Murder convictions and death sentence upheld on reliable evidence, while one accused received benefit of doubt.

Reliable eyewitness testimony, injured witness accounts, a dying declaration, prompt reporting, medical corroboration, and supporting ballistic and recovery evidence were treated as sufficient to sustain murder convictions where the witnesses were familiar with the accused and lantern light was held adequate in the factual setting. For one accused, the link between the weapon and his possession at the relevant time was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, so he received the benefit of doubt. On sentencing, the rarest-of-rare principle required death to be confined to cases where life imprisonment was wholly inadequate; the multiple, brutal killings of helpless victims, including women and children, were held to justify confirmation of the death sentence for the appellants found guilty.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the convictions in the murder incidents were sustainable on the evidence, including eyewitness testimony, injured witness evidence, dying declaration, identification at lantern light, and corroborative ballistic and recovery evidence, and whether one accused was entitled to benefit of doubt. (ii) Whether the extreme penalty of death was justified under the rarest-of-rare-cases principle.

Issue (i): Whether the convictions in the murder incidents were sustainable on the evidence, including eyewitness testimony, injured witness evidence, dying declaration, identification at lantern light, and corroborative ballistic and recovery evidence, and whether one accused was entitled to benefit of doubt.

Analysis: The evidence of natural witnesses, including injured witnesses and the dying declaration, was found reliable where it was corroborated by medical evidence, prompt reporting, and surrounding circumstances. The argument that identification was unsafe because the incidents occurred at night and by lantern light was rejected, since the witnesses were familiar with the accused and the lighting was held sufficient in the factual setting. Ballistic and recovery evidence also supported the prosecution case in relation to one accused. However, for one accused, the link between the second rifle and his possession at the relevant time was not satisfactorily established, creating a reasonable doubt.

Conclusion: The convictions were upheld for the appellants against whom the evidence was found trustworthy and sufficient, while one appellant was entitled to benefit of doubt and was acquitted.

Issue (ii): Whether the extreme penalty of death was justified under the rarest-of-rare-cases principle.

Analysis: The governing rule was that death sentence is an exception and can be imposed only when life imprisonment is wholly inadequate after weighing aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The nature of the crimes, including multiple killings, killings of helpless victims, murders of children and women, and the brutal and cold-blooded manner of execution, was treated as bringing the case within the category of the gravest culpability. On that assessment, the offenders concerned were found to fall within the rarest-of-rare standard.

Conclusion: The death sentence was confirmed for the appellants found to fall within the rarest-of-rare category.

Final Conclusion: The judgment upheld the convictions and death sentences of the appellants found guilty on reliable evidence, but set aside the conviction and sentence of one appellant on the ground of reasonable doubt.

---