respondent should accordingly be sentenced imprisonment for life.” (Emphasis supplied by us). 20. to suffer In Surendra Pal Shivbalakpal v. State of Gujarat6 this Court considered the socio-economic condition of the appellant therein, namely that he was a migrant labourer and was living in impecunious circumstances and therefore it could not be said that he would be a menace to society in future. The sentence of death was converted into one of imprisonment for life. This is what this Court said in paragraph 13 of the Report: “…..The appellant was aged 36 years at the time of the occurrence and there is no evidence that the appellant had been involved in any other criminal case previously and the appellant was a migrant labourer from U.P. and was living in impecunious circumstances and it cannot be said that he would be a menace to society in future and no materials are placed before us to draw such a conclusion. We do not think that the death penalty was warranted in this case…...” 21. Similarly, in Sushil Kumar v. State of Punjab7 the poverty of the convict was taken into consideration as a factor for sentencing. This Court in paragraph 46 of the Report held as follows: “Extreme poverty had driven the appellant to commit the gruesome murder of three of his very near and dear family members – his wife, minor son and daughter. There is nothing on record to show that appellant is a habitual offender. He appears to be a peace-loving, law abiding citizen but as he was povertystricken, he thought in his wisdom to completely eliminate his family so that all problems would come to an end. Precisely, this appears to be the reason for him to consume some poisonous substances, after committing the offence of murder.” (Emphasis supplied by us). 6 7 (2005) 3 SCC 127 (2009) 10 SCC 434 R.P. (Crl.) No.245 of 2010 in Crl. Appeal No. 811 of 2009 Page 12 of 19