# ' TARLOK SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB

- **Citation:** [1977] 3 S.C.R. 711
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1977-04-28
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 337 of 1976
- **Bench:** V. R. Krishna Iyer, P. S. Kailasam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/tarlok-singh-v-state-of-punjab-7240
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

711
Crinzinal Procedure Code (Act 2 of 1974), 1973-Section 235, object and
.scope of.
The appellant was convicted along with t~'O other accused under s. 302
1.P.C. and sentenced to death while the other two "'ere sentenced to life
iniprisonment.
In appeal to this Court against the orders of the High Court
confirming the death sentence imposed, the special leave was granted limited
A
•
B
to sentence.
C
Allowing the Criminal Appeal No. 337 of 1976 in part and modifying the
death sentence to one of life imprisonmenti, the Court,
HELD : (!) The object of s. 235 Cr.P.C. 1974 is to give a fresh opportunity to the convicted person to bring to the notice of the court such circun1stances as may help the court in awarding an appropriate sentence havregard to the personal, social and other circumstances of the case. (712 D]
!2) Failure to give an opportunity under s. 235(2) Cr.P.C. will not affect
the conviction under ainy circumstance. In a' murder case where the charge is
made out the limited question is as beiween the two sentences pre.scribed
under the Penal Code. If the minimum sentence is imposed, question of providing an opportunity under s. 235 would not arise. [712 F]
(3) The hearing contemplated by s. 235(2) is not confined
merely
to
hearing oral submissions but extend giving an opportunity to the prosecution
and the accused to place before the court facts and materials of sentence1
and, if they are contested by either side, then to produce evidence for thb
purpose of establishing the same.
[712 G]
Santa Singh v. State of Punjab A.I.R. l't76 S C 2386, reiterated.
D
E
(4) To save time and expense and help produce prompt justice, it may
be more appropriate for the appellate court to give an opportiunity to the
parties in. terms of s. 235 (2) to produce the materials they wish to adduce
F
instead of going through the exercise of sending the case back to the trial
court. [713 Al
In the instant case, the Court mcxlifi.ed the death sentence to one of life
imprisonment in view of the facts : (i) The death sentence has been inflicted
nearly two years ago and the agony of such a sentence has been an excruciating experience suffered by the convict for a long period; (ii) The appellant
had
two
other
assailants
with
hi1n who
have
been .. a\varded
life
imprisonment; (iii) There was no motive for the appellant to kill the innocent child; and (iv) The other circumstances present indicate that the ends of
justice would be met by awarding life imprisonment. [713 G-E]
E. Annamma v. State of Andhra Pradesh A:1.R. 1974 S.C. 799,
referred
to.
G

## Text

'
TARLOK SINGH
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB
April 28, 1977
[V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND P. S. KAILASAM, JJ.]
711
Crinzinal Procedure Code (Act 2 of 1974), 1973-Section 235, object and
.scope of.
The appellant was convicted along with t~'O other accused under s. 302
1.P.C. and sentenced to death while the other two "'ere sentenced to life
iniprisonment.
In appeal to this Court against the orders of the High Court
confirming the death sentence imposed, the special leave was granted limited
A
•
B
to sentence.
C
Allowing the Criminal Appeal No. 337 of 1976 in part and modifying the
death sentence to one of life imprisonmenti, the Court,
HELD : (!) The object of s. 235 Cr.P.C. 1974 is to give a fresh opportunity to the convicted person to bring to the notice of the court such circun1stances as may help the court in awarding an appropriate sentence havregard to the personal, social and other circumstances of the case. (712 D]
!2) Failure to give an opportunity under s. 235(2) Cr.P.C. will not affect
the conviction under ainy circumstance. In a' murder case where the charge is
made out the limited question is as beiween the two sentences pre.scribed
under the Penal Code. If the minimum sentence is imposed, question of providing an opportunity under s. 235 would not arise. [712 F]
(3) The hearing contemplated by s. 235(2) is not confined
merely
to
hearing oral submissions but extend giving an opportunity to the prosecution
and the accused to place before the court facts and materials of sentence1
and, if they are contested by either side, then to produce evidence for thb
purpose of establishing the same.
[712 G]
Santa Singh v. State of Punjab A.I.R. l't76 S C 2386, reiterated.
D
E
(4) To save time and expense and help produce prompt justice, it may
be more appropriate for the appellate court to give an opportiunity to the
parties in. terms of s. 235 (2) to produce the materials they wish to adduce
F
instead of going through the exercise of sending the case back to the trial
court. [713 Al
In the instant case, the Court mcxlifi.ed the death sentence to one of life
imprisonment in view of the facts : (i) The death sentence has been inflicted
nearly two years ago and the agony of such a sentence has been an excruciating experience suffered by the convict for a long period; (ii) The appellant
had
two
other
assailants
with
hi1n who
have
been .. a\varded
life
imprisonment; (iii) There was no motive for the appellant to kill the innocent child; and (iv) The other circumstances present indicate that the ends of
justice would be met by awarding life imprisonment. [713 G-E]
E. Annamma v. State of Andhra Pradesh A:1.R. 1974 S.C. 799,
referred
to.
G
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Cr!. A. 337 & 367 /1976
ff
(Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order
dated
24.3.1976 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Sri. A No. 757
A
•
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
712
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977) 3 S.C.R.
75 and Murder Reference No. 27 /75 and in Cr!. Appeal No. 759 of
1975)
A. K. Sen and Hariinder Singh, for the appellant.
N. S. Das Behl, for the respondent. ·
The Judgment of the court was delivered by
KRISHNA IYER, J. In Cr!. Appeal No. 337 /1976 by special leave
Shri A. K. Sen has confined his challenge-indeed, leave itself was
limited-to the question of sentence. The case of murder was proved
and the conviction by the Sessions Court was confirmed by the High
Court. The Sessions Judge awarded life imprisonment to two accused
and death sentence to the appellant.
The High Court confirmed the
. death sentence and hence this appeal.
Section 235 Cr. P.C. 1974 makes a departure from the previous
Code on account of humanist considerations to personalise the sentence to be awarded. The object of the provision is to give a fresh
such circnmstances as may help the court in awarding an appropriate
sentence having regard to the personal, social and other circumstances
of the case. Of course, when it is a case of conviction under s. 302,
I.P.C. if the minimum sentence is imposed the question of providing
an opportunity under Sec. 235 would not arise.
In this case it is admitted that no opportunity was given under
s. 235(2) Cr. P. C. to the appellant to show cause as to why the lesser
sentence of life imprisonment should not be inflicted.
We may make
it absolutely clear that such a failure will not affect the conviction under
any circumstances.
The only point is relevant to sentence.
Even
there in a murder case where the charge of murder is made out, the
limited question is as between the two sentences prescribed under the
Penal Code.
In Santa Siligh v. State of Puniab(') this Court considering s. 235
(2) Cr. P. C. held that the hearing contemplated by that sub-section
is not confined merely to hearing oral submissions but extends
to
giving an opportunity to the prosecution and the accused to place before the court facts and materials relating to the various factors bearing
on the question of sentence and, if they are contested by either side,
then to produce evidence for the purpose of establishing the same.
Of course, in that particular case this Court sent the case back to the
sessions court for complying withs. 235(2) Cr. P. C. It may well be
that in many cases sending the case back to the Sessions Court may
lead to more expense, delay and prejudice to the cause of justice. Jn
such cases it may be ,more appropriate for the appellai~ court to give
an opportunity to the parties in terms elf s. 235(2) to produce th-e
----·----
(I) A.1.R. 1976 S.C. 2386
~. •
,.
TARLOK SINGH v. PUNJAB (Krishna Iyer, J.)
713
materials they wish to adduce instead of going through the exercise of
sending the case back to the trial court.
This may, m many cases,
save time and help produce prompt justice.
ln the present case we propose to adopt that course and counsel
for the parties agree that they will rely upon the materials available on
record and they have nothing more to offer to the court bearing on the
question of sentence.
It will be an idle formality in a situation like
:that to remit the case to reconsider the question of sentence to the
Sessions Court.
Coming, to the facts of the present case, having heard both sides
we are impressed by Shri Seu's submission that the death sentence has
been inflicted nearly two years ago and the a-gony of such a sentence
A
•
B
has been an excruciating experience suffered by the convict for a
C
long period.
This, by itself, may not be a circumstance to bring
down the death sentence, if otherwise the act is too brutal, depraved or
meriting the highest penalty.
It has been now established in many
decisions of this Court that death sentence must be awarded where there
are aggravating factors (vide E. Annamma v. State of Andhra Pradesh(').
The appellant had two other assailants with him who have
been awarded life imprisonment.
Moreover, it is evident from the ~ D
records that there was an exchange of abuse between the parties, viz.,
Shiv Singh and the accused party.
It is also apparent that there was
no motive for the appellant to kill the innocent child who died, a circumstance which has influenced the courts below in awarding
the
capital sentence.
The other circumstances present also indicate that
there is no particular reason why the appellant should have been given
the severer sentence and we are satisfied that the ends of justice would
E
be met be awarding life imprisonment.
We accordingly direct that
the sentence of life imprisonment should be substituted in place of
death sentence awarded by the trial court and confirmed by the High
Court.
We allow the appeal to this extent.
Cr!. Appeal No. 367 of 1976 is dismissed as not pressed.
S.R.
(l) A.LR. 1974 S.C. 799
Cr. A. 337 allowed in part and sentence
modified. Cr. A. 367 /76 dismissed.