facts and law in order that the High Court should be satisfied on the materials about the guilt or innocence of the accused persons. Such being the case, it is the duty of the High Court to consider the proceedings in all their aspects and come to an independent conclusion on the materials apart from the view expressed by the Sessions Judge. In so doing, the High Court will be assisted by the opinion expressed by the Sessions Judge, but under the provisions of the law above-mentioned it is for the High Court to come to an independent conclusion of its own.

4. The brief facts of the case as per the prosecution sans unnecessary details are as follows:

a) On 16th August 1987, it was the Janmasthmi festival, when constable

Rishi Pal, posted at police station Vivek Vihar, was deputed at Police post

Chota Bazar, Shahdara Delhi.

b) At about 9.20 pm someone told Rishi Pal about two anti-social persons who were extorting money at the point of knife at Circular Road, Shahdara, Delhi, who thereinafter went to the spot.

c) Subsequently, information was received in the police station Vivek Vihar that constable Rishi Pal had been stabbed by two persons and, consequently, the police rushed to the spot.

d) The police recorded the statement of constable Narender and on the basis of his statement, FIR No. 294/87 under Sections 307/353/186 IPC was recorded at Police Station Vivek Vihar. It was revealed that constable Rishi Pal was stabbed by Mahender Kumar and Ram Kumar, both of whom had fled from the spot and were absconding.

e) The Police launched a manhunt to trace the culprits but they did not find them in and around the locality. The police officers, in the rage of anger, picked up family members and neighbours of Mahender Kumar and Ram Kumar and confined them at the Police Station Vivek Vihar. The family members and neighbours were harassed and beaten and were asked to produce the absconding duo Mahender Kumar and Ram Kumar.

f) Ultimately on 24th August 1987 at 7.45 am (approximately), both Ram Kumar and Mahender Kumar were produ