30. We have scrutinized the aforesaid reports submitted to this court. We find that the present case would not fall in the category of “rarest of rare cases” wherein it can be held that imposition of death penalty is the only alternative. We are of the considered opinion that the present case would fall in the category of middle path as held by this court in various judgments of this court12. 31. In the instant case, it is to be noted that appellant hails from a poor nomadic community in Maharashtra. He had an alcoholic father and suffered parental neglect and poverty. He dropped out of school when he was 10 years old and was forced to start working to support his family, doing odd jobs. All efforts put by the appellant to bring his family out of poverty did not yield desired results. Neither the appellant nor any of his family members have any criminal antecedent. It cannot be presumed that appellant is a hardened criminal who cannot be reformed. Hence, it cannot be said that there is no possibility of reformation, even though the appellant has committed a gruesome crime. 32. The appellant was aged about 38 years at the time of commission of the crime. He has no criminal antecedents and there are various other 12 Swamy Shraddananda (2) v. State of Karnataka, (2008) 13 SCC 767; Shankar Kisanrao Khade v. State of Maharasthra, (2013) 5 SCC 546; Gandi Doddabasappa alias Gandhi Basavaraj v. State of Karnataka, (2017) 5 SCC 415; Prakash Dhawal Khairnar (Patil) v. State of Maharastra, (2002) 2 SCC 35, Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2013) 3 SCC 294; Madan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 SCC Online SC 1473 21