petitioner separately on sentencing. He has also submitted that the High Court failed to call for mitigating circumstances, that there were no aggravating circumstances, that the case does not fall into the category of ‘rarest of the rare’, that the appellant was only 25 years old who could be reformed and rehabilitated and is not likely to be a menace to the society, that the appellant has undergone a lengthy period in custody, that there is no material to suggest that the option of awarding life sentence was unquestionably foreclosed, and that death sentence should ordinarily be awarded when there is no other alternative left. In addition to the aforesaid, counsel for the appellant has also listed mitigating factors for commutation of death sentence to life imprisonment as under: “1) The murder was not committed in pre-planned manner. Though rape on a child of 5 years is itself a grave crime, the manner of the committing the crime cannot be said to be gruesome or diabolical. 2) There is no material led by the prosecution to show that the accused cannot be reformed. The State has not brought material to show that the accused is a continuing threat to society and the option of imposing life sentence is unquestionably foreclosed. 3) Young age of the accused is a mitigating factor. 4) Lack of criminal antecedent is a mitigating factor. 5) Conduct in jail has to be considered. 6) Social economic back ground has not been considered, including poverty and lack of education. Criminal Appeal Nos. 1473-1474 of 2017 Page 22 of 30