presented to prove that the commission of the offence was preplanned. As submitted by the counsel for the appellant, there is no material shown by the State to indicate that the appellant cannot be reformed and is a continuing threat to the society. On the contrary, it can be seen from the Death Sentence Prisoner Nominal Roll dated 17th July 2017 issued by the Chief Superintendent, Central Prison, Belgaum, that the conduct of the appellant in jail has been ‘satisfactory’. We would consider the appellant’s conduct in prison as expiation for his past deeds, also reflecting his desire to reform and take a humane turn. Furthermore, the young age of the appellant at the time of commission of the offence (23 / 25 years),8 his weak socioeconomic background,9 absence of any criminal antecedents,10 non pre-meditated nature of the crime,11 and the fact that he has spent nearly 10 years 10 months in prison have weighed with us as other extenuating factors, which add up against imposition of death penalty which is to be inflicted only in rarest of the rare cases. The respondent State has not shown anything to prove the likelihood that the appellant would commit acts of violence as a continuing threat to society; per contra, his conduct in the prison 8 Purushottam Dashrath Borate v. State of Maharashtra, (2015) 6 SCC 652 9 Mulla v. State of U.P., (2010) 3 SCC 508 10 11 Purushottam Dashrath Borate v. State of Maharashtra, (2015) 6 SCC 652 Mohan v. State of T.N., (1998) 5 SCC 336; Akhtar v. State of UP, (1999) 6 SCC 60 Criminal Appeal Nos. 1473-1474 of 2017 Page 28 of 30