Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Keram Ali Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

Keram Ali vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Type Court Judgment Court Supreme Court of India Decided Oct 24, 1977
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/643686

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Supreme Court of India
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Criminal Appeal No. 259 of 1977
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Criminal - opportunity of hearing - Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 235 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - appeal filed against conviction of appellant under Section 302 and imposition of death penalty - appellant contended that Sessions Judge not complied with provisions of Section 235 (2) as...

Key legal issue
Criminal
Acts & sections
Indian Penal Code (IPC), - Sections 302; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 235(2)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Keram Ali

Advocate Mr. Bana

Respondent

State of Uttar Pradesh

Legal References

Acts
Indian Penal Code (IPC), - Sections 302; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 235(2)
Reported In
AIR1978SC35; 1978CriLJ177; (1977)4SCC433; 1977(9)LC729(SC)

Excerpt

criminal - opportunity of hearing - section 302 of indian penal code, 1860 and section 235 (2) of criminal procedure code, 1973 - appeal filed against conviction of appellant under section 302 and imposition of death penalty - appellant contended that sessions judge not complied with provisions of section 235 (2) as not given opportunity to him on question of imposition - supreme court observed that opportunity must be given to appellant after passing order of conviction to produce evidences which may lead to court to pass lesser sentence - offence of appellant although fully proved and established by prosecution - in view of fact that he has dependent family it is not appropriate to pass death sentence - appellants punishment reduced from death sentence to life imprisonment. - indian evidence act, 1872 section 32: [dr. arijit pasayat & asok kumar ganguly, jj] dying declaration if the declaration is found to be true and voluntary, conviction can be based on it without further corroboration. principles governing dying declaration-stated. s. murtaza fazal ali, j.1. the appellant has been convicted under section 302 indian penal code and sentenced to death for causing the death of his brother's widow, smt. nazira. special leave was granted by this court in this case confined only to the question of sentence. 2. mr. bana appearing for the appellant has submitted that the sessions judge has not complied with the provisions of section 235(2) of the cr pc, 1973 and given an opportunity to the appellant on the question of the imposition of the sentence. it appears that after passing the order of conviction the sessions judge record in the order sheet that he has heard the accused on the sentence and then proceeds to pass the sentence of death. the learned sessions judge should have postponed the proceedings after passing the order of conviction and given an opportunity to the accused to produce evidence of circumstances which may lead the court to pass a lesser sentence. the session judge has also not recorded the statement of the accused after recording the order of conviction. it appears from the evidence of p.w. 1, bashir, that the accused had theer daughters and two sons, all of whom are minors and he happens to be the sole member earning for the family having regard to the economic condition and special circumstances of this case, we do not think that this is a fit one in which the extreme penalty of death is called for. while we agree with the courts below that this was a case of brutal murder, yet, having regard to the facts and circumstances mentioned above, we would commute the sentence of death to that of imprisonment for life. the appeal is accordingly allowed to this extent.

Full Judgment

S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.

1. The appellant has been convicted under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to death for causing the death of his brother's widow, Smt. Nazira. Special leave was granted by this Court in this case confined only to the question of sentence.

2. Mr. Bana appearing for the appellant has submitted that the Sessions Judge has not complied with the provisions of Section 235(2) of the Cr PC, 1973 and given an opportunity to the appellant on the question of the imposition of the sentence. It appears that after passing the order of conviction the Sessions Judge record in the order sheet that he has heard the accused on the sentence and then proceeds to pass the sentence of death. The learned Sessions Judge should have postponed the proceedings after passing the order of conviction and given an opportunity to the accused to produce evidence of circumstances which may lead the court to pass a lesser sentence. The Session Judge has also not recorded the statement of the accused after recording the order of conviction. It appears from the evidence of P.W. 1, Bashir, that the accused had theer daughters and two sons, all of whom are minors and he happens to be the sole member earning for the family Having regard to the economic condition and special circumstances of this case, we do not think that this is a fit one in which the extreme penalty of death is called for. While we agree with the courts below that this was a case of brutal murder, yet, having regard to the facts and circumstances mentioned above, we would commute the sentence of death to that of imprisonment for life. The appeal is accordingly allowed to this extent.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial