Skip to content


Shidagouda Ningappa Ghandavar Vs. State of Karnataka - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Appeal No. 743 of 1980
Judge
Reported inAIR1981SC764; 1981CriLJ324; (1981)1SCC164; [1981]1SCR1269
ActsCode of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 433A
AppellantShidagouda Ningappa Ghandavar
RespondentState of Karnataka
Appellant Advocate S.K. Bisaria,;Amicus Curia
Respondent Advocate N. Nettar, Adv.
Cases ReferredBachan Singh v. State of Punjab
Prior historyAppeal by special leave from the Judgment and Order dated March 27, 1979 of the High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 1978--
Excerpt:
- section 9: [s.b. sinha & dr. mukundakam sharma,jj] remand home - duty of state to provide security and safety minor girl sent to protection home by court, found missing -record showing total lack of supervision and control in management of home - incidents of fleeing away of inmates said to be regular features - lethargy shown by police in tracing out missing girl - considering gravity of situation court directed chairman of state human rights commission to hold detailed enquiry in whole incident and submit report.....state of punjab : 1980crilj636 that the rule that the normal sentence for the offence of murder is life imprisonment should be observed both in letter and in spirit. we had, therefore, to emphasise in that case that the death sentence should be imposed in very extreme cases.3. the appellant committed the murder of a young boy which has to be deprecated as strongly as one may but it appears that there was a land dispute between the deceased father and certain other persons, which led to the murder of the unfortunate young boy. the appellant is not a habitual criminal, the circumstances which led to the crime are not likely to recur and the appellant has not committed the crime for any personal gain. on the whole we are of the opinion that the ends of justice will be met by sentencing the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Y.V. Chandrachud, C.J.

1. Heard counsel. Special leave granted.

2. It is true that both the Sessions Court and the High Court have given 'special reasons' for imposing death sentence upon the appellant, We have carefully considered every one of those special reasons but we are unable to agree that this is a proper case for imposing the death sentence. We have held recently in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab : 1980CriLJ636 that the rule that the normal sentence for the offence of murder is life imprisonment should be observed both in letter and in spirit. We had, therefore, to emphasise in that case that the death sentence should be imposed in very extreme cases.

3. The appellant committed the murder of a young boy which has to be deprecated as strongly as one may but it appears that there was a land dispute between the deceased father and certain other persons, which led to the murder of the unfortunate young boy. The appellant is not a habitual criminal, the circumstances which led to the crime are not likely to recur and the appellant has not committed the crime for any personal gain. On the whole we are of the opinion that the ends of justice will be met by sentencing the appellant to suffer imprisonment for life.

4. We do hope that even if the validity of Section 433A of the Criminal Procedure Code is upheld by this Court, the Government will not, save for weighty reason, reduce or commute the sentence of the appellant to less than fourteen years, since, unquestionably, he has committed a very serious crime.

5. Accordingly, we set aside the death sentence imposed upon the appellant and instead, impose the sentence of life imprisonment on him. With this modification the appeal is dismissed.


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