Search Results Page
Search Results
81 - 90 of 1129 (5.31 seconds)Documents citing
Bachan Singh Etc. Etc vs State Of Punjab Etc. Etc on 16 August, 1982
State Of Maharashtra vs Haresh Mohandas Rajput on 11 January, 2008
64. Applying the principles as laid down in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab , as under:
Yogendra @ Jogendra Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 December, 2014
In Panchhi v. State of U.P., it has been observed that
the brutality of the manner in which the murder was
perpetrated may not be the sole ground for judging
whether the case is one of the 'rarest of rate cases',
as indicated in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab and
that every murder being per se brutal, the
distinguishing factors should really be the
mitigating or aggravating features surrounding the
murder. The intensity of bitterness, which prevailed,
and the escalation of simmering thoughts into a
thirst for revenge or retaliation were held to be also
a relevant factor."
In Reference Of Chhattisgarh vs Lochan Shrivas 14 Cra/888/2016 Lochan ... on 17 November, 2017
55. The issue again came up before Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramnaresh &
others v. State of Chhattisgarh reported in (2012) 4 SCC 257, wherein
the Supreme Court reiterated the 13 aggravating and 7 mitigating
circumstances as laid down in the case of Bachan Singh (supra) required
to be taken into consideration while applying the doctrine of "rarest of
rare" case.
Baban @ Shankar Udaysing Rajput @ ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 10 October, 2000
It is true that on the one hand, murder of Amruta was committed after previous planning and involves extreme brutality and exceptional depravity warranting the imposition of death sentence in terms of Bachan Singh's case, as urged by Mr. Mhaispurkar, but it is equally true on the other hand that it was the consequence of psychic compulsion (See para 26 of supra) and emotional distress and a mentally defective condition (See paras 204 and 205 of Bachan Singh's case supra) and the said considerations in the said decisions have been held to be the mitigating circumstances in the matter of sentence, warranting the imposition of sentence of life imprisonment.
Shyam Singh @ Bhima vs State Of M.P. on 1 September, 2016
7. From the deposition of Shivraj
Singh (P.W.2), who has been declared
6 [(2009) 6 SCC 498] [Para 56]
7 [(2013) 16 SCC 597 [Para 31]
5
hostile and cross-examined by the
prosecution, it is clear that the accused
appellant used to take 'Marijuana' and that
he used to forcibly take money from his
father. It is also evident from the
evidence of P.W.2 that the accused was
unemployed and had no source of earning.
The family of the accused appellant belongs
to a poor and backward socio-economic
background. The evidence in the case is
entirely circumstantial. Though the same
would not be a determinative factor,
undoubtedly, as held by this Court in
Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar Versus
State of Maharashtra (supra) the same would
be one of the factors that could be taken
into account in adjudging the sentence to
be awarded.
Rajesh Manjhi vs State Of U.P. on 20 July, 2018
For this learned counsel has invited the attention of the Court to the judgments which are the locus classicus on the subject namely, Bachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab (supra) and the case of Machchi Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC, 470.
The State Of Assam vs Sanjay Rajowar on 30 July, 2025
87. Having refered to the above judgments of the Apex in ors. and Manoj & Ors. Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh, (supra ) and Navas alias Mulanavas vs. State of
Kerala(supra), we have also noted that the Apex Court in Bachan Singh2, (supra) had
directed along the highroad of legislative policy outlined in Section 354(3) viz. that for
persons convicted of murder, life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence an exception. A
real and abiding concern for the dignity of human life postulates resistance to taking a life
through law's instrumentality. That ought not to be done save in the rarest of rare cases
when the alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed."
Najeem Miyan vs State Of U.P. on 6 March, 2020
55. Having observed some of the general aspects of sentencing, it is necessary to consider the aspect of post-conviction mental illness as mitigating factor in the analysis of ''rarest of the rare' doctrine which has come into force post Bachan Singh case (supra).
Dashwanth vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 8 October, 2025
39. The conviction of the appellant was recorded on
19th February, 2018, and on the very same day, the
learned trial Judge proceeded to undertake a
pretentious exercise of hearing the appellant on the
aspect of sentence and awarded the death penalty to
him. Evidently, the manner in which the trial Court
proceeded to pass the sentencing order indicates hot
haste leaving much to be desired and would vitiate
the death sentence awarded to the appellant. Neither
the trial Court nor the High Court undertook the
mandatory exercise of seeking a report of mitigating
and aggravating circumstances; the psychological
examination report of the appellant and a report
concerning the conduct of the appellant in jail, before
passing the order of sentence and confirming the
same. Thus, the sentencing procedure is in direct
conflict with the judgments of this Court in Bachan
Singh v. State of Punjab43, Santa Singh v. State
of Punjab44, Allauddin Mian and Ors. v. State of
43 Supra Note 35.