Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

SHIDAGOUDA NINGAPPA GHANDAVAR versus STAIB OF KARNATAKA

Decided
11 November 1980
Judges listed
Y.V. CHANDRACHUD (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1981] 1 S.C.R. 1269 · 1980 INSC 214
Also cited as
  • AIR 1981 SC 764 (2 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

CHANDRACHUD, c. J.-Heard counsel. Special leave granted.

p. 1269, margin H

It is true that both the Sessions Court and the High Court have given "special reasons" for imposing death sentence upon the · appellant. We have carefully considered every one· of those special reasons but ·we are unable to agree that this is a proper case for imposing the death sentence. We have held recently in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab( that the rule that the normal sentence for the offence of murder is life imprisonment should be observed both in letter and in spirit. We had therefore to emphasise in that caS'e that the death sentence should be imposed in very extreme cases.

p. 1270, margin A

The appellant committed the murder of a young boy which has to be deprecated as strongly as one may but it appears that there was a land dispute, between the deceased's father and certain other persons, which led to the murder of the unfortiunate young boy. The appellant is not a habitual criminal, ~he circumstances which led to the crime are not likely to recur and the appellant has not committed the crime for any personal gain. On the whole we are of the opinion that the ends of justice will be met by sentencing the appellant to suffer imprisonment for life.

p. 1270, margin B

We do hope that even if the validity of section 433 A of the Criminal Procedure Code is upheld by this Court, the Government will not, save for weighty reasons, reduce or commute the sentence of the appellant to less than fourteen years, since unquestionably, he has committed a very serious crime.

p. 1270, margin D

Accordingly, we set aside the death sentence imposed upon the appellant and instead, impose the sentence of life imp,risonment on him. With this modification the appeal is dismissed. -N.V.K. Appeal dismissed.

p. 1270, margin E

A.LR. 1980 C. 898.

p. 1270, margin F