Beg, J. - (1.) We propose to decide the two criminal appeals before us by special leave by a common judgment. The only question which arises for consideration is whether the sentence of death imposed upon the appellant in each case is appropriate or deserved. Special leave was granted in each of the two appeals solely on the question of propriety of sentences awarded. It is urged before us that the lesser penalty of life imprisonment was enough, in the circumstances of each of the two cases, to meet the end of the justice.
(2.) The first case before us is of Francis alias Ponnan v. State of Kerala, where the facts were:The murdered man. Pappachan, with some others had attacked Pandoth Joseph, P. W. 3, the brother of the appellant on 28-11-1971, and P. P. George, P. W. 4 the brother-in-law of the appellant, on 23-12-1971, at about 10 p.m. On each occasion, a F.I.R. was lodged and the injured had to be sent to Hospital. In the second incident, George, P. W. 4, the brother-in-law of the appellant was so badly injured that he had to remain in Hospital for 17 days. Close upon the heels of this attack at about 10 p.m. on 23-12-1971, upon the brother-in-law of the appellant, came the incident of 24-12-1971 for which the appellant has been charged, convicted for murder, and sentenced to death. It appears that several witnesses spoke of the determined manner in which the appellant had told them that he had made up his mind to kill Pappchan. It is evident that the appellant's mental balance had become seriously disturbed. On 24-12-1971, in the afternoon, the appellant hid himself in a compound waiting for Pappchan to come along. On seeing the deceased pass along a road on bicycle at about 3 p.m., the appellant came out of the compound with a chopper in his hand chased and attacked Pappchan with it so that the deceased fell down after exclaiming; "O my mother!". The appellant then left the scene. The incident took place in broad day-light and was witnessed by passers-by who gave evidence at the trial. The post-mortem report indicated that there were three incised wounds on the head of the deceased in addition to a contusion below on the left eye and abrasions on the leg and another on the left scapular region which was fractured. It was apparent that the appellant intended to kill Pappachan deceased and he made no secret of his intention to do so although at the trial, he denied knowledge of the incident.
(3.) The question of appropriate sentences to be awarded in the case was argued particularly in the High Court and both the Judges of the Division Bench which heard the death reference gave their reasons separately for awarding death sentences. Moidu, J. said: "So we have to consider the facts and circumstances of the present case to hold whether the death sentence is the hold whether the death sentence is the proper sentence to be passed on the appellant. In this case the appellant met P. Ws 1 to 9, 13 and 17 before and after the incident and made public declaration that he would do away with Pappachan. He had pre-determined to kill the deceased Pappachan. There was absolutely no provocation whatsoever during the incident and nothing of that sort was suggested to P. Ws. 1 and 2. The appellant committed murder only to wreak vengeance against deceased Pappachan on account of two previous incidents mentioned in Exts. P-2 and P-3. This is a case in which the appellant caused the death of Pappachan in a pre-arranged manner to wreak his vengeance against him. The murder was cold-blooded and pre-meditated. The aggravating circumsances are such that it is difficult to hold that the lesser of the two sentences provided by law would meet the ends of justice. He has rightly been sentenced to death for the murder of Pappachan. We find no ground to interfere with the conviction or the sentence. Narayana Pillai, J., said: "I agree. The incident took place in broad day-light on a public road. The first information statement was given by P. W. 1 within a short time after the occurrence. The facts mentioned therein corroborate his evidence before Court. His evidence is also corroborated by the evidence of the other occurrence witness, P. W.2 Their evidence is corroborated by the circumstance brought out in the case also. There was a motive for the occurrence. The appellant was absconding for a long time. The chopper M. O. 1 used by him at the time of the occurrence was recovered pursuant to the information given by him. The prosecution evidence is completely dependable. The victim died immediately after he sustained the injuries. The appellant was waiting for the victim to come that way. He hired a bicycle and came to the place knowing before hand that the deceased would come that way. It was a revengeful and merciless attack that he made on the deceased. He ran after the deceased began the attack by striking him with the chopper on the head. Even after the deceased fell down from the bicycle he did not spare him. Two more injuries were inflicted with the chopper. In the circumstances nothing but the extreme penalty would meet the ends of justice.";