Skip to content


Keram Ali Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Appeal No. 259 of 1977
Judge
Reported inAIR1978SC35; 1978CriLJ177; (1977)4SCC433; 1977(9)LC729(SC)
ActsIndian Penal Code (IPC), - Sections 302; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 235(2)
AppellantKeram Ali
RespondentState of Uttar Pradesh
Excerpt:
.....- supreme court observed that opportunity must be given to appellant after passing order of conviction to produce evidences which may lead to court to pass lesser sentence - offence of appellant although fully proved and established by prosecution - in view of fact that he has dependent family it is not appropriate to pass death sentence - appellants punishment reduced from death sentence to life imprisonment. - indian evidence act, 1872 section 32: [dr. arijit pasayat & asok kumar ganguly, jj] dying declaration if the declaration is found to be true and voluntary, conviction can be based on it without further corroboration. principles governing dying declaration-stated. .....only to the question of sentence. 2. mr. bana appearing for the appellant has submitted that the sessions judge has not complied with the provisions of section 235(2) of the crpc, 1973 and given an opportunity to the appellant on the question of the imposition of the sentence. it appears that after passing the order of conviction the sessions judge record in the order sheet that he has heard the accused on the sentence and then proceeds to pass the sentence of death. the learned sessions judge should have postponed the proceedings after passing the order of conviction and given an opportunity to the accused to produce evidence of circumstances which may lead the court to pass a lesser sentence. the session judge has also not recorded the statement of the accused after recording the.....
Judgment:

S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.

1. The appellant has been convicted under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to death for causing the death of his brother's widow, Smt. Nazira. Special leave was granted by this Court in this case confined only to the question of sentence.

2. Mr. Bana appearing for the appellant has submitted that the Sessions Judge has not complied with the provisions of Section 235(2) of the CrPC, 1973 and given an opportunity to the appellant on the question of the imposition of the sentence. It appears that after passing the order of conviction the Sessions Judge record in the order sheet that he has heard the accused on the sentence and then proceeds to pass the sentence of death. The learned Sessions Judge should have postponed the proceedings after passing the order of conviction and given an opportunity to the accused to produce evidence of circumstances which may lead the court to pass a lesser sentence. The Session Judge has also not recorded the statement of the accused after recording the order of conviction. It appears from the evidence of P.W. 1, Bashir, that the accused had theer daughters and two sons, all of whom are minors and he happens to be the sole member earning for the family Having regard to the economic condition and special circumstances of this case, we do not think that this is a fit one in which the extreme penalty of death is called for. While we agree with the courts below that this was a case of brutal murder, yet, having regard to the facts and circumstances mentioned above, we would commute the sentence of death to that of imprisonment for life. The appeal is accordingly allowed to this extent.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //