As regards the sentence, motive for the appellant to commit the murder of three persons has not been established. There is also no eyewitness to the manner in which the appellant committed the murder of three persons and the culpability of the appellant has been established only by a chain of three circumstances established by the prosecution. The finding of the High Court, therefore, that either ?R? or ?S? had to undergo the trauma of watching the father or the son being killed first in front of the other is a pure surmise. What exactly happened leading to the murder of three persons by the appellant is not known, but what appears from the post mortem reports is that the three deceased persons were brutally killed by the appellant. Brutality would be a relevant factor, but how the same did take place is also a relevant and necessary material to be considered while deciding whether to award life imprisonment or death for the offence of murder. As has been held in Bachan Singh's case, the extreme penalty of death can be inflicted only in gravest cases of extreme culpability and in making choice of the sentence, in addition to the circumstances of the offence, due regard must be paid to the circumstances of the offender also. In the instant case, there is no evidence to establish the gravest case of extreme culpability of the appellant and there is also no evidence to establish the circumstances of the appellant. [Para 22-23] Panchhi AND OTHERS v. State of U. P. 1998 (1) Suppl. SCR 40 = AIR 1998 SC 2726