1977 JTR(SC) 346
1978 AIR(SC) 274 ; 1978 CriLR 136 ; 1978 CrLJ 186 ; 1978 KLT(SN) 2 1 ; 1978 2 MLJ 10 ; 1978 MLJ(Cri) 723 ; 1978 1 SCC 17 ; 1978 SCC(Cri) 31 ; 1978 2 SCJ 631 ; 1978 2 SCR 270 ; 1977 UJ 796 ; 1978 KHC 230
`SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V.R. KRISHNA IYER, N.L. UNTWALIA AND P.S. KAILASAM, JJ.
Srirangan, Appellant
Versus
State of T.N., Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 470 of 1977
Decided on 30-11-1977.
Advocates appeared
Mr. V. Mayakrishnan, Advocate, for Appellant; Mr. A. V. Rangam, Advocate, for Respondent.
Indian Penal Code - S. 302/84 - Award imprisonment – Offence of murder – Injury - A toddy tapper young in age and a mental case returning after a day-long toil with his tool, the sickle, and tense in state was provoked by some trivia and went into tantrums and inflicted triple killings, all in one somber sunset - This bleeding tragedy led to prosecution and conviction appeal and confirmation unimpeachable offence being murder - Defense of insanity tested by hoary rule in McNaughton’s case, codified in Indian Penal Code over hundred years ago, was rightly dismissed, the testimony of dementia falling far short of the prescription in Sec. 84, I.P.C – Court have discovered no error in the factual finding and must therefore confirm conviction - Indeed leave itself was granted confined to the question of sentence – Held, Trial Judge, whose horror at the multiple homicide unsheathed the terror of death penalty, decreed capital sentence on the culprit, and the High Court, deeply disturbed by brutal triple murder set its seal of approval on guilt and punishment - In agonizingly sensitive area of sentencing, especially in the choice between life term and death penalty, a wide spectrum of circumstances attracts judicial attention, since they are all inarticulately implied in enological part of Section 302, I.P.C. read with Section 354 plurality of factors bearing on the crime and the doer of the crime must carefully enter the judicial verdict - Winds of reform notwithstanding, the prescription in S. 302 binds and death penalty is still permissible in the punitive pharmacopoeia of India Even so current of precedents and relevant catena of clement facts, personal, social and other, persuade us to hold that, even as in State of Assam lesser penalty of life imprisonment will be a more appropriate punishment here - Appeal is disposed of
Indian Penal Code - S. 302/84 - Award imprisonment – Offence of murder – Injury - A toddy tapper young in age and a mental case returning after a day-long toil with his tool, the sickle, and tense in state was provoked by some trivia and went into tantrums and inflicted triple killings, all in one somber sunset - This bleeding tragedy led to prosecution and conviction appeal and confirmation unimpeachable offence being murder - Defense of insanity tested by hoary rule in McNaughton’s case, codified in Indian Penal Code over hundred years ago, was rightly dismissed, the testimony of dementia falling far short of the prescription in Sec. 84, I.P.C – Court have discovered no error in the factual finding and must therefore confirm conviction - Indeed leave itself was granted confined to the question of sentence – Held, Trial Judge, whose horror at the multiple homicide unsheathed the terror of death penalty, decreed capital sentence on the culprit, and the High Court, deeply disturbed by brutal triple murder set its seal of approval on guilt and punishment - In agonizingly sensitive area of sentencing, especially in the choice between life term and death penalty, a wide spectrum of circumstances attracts judicial attention, since they are all inarticulately implied in enological part of Section 302, I.P.C. read with Section 354 plurality of factors bearing on the crime and the doer of the crime must carefully enter the judicial verdict - Winds of reform notwithstanding, the prescription in S. 302 binds and death penalty is still permissible in the punitive pharmacopoeia of India Even so current of precedents and relevant catena of clement facts, personal, social and other, persuade us to hold that, even as in State of Assam lesser penalty of life imprisonment will be a more appropriate punishment here - Appeal is disposed of
A.V.RANGAM, V.MAYA KRISHNAN
JUDGMENT
KRISHNA IYER, J.:—A toddy tapper, young in age and a mental case, returning after a day-long toil with his tool, the sickle, and tense in state was provoked by some trivia and went into tantrums and inflicted triple killings, all in one sombre sunset. This bleeding tragedy led to prosecution and conviction, appeal and confirmation, the unimpeachable offence being murder. The defence of insanity tested by the hoary rule in McNaghtens case, codified in the Indian Penal Code over hundred years ago, was rightly dismissed, the testimony of dementia falling far short of the prescription in Sec. 84, I.P.C. We have discovered no error in the factual finding and must therefore confirm the conviction. Indeed, leave itself was granted confined to the question of sentence.
2. The trial Judge, whose horror at the multiple homicide unsheathed the terror of death penalty, decreed capital sentence on the culprit, and the High Court, deeply disturbed by "the brutal triple murder", set its seal of approval on guilt and punishment.
3. In the agonisingly sensitive area of sentencing, especially in the choice between life term and death penalty, a wide spectrum of circumstances attracts judicial attention, since they are all inarticulately implied in the penological part of Section 302, I.P.C. read with Section 354 (3), Cr. P. C. The plurality of factors bearing on the crime and the doer of the crime must carefully enter the judicial verdict. The winds of penological reform notwithstanding, the prescription in S. 302 binds and death penalty is still permissible in the punitive pharmacopoeia of India, Even so, the current of precedents and relevant catena of clement facts, personal, social and other, persuade us to hold that, even as in Namu Ram v. State of Assam (AIR 1975 SC 762), the lesser penalty of life imprisonment will be a more appropriate punishment here.
4. We set aside the death sentence and award imprisonment for life to the appellant under S. 302, I. P. C. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Sentence reduced.
For Citation : AIR 1978 SC 275