LexPALANIAPPA GOUNDER versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
132
PALANIAPPA GOUNDER
v.
STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.
March 4, 1977
(Y. V. CHANDRACHUD AND P. K. GOSWAMI, JJ.]
·
. Cbmpensation to persons injured out of a1nount reali'sed by sentence of
fine-Propriety· of inzposition of
heary
{i1re,
while
sentencing-Guidelines
to the Courts for imposing
sentence of
fine-Section 357 of the Code
of
Criminal Procedure (Act 11 o/ 1974), 1973.
·
The appellant was convicted by the Sessions Judge. Salem for an offeiice
under s. 302 I.P.C. and was sentenced to death. The lligh Court motlified che
sentence of death to one of life imprisonment. However, exercising its Powers
under s. 367(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the High Court imposed
a fine of Rs. 20,000/- under s. 357(1)(c) of the Code.
Special Leave \\'·as
granted, by the court, limiting it into the question of propriety of the fine
imposed by the High Court.
·
Allowing the appeal in part and reducing the fine the Court,
HELD: ·(i) A saving provision which saves·· the inherent powers of the
court cannot over-ride an express provision contained in the
Statute
which
saves that power. That did not however affect the power of the High Court
to deal with the application merely because the application was wrongly des-
cribed as having been made under a wrong section. In the instant case, the
High Court correctly passed an order of compensation not under s. 482 but
under s. 357(1)(c) of the Code and the application filed in the High Covrt
\Vas maintainable at the instance of the son and daughter of the deceased.
[133 H, 135 F-G]
(ii) Under s. 302 l.P.C. not only a sentence of imprisonment for life but
e\"en a sentence of death can legitim:itely be combined with a sentence of fine.
For the offence of murder; the court do ha·vc the pov,rer to impose the sentence
of fine.
[136 B-C]
(iii) Legitimacy is nOt to be confused \Vith propriety and the ,fact that the
court rossesscs a certain power does not mean that it must exercise it. Though
there 1s power to combine a sentence of death with a sentence of fine that
power is to be sparingly exercised because the sentence of death is an extreme
.penalty to impose and adding to that grave penalty a sentence of fine is hardly
calculated to serve any social purpose. [136 C-E]
(iv) The first concern of the court, after recording an order of conviction.
ought to be to determine the proper sentence to pass. The sentence must be
proportionate to the nature of the offence and the
sentence,
including
the
sentence of fine. must not be unduly excessive. In fact, the primary object
of impOsing a fine is not to ensure that the offender will undergo the sentence
in default of payment of fine but to see that the fine is realised which can
happen only when the fine is not unduly excessive, having regard to all the
circumstances of the case, including the means of the offender. [137 D-F]
(v) Since by s. 357(1)(c) of the code of 1973 and its precursor s. 545(1)
(bb) of the code of 1898 compensation can only come out of fine, it is always
necessary to consider in the first instance \\'hether the sentence of fine fa at
all called for, particularly when the offender is sentenced to death or life
imprisonment. If so, the fine must not be execessive, having regard to all
the circumstances of the case Hke motivation of the
offence,
the pecuniary
JZain likelv to have been made by the offender by committing the offence and
his means to pay the fine.
The High Court in the instant case in.stead of
· applying its mind to these factors, considered only what · compensation
the
· heirs ought to receive. There is no warrant for the assumption made by the
High Court as regards- the retention of .. abilities .in fact" or as regards the
"extent of I05S 'to the dependants." (137 A-C, 138 A-CJ
'
,
r
PALANIAPPA GOUNDER v. TAMIL NADU (Chandrachud; J.)
133
S1ate v. Pandurang Shinde, A.LR. (1956] Born 711, 714 referred to.
A
Adamji Umar Dalal v. The State of Bombay, (1952] S.C.R. 172, applied.
(vi) ln view of the fact that the appellant was under the sentence of death
since it'i imposition by the Sessions Court and its reduction to life iniprison-
ment by the High Court since a sentence of life imprisonment
ha~ been
imposed on the appellant that being the only other sentence permissible under
the l:nv, the fine of Rs. 20,000 is unduly excessive and a sun1 of Rs.
3000/ -
\\oU!d meet the ends of justice.
[138 C-DJ
B
CRIMExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.