This pre-supposes that in imparting the capital sentence i.e. sentence of death, the court should have recorded special reasons for the same. Here it has only been stated in the judgment impugned that there was no scope of showing any leniency to the accused. The special reasons must relate to the criminal committing the

offence – a crime which may be shocking to the conscience of the society or may be shocking on account of its cruelty or commission of it is so brutal and treacherous in manner which passes of the comprehension of a normal human thinking and in such circumstance, court may think of awarding the sentence of death. So far the present case is concerned, it is admitted position that accused called out deceased Chhedi Sah and took him to the southern side in a different field belonging to Tulsi Teli. It has also come in evidence that some altercation arose. P.W. 2 Amarendara son of the deceased Chhedi Sah had said that accused was speaking in filthy language. Therefore, before such altercation arose between the parties we could not know what actually passed in between them. Quite likely on discussions and talking about the past incident of Panchayati, he acted on the spur of the moment and attacked with knife which he was carrying in his pocket. The Panchayati incident is of long past and even the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while dealing with the evidence on this point has observed in the judgment impugned that the motive for the commission of the offence, as assigned by the witnesses, did not deal and it did not attract the attention of the court, as it suggested remoteness in time. The learned Additional Sessions Judge however, held that on account of want of sufficient proof for the motive assigned by the prosecution the whole case of the prosecution cannot be brushed aside. This is a different view taken by the court in accepting the prosecution version. But at the same time the court lost sight of the fact in its final judgment while imposing sentence for sufferance of death penalty. Not only P.W. 2 the son of the deceased, but other witnesses too have admitted that there was no earlier enmity between the accused and the deceased. He had gone out of the village for a pretty long time and had come on that date when he met Chhedi Sah in the field. It cannot be denied that some altercation took place when he was taken out of his own field to the field of Tulsi Teli and there, in course of abuses and counter-abuses he acted suddenly and pierced the knife and caused multiple injuries, which resulted in the death of Cheedi Sah. The offence alleged, does not appear to be so brutal in nature, nor does it speak of any treachery played in causing the death. It may even be assumed that he might have thought of causing the death because of the dissatisfaction or the animosity which he was fostering in his mind on account of the decision given by Chhedi Sah against him in the Panchayati.

13. In the circumstances, we fell that the crime committed in the present case does not warrant for imposition of extreme penalty of law. The court below, of course, in imposing the death sentence had committed further error which, may of course, be said to be technical in nature. But it was expected that in a case of such extreme culpability he should have been careful in writing out his judgment as envisaged in S. 354 of the Code. Clause (5) of S. 354 Speaks that when a person is sentenced to death, the sentence shall direct that he be hanged by the neck till he is dead. In the instant case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed error in recording the order of sentence in stating that accused Jasoda Kanu is sentenced to death by hanging till death under S. 302 of the Code. We have made this observation more so for the guidance of the court below.

14. However, in the circumstances, as discussed above, the death reference is discharged in the terms that the sentence of death as imposed by the court below is commuted to the term of imprisonment for life which in the present case will meet the ends of justice. In this situation the appeal presented by the accused from jail is also dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence to the extent that the sentence of death is commuted to imprisonment for life for the offence of committing murder of Chhedi Sah, which is an offence punishable under section 302 of the Code.