97 with the above rule, and furnish the list of statements, documents, material objects and exhibits which are not relied upon by the investigating officer. The presiding officers of courts in criminal trials shall ensure compliance with such rules. On Sentence 180. The hearing of this case was adjourned for sentencing on a subsequent date, before which the learned counsels submitted material regarding the lives of the accused – both before the incident and post-conviction by the trial court, jail reports and other material called for by this court were received from the State, and written submissions were filed by both sides. 181. In the course of arguments, the learned AAG maintained that there were no mitigating circumstances and the cruelty evident from the nature of the crime, warrants nothing less than the capital punishment, which according to it was correctly imposed, concurrently. It was submitted that it is in cases like the present one, where the “rarest of rare” doctrine needs to be invoked as a deterrent. 182. On the other hand the counsels for the accused laid emphasis on the fact that neither of the courts below had even considered the possibility of reform of the accused who were all of young age and barring Manoj (who had been involved in a petty offence in the past) the others did not have any criminal antecedents. Counsel also argued that an overall look at the circumstances, at best, could lead the court to conclude that the extensive injuries inflicted upon the deceased were in all probability on account of the plans of the accused going awry, upon their encountering the victims’ resistance. It was submitted besides that the potential of each convict to be reformed – both having regard to their previous backgrounds, as well as conduct in jail during pendency of trial and confirmation, was not considered. This amounted to an infraction of the rule in