...Aftab Alam, J.— Death to a cold-blooded murderer or life, albeit subject to severe restrictions of personal liberty, is the vexed question that once again arises before this Court. A verdict of death would cut the matter cleanly, apart from cutting short the life of the condemned person. But a verdict of imprisonment for life is likely to give rise to certain questions (Life after all is full of questions).2. How would the sentence of imprisonment for life work out in actuality? The Court may feel that the punishment more just and proper, in the facts of the case, would be imprisonment for life with life given its normal meaning and as defined in Section 45 of the Penal Code, 1860. The Court may be of the view that the punishment of death awarded by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court needs to be substituted by life imprisonment, literally for life or in any case for a period far in excess of fourteen years. The Court in its judgment may make its intent explicit and state clearly that the sentence handed over to the convict is imprisonment till his last breath or, life permitting, imprisonment for a term not less than twenty, twenty-five or even thirty years. But once the judgment is signed and pronounced, the execution of the sentence passes into the hands of the executive and is governed by different provisions of law.3. What is the surety that the sentence awarded to the convict after painstaking and anxious deliberation would be carried out in actuality? The sentence of imprisonment for life, literally, shall not by application of different kinds of remission, turn out to be the ordinary run-of-the-mill life term that works out to no more than fourteen years. How can the sentence of imprisonment for life (till its full natural span) given to a convict as a substitute for the death sentence be viewed differently and segregated from the ordinary life imprisonment given as the sentence of first choice? These are the questions that arise for consideration in this case.4. The conviction of the appellant, Swamy Shraddananda @ Murali Manohar Mishra under Sections 302 and 201 of the Penal Code has attained finality and is no longer open to scrutiny. The appellant was convicted by the learned XXVth City Sessions Judge, Bangalore City, under the aforesaid two sections by judgment and order dated 20-5-2005 in SC No. 212 of 1994. The Sessions Judge sentenced him to death for the offence of murder and to a term of five years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of rupees ten thousand for causing disappearance of evidence of the offence; in default of payment of fine the direction was to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.5. The appellant's appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 1086 of 2005) against the judgment and order passed by the trial court and the reference made by the Sessions Judge under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Criminal Reference No. 6 of 2005) were heard together by the Karnataka High Court. The High Court confirmed the conviction and the death sentence awarded to the appellant and by judgment and order dated 19-9-2005 dismissed the appellant's appeal and accepted the reference made by the trial court without any modification in the conviction or sentence.6. Against the High Court judgment the appellant has come to this Court in this appeal. The appeal was earlier heard by a Bench of two Judges. Both the Honourable Judges unanimously upheld the appellant's conviction for the two offences but they were unable to agree to the punishment meted out to the appellant. S.B Sinha, J. felt that in the facts and circumstances of the case the punishment of life imprisonment, rather than death would serve the ends of justice. He, however, made it clear that the appellant would not be released from prison till the end of his life. M. Katju, J., on the other hand, took the view that the appellant deserved nothing but death. It is thus on the limited, though very important and intractable question of sentence that this appeal has come before us.7. This takes us to the facts of the case that has all the elements of high drama. It has a man's vile greed coupled with the devil's cunning; a woman's craving for a son, coupled with extreme credulity and gullibility and a daughter's deep and abiding love for her mother coupled with remarkable perseverance to see through the lies behind her mother's mysterious disappearance. But a man's life cannot be decided in three sentences and we must see the prosecution case, as established up to this Court in some greater detail.8. Shakereh, the deceased victim of the crime, came from a highly reputed and wealthy background. She was the granddaughter of Sir Mirza Ismail, a former Dewan of the Princely State of Mysore and the daughter of Mr Ghulam Hussain Namaze and Mrs Gauhar Taj Namaze. She held vast and very valuable landed properties in her own right. Among her various properties was a bungalow at No. 81, Richmond Road, Bangalore, constructed over nearly 38,000 sq ft of land that she had got in hiba (oral gift) from her parent's side. Another was a large piece of land measuring 40,000 sq ft on Wellington Street that she had got in dowry at the time of marriage. Shakereh was married to Mr Akbar Khaleeli, a member of the Indian Foreign Service. They had four daughters from the marriage.9. Shakereh came to know the appellant, Murali Manohar Mishra who called himself Swamy Shraddananda, for the first time in 1983 when she and her family were visiting the erstwhile Nawab of Rampur in New Delhi. The appellant was introduced as someone who was looking after the Rampur properties and was said to be quite adept in managing urban landed estates. Shakereh, at that time was facing some difficulties under the urban land ceiling law and she asked the appellant to come over to Bangalore and help her in sorting out the problems concerning her properties. Soon thereafter Akbar Khaleeli was posted as a diplomat to Iran. In those days Iran was not a family station for Indian diplomats and hence, he went alone leaving Shakereh behind in Bangalore. The appellant then came to Bangalore and started living in a part of her house, 81, Richmond Road, purportedly to assist in the proper management of her properties. Apparently, more than helping in property matters he worked on her suppressed though strong desire for a son and was able to convince her that with his occult powers he could make her beget a son.10. In 1985, Shakereh and Akbar Khaleeli got divorced. Shakereh then proceeded to marry the appellant. She paid no heed to the opposition from family and friends and finally got married to the appellant on 17-4-1986 under the Special Marriage Act and the marriage was registered at the Sub-Registrar's Office, Mayo Hall, Bangalore. After marriage they lived together at 81, Richmond Road. For domestic chores they engaged a couple, a man called Raju to work as gardener-cum-handyman and his wife Josephine to work as maidservant. They lived in the servant's quarter of the bungalow.11. The daughters from the first marriage were most of the time staying abroad.12. After marriage Shakereh not only showered her love and affection on the appellant but also her material wealth. She executed a testamentary will in his favour besides a general power of attorney appointing him as her agent and attorney. She opened a number of bank accounts jointly with the appellant and also took several bank lockers in their joint names. They also started together a private company called S.S Housing (P) Ltd. of which they alone were the partners.13. Notwithstanding her matrimonial adventures, Shakereh's relations with her daughters and her parents continued to be more or less as before. They met from time to time and kept in touch by speaking on the telephone at regular intervals.14. Then by the end of May 1991, Shakereh suddenly and mysteriously disappeared. She was last met by her mother Mrs Gauhar Namaze (examined before the trial court as PW 25) on 13-4-1991. Her daughter, Sabah Khaleeli (examined as PW 5) last spoke to her on telephone on 19-4-1991 and according to the two servants, Raju and Josephine (PWs 18 and 19 respectively), they last saw her in the company of the appellant in the morning of 28-5-1991. Thereafter, Shakereh was not seen or spoken to by anyone. At that time she was about forty years old.15. When Sabah did not receive any call from her mother nor was she able to get through to her on telephone she enquired about her from the appellant who said that she had gone to Hyderabad. In June 1991, when she contacted again he told her that her mother had gone to Kutch to attend the wedding of a wealthy diamond merchant. A week later he told her that Shakereh was keeping a low profile due to some income tax problems. Exasperated by the evasive and vague replies by the appellant, Sabah came down to Bangalore but found no trace of her mother in her house. The appellant then said that Shakereh was pregnant and she had gone to the United States of America to deliver the child. He also said that she had got herself admitted in Roosevelt Hospital.16. Sabah made enquiries and came to learn that Roosevelt Hospital records did not show admission of anyone by the name of Shakereh or matching her description. She confronted the appellant and accused him of giving false information about her mother. He tried to explain that Shakereh had, in fact, gone to London but she wanted to keep her whereabouts confidential. However, all stories fabricated by the appellant about her mother lay totally exposed to Sabah when she called on him in a hotel room in Bombay and chanced upon the passport of her mother lying around. A glance at the passport made it clear that its holder had not gone to the United States or the United Kingdom or as a matter of fact anywhere out of the country. At this stage, she came to Bangalore and lodged a written complaint at Ashok Nagar Police Station where it was registered on 10-6-1992 simply as a missing woman complaint bearing Cr. No. 417 of 1992.17. The search for the “missing” woman started in a rather lukewarm way but the appellant thought that the time had come to start covering his flanks. He went to the court seeking anticipatory bail. In the bail petition he declared his total innocence and stated that perennial litigation with close relations drove Shakereh to acute depression and in that state, while he was away from Bangalore, she left the house in a fit of anger without leaving any signs as to where she was headed. He was able to obtain anticipatory bail, initially on certain condition that was later on greatly relaxed.18. The investigation by Ashok Nagar Police Station did not yield any results but the persistence of Sabah paid off. In March 1994, the Central Crime Branch (CCB), Bangalore took over the investigation of the complaint about the “missing” Shakereh. The case came under the charge of C. Veeraiah, CPI, CCB (PW 37) who, suspecting the role of the appellant in the disappearance of Shakereh, subjected him to close interrogation. Under intense interrogation the appellant broke down and owned up to having killed Shakereh. He narrated in detail the manner of her killing and disposing of her body. He stated that he put the body of Shakereh inside a large wooden box (that he had earlier got made for the purpose) and got the box dropped into a pit (that he had got specially dug up) in...death sentence but giving the alternate sentence of life imprisonment in a capital offence was done away with by deletion of Section 367(5) in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and the requirement to state reasons for giving...death and not its alternate, the imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of years. On both occasions the court upheld the constitutional validity of death sentence for murder and the other...