there was sub-category (d) like murders committed with premeditation and with exceptional violence or perversity. This category is given to the petitioner and as already mentioned the new category 4 (e) is given. If the two categories are compared with each other, it can be said that in the present category 4(e) if murder is committed by group of persons, then this category is available and for sub-category (e) of category 4 new Guidelines as alreday quoted it needs to be shown that the murders are committed with exceptional violence/brutality/kidnapping. In the present matter, it cannot be said that there was exceptional violence. The reason for the quarrel is quoted as the previous quarrel. Due number of injuries found on the dead bodies, it cannot be inferred that it was exceptional violence. Further, so many persons were involved in the incident and incident took place in the night time and so, as against the present petitioner, in view of nature of allegations made against him, it cannot be said that he used exceptional violence. This Court holds that he is entitled to category 4(d) of the Guidelines of 2010. It is not disputed that as per the ratio laid down in the case reported as AIR 2010 SC 1690 [State of Haryana Vs. Jagdish], the category which is favourable to the prisoner needs to be used. If the categories of the years 1992 and 2010 are compared, then it can be said that category 4(d) of the new guidelines of 2010 is favourable to the petitioner and so, it needs to be used. The learned counsel for
