- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Decided
- 11 November 1980
- Bench
- Y. V. Chandrachud, A. C. Gupta
- Result
- Code is upheld by this Court, the Government
Headnote
Indian Penal Code 1860 (45 of 1860) S. 302 & Criminal Procedure Code 1973 (2 of 1973) S. 354(3)-Murder-Norma/ sentence-Life /mprisonment-Death Sen'tence-ln extreme cases.
The prosecution alleged that the appellant committed the murder. of a young boy. Both the Sessions Court and the High Court imposed death sentence upon the appellant and gave· "special reasons" for doing so. ·
Dismissing the appeal, this Court on the question of sentence.
HELD : I. The death sentence imposed upon the appellant is set aside. The ends of justice will be met by sentencing the appellant to suffer imprison-ment for life. [1270 DJ
· Iri the instant case though the murder of the young boy by the appellant has to be deprecated strongly, the murder was the result of a land dispute between the deceased's father and certain other persons. The appellant is not a habitual criminaL The circumstances which led to the crime are not likely "to recur. The crime had not been .committed for any personal gain. This is therefore not a proper case for imposing the death sente,nce. [1270 C]
2. Since, the appellant had committed a very serious crime, the Government will n.ot, save for weighty reasons, reduce or commute the, sentence to less than fourt<ien years. [1270 EJ
3. The rule that the normal sentence for the offence of murder is life imprisonment should be observed both in letter and spirit. The death sentence should be imposed in very extreme and, rare cases. [li70 BJ
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab,. A.I.R. 1980 S. C. 898; referred to.
Headnote as published in the Digital Supreme Court Reports by the Supreme Court of India. Paragraph references point to the judgment below.
Judgment
CHANDRACHUD, c. J.-Heard counsel. Special leave granted.
It is true that both the Sessions Court and the High Court have given "special reasons" for imposing death sentence upon the appellant. We have carefully considered every one· of those special reasons but ·we are unable to agree that this is a proper case for imposing the death sentence. We have held recently in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab( 1 ) that the rule that the normal sentence for the offence of murder is life imprisonment should be observed both in letter and in spirit. We had therefore to emphasise in that caS'e that the death sentence should be imposed in very extreme cases.
The appellant committed the murder of a young boy which has to be deprecated as strongly as one may but it appears that there ---,_/ was a land dispute, between the deceased's father and certain other persons, which led to the murder of the unfortiunate young boy. The appellant is not a habitual criminal, ~he circumstances which led to the crime are not likely to recur and the appellant has not committed the crime for any personal gain. On the whole we are of the opinion that the ends of justice will be met by sentencing the appellant to suffer imprisonment for life.
We do hope that even if the validity of section 433 A of the
will not, save for weighty reasons, reduce or commute the sentence of the appellant to less than fourteen years, since unquestionably, he has committed a very serious crime.
Accordingly, we set aside the death sentence imposed upon the appellant and instead, impose the sentence of life imp,risonment on him. With this modification the appeal is dismissed.
-N.V.K. Appeal dismissed.
Case details
Arising from
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION.: Criminal Appeal No. 743 of 1980. '
(Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and Order dated 27-3-1979 of the High Court of Kamataka in Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 1978.) ·
Appearances
S. K. Bisaria and Amicus Curiae for the· Appella'nt.
N. NeNar for the Respondent.
Source: Supreme Court of India, Digital Supreme Court Reports, via the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open dataset (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.