Chandrachud, C. J. - (1.) The appellant, Muniappan, was convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri under Section 302 of the Penal Code and was sentenced to death on the charge that he had committed the murder of his mother's brother also called Muniappan and his son Chinnaswamy. The conviction for murder and the sentence of death having been confirmed by the High Court 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:
(2.) The judgments of the High Court and the Sessions 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 offence punishable with death, the judgment shall in the case of sentence of death state special reasons for such sentence. The learned Sessions Judge, in a very brief paragraph consisting of two sentences, has this 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 committed terrific double murder and so 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 understand Tamil well enough, that the Tamil word "Bhayankaram" has been rightly translated as "terrific". We plead our inability to understand what is meant by a "terrific" murder because all murders are terrific and if the fact of the murder being terrific is an adequate reason for imposing the death sentence, then every murder shall have to be visited with that sentence. In that event, death sentence will become the rule, not an exception and Section 354 (3) will become a dead letter. We are also not satisfied that the learned Sessions Judge made any serious effort to elicit from the accused what he wanted to say on the question of sentence. All that the learned Judge says is that "when the accused was asked on the question of sentence, he did not say anything". The obligation to hear the accused on the question of sentence which is imposed by Section 235 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code 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 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 point of view. The occasion to apply the 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 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 than those which come into play on the question of conviction. The Sessions Judge, in the instant case, complied with the form and letter of the obligation which Section 235 (2) imposes, forgetting the spirit and substance of that obligation.
(3.) 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 matter of sentencing led to an unexamined confirmation of the death sentence.;