1974 JTR(SC) 447
1975 AIR(SC) 762 ; 1975 CriLR 130 ; 1975 CriLR 131 ; 1975 CrLJ 646 ; 1976 MLJ(Cri) 113 ; 1975 1 SCC 318 ; 1975 SCC(Cri) 98 ; 1975 2 SCJ 394 ; 1975 1 SCWR 58 ; 1975 UJ 136 ; 1975 KHC 883
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.K. MATHEW, P.N. BHAGWATI AND N.L. UNTWALIA, JJ.
Namu Ram Bora, Appellant
Versus
The State of Assam and Nagaland, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No.144 of 1974,
D/-20-12-1974.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Gautam Goswami, Advocate, amicus curiae, for Appellant; Mr. S. K. Nandy, Advocate, for Respondent.
Act
Referred
:CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.342
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.302
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 302 - Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 - Section 342 – Offence of Murder – Appeal Against conviction - Appellant committed triple murder of his wife and two minor daughters - He was tried and convicted under Section 302 of Penal Code by Trial Judge - He sentenced appellant to death- reference for confirmation of death sentence and criminal appeal of convict were heard together by Assam High Court - High Court confirmed conviction and sentence – Held, Court have come to conclusion that there was no particular motive for appellant to commit ghastly crime - He said that he was suffering from mental disorder since after he suffered a dog bite and committed murder in such a state of mind - His claim to that extent may be correct or not but we think that triple murder was committed by appellant as a result of some mental imbalance - It was not a pre-planned ghastly act of a criminal - Case lead to conclusion that in a certain stage of imbalance of mind he committed crime - He therefore does not deserve extreme penalty of death - Due to special circumstances a lenient view is warranted in his case – Appeal allowed
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 302 - Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 - Section 342 – Offence of Murder – Appeal Against conviction - Appellant committed triple murder of his wife and two minor daughters - He was tried and convicted under Section 302 of Penal Code by Trial Judge - He sentenced appellant to death- reference for confirmation of death sentence and criminal appeal of convict were heard together by Assam High Court - High Court confirmed conviction and sentence – Held, Court have come to conclusion that there was no particular motive for appellant to commit ghastly crime - He said that he was suffering from mental disorder since after he suffered a dog bite and committed murder in such a state of mind - His claim to that extent may be correct or not but we think that triple murder was committed by appellant as a result of some mental imbalance - It was not a pre-planned ghastly act of a criminal - Case lead to conclusion that in a certain stage of imbalance of mind he committed crime - He therefore does not deserve extreme penalty of death - Due to special circumstances a lenient view is warranted in his case – Appeal allowed
GAUTAM GOSVAMI, S.K.NANDY
Judgment
UNTWALIA, J.:- The appellant committed the triple murder of his wife and two minor daughters. He was tried and convicted under Section 302 of the Penal Code by the Trial Judge. He sentenced the appellant to death. The reference for confirmation of the death sentence and the criminal appeal of the convict were heard together by the Assam High Court. The High Court confirmed the conviction and the sentence. Special leave was granted by this Court limited to the question of sentence only.
2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the judgments of the two Courts below and specially in view of the confessional statement made by the appellant when he was examined under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, we have come to the conclusion that there was no particular motive for the appellant to commit the ghastly crime. He said that he was suffering from mental disorder since after he suffered a dog bite and committed the murder in such a state of mind. His claim to that extent may be correct or not but we think that the triple murder was committed by the appellant as a result of some mental imbalance. It was not a pre-planned ghastly act of a criminal. The facts and circumstances of the case lead to the conclusion that in a certain stage of imbalance of mind he committed the crime. He, therefore, does not deserve the extreme penalty of death. Due to the special circumstances, a lenient view is warranted in his case. We, therefore, allow the appeal on the question of sentence only and commute his death sentence to one for imprisonment for life.
Sentence reduced.
For Citation : AIR 1975 SC 762
Vikas Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd.