mitigating circumstances existing in his favour as per the reports which we have discussed above. The medical reports of the appellant would disclose that he has speech issues, and he has undergone an angioplasty in 2014, apart from suffering other serious ailments, as already noted herein above. The conduct report from the prison would disclose that the behaviour of the appellant in the jail is satisfactory with everyone for the past six years. Considering these factors, we are of the considered view that even though the crime committed by the appellant is unquestionably grave and unpardonable, it is not appropriate to affirm the death sentence that was awarded to him. The doctrine of “rarest of rare” requires that death sentence should not be imposed only by taking into consideration the grave nature of crime but only if there is no possibility of reformation by a criminal. Being conscious of the fact that sentence of life imprisonment is subject to remission, which would not be appropriate in view of the gruesome crime committed by the appellant, the course of middle path requires to be adopted in the instant case. In that view of the matter, we find that the death penalty needs to be converted to a fixed sentence during which period the appellant would not be entitled to apply for remission. 33. The appeal is therefore, partly allowed. The order of conviction as recorded by the Trial Court and confirmed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay vide order dated 06/08/2019 in Confirmation Case No.3/2017 is 22