083-NLR-NLR-V-43-THE-KING-v.-PONNASAMY.pdf
The King v. Ponnasamy.
359
[Court of Criminal Appeal.]
1942 Present: Howard C.J., Moseley S.P.J. and Keuneman J.
THE KING v. PONNASAMY.
18—M. C. Mallakam, 23,014.
Sentence—Charge of attempted culpable homicide not amounting to murder—
Mitigating circumstance not put to Jury—Reduction of sentence.
Where the gravity of the offence of which the appellant was foundguilty depended upon whether it was attempted culpable homicidenot amounting to murder because of mitigating circumstances or becausethere was no specific intention on the part of the appellant but merely theknowledge that what he was doing was likely to result in death, andwhere the Jury was not asked under which heading they found theaccused guilty.
Held, that the Judge should have given the accused the benefit of thedoubt and sentenced him on the assumption-that the Jury had foundthat there was no specific intention to cause death.
1 1 C.L. J. 139.
360HOWARD C.J.—The King v. Ponnasaniy.
Q ASE heard before a Judge and Jury of the Northern Circuit.
H. A. Chandrasena, for the appellant.
E. H. T. Gunasekera, C.C., for the Crown.
April 28, 1942. Howard C.J.—
As has been pointed out in previous cases, this Court is very reluctantto interfere with the discretion' of a Judge in imposing a sentence on aprisoner convicted by the verdict of a jury. This Court will only interferewhen it is manifest that that sentence has been imposed on a wrongprinciple. In this case, the gravity of the offence of which the appellantwas found guilty depended on whether it was attempted culpablehomicide not amounting to murder because of mitigating circumstances,or . whether it was attempted culpable homicide not amounting tomurder because there was no specific intention, but the appellant merelyhad the knowledge that what he was doing was likely to result in death.The Jury was not asked under which heading they found the appellantguilty of attempted culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Thelearned Judge, however, has sentenced the appellant to the maximumpunishment, namely, 7 years’ rigorous imprisonment. It is also apparentfrom his remarks to the appellant that he deems this a case in whichthfe appellant had the intention to cause death. We think that theJudge should have given the appellant the benefit of the doubt andsentenced him on the assumption that the Jury had found that there wasno specific intention to cause death. In these circumstances, havingregard to the fact that the completed offence would result in a maximumsentence of 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment, we think that the sentenceof 7 years' rigorous imprisonment is excessive. We, therefore, substitutefor the sentence of 7 years’ rigorous imprisonment passed in respect ofcount 1 a sentence of 5 years’ rigorous imprisonment.
Sentence reduced.