SHIDAGOUDA NINGAPPA GHANDAVARversusSTAIB OF KARNATAKA

                 SHlDAGOUDA NINGAPPA GHANDAVAR                                        A
                                         v.
                           STAIB OF KARNATAKA
                               November 11, 1980
              [Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, C. J., AND A. C. GUPTA, J]
        Indian Penal Code 1860 (45 of 1860) S. 302 & Criminal Procedure Code
    1973 (2 of 1973) S. 354(3)-Murder-Norma/ sentence-Life /mprisonment-
    Death Sen'tence-ln extreme cases.
         The prosecution alleged that the appellant committed the murder. of a
    young boy. Both the Sessions Court and the High Court imposed death               C
    sentence upon the appellant and gave· "special reasons" for doing so.    ·
         Dismissing the appeal, this Court on the question of sentence.
        HELD : I. The death sentence imposed upon the appellant is set aside.
    The ends of justice will be met by sentencing the appellant to suffer imprison-
    ment for life. [1270 DJ
                                                                                      D
       · Iri the instant case though the murder of the young boy by the appellant
     has to be deprecated strongly, the murder was the result of a land dispute
     between the deceased's father and certain other persons. The appellant is not
     a habitual criminaL The circumstances which led to the crime are not likely
    "to recur. The crime had not been .committed for any personal gain. This is
     therefore not a proper case for imposing the death sente,nce. [1270 C]

         2. Since, the appellant had committed a very serious crime, the Government
                                                                                      E
    will n.ot, save for weighty reasons, reduce or commute the, sentence to less
    than fourt<ien years. [1270 EJ

        3. The rule that the normal sentence for the offence of murder is life
    imprisonment should be observed both in letter and spirit. The death sentence
    should be imposed in very extreme and, rare cases. [li70 BJ
                                                                                      F
         Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab,. A.I.R. 1980 S. C. 898; referred to.
         CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION.: Criminal Appeal No. 743
     of 1980.                                    '

         (Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and Order dated
    27-3-1979 of the High Court of Kamataka in Criminal Appeal No.                    G
    45 of 1978.)                                                 ·
          S. K. Bisaria and Amicus Curiae for the· Appella'nt.
          N. NeNar for the Respondent.
)
          The Order of the Court was delivered by
                                                                                      H
          CHANDRACHUD, c. J.-Heard counsel.               Special leave granted.
1270                       SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [1981] 1 S.C.R.

A            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( 1 ) that the rule that the normal sentence
B      for the offence of murder is life imprisonment should be observed
       both in letter and in spirit. We had therefore to emphasise in that
       caS'e that the death sentence should be imposed in very extreme cases.
            The appellant committed the murder of a young boy which
       has to be deprecated as strongly as one may but it appears that there    ---,_/


c      was a land dispute, between the deceased's father and certain other
       persons, which led to the murder of the unfortiunate young boy.
       The appellant is not a habitual criminal, ~he 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
D      the appellant to suffer imprisonment for life.

            We do hope that even if the validity of section 433 A of the
       Criminal Procedure Code is upheld by this Court, the Government
       will not, save for weighty reasons, reduce or commute the sentence
       of the appellant to less than fourteen years, since unquestionably, he
E      has committed a very serious crime.
           Accordingly, we set aside the death sentence imposed upon the
       appellant and instead, impose the sentence of life imp,risonment on
       him. With this modification the appeal is dismissed.
                                                                                   )
F
    -N.V.K.                                                Appeal dismissed.




           (!) A.LR. 1980 S. C. 898.