PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

.1. The above captioned appeal and the death sentence reference arise out of the judgment and order dated 04.10.2008 and the order on sentence dated 21.10.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.09/2007 arising out of FIR No.295/2006 registered at PS Roop Nagar. By virtue of the judgment and order dated 4.10.2008, Sanjay Dass has been convicted for offences under Sections 302/307/376/379 IPC. It may be noted that Sanjay Dass was charged for an offence punishable under Section 392 IPC but has been convicted for a lesser offence i.e. the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC. Vide order on sentence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has imposed the extreme penalty of death sentence on Sanjay Dass in respect of the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC. With regard to the offence(two) punishable under Section 307 IPC, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and pay fine in sum of Rs.1,000/- pertaining to the injuries caused by him to Kumari X and Kumari Y; in default to undergo SI for 3 months. With regard to the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and pay fine in sum of Rs.1,000/-; in default to undergo SI for 3 months. With regard to the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and pay fine in sum of Rs.500/-; in default to undergo SI for 1 month.

.2. It is settled legal position that while dealing with a reference for confirmation of a death sentence, the High Court must consider the proceedings in all their aspects, reappraise, reassess and reconsider the entire facts and law, and if necessary, after taking additional evidence, come to its own conclusions on the material on record in regard to the conviction of the accused (and the sentence) independently of the view expressed by Sessions Judge. Reference be made to the decision of Supreme Court reported as State of Tamil Nadu v Rajendran (1998) 8 SCC 679 wherein it was observed:-

.“In performing its duty, the High Court is of necessity bound to consider the merits of the case itself and has to examine the entire evidence on record. The legislature having provided in the confirmation proceedings, a final safeguard of the life and liberty of the subject in cases of capital sentences, the duty of the High Court becomes more onerous to consider independently the matter carefully and examine all relevant material evidence and come to a conclusion one way or the other. It is, therefore, the duty of the High Court in a death reference to consider the evidence afresh.”

3. Accordingly, with the able assistance of learned Counsel for the State and Sanjay Dass, hereinafter referred to as the accused, we perused the entire evidence led at the trial while hearing the reference and the connected appeal.

.4. Criminal law was set into motion when at around 01.05 A.M. on 19.10.2006, an entry was made in the PCR Form Ex.PW-19/A by HC Jai Kumar PW-19 to the effect that a call has been received from the mobile number 9811042809 informing that children have been murdered by the servants at 6/4, Singh Sabha Road. HC Jai Kumar immediately transmitted the aforesaid information to Police Station Roop Nagar where HC Pawan Kumar PW-20, recorded the DD No.3A, Ex.PW-20/A, to the effect that a wireless information has been received informing that servants had murdered children at 6/4, Singh Sabha Road, Roop Nagar.

5. On receiving a copy of the afore-noted DD entry, SI Dharampal PW-40, accompanied by Const.Tejpal PW-25, proceeded to the building bearing Municipal No.6/4, Singh Sabha Road, Roop Nagar, Delhi. Simultaneously, Inspector Baltej Singh PW-48, who also received the information recorded in DD No.3A, reached the said building. On reaching the said building, the aforesaid police officers learnt that three children of Mr.Ramesh Kumar Aggarwal PW-