Kannan and anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/642471
SubjectCriminal
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided OnMar-24-1982
Case NumberCriminal Appeal No. 694 of 1979 and S.L.P. (Cri.) No. 1839 of 1981
Judge O. Chinnappa Reddy and; R.B. Misra, JJ.
Reported inAIR1982SC1192; 1982CriLJ1570; 1982(1)SCALE402; (1982)2SCC350; 1982(14)LC425(SC)
AppellantKannan and anr.
RespondentState of Tamil Nadu
Excerpt:
- section 37 :[d.k.jain & r.m.lodha,jj] nature and scope- scope of power of high court to grant bail under effect of non obstante clause - conditions and limitations for grant of bail - reasonable grounds- held, while dealing with the bail application the high court appears to have lost sight of the mandatory requirements of section 37 of the ndps act thus the order is clearly unsustainable. the broad principles which should weigh with the court in granting bail in a non-bailable offence have been enumerated in a catena of decisions of the supreme court. when a prosecution/conviction is for offence(s) under a special statute and that statute contains specific provisions for dealing with matters arising thereunder, these provisions cannot be ignored while dealing with such an.....1. criminal appeal no. 694 of 1979 is by kannan and special leave petition no. 1839 of 1981 is by lakshmanan, the 7th and 6th accused respectively in a case tried by the learned iv additional session judge, madras division. they alongwith others were convicted by the learned session judge on various counts of conspiracy, murder, robbery, abduction etc and sentenced to death. having gone through the record, we find that the evidence fully justified the convictions. the only question which requires consideration is that of sentence. the murders were committed for gain and pursuant to plans hatched by some of the fellow accused. the one redeeming feature, so for as these two accused are concerned is that, notwithstanding the fact that they were directly responsible for the murder of one of.....
Judgment:

1. Criminal Appeal No. 694 of 1979 is by Kannan and Special Leave Petition No. 1839 of 1981 is by Lakshmanan, the 7th and 6th accused respectively in a case tried by the Learned IV Additional Session Judge, Madras Division. They alongwith others were convicted by the Learned Session Judge on various counts of conspiracy, murder, robbery, abduction etc and sentenced to death. Having gone through the record, we find that the evidence fully justified the convictions. The only question which requires consideration is that of sentence. The murders were committed for gain and pursuant to plans hatched by some of the fellow accused. The one redeeming feature, so for as these two accused are concerned is that, notwithstanding the fact that they were directly responsible for the murder of one of the victims, they were not the moving spirits of the band of criminals but were really 'junior partners,' if one may use such an expression, in the perpetration of the crimes. Their appearance on the scene was itself at a late stage and from the evidence it would appear that they were instruments in the hands of and under the domination of their fellow accused. In addition, there is also the circumstance that more than seven years have elapsed since the imposition of the death penalty on them. Taking into account, all the circumstances, we think that the sentence of imprisonment for life should be substituted for the sentence of death in the case of the two accused Kannan and Lakshmanan. Criminal Appeal No. 694 of 1979 filed by Kannan is allowed to this extent. Special Leave Petition No. 1839 of 1981 is allowed and the appeal of Lakshmanan is also allowed to the extent indicated.