Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.98 seconds)
Documents citing Viran Gyanlal Rajput vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 December, 2018

Anil Surendrasingh Yadav vs State Of Gujarat on 27 December, 2019

48. Of course, in case of Viran Gyanlal Rajput v. State of Maharashtra (supra) relied upon by the learned Advocate Mr.Vyas for the appellant, the Supreme Court had converted death sentence of the accused to life imprisonment. In the said case, the accused was found guilty of kidnapping, raping and murdering 13 year old girl. Similarly, in case of Raju Jagdish Paswan, Page 64 of 70 Downloaded on : Fri Dec 27 22:16:23 IST 2019 R/CR.A/1973/2019 CAV JUDGMENT reported in AIR 2019 SC 897, the Supreme Court did not find the case of the appellant-accused found guilty of committing rape on the victim aged about nine years and thereafter throwing her in a well, as the rarest of rare case.
Gujarat High Court Cites 56 - Cited by 3 - B M Trivedi - Full Document

Manoj Pratap Singh vs The State Of Rajasthan on 24 June, 2022

In the case of Viran Gyanlal Rajput (supra), the accused was convicted of the offences under Sections 302, 201 IPC and Sections 10 and 14 POCSO, for kidnapping, rape and murder of a 13-year-old girl and causing disappearance of evidence, and he was awarded death sentence for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The case was based on circumstantial evidence, with the incriminating circumstances operating against the appellant being that he was last seen with the deceased while she was walking home from school; he was later seen running alone in the evening; the dead body and the incriminating articles like clothes of the victim were recovered at his instance; mud stains on his pants matched the mud stains seized from the spot; his failure to explain the injuries found on his person; medical evidence showing that the victim had been forcibly raped and killed; hiding the dead body to suppress evidence; and failure of the appellant to offer a plausible explanation for the incriminating circumstances against him. While confirming the 103 conviction of the appellant under other provisions as also the death sentence, the High Court set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 10 POCSO. As regards death sentence, this Court reiterated the principle that life imprisonment was the rule and death sentence was the exception, which was to be imposed only when the alternative of life imprisonment had been unquestionably foreclosed. This Court found that even though the crime committed by the appellant was abominable, it could not be held to be falling within the ‘rarest of rare’. This Court also found that the prosecution had been unable to prove that the appellant could not be reformed and thus, commuted the sentence of death into that of imprisonment for life without scope of remission for 20 years. These findings of this Court could be usefully reproduced as under: -
Supreme Court of India Cites 84 - Cited by 288 - D Maheshwari - Full Document

Anand Koal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 September, 2022

Crime was not committed to terrorize or harm a particular or larger section of society. (16). No weapon was used at the time of incident. He placed reliance on judgments of Supreme Court in Viran Gyanlal Rajput vs. State of Maharashtra (2019) 2 SCC 311, Dileep Bankar vs. State of M.P. (2021) 1 SCC 718, Arvind Singh vs. State of Maharashtra (2021) 11 SCC 1, Shatrughna Baban Meshram vs. State of Maharashtra (2021) 1 SCC 596 & the judgment of this Court in In Re Ramnath Kewat dated 29.7.2022 (CRRFC No.04/2019) and urged that capital punishment deserves to be interfered with and same needs to be modified suitably.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - S Paul - Full Document

Appellant vs The State Of Assam on 16 December, 2022

138. While doing so, we have again referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manoj Pratap Singh (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to its earlier decision in Viran Gyanlal Rajput Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 2 SCC 311 where the accused was convicted under Sections 302 and 301 of IPC, by reiterating the principle that life imprisonment was a rule, and death sentence was an exception, which was to be imposed when the alternative of life imprisonment had been unquestionably foreclosed though it found the crime was abominable but was held that it does not fall within the "rarest of rare" category of cases and commuted the sentence of death to imprisonment for life without scope of remission for 20 years.
Gauhati High Court Cites 47 - Cited by 0 - N K Singh - Full Document

State Of West Bengal vs Sri Gourab Mondal @ Shanu & Anr on 31 January, 2023

In Viran Gyanlal Rajput (supra) the Supreme Court has commuted the death sentence to one of life imprisonment for a fixed term in a case of kidnapping, rape, murder of minor and causing disappearance of evidence. The court has taken 40 into consideration the lack of criminal antecedents prior to the commission of the crime and his post incarceration conduct which according to the court did not suggest impossibility of reform of the accused.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - D Basak - Full Document
1   2 Next