Case: Neti Sreeramulu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh

the deceased. We do not find any reason to reduce the sentence passed by the lower court. We confirm the sentence."While confirming the capital sentence the High Court had quite clearly an obligation to itself consider what sentence should be imposed and not be content with the trial courts decision on the point unless some reason was shown for reducing that sentence. As observed in Jumman v. The State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 469 in such a case, "it is the duty of the High Court to consider the proceedings in all their aspects and come to an independent conclusion on the materials, apart from the view expressed by the Sessions Judge. In so doing, the High Court will be assisted by the opinion expressed by the Sessions Judge, but under the provisions of the law abovementioned it is for the High Court to come to an independent conclusion of its own."7. No doubt, as observed by the High Court, there were as many as ten incised injuries on the deceased and injuries nos. l and 4 were considered by the medical evidence to be fatal. It is also clear that on the day of the incident nothing had happened to cause sudden provocation which should be grave enough to make the appellant lose his balance of mind. But in that case an argument would be open to take the offence out of the purview of Sections 300 and 302. I. P. C.That point does not appear to be open to the appellant because this appeal was not admitted on the merits and we are only required to consider whether on the conclusions of the High Court and on the assumption that the offence is one of murder, lesser penalty should be imposed in the present case. Apart from the question of what sentence should have been imposed by the trial court, in our opinion, it is open to this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution to see what sentence permissible under the law would meet the ends of justice now when we are called upon to consider that question. The appellant was, clearly on terms of improper intimacy with the deceased and was perhaps overcome by a sense of jealousy or indignation of what he thought was unfaithfulness on the part of the deceased. Assuming the trial court was justified in imposing the capital sentence, the long lapse of time since the imposition of the capital sentence by the trial court and the consideration of the question of sentence by us, in our opinion, constitutes a relevant ground for reducing the sentence to life imprisonment. In the present case the appellant must have been in the condemned cell ever since October 30, 1971 when the sentence of death was imposed on him by the trial court. The High Court confirmed the sentence as far back as January 24, 1972. Since then the agonising consciousness and feeling of being under the sentence of death must have constantly haunted the appellant. No doubt, this delay has been caused because of the time taken by the High Court in disposing of the application for leave to appeal to this Court and because of the pendency of the application for special leave to appeal in this Court since October, 1972. But that cannot detract from the acute mental agony to which the appellant must have been subjected ever since the imposition of the capital sentence on him.8. We find that in July, l972 this Court issued notice to the respondent State to show cause why special leave should not be granted in regard to the sentence. The notice was apparently issued without any delay. But the matter was unfortunately not set down for hearing till 1-3-1973. This delay was perhaps due to the fact that the respondent-State did not put in appearance. Indeed, the State was not represented at the hearing either of the special leave petition or of the appeal before us. Now the importance of speedy disposal of cases involving sentence of death has been recognised by this Court, for, in R. 21 (2) of O. XXI, it is expressly provided that fin such cases the printed record shall be made ready and despatched to this Court within a period of 60 days after the receipt of intimation from the registry of this Court of the filing of the petition of appeal or of the order granting special leave to appeal. The same anxiety and concern for speedy disposal of special leave petitions in such cases is equally desirable. It appears that the importance of speedy hearing of the petition for special leave was not realised in this case. In our view, the neglect or unwillingness of the State to enter appearance should not have prevented the posting of the special leave petition for hearing with the greatest possible dispatch.9. On the facts and circumstances of this case we feel that the interests of justice require that the sentence of death should be reduced to that of life imprisonment and we so order. The fact that the State of Andhra Pradesh has not cared to enter appearance in spite of notice suggests that in the opinion of the legal advisors of the State there was no good cause to show against the reduction of sentence. In Piare Dusadh v. Emperor, AIR 1944 FC 1 the sentence of death was reduced to one of transportation for life when the convict had inter alia been awaiting execution of death sentence for over a year:The Federal Court there observed:"In committing the offence the appellant must have been actuated by jealousy or by indignation either of which would tend further to disturb the balance of his mind. He has besides been awaiting the execution of his death sentence for over a year. We think that in this case a sentence of transportation for life would be more appropriate than the sentence of death. "These observations are equally pertinent to the case in hand.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]7. No doubt, as observed by the High Court, there were as many as ten incised injuries on the deceased and injuries nos. l and 4 were considered by the medical evidence to be fatal. It is also clear that on the day of the incident nothing had happened to cause sudden provocation which should be grave enough to make the appellant lose his balance of mind. But in that case an argument would be open to take the offence out of the purview of Sections 300 and 302. I. P. C.We find that in July, l972 this Court issued notice to the respondent State to show cause why special leave should not be granted in regard to the sentence. The notice was apparently issued without any delay. But the matter was unfortunately not set down for hearing till 1-3-1973. This delay was perhaps due to the fact that the respondent-State did not put in appearance. Indeed, the State was not represented at the hearing either of the special leave petition or of the appeal before us. Now the importance of speedy disposal of cases involving sentence of death has been recognised by this Court, for, in R. 21 (2) of O. XXI, it is expressly provided that fin such cases the printed record shall be made ready and despatched to this Court within a period of 60 days after the receipt of intimation from the registry of this Court of the filing of the petition of appeal or of the order granting special leave to appeal. The same anxiety and concern for speedy disposal of special leave petitions in such cases is equally desirable. It appears that the importance of speedy hearing of the petition for special leave was not realised in this case. In our view, the neglect or unwillingness of the State to enter appearance should not have prevented the posting of the special leave petition for hearing with the greatest possible dispatch.9. On the facts and circumstances of this case we feel that the interests of justice require that the sentence of death should be reduced to that of life imprisonment and we so order. The fact that the State of Andhra Pradesh has not cared to enter appearance in spite of notice suggests that in the opinion of the legal advisors of the State there was no good cause to show against the reduction of