JUDGMENT

AHMADI, J.—The two appellants having been convicted under Section 302/34, IPC and sentenced to death have approached this Court by way of special leave. The facts leading to their conviction are that on April 8, 1984, at about 3.15 p.m. when PW 2 was sitting near a printing press on 12th Street in Briyant Nagar the appellants came there hurling abuses at the Naicker community stating that their women deserves to be stripped naked and raped and their houses set on fire. When PW 2 objected to the use of such filthy and abusive language the first appellant challenged him by catching him by the shoulder. PW 2 brushed aside the hand of the first accused and beat him. The first appellant fell down but got up saying he would deal with PW 2 later. So saying, he along with the second appellant went towards the south. At that time, a police constable in uniform by name Sharmuga Sadaksharam (PC No. 219) (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) came there on a cycle. Since a crowd had collected he made inquiries whereupon PW 2 informed him about the incident. He also told him that both the appellants had run away towards the south. The deceased went in pursuit of the appellants on his cycle. Some time thereafter, PW 1, another constable attached to the Tuticorin Police Station, came there on his cycle. Since a crowd had collected in front of Perumals shop he made inquiries and learnt that there was a quarrel between the appellants and some members of the Naicker community. He was also told that the deceased had gone in pursuit of the appellants. Thereupon PW 1 also went in that direction followed by PW 2. PW 3, a resident of 13th Street had noticed the two appellants running away with the deceased chasing them. PW 3 saw appellant 1 run into his house while his companion appellant 2 went towards Bharathi Nagar. The deceased left his cycle, chappals and the police cap on one side and ran after the second appellant. The second appellant fell down and was caught by the deceased. While the deceased was dragging him to the east, the first appellant came with an aruval and attempted a blow on the neck of the deceased. The deceased warded off that blow with his left hand and sustained an injury. The first appellant made a second attempt to inflict another blow on the neck of the deceased but this blow too was warded off by the deceased with his left hand. All this time the deceased was holding the second appellant by his right hand. As a result of the injuries caused to him and on the first appellant landing a third blow on the neck of the deceased, the deceased lost his grip over the second appellant. After the second appellant wriggled out from the clutches of the deceased, the former took out an aruval from his back and inflicted a cut on the nape of the deceased. Thereafter, both the appellants inflicted injuries on different parts of the body of the deceased and fled. The deceased fell down bleeding profusely. Both the courts below relying on the above version unfolded by PWs 1 to 4, the four eye-witnesses and PW 5 who saw the appellants fleeing from the scene of occurrence with aruvals convicted them under Section 302/34, IPC. The trial court recorded the conviction on February 19, 1985. On the same day, the appellants were asked if they had anything to say on the question of sentence. It appears that the appellants reiterated that they were not guilty. Thereafter, the learned Sessions Judge proceeded to observe as under :

In this case both the accused have murdered the constable in broad daylight. They have done so with the motive of killing him. Based on the evidence, under Section 302, IPC, read with Section 34, I sentence each one of them to hang till their death and the sentence is to be confirmed by the High Court.

It will be seen from the above that the only reason given for awarding the death penalty is that the deceased, a constable, was murdered in broad daylight.

2. The appellants filed an appeal challenging their convicti