(79) 132/­ S.C.No.463/2009 (Judgment) Advocate Shri Ghanekar and Advocate Shri Barlota on behalf of both the accused, have submitted to take lenient view looking towards the first offence of accused Pradip & Ram Bodkhe. 133/­ As against this, APP Shri Mugadiya has submitted that accused No.1 Jawed is not entitled for any leniency in the light of the acts committed by him. He has submitted that this can be termed as the rarest of the rare case to impose capital punishment. Hence he has prayed to impose capital punishment to accused Javed for for an offence under Section 302 IPC. The learned APP Shri Mugadiya has specifically relied on the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “ Bantu v. The State of U.P., reported in 2008(5) Supreme, 596”. Learned APP has further relied on the ratio laid down in the case of “State of Maharashtra v.Shivaji @ Dadyashankar Alhat reported in, 2004(3) B.Cr.C, 519”. Thus, lastly APP Shri Mugadiya has submitted to impose capital punishment to the accused Jawed for an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. 134/­ I have considered those submissions. I have also perused the ratios on which learned APP Shri Mugadiya has placed his reliance. Certainly it is clear that