A.L. DAVE, J.

1. AN incident occurred on 2.4,2008 between midnight and 2-00 AM in the outskirts of village Aadityana, Taluka Ranavav, District Porbandar in which three persons namely, Hasmukh Popatlal Umrania, Manju Hasmukh Umrania and Ritaben, daughter of Popatlal Jivraj Umrania lost their lives of burns injuries. It is the case of the prosecution that while they were in the house, the door to the house was locked from outside and a fire was set with the help of inflammable liquid like kerosene by Fatehsinh Rambhai Chauhan. The three victims were burnt to death in the house. It is the case of the prosecution that Fatehsinh's daughter married Dinesh, brother of victim Hasmukhbhai, following a love affair. Fatehsinh was, therefore, deprived of certain monetary benefit customary in the community. He, therefore, made the demand of Rs.35,000/-, which was not acceded to. It is the case of the prosecution that Fatehsinh, therefore, nurtured a revenge against victim Hasmukh and family. On the day of the incident, it is the case of the prosecution that Fatehsinh went to his bed as usual. His son also went to bed. When his son got up, he found his father to be absent arid the victims' house was on fire. By the time the victims could be rescued, all three died because of burns. Their dead bodies were fully charred and were virtually not identifiable. It was found that the door to the house was locked from the front and was bolted from inside. The key to the lock was found near the house. A wrist watch, a half burnt slipper and a bundle of bidies were also found near the place of incident. Offence was registered, investigation started. Fatehsinh Rambhai came to be arrested on 2.4.2008 at about 21-45 hours from village Godhana, which is at a distance of about 6 kms. from the place of incident. When he was arrested, he was barefooted and was wearing a trouser and a banian. It was also found that he had sustained burn injuries on his hands, his legs and forehead. His eye-lashes and part of his hair were also found burnt by Doctor when he was taken to Hospital for treatment. The investigating agency ultimately concluded that the victims were set to fire by Fatehsinh because of his dislike of marriage of his daughter Savita with Dinesh, brother of victim Hasmukh, and ultimately filed a chargesheet in the Court of JMFC, Ranavav. Learned JMFC, Ranavav, in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions as offences were triable by the Court of Sessions.

2. SESSIONS Case No.14 of 2008 came to be registered. Charge was framed against the accused at Exh.3. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and came to be tried.

2.1 After considering evidence led by the prosecution, the SESSIONS Court came to a conclusion that the prosecution was successful in proving offences punishable under Sections 302, 342, 427, 452 and 436 of IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act and convicted him of the same.

2.2 After hearing the parties on question of quantum of sentence, the SESSIONS Court found the case to be one falling under the category of "rarest of rare" and awarded capital punishment requiring the accused Fatehsinh to be hanged till death, subject to confirmation by the High Court.

The judgment was rendered on 18.2.2009 by the Sessions Court, the Confirmation Case No.1 of 2009 came to be registered here. Against the said judgment recording conviction and awarding death penalty, the convict has also preferred Criminal Appeal No.646 of 2009. Since they both arise out of the same judgment and order, they are heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

3. FOR the sake of convenience, the appeal is heard first. Learned Advocate Ms. Panchal represents the convict Fatehsinh alias Rambhai Ramlal Chauhan. She submitted that the incident occurred in late night hours and there is no eye-witness to the incident. The whole case depends on circumstantial evidence. According to her, the prosecution has not been able to establish a complete c