ANSHAD AND ORS. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [1994] 3 S.C.R. 642 · Decided: 22-04-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND, FAIZAN UDDIN

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
ANSHAD AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA 
APRIL 22, 1994 
B 
[DR. AS. ANAND AND FAIZAN UDDIN, JJ.] 
Criminal Procedure Code 1973-S.354(3)-Death sentence-Death by 
strangulation of two persons while committing robbery, and causing injuries 
to others-High Court referring to the aggravating circumstances and to the 
c decisions of this Court and abrnptly concluding that sentence of death be 
imposed-Held, before awarding death sentence, while court should take into 
account aggravating circumstances, it should not ignore the mitigating cir-
cumstances-Death sentence, being exception to general role, to be awarded 
in 
11rarest of rare
11 cases Jo~ '
1special reasons!! after balancing aggravating and 
D mitigating circumstances-Considering mitigating circumstances, death sen-
tence awarded by High Court reduced to life imprisonmen~enal Code, 
1860, Ss. 302/34, 394/34 and 379134 
Sentence-Death Sentence-Sessions Court awarding life imprison-
ment-High Court enhancing punishment to award sentence of death-Held, 
E High Court has power to enhance sentence of life imprisonment to death, but 
that power has to be sparingly used-Enhancement of sentenc,,_prjnciples 
indicated. 
Penal Code, 186{}-S.411 and Ss. 449, 396, 307 and 395-0n facts, the 
only circumstance proved against two accused being the recovery of articles 
F belonging co deceased from their possession-Charge converted to one under 
S.411-Sentence reduced to period undergone-Criminal Triaf-Conversion 
of charge-Evidence Act, 1872, S.27. 
Criminal Trial-Modification of charge-Penal Code, 186{}-S.396-
G Held, where two of five accused acquitted, conviction under s.396 cannot 
stand-Ss.302/34, 394/34 and 379/34 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-S.235(2)-Held, Sessions Judge must 
not be cryptic while imposing sentence. 
H 
Al to AS were convicted by the Sessions Court under Ss.396, 449, 395 
642 
·./ ~ 
'· 
. 
•
< 
) 
; 
ANSHAD v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 
643 
and 307 and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay fine. In A 
cross-appeals before the High Court, the sentence of life imprisonment 
imposed on Al to A3 was enhanced to that of death sentence. In appeal 
before this court, it was contended for Al to A3 that it was not a fit case 
for the award of the sentence of death and that the High Court should not 
have, in the circumstances of the case, enhanced the sentence from life B 
imprisonment to death. It was also contended.that the case against A4 and 
AS had not been established beyond a reasonable doubt. 
Partly allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The reasons given by the High Court to enhance the C 
sentence of life imprisonment to death, without taking into account all 
circumstances and balancing the aggravating and the mitigating cir· 
cumstances are neither special reasons' nor otherwise adequate and suffi-
cient to impose the sentence of death on any of the three convicts Al to 
A3. [655·A) 
D 
Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR (1953) SC 364, followed. 
; 
2. Death sentence, being an exception to the general rule, should be 
awarded in the "rarest of rare" cases of "special reasons" to be recorded 
after balancing the aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Apart from 
referring to some "aggravating circumstances" like the betrayal of con· E 
fidence reposed In Al by the deceased and murder for committing robbery 
on a helpless woman, the High Court only referred to some of the judg· 
ments of this court and then almost abruptly concluded that death sen· 
tence was called for in the instant case. The High Court did not take into 
account any of the mitigating circumstances at all. Courts are expected to 
F 
exhibit sensitiveness in the matter of award of sentence particularly the 
sentence of death because life once lost cannot be brought back. 
[653-G,D·E) 
3. The High Court has the powe.r and jurisdiction to enhance the 
sentence oflife imprisonment tr. death, but that power has to be sparingly G 
exercised. [ 653-FJ 
4. While awarding the sentence the courts must take into consider•· 
lion the nature of the crime, the brutality with which it was executed, the 
antecedents of the criminal, the weapons used, etc. though it is neither 
possible aar desirable to catalogue all such factors. In the instant case, H 
644 
SUPREME CO(JRT REPORTS 
[1994] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
some of th.e mitigating factors were that Al to A3 had gone to the house 
J ' 
B 
of the deceased empty-handed; they did not do away with the eye-witnesses 
to screen their offence; t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.