Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.32 seconds)Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
C. Muniappan & Ors vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 30 August, 2010
This Court, after
adverting to the earlier decisions as regards to award of death
sentence including the principles enunciated in Bachan
Singh vs. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684, Machhi Singh
and Others vs. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 470,
C. Muniappan and Others vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2010)
9 SCC 567 and various other judgments, agreeing with the
conclusion arrived at by the trial Court and the High Court
and finding that all the requisites for death penalty as
discussed and noted in the various decisions are satisfied,
confirmed the same.
Bachan Singh vs State Of Punjab on 9 May, 1980
14) Since this Court, in series of decisions starting from
Bachan Singh (supra) indicated various aggravating and
mitigating circumstances, there is no need to refer to all those
decisions. Though the appellant caused death of three
persons, he had no pre-plan to done away with the family of
his brother and the quarrel started due to the land dispute
and, in fact, on the fateful night, he was sleeping with the
other victims in the same house. In those circumstances and
other materials placed clearly show that he has no pre-plan or
pre-determination to eliminate the family of his brother. At
the time of the incident, i.e., in the year 2001, the accused was
28 years old and was jobless. He is in jail since 30.06.2001
and in the death cell since the date of the judgment of the
High Court that is on 03.05.2006. It is clear that he remained
in jail for more than 10 years and more than five years in
death cell. The materials placed on record show that the
19
antecedents of the accused-appellant are unblemished as
nothing is shown by the prosecution that prior to this
incident, he was indulged in criminal activities. The appellant
had no bad antecedents. We have already concluded that the
murders were not pre-planned or pre-meditated. No weapon
much less dangerous was used in commission of offence. As
pointed out earlier, only on account of property dispute, the
appellant went to the extent of committing murders. This is
clear from the prosecution evidence and the conclusion of the
trial Court. As rightly pointed out by the counsel for the
appellant, there is no reason to disbelieve that the appellant
cannot be reformed or rehabilitated and that he is likely to
continue criminal acts of violence as would constitute a
continued threat to the society. Considering the facts and
circumstances, it cannot be said that the appellant-accused
would be a menace to the society. We are satisfied that the
reasonings assigned by the High Court for awarding extreme
penalty of death sentence are not acceptable. It is relevant to
point out that the trial Court which had the opportunity of
noting demeanour of all the witnesses and the accused
20
thought it fit that life sentence would be appropriate.
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 164 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
1