Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (2.45 seconds)
Documents citing Sri Mahendra Nath Das Sri Gobinda Das vs State Of Assam on 14 May, 1999

The State Of Maharashtra vs Dnyaneshwar Haribhau Kulal on 11 January, 2008

46. Applying the principles and tests laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahendra Nath Das alias Gobinda Das v. State of Assam , Sushil Murmu v. State of Jharkhand , and even the facts and circumstances in the instant case are almost similar, hence the above case would clearly be a rare and rarest case necessitating death penalty. Over and above, the Accused is charged with murder in another case, the manner in which the Accused decapitated Dhondiram and also the she-goat without any provocation, the presence of the Accused in the Society would be a great menace.
Bombay High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 1 - S Radhakrishnan - Full Document

Dina Bawri vs State Of Assam on 8 May, 2000

In Mahendra Das @ Gobinda Das v. State of Assam, AIR 1999 SC 1926 the Apex Court confirmed the death sentence awarded by the learned Sessions Judge and affirmed by this High Court. The accused after dealing blows with sword to the deceased amputated his hand, severed his head after he fell down. The head was carried by the accused in one hand and blood dripping weapon in the other hand through a road leading to the police station. On the said facts, the Apex Court held that the murder committed was cold blooded, gruesome and heinous and the case was one of rarest of rare case warranting extreme sentence of death. The mitigating circumstances that the accused was aged 33 years and had three unmarried sisters and aged parents and was unwell at the time of commission of the murder were held to be not weighty enough in view of the circumstances that depicted extreme depravity of the accused.
Gauhati High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Of Orissa And Dayanidhi Bisoi vs Dayanidhi Bisoi And State Of Orissa on 23 September, 2002

As appointed out by us earlier that he was around 35 years of age and is having his wife, two daughters and old parents but these circumstances whenweighed against the aggravating circumstances leave us in no doubt that his case falls within the category of rarest of the rare cases. Therefore, considering the horrendous, diabolic, dastardly, pre-planned, calculated, heinous and above all cruel murders of his own relations, we hold that life imprisonment would be an inadequate sentence for the condemned person and that taking into account all the above aspects the learned trial Judge has correctly applied the principles of rarest of the rare cases formula in awarding the death sentence to the convict. The homicides committed by him have been properly and adequately visited with the highest penalty of law with which we are not inclined to interfere because such extreme penalty is the only alternative for him to suffer in the eye of law and accordingly, therefore, we do hereby confirm the penalty of death imposed on him by the learned trial Judge. Besides the authorities above quoted, we rely on two more Supreme Court decisions reported in (1983) 3 SCR 413, Machhi Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and (1999) 17 OCR (SC) 75, Sri Mahendranath Das alias Sri Gobinda Das v. State of Assam while confirming the highest penalty of law imposed on him.
Orissa High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 2 - M Papanna - Full Document

State vs Sushil Sharma on 19 February, 2007

In a judgment reported as , Mahendra Nath Dass v. State of Assam the Supreme Court had while confirming the death sentence of the convict of that case had not attached any importance to the fact that the convict was a young man of 33 years and was having unmarried sisters and aged parents. In that case the convict had killed the deceased with a sword and amputated the hand and severed the head and then had taken the body majestically to the police station. That, according to the Supreme Court, showed extreme depravity of the convict. Similarly in another case of death sentence decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and which is reported as , a plea was raised that since the accused was young boy he should not be given the extreme penalty of death but that plea was not accepted and it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that this compassionate ground of the accused being young could not be considered as relevant considering the fact that he had committed the murder in a cold-blooded and brutal manner.
Delhi High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 8 - P K Bhasin - Full Document

State Of Maharashtra vs Manoharsingh S/O Raghuvirsingh Thakur on 11 August, 2003

(1)Mahendra Nath Das vs State of Assam ((1995) 5 Supreme Court Cases 102) (2)Jai Kumar vs State of M.P. (3)Mohd. Chaman vs State (N.C.T. of Delhi) (2000(8) SCALE 218) (4)Bachittar Singh vs State of Punjab (5)Ashok Kumar Pandey vs State of Delhi, ((2002) 4 Supreme Court Cases 76) (6)Lehna vs State of Haryana ((2002) 3 Supreme Court Cases 76) (7)Ram Anup Singh vs State of Bihar (8)Subhash Chander vs Krishan Lal (9)Vashram Narshibhai Rajpara vs State of Gujarat
Bombay High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 1 - J N Patel - Full Document

State Of Gujarat vs Surendrapal Shivabalakpal on 19 November, 2003

63. From the aforesaid circumstances, it clearly appears to us that with a malice intention, the accused thought of a plan in his mind when he was refused sexual intercourse by Kevalpati and when he was scolded and driven out by Rajaram and Manoj, he wanted to take revenge of his insult, therefore, he waited till 1.00 O'clock in the night and when every body had gone to sleep he came back and found Kevalpati not sleeping on the cot with her two minor daughters, therefore, quietly lifted minor girl 'Sanju', who was in sound sleep, and took her away to a distant place and committed rape on her in a most diabolical manner. Injuries received by the deceased during rape shown in the P.M.-Notes suggest that in a most barbaric manner the rape was committed by the accused on an innocent child of 7 years and murdered by the accused by throttling her and throwing her in the puddle full of water. Mr. Majmudar learned counsel for the appellant-accused appealed to the Court that mercy be shown to the accused, who is bachelor and has responsibility to maintain his old and sick parents. This submission of Mr. Majmudar can not be accepted for the simple reason that the accused had not shown any mercy to an innocent girl aged 7 years, who was as good as his daughter, while committing rape and committing her murder in a most brutal manner. Therefore, it is not possible for us to show any mercy to the accused. Almost in similar circumstances, where the accused was young man of 33 years having three unmarried sisters and aged parents were pointed out to the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the learned counsel for the accused in the case of Mahendra Nath Das alias Gobinda Das vs. State of Assam reported in AIR 1999 SC 1926, but weighing this circumstance against the aggravating circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the case falls within the category of rarest of rare cases.
Gujarat High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - J R Vora - Full Document

Mahindra Nath Das vs Union Of India & Ors on 1 May, 2013

6. The appeal filed by the appellant against the confirmation of the sentence of death by the High Court was dismissed by this Court vide judgment – Mahendra Nath Das v. State of Assam (1999) 5 SCC 102. While dealing with the appellant’s contention that the extreme penalty of death should not have been imposed by the trial Court and confirmed by the High Court, this Court made the following observations:
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 10 - G S Singhvi - Full Document
1