Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 113 (1.31 seconds)
Documents citing Bachan Singh Etc. Etc vs State Of Punjab Etc. Etc on 16 August, 1982

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."
Gauhati High Court Cites 75 - Cited by 0 - S K Medhi - Full Document

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.
Supreme Court of India Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Anthoniraj @ Prapakaran vs . on 3 March, 2025

Subsequently, in the year 2016, A1 to A3, A6 and A7 had attempted to murder one Perumal. The deceased had witnessed the incident and given the complaint. The FIR had been registered in Crime No.78/2016 (Ex.P.33) against A1 to A3, A6 and A7. Thereafter, as per the oral compromise entered into between the accused and deceased to maintain peace between the parties, during the trial of Crime No.80/2012, no witnesses deposed against the deceased which resulted his acquittal in that case. However, on 03.03.2022, the deceased in his chief examination gave evidence against the accused in Crime No.78/2016 (S.C.No.57/2018) in spite of the said oral compromise. Hence, in order to prevent the deceased from giving evidence against the accused persons during the Page No.44 of 49 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 07:02:59 pm ) R.T(MD)No.1/2025 & Crl.A(MD)Nos.790, 921, 796, 786 & 418/2025 day of cross examination namely, 10.03.2022, the present crime has been committed by the appellants when the deceased was taking bath in the canal. The purpose for which the deceased was brutally murdered that too on the date of hearing prior to go to the Court for giving evidence, is shocking conscience of the Court. If this situation is allowed to prevail, in all cases, the no witnesses will come forward to give evidence out of fear caused in their minds through such incidents. In this case, the appellants are notorious criminals involved in several cases and some of the accused are also stated to be history sheeted criminals. Under such circumstances, this Court finds that Section 195A of IPC will come into force in this case. As far as the present case is concerned, deceased was threatened by the accused persons not to testify against them in S.C.No. 57/2018 which is nothing but an offence under Section 195A of IPC and further the deceased did not heed to the threats of the accused persons and he proceeded to testify against them in the S.C.No.57/2018 and hence A1 to A5 in order to wreck vengeance and also to prevent him from appearing before the Court for the cross examination on 10.03.2022, they have brutally murdered him in a broad day light and such a brutal act of murdering the witness from preventing him to appear in Court Page No.45 of 49 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 07:02:59 pm ) R.T(MD)No.1/2025 & Crl.A(MD)Nos.790, 921, 796, 786 & 418/2025 and testify should be viewed as an attack against the justice dispensation system since it is only through witnesses the Court can know the truth and preventing the witnesses from testifying before the Court by murdering them is not an ordinary crime, whereas, it should be termed as a rarest of rare offence and further by murdering the deceased, A1 to A5 have instilled terror in the minds of the remaining witnesses. Even in the year 2018, the Witness Protection Scheme was established. The object of its enactment is to protect the witness from injury either to his person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested.
Madras High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - P Velmurugan - Full Document

Vasanta Sampat Dupare vs Union Of India on 25 August, 2025

40. While Manoj (supra) is the first time that this Court has mandated calling of these reports in furtherance of the mitigating factors spelt out in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab24 the idea of individualised sentencing took root in Western jurisdictions much earlier. At this point, it has to be recognized that most Western countries have outlawed the death penalty, and as one of the, if not the only, notable exceptions, it shall be useful to notice a few decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States of America.
Supreme Court of India Cites 57 - Cited by 0 - V Nath - Full Document

State Of Odisha vs Sanjeeb Kerketta ... Condemned ... on 23 April, 2025

In a case where the death penalty is under consideration, the law mandates that the sentencing Court must meaningfully weigh the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and make an informed assessment of the possibility of the convict's reformation and rehabilitation, as held in Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in (1980) 2 SCC 684, and Machhi Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1983 SC 957. The grievous nature of the offence, though highly relevant, cannot alone justify the imposition of the ultimate penalty without a genuine inquiry into the individual circumstances of the offender. The failure to undertake such a balancing exercise and the omission to consider the available mitigating materials constitute a serious irregularity, vitiating the sentencing process.
Orissa High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - C Dash - Full Document

State vs Sonu on 31 May, 2025

While deciding this issue, a similar view was taken in Jar- nail Singh v. State of Punjab, where this Court reiterated the special evidentiary status accorded to the testimony of an in- jured accused and relying on its earlier judgments held as under: (SCC pp. 726-27, paras 28-29) & Darshan Singh (PW 4) was an injured witness. He had been examined by the doctor. His testi- mony could not be brushed aside lightly. He had given full de- tails of the incident as he was present at the time when the as- sailants reached the tubewell.
Delhi District Court Cites 50 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next