The main legal point established in the judgment is the changing perception of the courts towards reformation of criminals, the trend towards life imprisonment, and the need for 'special reasons' to impose death sentence.

WANGDI, J.

(1) The State of Sikkim has preferred this appeal under S. 377, Cr. P. C. against the order of sentence passed in consequence of the judgment in Sessions Trial Case No. 4 of 2004 dated 30-3-2006 and 31- 3-2006 respectively by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Division-I (I/C) at Gangtok.

(2) It is the case of the State that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- imposed against the respondents/convicts for offences under S. 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code is grossly inadequate considering the brutality and merci-lessness with which the respondents/convicts had committed the murder of the victims in cold blood in the most inhuman manner. From the evidence on record, it has been established that the murder was committed for the greed of money and with the motive to commit theft and that it has been established that the victims were innocent and helpless women, one aged about 70 years and other unmarried daughter aged about 40 years. Whereas the respondents/convicts were aged about 32 years and 19 years respectively by which it stands established that the murderers were physically in a dominating position. That the deceased mother and daughter were the only members of the family living in the flat and that the respondents/convicts were also living with them in the same flat demonstrates the faith and confidence reposed by the deceased persons on them. It is also the case of the State that considering the finding of the learned trial Court in the impugned order of sentence dated 31-3- 2006 that the acts of the convicts could not be condoned since they were not only heinous but also inflicted on unsuspecting victims who were women and could not measure up to be combined physical strength of the convicts. That there were no extenuating circumstances and that the murder was committed in cool blood with the convicts having made preparation for the, same in furtherance of their common intention, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- was grossly inadequate and incongruous. It was submitted further that considering the manner in which the offence was committed, the case falls in the category of "rarest of rare cases" and, therefore, the sentence was liable to be enhanced to that of death. In the show cause that was filed by the respondents/convicts, they have apart from raising the question of maintainability of the appeal for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "Cr. P. C") and the appeal being barred by the law of limitation, also stated that the present case does not fall in the category of "rarest of rare cases" and that subject to the outcome of the appeal filed by them against the conviction, the sentence passed by the learned trial Court in its discretion and wisdom is adequate.

(3) We have heard Mr. J. B. Pradhan, learned Public Prosecutor with Mr. Karma Thinley, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State and Mr. N. Rai, learned Legal Aid Counsel with Ms. Jyoti Kharka, learned counsel on behalf of the respondents convicts.

(4) The law of sentence has always been an enigma where enormous discretion is vested in the Courts under the statute in such matters. More often than not, the sentencing Courts are faced with serious dilemma at the time of considering as to which of the sentence out of the two, imprisonment for life or death, should be imposed. Inconsistencies in passing sentence in cases where the facts are pari-materia are well accepted and are matters of records having been appreciated and noted in numerous decisions of the Supreme Court. Be that as it may, the well established principle in passing a sentence is the objective satisfaction of the Courts with regard to the criminal rather than the crime. In the recent past, it has been the trend of the Courts to consider reformation of the criminals rather than being retributive by passing sterner punishments prescrib