Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 347 (4.59 seconds)
Documents citing Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar vs State Of Maharashtra on 13 May, 2009

State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Chander Sharma on 23 September, 2025

244. The lack of forthcoming information has led to attempts by the courts, to look backwards--sometimes many years after the crime has been committed--to evaluate on the one hand, circumstances that could not have been paused in time, and on the other those which can be captured, but for which there exists no frame of reference from the past, for comparison. This inconsistency in some courts calling for reports, while others fail to -- further contributes to our patchwork jurisprudence on capital sentencing, and in turn undermines the equality principle and due process protections that Santosh Bariyar [Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 6 SCC 498, para 112 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1150] recognises as existing, in favour of death row convicts.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 184 - Cited by 0 - V S Thakur - Full Document

State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Chander Sharma on 23 September, 2025

244. The lack of forthcoming information has led to attempts by the courts, to look backwards--sometimes many years after the crime has been committed--to evaluate on the one hand, circumstances that could not have been paused in time, and on the other those which can be captured, but for which there exists no frame of reference from the past, for comparison. This inconsistency in some courts calling for reports, while others fail to -- further contributes to our patchwork jurisprudence on capital sentencing, and in turn undermines the equality principle and due process protections that Santosh Bariyar [Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 6 SCC 498, para 112 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1150] recognises as existing, in favour of death row convicts.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 184 - Cited by 0 - V S Thakur - Full Document

Sachin Kumar Singhraha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 March, 2016

In Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar Vs. State of Maharashtra (2009 (6) SCC 498), the Supreme Court in para 131 has observed that when the court is faced with a capital sentencing case, a comparative analysis of the case before it with other purportedly similar cases would be in the fitness of the scheme of the Constitution. Comparison will presuppose an identification of a pool of equivalently circumstanced capital defendants.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 20 - Full Document

State Of U.P. vs Premchandra @ Pappu Dixit on 18 November, 2025

224. This aspect was dealt with extensively in Santosh Bariyar [Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 6 SCC 498, para 112 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1150] where the Court articulated the test to be a two-step process to determine whether a case deserves the death sentence firstly, that the case belongs to the rarest of rare category, and secondly, that the option of life imprisonment would simply not 9 (2023) 2 SCC 353 Criminal Appeal Nos.331-332/2022 Page 15 of 17 suffice. For the first step, the aggravating and mitigating circumstances would have to be identified and considered equally. For the second test, the court had to consider whether the alternative of life imprisonment was unquestionably foreclosed as the sentencing aim of reformation was unachievable, for which the State must provide material.
Allahabad High Court Cites 58 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bhagwani vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 January, 2022

Despite the view expressed by the Constitution Bench, there have been several instances, some of which have been pointed out in Bariyar [Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 6 SCC 498 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1150] and in Sangeet v. State of Haryana [Sangeet v. State of Haryana, (2013) 2 SCC 452 : (2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 611] where there is a tendency to give primacy to the crime and consider the criminal in a somewhat secondary manner.
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 3 - L N Rao - Full Document

D.Sathish vs . on 27 November, 2025

17. Another aspect that has been overlooked by the High Court is the procedural impropriety of not having a separate hearing for sentencing at the stage of trial. A bifurcated hearing for conviction and sentencing was a necessary condition laid down in Santosh Bariyar [Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 6 SCC 498 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1150] . By conducting the hearing for sentencing on the 80/94 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 05:25:20 pm ) R.T.No.1 of 2025 and Crl.A.No.1744 of 2025 same day, the trial court has failed to provide necessary time to the appellant to furnish evidence relevant to sentencing and mitigation.
Madras High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - N S Kumar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next