http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: TARLOK SINGH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB

DATE OF JUDGMENT28/04/1977

BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. KAILASAM, P.S.

CITATION:  1977 AIR 1747            1977 SCR  (3) 711  1977 SCC  (3) 218

ACT:             Criminal  Procedure Code (Act 2 of 1974),  1973--Section         235, object and scope of.

HEADNOTE:             The-appellant was convicted along with two other accused         under  s. 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to death while the  other         two were sentenced to life imprisonment.  In appeal to  this         Court  against the orders of the High Court  confirming  the         death sentence imposed, the special leave was granted limit-         ed to sentence.             Allowing the Criminal Appeal No. 337 of 1976 in part and         modifying  the death sentence to one of  life  imprisonment,         the Court,             HELD: (1) The object of s. 235 Cr.P.C 1974 is to give  a         fresh  opportunity to the convicted person to bring  to  the         notice of the court such circumstances as may help the court         in awarding an appropriate sentence have regard to the  per-         sonal, social and other circumstances of the case.[712 D]             (2)  Failure  to  give an opportunity  under  s"  235(2)         Cr.P.C.  will  not affect the conviction under  any  circum-         stance.   In a murder case where the charge is made out  the         limited question is as between the two sentences  prescribed         under  the Penal Code.  If the minimum sentence is  imposed.         question of providing an opportunity under s. 235 would  not         arise. [712 F]             (3)  The hearing contemplated by s. 235(2) is  not  con-         fined  merely  to hearing oral submissions but extend giving         an  opportunity to the prosecution and the accused to  place         before the court facts and materials of sentence and;if they         are  contested by either side then to produce  evidence  for         the purpose of establishing the same. [712 G]         Santa Singh v. State of Punjab A.I.R. 1976 S C 2386, reiter-         ated.             (4)  To  save time and expense and help  produce  prompt         justice, it may be more appropriate for the appellate  court         to give an opportunity to the parties in terms of s.  235(2)         to  produce  the materials they wish to  adduce  instead  of         going  through the exercise of sending the case back to  the         trial court. 1713 A]             In  the instant case, the Court modified the death  sen-         tence to one of life imprisonment in view of the facts:  (i)

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

       The death sentence has been inflicted nearly two years  ago,         and  the agony of such a sentence has been  an  exCruciating         experience  suffered by the convict for a long period;  (ii)         The  appellant  had  two  other  assailants  with   him  who         have   been  awarded  life imprisonment; (iii) There was  no         motive  for  the appellant to kill the innocent  child;  and         (iv) The other circumstances present indicate that the  ends         of justice would be met by awarding life imprisonment.  [713         G-E]         E. Annamma v. State of Andhra Pradesh A.I.R. 1974 S.C.  799,         referred to

JUDGMENT:         CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Crl. A. 337 & 367/1976         (Appeals  by  Special  Leave from  the  Judgment  and  Order         dated 24.3.1976 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Srl.         A No. 757         712         75 and Murder Reference No. 27/75 and in Crl. Appeal No. 759         of 1975)             A. K. Sen and Harjinder Singh, for the appellant.              N.S. Das Behl, for the respondent.              The Judgment of the court was delivered by             KRISHNA IYER, J.  In Crl. Appeal No. 337/1976 by special         leave  Shri  A.K. Sen has confined  his  challenge---indeed,         leave itself was limited--to the question of sentence.   The         case of murder was proved and the conviction by the Sessions         Court  was confirmed by the High Court.  The Sessions  Judge         awarded life imprisonment to two accused and death  sentence         to  the appellant.  The High Court confirmed the death  sen-         tence and hence this appeal.             Section  235  Cr. P.C. 1974 makes a departure  from  the         previous  Code  on  account of  humanist  considerations  to         personalise  the sentence to be awarded.  The object of  the         provision is to give a fresh such circumstances as may  help         the court in awarding an appropriate sentence having  regard         to the personal, social and other circumstances of the case.         Of  course,  when it is a case of conviction under  s.  302,         I.P.C.  if the minimum sentence is imposed the  question  of         providing an opportunity under Sec. 235 would not arise.,             In  this  case it is admitted that  no  opportunity  was         given  under  s. 235(2) Cr. P.C. to the appellant  to.  show         cause  as  to why the lesser sentence of  life  imprisonment         should  not be inflicted.  We may make it  absolutely  clear         that such a failure will not affect the conviction under any         circumstances.   The  only point is  relevant  to  sentence.         Even  there in a murder ease where the charge of  murder  is         made  out, the limited question is as between the  two  sen-         tences prescribed under the Penal Code.         In Santa Singh v. State of Punjab(1) this Court  considering         s.  235 (2) Cr. P.C. held that the hearing  contemplated  by         that  sub-section  is not confined merely  to  hearing  oral         submissions  but  extends  to giving an opportunity  to  the         prosecution and the accused to place before the court  facts         and materials relating to the various factors bearing on the         question  of sentence and, if they are contested  by  either         side, then to produce evidence for the purpose of establish-         ing the same. Of course, in that particular case this  Court         sent the case back to the sessions court for complying  with         s. 235(2) Cr. P.C.  It may well be that in many cases  send-         ing  the  case back to the Sessions Court may lead  to  more         expense,  delay and prejudice to the cause of  justice.   In         such  cases  it may be more appropriate  for  the  appellate

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

       court to give an opportunity to the parties in terms off  s.         235(2) to produce the         (1) A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 2386         713         materials  they wish to adduce instead of going through  the         exercise of sending the case back to the trial court.   This         may in many cases save time and help produce prompt justice.             In the present case we propose to adopt that course  and         counsel  for the parties agree that they will rely upon  the         materials available of record and they have nothing more  to         offer to the court bearing on the question of sentence.   It         will be an idle formality in a situation like that to  remit         the  case  to  reconsider the question of  sentence  to  the         Sessions Court.             Coming,  to the facts of the present case, having  heard         both  sides we are impressed by Shri Sen’s  submission  that         the  death sentence has been inflicted nearly two years  ago         and  the agony of such a sentence has been  an  excruciating         experience suffered by the convict for a long period.  This,         by itself, may not be a circumstance to bring down the death         sentence,  if otherwise the act is took brutal, depraved  or         meriting the highest penalty.   It has been now  established         in many decisions of this Court that death sentence must  be         awarded where there are aggravating factors (vide E. Annami-         na  v.  State of Andhra Pradesh(1).  The appellant  had  two         other assailants with him who have been awarded life impris-         onment.    Moreover,  it is evident from  the  records  that         there  was an exchange of abuse between the  parties,  viz.,         Shiv Singh and the accused party.   It is also apparent that         there  was no motive for the appellant to kill the  innocent         child  who  died, a circumstance which  has  influenced  the         courts below in awarding   the capital sentence.   The other         circumstances present also indicate that there is no partic-         ular  reason  why the appellant should have been  given  the         severer  sentence  and  we are satisfied that  the  ends  of         justice  would  be met be awarding life  imprisonment.    We         accordingly  direct  that the sentence of life  imprisonment         should be substituted in place  of death sentence awarded by         the trial court and confirmed by the High Court.   We  allow         the appeal to this extent.         Crl. Appeal No. 367 of 1976 is dismissed as not pressed.                            Cr. A. 337 allowed in part and sentence                              modified. Cr. A. 367/76 dismissed.         S.R.         (1) A.IR. 1974 S,C. 799         714