TARLOK SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In Cri. 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.

(2.) 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 opportunity to the convicted person to bring to the notice of the court such circumstances 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 S. 235 would not arise.

(3.) In this case it is admitted that no opportunity was given under Section 235 (2), Cr. P. C. to the appellant to show cause as 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.