IMAN ALI & ANR. versus STATE OF ASSAM

Citation: [1968] 3 S.C.R. 610 · Decided: 28-03-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V. RAMASWAMI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

IMAN ALI &. ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF ASSAM 
March 28, 1968 
[V. RAMASWAMI, J. M. SHELAT AND V. BHARGAVA, JJ.] 
Code of Crbninal Procedure, ss. 
367, 439-Jndian Penal Code. ss. 
396, 302-Accused convicted of 1nurder during dacoit;v-Trial 
Court 
passing Sentence of life imprison1nent lvit/Jout givbzg reasons-High Court 
en/Jc;ncing sentence to that of death-Considerations for interfering with 
discretion of trial court-Different 
considerationv do 
not 
necessaril." 
apply li·hen conviction is under s. 396 and not s. 302 of I.P.C. 
The appellants were convicted by the court of sessions for an offence 
punishable under s. 396 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to im-
prisonment for life. 
T~y were held to have shot dead two inmates of 
a house in which along with others they had gone to commit dacoily. 
One of the appellants filed an appeal in the High Court against his con· 
viction. The High Court thereafter gave notice to both the appellants to 
shO\V cau·se why the sentence of impi'isonment passed against- each of 
th.em should not be enhanced to death. After hearing them 
the High. 
Court sentenced them both to death. The order was challenged in this 
Court and it wos urged that the High Court should not have interfered 
with the discretion of the Sessions Judge in the matter of passing the 
appropriate sentence and that the considerations which app]y to a sentence 
under s. 302 J.P.C. would not apply to a case under s. 396 I.P.C. 
HELD : (i) The offence committed by the appellants was heinous and 
committed in cold blood with the sole object of committing dacoity. It 
was not a case of constructive liability but the appellants had themselves 
committed the murders and therefore no advantage could be taken of the 
fact that the conviction was under s. 396 and not under s. 302. On the 
above facts the enhancement of sentence by the High Court from life 
imprisonment to death was justified especially whea the trial court had 
not given any reasons for _awarding the lesser s-cntencc. 
Jn Dalip Singh's 
cnse this Court only cautioned the appcl1ate court against interfering if 
the discretion of the trying judge is exercised for reasons recorded by 
him' and if it appears from the :reasons that he had exercised a judicial 
mind in not awarding the sentence of death. (612 F-613BJ. 
Dalip Singh & Ors. v. State of Punja/>. [1954] S.C.R. 145, 156. ex-
plained. 
Lal Singh v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1938 Alld. 625, distinguished. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 
232 of 1967. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
August 30, 1967 of the Assam and Nagaland High Court in Cri-
minal Appeal No. 115 of 1964. 
K. Rajentlra Chaudhuri, for the appellants. 
Naunit Lal, for the respondent. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
IMAN ALI v. ASSAM ( Bhargava, J.) 
611 
The Judgment of the Court. was delivered by 
Bbargava, J. 
The appellants, Iman Ali and Jogesh Chan_dta. 
Arjya, were convicted by the court of Session for an offence pumsh· 
able under section 396 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced 
to imprisonment for life. 
The facts found by the <:ourt of Ses· 
sion for convicting the appellants were that, on the mght between-
11th and 12th Mav 1962, between 1 and 2 a.m., the appellants, 
along with about fi or 13 others, com.n~itted dacoit~ in the bou~e 
of 1 Tenu Arjya. At the time of comm1tmg the daco1ty the daco1ts· 
broke open the door of the house with the cross·bar of a plough .. 
Four dacoits, including the two appellants, entered the house, 
while the remaining persons remained standing outside. As soon' 
as the door was broken, Golapi, the wife of Tenu Arjya, was shot 
at with a gun by Iman Ali appellant, and then the other appellant 
Jogesh Chandra Arjya shot Tenu Arjya. 
Both Golapi ~d her 
husband Tenu Arjya fell down dead. Thereafter, the dacmts de·· 
mantled money from Hari Charan Arjya, the son of the two de· 
ceased persons; They took away a sum of Rs. 2,500/. which.was. 
kept in a quilt and also removed the gold eaMings, on~ silver· 
necklace and one waist band from the person of Golap1. 
The· 
commission of this offence in the manner descdbed above was held· 
by the Sessions Court to be proved on the basis of the evidence· 
given by the prosecution, and, thereupon, finding both the appel· 
!ants guilty of the offence punishable under s. 396, I.P.C., that 
court sentenced each of these appellants to imprisonment for life .. 
Iman Ali appellant filed an appeal in the High

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