State of Bihar Vs Yasoda Kanu (CrlJ 1988 Page
470 Patna HC)
This pre-supposes that in imparting the capital sentence i.e.
sentence of death, the court should have recorded special reasons
for the same. Here it has only been stated in the judgment impugned
that there was no scope of showing any leniency to the accused.
The special reasons must relate to the criminal committing the
offence - a crime which may be shocking to the conscience of the
society or may be shocking on account of its cruelty or commission
of it is so brutal and treacherous in manner which passes of the
comprehension of a normal human thinking and in such circumstance,
court may think of awarding the sentence of death. So far the
present case is concerned, it is admitted position that accused
called out deceased Chhedi Sah and took him to the southern side
in a different field belonging to Tulsi Teli. It has also come
in evidence that some altercation arose. P.W. 2 Amarendara son
of the deceased Chhedi Sah had said that accused was speaking
in filthy language. Therefore, before such altercation arose between
the parties we could not know what actually passed in between
them. Quite likely on discussions and talking about the past incident
of Panchayati, he acted on the spur of the moment and attacked
with knife which he was carrying in his pocket. The Panchayati
incident is of long past and even the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, while dealing with the evidence on this point has observed
in the judgment impugned that the motive for the commission of
the offence, as assigned by the witnesses, did not deal and it
did not attract the attention of the court, as it suggested remoteness
in time. The learned Additional Sessions Judge however, held that
on account of want of sufficient proof for the motive assigned
by the prosecution the whole case of the prosecution cannot be
brushed aside. This is a different view taken by the court in
accepting the prosecution version. But at the same time the court
lost sight of the fact in its final judgment while imposing sentence
for sufferance of death penalty. Not only P.W. 2 the son of the
deceased, but other witnesses too have admitted that there was
no earlier enmity between the accused and the deceased. He had
gone out of the village for a pretty long time and had come on
that date when he met Chhedi Sah in the field. It cannot be denied
that some altercation took place when he was taken out of his
own field to the field of Tulsi Teli and there, in course of abuses
and counter-abuses he acted suddenly and pierced the knife and
caused multiple injuries, which resulted in the death of Cheedi
Sah. The offence alleged, does not appear to be so brutal in nature,
nor does it speak of any treachery played in causing the death.
It may even be assumed that he might have thought of causing the
death because of the dissatisfaction or the animosity which he
was fostering in his mind on account of the decision given by
Chhedi Sah against him in the Panchayati.
13. In the circumstances, we fell that the crime committed in
the present case does not warrant for imposition of extreme penalty
of law. The court below, of course, in imposing the death sentence
had committed further error which, may of course, be said to be
technical in nature. But it was expected that in a case of such
extreme culpability he should have been careful in writing out
his judgment as envisaged in S. 354 of the Code. Clause (5) of
S. 354 Speaks that when a person is sentenced to death, the sentence
shall direct that he be hanged by the neck till he is dead. In
the instant case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed
error in recording the order of sentence in stating that accused
Jasoda Kanu is sentenced to death by hanging till death under
S. 302 of the Code. We have made this observation more so for
the guidance of the court below.
14. However, in the circumstances, as discussed above, the death
reference is discharged in the terms that the sentence of death
as imposed by the court below is commuted to the term of imprisonment
for life which in the present case will meet the ends of justice.
In this situation the appeal presented by the accused from jail
is also dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence
to the extent that the sentence of death is commuted to imprisonment
for life for the offence of committing murder of Chhedi Sah, which
is an offence punishable under section 302 of the Code.
Home
HOME 