Holding

The death sentence was not justified as the Sessions Judge failed to provide special reasons under Section 354(3) and the sentencing hearing under Section 235(2) was inadequately conducted.

Summary

Muniappan was convicted of murdering his maternal uncle and the uncle's son, a double homicide, and was sentenced to death by the Sessions Judge, who described the crime as a "terrific double murder." The Madras High Court affirmed both the conviction and the death sentence. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the sentencing complied with Section 354(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which requires the judgment to state "special reasons" for a death sentence, and whether the hearing under Section 235(2) was conducted properly. The Court found that the Sessions Judge's brief remark did not constitute special reasons and that the judge had not made a genuine effort to elicit information from the accused. Consequently, the death sentence was set aside and the appellant was remanded to life imprisonment.

Issues considered

Whether the reasons given by the Sessions Judge satisfy the requirement of "special reasons" under Section 354(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code for imposing death penalty.
Whether the procedural requirements of Section 235(2) CrPC, i.e., a proper hearing of the accused on the question of sentence, were complied with.
Whether the death sentence is appropriate in view of evidentiary doubts and procedural irregularities.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 235(2), s. 354(3)
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302

Subjects

death penaltyspecial reasonsCrPC Section 354(3)CrPC Section 235(2)murderlife imprisonmentsentencing procedureappellate review

Judgment

270

A MUN IAPPAN
1'.

STATE OF TA M)L NA DU
M l.rclt 18, 1981

B [Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J. AND A.P. SEN, J.]

CRIM I NA L PROCEDURE CODE 1973
(I) S. 235(2)- Hearing accused on sen/ence-Formal que.TI/011 to accused as
to what he lras to say-Statutory obligation whetflpr dlsclwrged-Neressity mrd
object of section explained.
c (2) S. 354(3)- 'Special reasons' /or awarding death s~llfenre-Sesstons J11dge
clraracterisillg murder ' terrific do11ble murder' and awarding death untence--
Whelher legal and valid.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
(J) Advocates appearing in cast-Condurl o(-Hlr:lt Coull to make only
D guarded observations.

(2) Police Olficers- umdul't of-Criticism by High CourJ- Prior opporltmily
to etplain-Necersit.r of.

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by section 354(3) provides that when
the conviction is for an offence puni~hable with death, the judgment shall in the
E case of sentence of death state 'special reasons' for such sentence.

T he appcllam was charged under section 302 of the Penal Code for having.
committed the murder of h is materna l u ncle and his son.
I
The Sessions Judge convicted the appella nt for murder and being of th e
opinion tha l it was " a terrific dou ble murder'' sentenced the npp~lla n t to death,
F
The H igh Court condemned the murders as "cold blooded" and confi rmed
the conviction and sentence.

Allowing the apJ;eal to this Court. limited 10 the question of sentence.

HELD: I. The sentence of death imposed on the appellant tS set aside
G and he is-sentenced to imprisonment for life. [27.5 J-]

2. The reasons given by the Sessions .tudgc for ampo~•na the death sentence
:tre not 'special reasons' .... ithin the meaning of section 354(3) of the Criminal
Procedure Code. lt is not cenajn if he were cogniuot of his high respon~ibility
under that provision. that he would have imposed the de:uh sentence. [275 F.)
H
:t. It is not understood what is meant by "a terrific murder·· as suggested
by the Sessions J udge. All murders are terrific and tf the fact of the murder being
MUNJAPPAN 11. TAMIL NADU 271

terrific is an adequate reason for imposing the death sentence then every murdex A
shall have to be visited with that senten:!. D~ath sen~ence will then t become the
rule, not an exception and section 354(3) wo~ld become a dead letter. [272 F-G]
-r·
4(i). On the ques tion of sentence it is not merely the accused but the whole
society which has a stake. (273 .B]

(ii) After the conviction is recorded , the ()ccasion to apply the provisions B
of section 235(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code arises. The obligation under
this section to hear the accused on tile question of sentence is not discharged by
putting a formal question to the accused as to what he has to say on the question
of sentence. The Judge must make a genuine effort to elicit from the :accused all
information which will eventually bear on the question of sentence. All admis·
sible evidence is before the Judge but that evidence itself often furnishes a clue
to the genesis of the crime and the motivation of the criminal. It is the bounden c
duty of the Judge to cast aside the formalities of the Court-scene and approach
the question of sentence from a broad so'Ciologica'l point of view. Questions
which the Judge can put to th..: accused under section 235(2) and the answers
which the accused makes arc beyond the narrow constraints of the Evidence Act.
The Court, while on the question of sentence, is in an altogether different domain
in which facts and factors of an entirely different order operate.
[273 .B; 272 H·273 A; 273 C] D
In the instant case, the Sessions Judge complied with tlic form and letter of
·the obligation which section 235(2) imposes, forgetting the spirit and substance of
that obligation. (273 D]

5. lt i~ not PO$sible t·o appreciate how, after. being shot in the chest and
receiving the injuries described in · the post-mortem report, the deceased could
have survived for a"couple of hours thereafter. There is also no explanation as to
E
why the F.I.R. was not recorded at the Police Station when P.W. I went there.
It is therefore unsafe to confirm the sentence of death imposed upon the appellant.
[273 H. 274 F, 275 El

6. It is not the normal function of the High Court to pass judgment on the
conduct of lawyers who appear before the lower C()Urts. [275 C)
F
7. The H igh , Court should have given an~oppol'tuni ty to the two police
officers to explain their conduct before making criticism on it. (274 GJ

CRIMINAL iAPPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
221 of 198l.
G
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
23.10.1979 of the Madras High Court in Criminal Appeal· No.
759179 (Referred Trial No. 9/79).
A.1'. M . Sampath and P.N. RamaUngam for the Appellant. H
A. V. Rangam for the Respondent.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
272
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by,
A
CHANDRACHUD C. J. The appellant, Mu_niappan,' was con.
victcd by the learned Sessions Judge, Dharmapun under section 302
of the Penal Code and sentenced to death on the charge that h
bad committed the murder of his mother's brother also cal!e~
B Muniappan and his son Chinnaswamy. Tl~ e conviction for murder
and the sentence of death having been confirmed by the High Coun
of Madras by a Judgment dated October 23, 1979, this appeal has
been filed by the accused by special leave. The leave is limited to
the question of sentence.

c The judgments of the High Court and the Se;~ions Court, in
so far as the sentence is concerned, leave much to be desired. In the
first place, the Sessions Court overlooked the provision. contained
in section 354(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which
· provides, in so far as is relevant, that when the conviction is for an
of:cnce punishable with death. the judgment shall in the ca;e of
D sentence of dcat11 state special reasons for such sentence. The learnc:d
Sessions Judge, in a very brief paragraph consi~ting of two sentences,
has tbis to say on the question of sentence :
"When the accused was asked on the question of
sentence, he did not say anything. The accused has cotn·
E mitted terrific double murder and ~o no sympathy can be
shown to him."
•:' The judgment of the Sessions Judge is in Tamil but we understand
from the learned counsel, who appear in the case and both of whom
.H
understand Tamil well enough, th1t tl:c Tamil word "Dhayank:lrJnt"
F has been rightly translated as ' ' terrific''. We plead our inabilitY to
understand what is meant by a "tcrriik'' murder because all murd~rs
i are terrific _and i~ tl·.e fact of tr.e murder being terrilk is an adequate
reason !~r lmp?smg the death sentence, then every murder shall hav~
to be VJSlted wuh that sentence. In that event, death sentcn.:e Will
become the rule, not an exception and tiection 354(3} will b~lllll~
G- a dead letter. We ure also not satisfied that the Jcarn~d S~sstons
Judge made any serious elfo rt to elicit fwm the accused "hat be
wan led to s_ay on the que~t ion of sentence. All that the karoed
Judge sa''$'
u th·at " " ·h en the uccu~ed wa~ asked on the questJil· n of
ie.utcnce, he did not say unything". The obligation t" hear ~he
B a\:CU~ed on the qu. ·t· f . . .
cs 1011 o sentence wh1ch ts tmposc
d bY sccuon
•
((2)
23
(>f the Criminal Procedure Code is not discharged by putting
a ormal question 10 the accused us to what he has !O ,saY on the
·'
~1UNIAPPAN l'. TAMIL NADU (Chandrachud, C. J.) 273

question of sentence. The Judge must make a genuine effort to A
elicit from the accused all information which will eventually bear on
the question of sentence. All admissible evidence is before the
Judge but that evidence itself often furnishes a clue to the genesis of
the crime and the motivation of the criminal. It is the bounden
duty of the Judge to cast aside the formalities of the Court-scene
and approach the question of sentence from a broad sociological B
point of view. The occasion to apply tbe provisions of section 235
(2) arises only after the conviction is recorded. What then remains .
is the question of sentence in which not merely the accused but the
whole society has a stake. Questions which the Judge can put to
the accused under section 235 (2) and the answers which the accused
makes to those questions are beyond the narrow constraints of the C
Evidence Act. The Court, while on the question of sentence, is in
an altogether different domain in which facts and factors which
operate are of an entirely different order t han those which come into
play on the question of conviction. The Sessions Judge, in the
instant case, compHed with the form and letter of the obligation
which Section 235(2) imposes, forgetting the spirit and substance of D
that obligation.

The High Court condemned the murders in terms equally strong
by calling them "cold blooded" and thought that its duty to consider
the propriety of the death sentence began and ended' with that
assertion. Its failure to see the failings of the Sessions Court in the E
matter of sentencing ted to an unexamined confirmation of the
death sentence.

Coming to the judgement of the High Court itself, there are
certajn features of it which need a close reflection. One of the
questions before the High Court was as to the time when the double F
murder was committed because, upon that circumstance depended
the veracity of the eye witnesses. The doctor who performed the
post-mortem examination stated in his evidence that the deceased
must have taken their· food about four or five hours before their
death. The case of the prosecution was that the murders were
committed at about 9.00 p.m. P.W. I, who is the son of the G
deceased Muoiappan, stated in his evidence that the deceased had
taken their food ·at 8.30 p.m.. This was a very important aspect
of the case to whjch the High Court should have applied its mind
with care. Instead, it took an extempore expedient by saying:
"Both the deceased might have died a couple of hours after they H
substained the injuries at 9.00 p.m." . It is impossible to appreciate
how, after being_ shot in the chest and receiving the kind of injuries
274 SUPRBMB COURTS REPORTS [1981] 3 S.C.R.

which are described in the post-mortem report, the deceased could
have survived for a couple of hours after they were shot.

Yet another question which bad an important bearing on the
case was as to the delay caused in filing the F.l.R. Tbe case of the
prosecution is that P.W. J went to the Police Station promptly but
the solitary police constable who was present there directed him to
go to the village Munsif to have his complaint recorded. Now, the
record of the Police Station shows that a Sub-Inspector of Police
was also present at the Police Station which falsifies the evidence that
only a police constable was present at the Police Station at the
material time and, therefore, the F.I.R. could not be recorded. The
( High Court has dealt with this aspect of the matter thus :

"Jo passing, we may mention that this is a grave derelic-
tion of duty on the part of the policeman who was in charge
of the police station at that time and is a matter that
ought to be enquired into by the higher authorities. We
D hope that suitable directions wHI be issued to subordinate
officers i n this district to prevent a recurrence of such lapses
on the part of policemen when reports of cognizable
offences are given. ··

The High Court added that the Inspector of Police was not on
E good terms with the Sub-Inspector and, therefore, the former made
a false entry that the latter was present at the police station, which,
according to the High Court, was a serious matter which required
to be probed by the Senior Officers. We are not quite sure whether
there is credible evidence on record to show any enmity between the
Inspector and the Sub-Inspector and whether the High Court merely
F relied on the statement made by counsel for the State that the
relations between the two Police Officers were cordial. Whatever
that may be, we do not think that the Higb Court bas explained
satisfactorily why the F.T.R. was not recorded at the police station
when P.W.l went there. The ex-parte strictures passed by the High
Court are likely to involve tbe two Police Officers or at least one of
G them into grave consequences. They should have beeo given an
opportunity to explain themselves before the High Court persuaded
itself to make such scathing criticism on their conduct.

There is one more aspect of the Judgment of tbe High Court,
H which, with great respect, we are unable to appreciate. A question
arose before the High Court as to whether a "mucb.ilikka" bears
the signature of the appellant. The High Court compared the
MUNIAPPAN v. TAMIL NADU (Chandrachud, C. J.) 275

admitted signatures of the appellant with the disputed signature A
and came to the conclusion that the disputed sigo1atur<! was of
y the appellant himself. The High Court castigated the Public
Prosecutor who conducted the prosecution in the Sessio:1s Court by
saying that he had not followed the cross-examination of P.W.l
"with attention, and not chosen to bring to the notice of P.W. 1
that the accused had signed the muchilikka, exhibit P. I. We do B
not know how the High Court came to know that the Public
Prosecutor was not following the cross-examination of the witness
with attention, but we can guess why the High Court made that ob-
servation. It added in parenthesis : "such lapses on the part of this
Public Prosecutor have become frequent and have been commented
upon by us, and we hope that at least hereafter he will take some c
interest in the cases which he is conducting." It is not the normal
funct ion of the High Court to pass judgment on the conduct of law-
yers wlJO appear before the lower courts. One should understand if
the High Court were to make its guarded observation on the conduct
of lawyers appearing before it. But how the learned J udges of the
High Court had, in tl1eir capacity as Judges of the High Court, come D
to know that "such lapses on the part of this Public Prosecutor have
become frequent ......... ," we are unable to understand.

These various matters make it unsafe to confirm the sentence
of death imposed upon the appellant. The reasons given by the
learned Sessions Judge for imposing the death sentence are not E
special reasons within the meaning of section 354(3) of the Criminal
Procedure Code and we are not sure whether, if he were cognisant
of his high responsibility under that provision, he would have
necessarily imposed the death sentence. Accordingly, we set aside
the sentence of death and sentence the appellant to imprisonment
for life. F

N.V.K. Appeal allowed.