Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 51 (1.09 seconds)
Documents citing Bachan Singh Etc. Etc vs State Of Punjab Etc. Etc on 16 August, 1982

State Of U.P. vs Akhlak & Another on 12 October, 2010

According to the judgment in Bachan Singh's case (supra), then we will have to weigh the same with any mitigating circumstances that may be available on the facts of this case. While doing the said exercise of searching for mitigating circumstances in the present case, we find the incident in question was sequel to the murder of Bhagwati a close relative of the appellant and other principal accused, which was suspected to have been committed by the members of the victims family. Prior to that the victims family was accused of having committed the murder of 2 of the close relatives of the appellant's family for which some of the members of the victims family were being prosecuted. On facts and circumstances of this case, we think this circumstance can be treated as a circumstance which amounts to a provocation from the victims side. We also notice that the role played by the appellant is somewhat similar to the role played by the other accused persons who have been given lesser sentence while the appellant has been awarded death sentence that too with the aid of Section 149 IPC therefore, a question arises why this appellant should not be considered at par with those accused for the purpose of awarding the sentence. We also notice from the argument of the learned counsel which is supported by material on record, that the specific overt act attributed to the appellant that he climbed the house of the informant and threatened to shoot the victims if they came out of their houses, while the other accused latched and set the houses on fire seems to be an afterthought not having been told to the investigating officer by the witnesses when their statements were recorded by him. We also notice that the appellant was not treated by the prosecution itself as the leader of the gang but was considered to be one amongst other accused who took part in the incident. The fact that accused has spent nearly 17 years in custody after the incident in question can also be treated as a mitigating circumstance while considering the question of sentence."
Allahabad High Court Cites 93 - Cited by 2 - I Murtaza - Full Document

Dhanna @ Dharmendra And Bittu @ Sudhir ... vs State Of U.P. on 30 September, 2005

In this connection the Apex Court in Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of Delhi 2002 (44) ACC 946 Supreme Court has held that reference in this connection may be made to the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, as well as, following the same, the three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, wherein various circumstances have been enumerated and it was laid down that if the case squarely falls within its ambit, only in that eventuality, death penalty can be awarded. It was observed that in rarest of rare cases when collective conscience of the community is so shocked that it will expect the holders of the judicial power center to inflict death penalty irrespective of their personal opinion as regards desirability or otherwise retaining death penalty, such a penalty can be inflicted. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is not possible to come to the conclusion that the present case would fall within the category of rarest and rare one. Therefore, we are clearly of the opinion that in the fitness of the things, extreme penalty of death was not called for and the same is fit to be commuted to life imprisonment.
Allahabad High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - G P Srivastava - Full Document

Budhraj Singh Son Of Shamsher Singh, Jai ... vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 26 May, 2006

68. Under the old code of criminal Procedure ample discretion was given to the courts to pass death sentence as a general proposition and the alternative sentence of life term could be awarded in exceptional circumstances, that too after advancing special reasons for making this departure from the general rule. The new Code of 1973 has entirely reversed the rule. A sentence for imprisonment for life is now the rule and capital sentence is an exception. It has also been made obligatory on the courts to record special reasons if ultimately death sentence is to be awarded. A Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab while upholding the constitutional validity of the death sentence voiced that as a legal principle death sentence is still awardable but only in rarest of rare cases when the alternative option of lesser sentence is unquestionably foreclosed.
Allahabad High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 7 - I Murtaza - Full Document

Peoples' Union Democratic Rights ... vs Union Of India Thru' Secy. & 3 Others on 28 January, 2015

"...we are of the view that only delay which could not have been avoided even if the matter was proceeded with a sense of urgency or was caused in essential preparations for execution of sentence may be the relevant factors under such petitions in Article 32. Considerations such as the gravity of the crime, extraordinary cruelty involved therein or some horrible consequences for society caused by the offence are not relevant after the Constitution Bench ruled in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab45 that the sentence of death can only be imposed in the rarest of rare cases. Meaning, of course, all death sentences imposed are impliedly the most heinous and barbaric and rarest of its kind. The legal effect of the extraordinary depravity of the offence exhausts itself when court sentences the person to death for that offence. Law does not prescribe an additional period of imprisonment in addition to the sentence of death for any such exceptional depravity involved in the offence."
Allahabad High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 8 - P K Baghel - Full Document

State Of U.P. vs Guddu @ Gubbu on 31 May, 2022

The conclusion arrived at by the trial court that considering the criminal psychology/ mindset of the appellant there are no chances of reformation in future, in our respectful opinion, is not in accordance with the decision in Bachan Singh's case (supra) which enjoins upon the State to lead evidence showing that the accused/ appellant is beyond reformation. We do not find any such evidence in the facts of the case. The report dated 20.02.2021 (paper no.39b) is not sufficient by itself.
Allahabad High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Harendra vs State Of U.P. on 8 July, 2022

42.1. In other words, the impugned orders awarding and confirming death sentence could only be said to be of assumptive conclusions, where it has been assumed that death sentence has to be awarded because of the ghastly crime and its abhorrent nature. The tests and the norms laid down in the relevant decisions commencing from those in Bachan Singh (supra) seem not to have acquired the requisite attention of the Trial Court and the High Court. It would have been immensely useful and pertinent if the High Court, while taking up the question of confirmation of death sentence and making several comments in regard to the abhorrent nature of crime and its repulsive impact on society, would have also given due consideration to the equally relevant aspect pertaining to mitigating factors before arriving at a conclusion that option of any other punishment than the capital one was foreclosed. The approach of the Trial Court and the High Court in this matter while awarding sentence could only be disapproved; and we do so in no uncertain terms."
Allahabad High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - M Misra - Full Document

State Of U.P. vs Laeek on 19 October, 2022

"76. The law enunciated by this Court in its recent judgments, as already noticed, adds and elaborates the principles that were stated in the case of Bachan Singh (supra) and thereafter, in the case of Machhi Singh, (supra). The aforesaid judgments, primarily dissect these principles into two different compartments- one being the "aggravating circumstances" while the other being the "mitigating circumstances". The Court would consider the cumulative effect of both these aspect and normally, it may not be very appropriate for the Court to decide the most significant aspect of sentencing policy with reference to the classes under any of the following beads while completely ignoring other classes under other heads. To balance the two is the primary duty of the Court.
Allahabad High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next