121 three generations. No doubt, two of the victims appear to have put up resistance, if one looks at the stab wounds inflicted all over their bodies, including on their arms and faces. Yet, they were unarmed and weak. 225. At the same time, the young age of the accused at the time of the incident (35, 20, 22 respectively) and lack of criminal antecedents (except in the case of Manoj, who was allegedly involved in a case of petty theft) cannot be lost sight of. Further, the prosecution case is silent on any real motive that may have instigated or moved the three accused to have pre-planned for the commission of murder – other than robbery, itself. This coupled with the fact that Rahul was shot in his leg during the commission of the crime, indicates that perhaps it is reasonable to assume that they were amateurs in a robbing-gone-wrong situation, who were not intent on taking the lives of these three women. One can surmise that having ventured to rob, perhaps they did not contemplate the kind of resistance that was put up by the victims, which led them to act the way they did, to continue with their plan, and ensure that the victims did not survive to tell the tale. 226. The reports received from the Superintendent of Jail reflect that each of the three accused, have a record of overall good conduct in prison and display inclination to reform. It is evident that they have already, while in prison, taken steps towards bettering their lives and of those around them, which coupled with their young age122 unequivocally demonstrates that there is in fact, a probability of reform. On consideration of all the circumstances overall, we find that the option of life imprisonment is certainly not foreclosed. 227. While there is no doubt that this case captured the attention and indignation of the society in Indore, and perhaps the state of Madhya Pradesh, 122Gurvail Singh & Anr v. State of Punjab (2013) 2 SCC 713 (para 13, 19); Amit v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2012) 4 SCC 107 (para 22); Shyam Singh @ Bhima v. State of Maharashtra (2017) 11 SCC 265 (para 8) and Ramnaresh & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh (2012) 4 SCC 257 (para 88).