Partly allowed¶31

Srirangan v. State of Tamil Nadu

Supreme Court30 Nov 19771977 INSC 225 · [1978] 2 S.C.R. 2701977 INSC 225

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Triple murder; sentencing discretion between death penalty and life imprisonment; s. 302 I.P.C. read with s. 354(3) Cr. P.C. 1973; plea of insanity under s. 84 I.P.C.; McNaughten rule; commutation of death sentence; Nanu Ram v. State of Assam AIR 1975 SC 762 followed; amicus curiae V. Mayakrishnan for appellant, A. V. Rangam for respondent; Criminal Appeal No. 470 of 1977; appeal by special leave from Madras High Court judgment and order dated 20-4-1976 in Criminal Appeal No. 708/75 and Referred Trial No. 391/75; Krishna Iyer, J.; decision dated November 30, 1977.

What did the court decide?

Conviction maintained; death sentence commuted to imprisonment for life under s. 302 I.P.C.; appeal disposed of accordingly. ¶31

Srirangan versus State of Tamil Nadu — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Supreme Court (1978)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Conviction maintained; death sentence commuted to imprisonment for life under s. 302 I.P.C.; appeal disposed of accordingly.

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether, the conviction standing, the appellant should be sentenced to death or to imprisonment for life, special leave having been confined to the question of sentence. +1 more

¶22

Court's answer

In the choice between life term and death penalty under s. 302 I.P.C. read with s. 354(3) Cr. P.C., 1973, a wide spectrum of circumstances implied in the provisions attracts judicial attention, and the plurality of factors bearing on the crime and the doer of the crime must carefully enter the judicial verdict.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

Notwithstanding the winds of penological reform, the prescription in s. 302 I.P.C. binds and death penalty remains permissible in the punitive scheme of India.

¶29

Key takeaways

On the clement facts of the instant case, personal, social and other, and even as in Nanu Ram v. State of Assam (followed), the lesser penalty of life imprisonment is the more appropriate punishment for the appellant.ratio¶29
The conviction for murder is confirmed: no error was discovered in the factual findings, the defence of insanity having been rightly dismissed as falling far short of the prescription in section 84 I.P.C.ratio¶22
The death sentence is set aside and imprisonment for life is awarded to the appellant under s. 302 I.P.C., the appeal being disposed of accordingly.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Sentence — choice between death penalty and life imprisonment under s. 302 I.P.C. read with s. 354(3), Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The appellant, a young toddy tapper described as a mental case, was convicted of triple murder; his plea of insanity failed, the testimony of dementia falling far short of the prescription in section 84 I.P.C., and the appeal before the Madras High Court having failed, special leave was granted confined to the question of sentence. HELD, confirming the conviction: in the choice between life term and death penalty a wide spectrum of circumstances implied in s. 302 I.P.C. read with s. 354(3) Cr. P.C. must attract judicial attention, and 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, death penalty remains permissible. Even so, on the clement facts here, and even as in Nanu Ram v. State of Assam, AIR 1975 SC 762 (followed), the lesser penalty of life imprisonment is the more appropriate punishment. Death sentence set aside; imprisonment for life awarded; appeal disposed of accordingly.

270

SR IRAN GAN

STAIB OF TAMIL NADU

November 30, 1977

[V. R. KRISHNA !YER, N. L. UNTWALIA AND P. S. KAILASAM, JJ.]

¶9

¶10

¶11

Sentence-Choice between life term and death penalty in awardiJJR sentence-Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Act II of 1974). Section 354(3), scope of. , Tbe appellant young in age and a mental case was prosecuted, convicted and sentenced to death for the offence of triple murders, since the testimony of dementia fell far short of the prescription in s. 84, I.P.C. The appeal before the High Court having failed, this Court granted Special leave confined to the question of sentence. Maintaining the conviction but modifying the death sentence to one of life imprisonment, the court, HELD : In this agonisingly sensitive area of sentencing, especially in the choice between life term and death penalty, a wide spectrum of circumstances attract judicial attention since they are all inarticulately implied in the penolo· gical part of s. 302, I.P.C., read withs. 254(3) Cr. P.C., 1973. 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.

¶12

Maintaining the conviction but modifying the death sentence to one of life imprisonment, the court,

¶13

In the instant case the lesser penalty of life imprisonment will be a more. appropriate punishment. [271 A-Cl

¶14

¶15

Nanu Ram v. State of Assam, A.l.R. 1975 S.C. 762 followed.

¶16

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 470 of 1977.

¶17

Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 20-4-1976 of the Madras High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 708/75· and Referred Trial No. 39175.

¶18

¶19

V. Mayakrishnan, amicus curiae for the Appellant.

¶20

A. V. Rangam for the Respondent.

¶21

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

¶22

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 G in state, was provoked by some trivias and went into tantrums and inflicted triple killings, all in one sombre sunset. Th;s bleeding tragedy Jed to prosecution and conviction, appeal and contlnnation, the unimpeachable offence being murder. The defence of insanity tested by the hoary rule in McNaghten's 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 section 84 I.P.C. We H 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.

¶23

¶24

SRIRANGAN v. TAMIL NADU (Krishna Iyer, !.)

271

•

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.

¶29

In the agonisingly sensitive area of sentencing, especially in the -choice between life term and death penalty, a wide spectrum of cir- · B cumstances attracts judicial attention, since they are all inarticulately implied in the penological part of s. 302 1.P.C. read with s. 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 the relevant catena of C clement facts, personal, social and other, persuade us to hold that, even as in Nanu Ram v. State of Assam (A.LR. 1975 S.C. 762), the lesser penalty of life imprisonment will be a more appropriate punishment here.

¶30

¶31

We set aside the death sentence and award imprisonment for life io the appellant under s. 302 l.P.C. The appeal is disposed of D .accordingly.

¶32

Sentence reduced.

¶33

Srirangan v. State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Srirangan v. State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T. Arivandandam versus T. v. Satyapal & Another

State of Punjab versus M/S. Geeta Iron & Brass Works Ltd.

B. Shah versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore & Ors.

Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Products Ltd. versus the Employees Insurance Court & Anr.

Gudikanti Narasimhulu and Ors. versus Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh

Chandu Naik & Ors. versus Sita Ram B. Naik & Anr.