LexMUNIAPPAN versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H 270 MUNIAPPAN 1'. STATE OF TA M)L NADU Ml.rclt 18, 1981 [Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J. AND A.P. SEN, J.] CRIMINA L PROCEDURE CODE 1973 (I) S. 235(2)- Hearing accused on sen/ence-Formal que.TI/011 to accused as to what he lras to say-Statutory obligation whetflpr dlsclwrged-Neressity mrd object of section explained. (2) S. 354(3)- 'Special reasons' /or awarding death s~llfenre-Sesstons J11dge clraracterisillg murder 'terrific do11ble murder' and awarding death untence-- Whelher legal and valid. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE (J) Advocates appearing in cast-Condurl o(-Hlr:lt Coull to make only guarded observations. (2) Police Olficers- umdul't of-Criticism by High CourJ- Prior opporltmily to etplain-Necersit.r of. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by section 354(3) provides that when the conviction is for an offence puni~hable with death, the judgment shall in the case of sentence of death state 'special reasons' for such sentence. The appcllam was charged under section 302 of the Penal Code for having. committed the murder of his maternal uncle and his son. I The Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for murder and being of the opinion thal it was " a terrific double murder'' sentenced the npp~lla n t to death, The High Court condemned the murders as "cold blooded" and confirmed the conviction and sentence. Allowing the apJ;eal to this Court. limited 10 the question of sentence. HELD: I. The sentence of death imposed on the appellant tS set aside and he is-sentenced to imprisonment for life. [27.5 J-] 2. The reasons given by the Sessions .tudgc for ampo~•na the death sentence :tre not 'special reasons' .... ithin the meaning of section 354(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. lt is not cenajn if he were cogniuot of his high respon~ibility under that provision. that he would have imposed the de:uh sentence. [275 F.) :t. It is not understood what is meant by "a terrific murder·· as suggested by the Sessions Judge. All murders are terrific and tf the fact of the murder being -r· MUNJAPPAN 11. TAMIL NADU 271 terrific is an adequate reason for imposing the death sentence then every murdex shall have to be visited with that senten:!. D~ath sen~ence will then tbecome the rule, not an exception and section 354(3) wo~ld become a dead letter. [272 F-G] 4(i). On the question of sentence it is not merely the accused but the whole society which has a stake. (273 .B] (ii) After the conviction is recorded , the ()ccasion to apply the provisions of section 235(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code arises. The obligation under this section to hear the accused on tile question of sentence is not discharged by putting a formal question to the accused as to what he has to say on the question of sentence. The Judge must make a genuine effort to elicit from the :accused all information which will eventually bear on the question of sentence. All admis· sible evidence is before the Judge but that evidence itself often furnishes a clue to the genesis of the crime and the motivation of the criminal. It is the bounden duty of the Judge to cast aside the formalities of the Court-scene and approach the question of sentence from a broad so'Ciologica'l point of view. Questions which the Judge can put to th..: accused under section 235(2) and the answers which the accused makes arc beyond the narrow constraints of the Evidence Act. The Court, while on the question of sentence, is in an altogether different domain in which facts and factors of an entirely different order operate. [273 .B; 272 H·273 A; 273 C] In the instant case, the Sessions Judge complied with tlic form and letter of ·the obligation which section 235(2) imposes, forgetting the spirit and substance of that obligation. (273 D] 5. lt i~ not PO$sible t·o appreciate how, after. being shot in the chest and receiving the injuries described in ·the post-mortem report, the deceased could have survived for a" couple of hours thereafter. There is also no explanation as to why the F.I.R. was not recorded at the Police Station when P.W. I went there. It is therefore unsafe to confirm the sentence of death imposed upon the appellant. [273 H. 274 F, 275 El 6. It is not the normal function of the High Court to pass judgment on the conduct of lawyers who appear before the lower C()Urts. [275 C) 7. The High , Court should have given an~oppol'tuni ty to the two police officers to explain their conduct before making crit
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.