case of prosecution that said string could have caused the ligature mark found around the neck of the deceased. 7.9 It is further submitted that the cause of injury nos.2 to 4 i.e. curvilinear scratches on the deceased's face and nose bridge is not proved by the prosecution. 7.10 It is submitted that multiple investigative errors are committed by the prosecution which casts a serious doubt on the entire prosecution case. 7.11 In the background of aforesaid submissions, learned counsel has prayed for appeal being allowed and appellant being acquitted for the offences for which he was tried. In the alternative, it is prayed to convert the death sentence into life imprisonment, by contending that both Courts have failed to consider the mitigating circumstances in proper perspective. 8. On the contrary, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent, Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari would support the case of the prosecution and contend that both the courts on proper evaluation of evidence have rightly arrived at a conclusion that appellant had committed the offences alleged and both the courts have rightly awarded the death sentence. 8.1 It is submitted that impugned judgement and order of the High Court is well reasoned and has been passed after considering the entire facts and 8