1. Murder of spouse — Conviction and death sentence confirmed — Appeal limited to the question of sentence. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
1969 Supreme(SC) 518
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.K.Mitter : S.M.Sikri
Kaloo
Versus
State Of U.P.
Case No. : 227 of 1969
Date of Decision : 12/3/69
Important Points
The court held that the death penalty may be commuted to life imprisonment if the circumstances of the crime, such as plausible provocation arising from the deceased's illicit intimacy, suggest that the extreme penalty is not warranted.
Subject
Criminal Law - Sentencing
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Criminal Law - Sentencing - Death Sentence vs. Life Imprisonment - Mitigation of sentence - Where the origin of the quarrel is not established but circumstances suggest provocation due to the illicit intimacy of the deceased with another person, the extreme penalty of death may be avoided. (Para 4)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted of murdering his wife. While a co-accused was acquitted by the High Court, the appellant's conviction and death sentence were confirmed. Evidence indicated that the deceased had an illicit relationship with another person, leading to frequent quarrels. On the day of the incident, witnesses saw the appellant cutting the deceased's neck with a knife while the co-accused held the deceased down.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that there was no evidence regarding the origin of the quarrel that led to the murder. Given the illicit intimacy between the deceased and another person, it is probable that some event occurred which infuriated the appellant. The High Court failed to examine this aspect, and therefore, the extreme penalty should not be inflicted on the appellant. (Para 4)
Issues: Whether the sentence of death should be commuted to imprisonment for life.
Ratio Decidendi: In cases where the circumstances suggest that the crime may have been committed under provocation or following a quarrel whose origin is not fully documented but is plausible given the relationship dynamics, the extreme penalty of death should not be inflicted. (Para 4)
Result: Appeal accepted to the extent of altering the sentence of death to one of imprisonment for life.
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted of murdering his wife. While a co-accused was acquitted by the High Court, the appellant's conviction and death sentence were confirmed. Evidence indicated that the deceased had an illicit relationship with another person, leading to frequent quarrels. On the day of the incident, witnesses saw the appellant cutting the deceased's neck with a knife while the co-accused held the deceased down.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that there was no evidence regarding the origin of the quarrel that led to the murder. Given the illicit intimacy between the deceased and another person, it is probable that some event occurred which infuriated the appellant. The High Court failed to examine this aspect, and therefore, the extreme penalty should not be inflicted on the appellant. (Para 4)
Issues: Whether the sentence of death should be commuted to imprisonment for life.
Ratio Decidendi: In cases where the circumstances suggest that the crime may have been committed under provocation or following a quarrel whose origin is not fully documented but is plausible given the relationship dynamics, the extreme penalty of death should not be inflicted. (Para 4)
Result: Appeal accepted to the extent of altering the sentence of death to one of imprisonment for life.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the death sentence should be commuted to imprisonment for life. (Para 1 )
3. Absence of evidence on the origin of the quarrel suggests provocation linked to illicit intimacy, mitigating the need for the extreme penalty. (Para 4 )
4. The extreme penalty of death may be reduced to life imprisonment where circumstances suggest provocation or mitigating factors regarding the origin of the quarrel. (Para 4 )
5. Sentence of death altered to imprisonment for life. (Para 5 )
6. Can an appeal be limited solely to the question of sentence?
Yes, leave to appeal may be granted specifically and limited to the determination of whether a sentence should be reduced, without reopening the question of conviction. (Para 1 )
7. Does the absence of evidence regarding the origin of a quarrel preclude the court from considering it as a mitigating factor in sentencing?
No, the court may infer that certain circumstances, such as illicit intimacy, led to a quarrel that infuriated the accused, thereby justifying the reduction of the death penalty to life imprisonment. (Para 4 )
8. What is the effect of a lower court's failure to examine mitigating circumstances on the appellate court's sentencing power?
If a lower court fails to examine material aspects of a case, such as the origin of a quarrel that may have infuriated the accused, the appellate court may consider these circumstances to reduce the extreme penalty of death. (Para 4 )
SIKRI S.M.,J.
(1) LEAVE to appeal in this case was limited to the question of sentence. The High court, agreeing with the learned Sessions Judge, con- firmed the conviction and sentence of death. The only question before us is whether the appellant should not be sentenced to imprisonment for life.
(2) THE relevant facts for the determination of this point are as follows : The appellant was tried, alongwith Allah Bux, for murdering his wife, Jaddoo. According to the prosecution both Allah Bux and the appellant committed the murder but the High court acquitted Allah Bux.
(3) THE appellant and his wife lived in one room on the ground floor of the house situated in Gulaothi town in police circle Gulaothi, district Bulandshahr. Its owner, Asif, P. W. 1. lived on the first floor with his family. The murder of Jaddoo, was committed at about 11-30 a. m. on 18/06/1968. The post-mortem examination revealed that she died of two incised wounds, one on the left side and the other on the front of her neck. It appears that according to the prosecution there was illicit intimacy between the deceased and Allah Bux due to which the appellant was often beard quarrelling with the deceased and Allah Bux. On the day of the occurrence at about 11-30 a. m. Asif, P. W. I, on hearing shrieks of Jaddoo ran down- stairs and saw the appellant bending over the deceased and cutting her neck with a butchers knife while Allah Bux was pressing down Jaddoo by sitting on her legs and holding her hands. Another witness) Rahmat, also came down the staircase hearing the shouts of the deceased and witnessed the incid- ent. As we have already mentioned, the High court has given the benefit of doubt to Allah Bux.
(4) THERE is no evidence as to the origin of the quarrel. Something must have happened between the appellant and the deceased and Allah Bux, which infuriated or led the appellant to commit the murder. None of the eye witnesses were present at the origin of the quarrel and it seems to us that in view of the intimacy between Allah Bux and the deceased it may be that something Was said or happened which led the appellant to commit the murder. The High court has not examined this aspect and we are of the view that in view of circumstances abovementioned the extreme penalty should not be inflicted on the appellant.
(5) WE accordingly accept the appeal to this extent and alter the sen- tence of death to one of imprisonment for life.
