eschewed while sentencing a convict found guilty of a grave or brutal crime. On the facts of the present case, we find that there was no material whatsoever to come to the conclusion that the gravity of the crime caused revulsion in the society or that it had materially disturbed normal life in the society. Consequently, the view expressed by the learned Trial Judge in this regard must be disregarded for the purposes of imposing an appropriate sentence on the appellant. Conclusion 28. On an overall consideration of the facts of the case from the point of view of the crime and the criminal, we are of opinion that even though the case may be one of circumstantial evidence, it is now well settled that that by itself is not enough to convert a sentence of death into a sentence of imprisonment for life. We have held so in Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik and do not feel the necessity of repeating what has already been said. 29. We are also of opinion that all the courts including this Court overlooked consideration of the probability of reform or rehabilitation and social reintegration of the appellant into society. There is no meaningful discussion on why, if at all, the appellant could not be reformed or rehabilitated. 30. The Trial Court was in error proceeding on the basis, while awarding a sentence of death to the appellant by observing that he was a hardened R.P. (Crl.) No.245 of 2010 in Crl. Appeal No. 811 of 2009 Page 17 of 19