Nattan v. State Of Tamil Nadu .

Factual and Procedural Background

This was an appeal by special leave challenging the judgment of the High Court of Madras on the limited question of sentence: whether the death penalty was rightly awarded to the appellant, whose conviction for the murder of Thangadurai was not disturbed in this decision. The prosecution case (as referred to in the opinion) was that the appellant and his companions went to assault the deceased at the house of PW 14; the appellant, armed with a big sword, hesitated momentarily but acted upon the instigation of A-3 and delivered a blow that chopped off the deceased’s right hand above the wrist. Seven injuries were found on the deceased, and the appellant was attributed only one of them.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the extreme penalty of death was rightly awarded to the appellant.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments (Amicus Curiae)

• The appellant had sustained nine injuries (including two incised head injuries) and, in his statement under Section 342 CrPC, attributed them to PW 9 (big knife) and other prosecution witnesses; the prosecution gave no explanation for these injuries.
• According to the prosecution itself, the appellant initially hesitated to assault but was instigated by A-3; it was argued that but for the instigation the appellant would not have committed the crime.
• The appellant inflicted only one out of seven injuries on the deceased; the medical officer stated death was caused by bleeding from that injury.
• Co-accused to whom other serious injuries were attributed were either acquitted or given lesser sentences under Sections 302/149 IPC, making a death sentence for the appellant unjustified.

Respondent State's Arguments

• The State did not dispute the mitigating circumstances but emphasized that the weapon used was a formidable sword, wielded with both hands and great force, in a very cruel manner.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court accepted that the sole question was whether the death penalty was justified. It found merit in the mitigating circumstances identified for the appellant and noted that, taken cumulatively, they indicated that the capital sentence was not called for. On that basis, the Court concluded that the lesser penalty prescribed for murder would better meet the ends of justice, notwithstanding the State’s emphasis on the cruelty and force involved in the sword blow.

Holding and Implications

ALLOWED; DEATH SENTENCE COMMUTED TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT. The conviction for the murder of Thangadurai was maintained, but the sentence was reduced from death to imprisonment for life. The direct effect was to spare the appellant from capital punishment; the opinion does not state any broader implications or that any new precedent was set.