This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the

judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat, convicting him under section 302 of Indian Penal Code. On conviction, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. A fine of Rs. 1,000 has been imposed. In default of payment of fine, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months.

2. In this case the appellant is alleged to have committed double murder of his own mother and sister aged 7 years. Two questions - one factual and the other legal are involved in the appeal. The factual question is whether the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. If it is held that the appellant is guilty of the commission of the murders, the important and significant question of law which arises in the appeal is whether the case in hand falls under the category of rarest of rare case warranting imposition of maximum penalty of death.

Coming to the first question about the guilt of the accused, the prosecution case as has been unfolded in the First Information Report (FIR) and the evidence brought on the record of the case needs discussion of detail.

3. The FIR in this case was lodged in the Police Out Post Deberapara, District Jorhat, at 2.15 PM on 16.5.93 by none else than the elder brother of the accused Bhim Bawri alleging therein that on 15.5.93 at about 7.30 PM his younger brother Dina Bawri closed the door of the house, poured kerosene oil on his mother and 7 years old sister and set them on fire inside the house. It is further alleged in the FIR that thereafter the accused ran away and hid himself in a nearby Nagabasti. The condition of the mother and the sister was alleged to be serious. The victims, it was stated, were undergoing treatment at Chinamora Central Hospital. It was further stated in the FIR that with the help of the local people the accused has been caught from Nagabasti and was handed over at the outpost. The case which was registered under section 326/307 of the Indian Penal Code was ultimately converted to section 302 IPC after the victims died in the hospital.

4. During trial the prosecution examined PW 1, Dr. Golap Chandra Deka who performed the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Sukumoni Bawri, the mother of the accused, PW 8 Dr. Bipul Chandra Borah who performed post­mortem examination on the dead body of Basanti Bawri, the sister of the accused, PW 2, Anil Barkakati a neighbour, PW 3, Smti Janu Dowerah a Staff Nurse of the hospital, PW 4 Bhim Bawri the informant, PW 5 Smti Sukumoni Bawri a close relation of the accused, PW 6 Bhada Bawri another close relation, PW 7 Sri Gajeng Bawri another relation and PW 9 Debeswar Gogoi the Investigating Officer of the case. The accused was also examined under section 313 CrPC. His case is one of denial. In reply to the question whether the accused wanted to produce defence evidence, he stated that he did not want to produce any evidence.

5. Before adverting to the question whether in the present case maximum penalty provided under section 302 IPC is to be imposed or not, we must reappraise the entire prosecution evidence for determining the complicity of the accused in the crime.

6. PW 2, Anil Barkakati stated that the accused was his neighbour and that

the occurrence took place 8 months back at about 7.00 PM. The witness stated that he was at his house when Bhada Bawri came to him and asked the witness to accompany him to the house of the accused as there was 'golmal'. The witness went there and found Sukumoni, mother of the accused sitting in the verandah of the house with burn injuries. She, according to the witness, told him that her son Dina Bawri set fire to her and her daughter. The witness claims to have seen the daughter lying with burn injuries. He also saw other family members of the family who had already extinguished the fire. The witness went on to state that both the mother and daughter were t