SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1978 Supreme(SC) 95

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND P.N. SHINGHAL, JJ.
Kuruvi Muthu, Appellant
Versus
State of T.N., Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 432 of 1977
Decided on 3-3-1978.

Headnote:

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 235 – Offence of murder - death - Court appeal leave was confined to question of sentence only and that too on question of compliance of procedure Criminal court had by an order directed Superintendent Jail to ask appellant to file an additional affidavit mentioning facts and circumstances under which lenient view on sentence could be taken – Held, In compliance with our order an affidavit has been sent by accused from jail in which only ground taken by him on question of sentence is that he is poor man having wife and five children and was working as an agriculturist on daily wages which was main source of sustenance for maintaining his family - Accused further mentioned that one owed him sum which he refused to pay although after it was agreed that he would pay - He also states that he had advanced to deceased by way of loan - These circumstances show that his economic condition was not that bad - Having regard to fact that he had caused brutal murder two persons it is not possible for us to interfere with sentence of death imposed on him - Appeal dismissed

JUDGMENT

FAZAL ALI, J. :— In this appeal the leave was confined to the question of sentence only and that too on the question of compliance of the procedure under S. 235 of the Criminal P. C. We had by an order dated 12-1-1978 directed the Superintendent, Jail to ask the appellant to file an additional affidavit mentioning the facts and circumstances under which a lenient view on the sentence could be taken. In compliance with our order an affidavit has been sent by the accused from the jail in which the only ground taken by him on the question of sentence is that he is a poor man having a wife and five children and was working as an agriculturist on daily wages which was the main source of sustenance for maintaining his family. The accused further mentioned that one P. W. 15 Kuppana owed him a sum of Rs. 5,000/- which he refused to pay although after the Panchayat it was agreed that he would pay Rs. 1,500/-. He also states that he had advanced Rs. 885/- to the deceased by way of loan. These circumstances show that his economic condition was not that bad. Having regard to the fact that he had caused brutal murder of two persons, it is not possible for us to interfere with the sentence of death imposed on him.

2. For these reasons the appeal is dismissed and the sentence of death is affirmed.

Appeal dismissed.

For Citation : AIR 1978 SC 1397

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top