1977 (4) TMI 181 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court modifies death penalty to life imprisonment in murder case, emphasizing personalized sentencing

The Supreme Court addressed a challenge to the sentence in a murder case, focusing on personalized sentencing under Section 235 of the Criminal Procedure ... - Issues:Challenge to the sentence imposed in a murder case.Analysis:In this judgment, the Supreme Court addressed the challenge to the sentence imposed in a murder case. The appellant had been convicted of murder, with one accused receiving life imprisonment and the appellant being sentenced to death by the Sessions Court, a decision upheld by the High Court. The appeal focused solely on the question of the sentence imposed. The Court discussed Section 235 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, which allows for personalized sentencing based on individual circumstances. It emphasized the importance of considering personal, social, and other factors while determining the appropriate sentence, especially in cases of conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.The Court noted that the appellant was not given an opportunity under Section 235(2) of the Cr.P.C. to present reasons why a lesser sentence should be imposed. However, this failure did not impact the conviction but was relevant only to the sentencing. Referring to the Santa Singh v. State of Punjab case, the Court highlighted that the hearing under Section 235(2) should involve presenting facts and materials relevant to the sentencing decision. While the Court could have sent the case back to the Sessions Court for compliance, it opted to allow both parties to rely on the existing record for sentencing considerations, avoiding unnecessary delays and expenses.After considering the facts of the case, including the circumstances surrounding the murder and the absence of a clear motive for the appellant's actions, the Court concluded that life imprisonment would be a more just and appropriate sentence than the death penalty. The Court observed that the death sentence should be reserved for cases with aggravating factors and where the crime is particularly brutal or depraved. Given the lack of a compelling reason to impose the death penalty in this case, the Court directed that the sentence of life imprisonment be substituted for the death sentence originally imposed by the Trial Court and upheld by the High Court. The appeal was allowed to this extent, with another appeal being dismissed as not pressed.