http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: SRIRANGAN

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF TAMIL NADU

DATE OF JUDGMENT30/11/1977

BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. UNTWALIA, N.L. KAILASAM, P.S.

CITATION:  1978 AIR  274            1978 SCR  (2) 801  1978 SCC  (1)  17  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1979 SC 916  (87)  RF         1988 SC1245  (7)

ACT: sentence  Criminal  Procedure Code, 1973 (Act 11  of  1974), Section 354(3), scope of.

HEADNOTE: The appellant young in age and a mental case was prosecuted, convicted  and sentenced to death for the offence of  triple murders,  since the testimony of dementia fell far short  of the prescription in s. 84, I.P.C. The appeal before the High Court  having  failed,  this  Court  granted  Special  leave confined to the question of sentence. Maintaining the conviction but modifying the death  sentence to one of life imprisonment, the court, HELD  :  In this agonisingly sensitive area  of  sentencing, especially  in  the  choice  between  life  term  and  death penalty,  a wide spectrum of circumstances attract  judicial attention  since they are all inarticulately implied in  the penological part of s. 302, I.P.C., read with s. 254(3)  Cr. P.C.,  1973.  The plurality of factors bearing on the  crime and the doer of the crime must carefully enter the  judicial verdict.   The winds of penological  reform  notwithstanding the prescription in s. 302 binds and death penalty is  still permissible in the punitive Pharmacopoeia of India. In the instant case the lesser penalty of life  imprisonment will be a more appropriate punishment. [271 A-C] Nanu Ram v. State of Assam, A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 762 followed.

JUDGMENT: CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 470 of 1977. Appeal  bv Special Leave from the Judgment. and Order  dated 20-4-1976  of the Madras High Court in Criminal  Appeal  No. 708/75 and Referred Trial No. 39/75. V.   Mayakrishnan, amicus curiae for the Appellant. A.   V. Rangam for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

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

KRISHNA  IYER, J.-A toddy taper, young in age and  a  mental case,  returning after a day-long toil  with his  tool,  the sickle, and tense in state, was provoked by some trivias and went into tantrums and inflicted triple killings, all in one sombre sunset.  This bleeding tragedy led to prosecution and conviction,  appeal  and  confirmation,  the   unimpeachable offence being murder.  The defence of insanity tested by the hoary rule in McNaghten’s case, codified in the Indian Penal Code  over  hundred years ago, was  rightly  dismissed,  the testimony of dementia falling far short of the  prescription in  section  84 I.P.C. We have discovered no  error  in  the factual  finding and must therefore confirm the  conviction. Indeed, leave itself was granted confined to the question of sentence. 271 The  trial  Judge,  whose horror at  the  multiple  homicide unsheathed  the  terror of death  penalty,  decreed  capital sentence  on  the  culprit,  and  the  High  Court,   deeply disturbed  by  "the brutal triple murder", set its  seal  of approval on guilt and punishment. In the agonisingly sensitive area of sentencing,  especially in  the choice between life term and death penalty,  a  wide spectrum of circumstances attracts judicial attention, since they are all inarticulately implied in the penological  part of s. 302 I.P.C. read with s. 354(3) Cr. P.C. The  plurality of  factors bearing on the crime and the doer of  the  crime must  carefully  enter the judicial verdict.  The  winds  of penological  reform notwithstanding, the prescription in  s. 302  binds  and death penalty is still  permissible  in  the punitive  pharmacopoeia of India.  Even so, the  current  of precedents  and  the  relevant  catena  of  clement   facts, personal,  social and other, persuade us to hold that,  even as in Nanu Ram v. State of Assam (A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 762), the lesser   penalty  of  life  imprisonment  win  be   a   more appropriate punishment here. We  set aside the death sentence and award imprisonment  for life  to  the appellant under s. 302 I.P.C.  The  appeal  is disposed of accordingly. S.R. Sentence reduced. 272