The assertion by PW 1 that after the incident was over he had gone near his injured brother and tried to know as to who were his assailants, whereupon his injured brother had replied that the respondents had caused injuries to him, could not be effectively challenged during cross-examination of the witness nor could it be brought on record that because of the nature of the injuries received by `B' he would not have survived even for few minutes and must have died immediately on the receipt of the injuries. [Para 16] 7.1 The High Court acquitted the respondents who were charged for commission of six murders in a casual and slipshod manner. The approach of the High Court in appreciating the evidence is not only contrary to the well settled principles of appreciation of evidence but quite contrary to the ground realities of life. The High Court recorded reasons for acquittal of the respondents which are not borne out from the record and quite contrary to the evidences adduced by the reliable eye-witnesses. The High Court was not justified in upsetting the well reasoned conviction of the respondents recorded by the trial court which after observing demur of the eye-witnesses had placed reliance on their testimony. The High Court did not take into consideration the full text of the evidence adduced by the witnesses and picked up sentences here and there from the testimony of the witnesses. [Para 17] 7.2 There is no manner of doubt that killing six persons and wiping almost the whole family on flimsy ground of honour saving of the family would fall within the rarest of rare case and, therefore, the trial court was perfectly justified in imposing capital punishment on the respondents. However, the incident had roughly taken place before 20 years, i.e., on August 10/11, 1991. The High Court had acquitted the respondents by judgment dated April 12, 2002. After April 12, 2002 till this date, nothing adverse against any of the respondents is reported to this Court. To sentence the respondents to death after their acquittal in the year 2002 would not be justified on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. [Para 19] 7.3 The judgment passed by the High Court, acquitting the respondents of the offences punishable u/s. 302/34 IPC is set aside. The judgment of the trial court convicting each of the respondents u/s. 302/34 IPC is restored and each respondent is convicted u/s. 302/34 IPC. For the commission of offence punishable u/s. 302/34 IPC, each respondent is sentenced to RI for life and fine of Rs.25,000/- each, in default, RI for two years. Out of the amount of fine, if paid, a sum of Rs.50,000/- be paid to PW2, as compensation in view of the provisions of s. 357 Cr.P.C. [Para 20] Case Law Refence: AIR 1988 SC 1998 Referred to. Para 10 AIR 2003 SC 4140 Referred to. Para 15 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1180 of 2004. From the Judgment & Order dated 12.04.2002 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 574 of 2001. Ratnakar Dass, Shekhar Raj Sharma, Chandra Prakash Pandey for the Appellant