Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 112 (1.84 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Santosh Kumar on 14 July, 2006

State vs . Santosh Kumar on 16 March, 2007

5. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined PW1 W/Ct. Meera who had examined the prosecutrix medically from DDU hospital. The prosecution also examined Duty Officer HC Umed Singh who had proved the FIR Ex.PW2/A. Though initially PW Laxmi Devi and Dhan Bahadur was present on 07.11.2005 but since the Ld. Predecessor of this Court was busy in medication, their testimony could not be recorded. Matter was adjourned time and again but the said PWs who are complainant and material witnesses did not turn up. The order dated 15.12.2006 reflects that it was reported by the police that PW Laxmi Devi and Dhan Bahadur had left the given address. Therefore, this Court directed the summons of the said State Vs. Santosh Kumar 4 witnesses to be served through DCP and through IO. Today, the DCP reported that since both the witnesses are now resident of Nepal, the summons of the said witnesses cannot be served in Nepal as per existing law of Nepal as advised by E.O.I., Kathmandu. He has placed a photocopy of the Govt. of India Order No.25012/68/2005, Ministry of Home Affairs, dated 26.05.2005 to this effect. The DCP has also placed an order of the Embassy of India, Kathmandu, Nepal in which the Embassy had expressed its inability to execute the summons in Nepal in view of the Govt. of Nepal Order No.056/Con/23. Therefore, since the material witnesses could not be made available despite best efforts of the prosecution, this Court did not deem it appropriate to further proceed with the case as it would have been futile to do so because the remaining witnesses are formal in nature. Therefore, the Prosecution Evidence was closed. Statement of accused is also dispensed with. Final arguments were heard.
Delhi District Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Salik Ram vs State Of U.P on 24 February, 2018

73. As far as learned Amicus Curiae has argued about young age of appellant on the date of incident, he is resident of rural area or rustic person or there is no criminal antecedents of appellant and status of his family, these all facts and circumstances cannot be considered as mitigating factors as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in State of M.P. Vs. Santosh Kumar (supra) and Mohd. Alam Vs. NCT of Delhi (supra) (Para-47), which are relied upon by learned Amicus Curiae and case laws mentioned by us. Para-48 of case of Mohd. Alam (supra) does not help the appellant in any way.
Allahabad High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Beeru vs State Nct Of Delhi on 11 December, 2013

41. In the light of the aforesaid legal position and considering the fact that in the case at hand the accused is a first time offender and is the sole bread earner in the family, has not committed any brutality, and also considering the fact that a new clause has been introduced to cover fiduciary relationship by Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013 under Section 376(2) as clause (f), we are of the view that the interest of justice will be best served if the sentence of the life imprisonment as imposed upon the appellant by the learned trial court is reduced to the period of 10 years, while maintaining the judgment on conviction. Further the cases relied upon by the Ld. APP being Shyam Narain vs. The State of NCT of Delhi (supra) and State of M.P vs. Santosh Kumar (supra) are not applicable in the present case, as the conviction in them is under Section 376(2)(f) IPC and not under Section 376(1)IPC.
Delhi High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 11 - K Gambhir - Full Document

Md. Jamal @ Jamaluddin Khan & Anr vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 25 January, 2021

It is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the State of M.P vs. Santosh Kumar reported in (2006) 6 SCC 1, that in order to exercise the discretion of reducing the sentence, the statutory requirement is that the Court has to record "adequate and special reasons" in the judgment and not fanciful reasons which would permit the Court to impose a sentence less than the minimum. The reason has not only to be adequate but also special. What is adequate and special would depend upon several factors and no strait-jacket formula can be indicated. What is applicable to trial court regarding recording reasons is equally applicable to the High Court. Young age of the accused and the fact that he belongs to a Schedule Tribe were not considered to be either adequate or special for reduction of sentence in a case under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Coming to the instant case the learned Counsel for the appellants have not submitted adequate and special reasons in support of their prayer for reduction of sentence suffered by the appellants.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - B Chaudhuri - Full Document

State vs Sunil Kumar on 24 December, 2019

x. The Supreme Court in a number of decisions Dinesh @ Buddha Vs. State of Rajasthan (2006) 3 SCC 771, State of Karnataka Vs. Krishnappa (2000) 4 SCC 75, Bantu @ Naresh Giri Vs. State of M.P (2001) 9 SCC 615 and State of M.P Vs. Santosh Kumar (2006) 6 SCC 1 where the victims were below the age of 12 years and rape had also been committed with some injuries, has chosen to uphold the award of minimum sentence.
Delhi High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - S D Sehgal - Full Document

Patan Jamal Vali vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 27 April, 2021

318. 61 State of Karnataka v. Raju (2007) 11 SCC 490; State of Rajasthan v. Vinod Kumar, (2012) 6 SCC 770; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Santosh Kumar (2006) 6 SCC 1. 47 PART C parents and brothers. Bereft of eye-sight, PW2 was able to identify the appellant by his voice with which she was familiar. Third, shortly before entering the home of PW2, the appellant enquired of PW1 where her sons were, when he was told that they were not at home. PW1 proceeded with her chores at a public water tap. Taking advantage of the absence of the members of the family from the family home, the appellant entered the house and subjected PW2 to a sexual assault. PW1 has deposed that when she entered the house together with PW3, PW4 and PW5 she found PW2 in a nude condition on the ground bleeding from the injuries sustained on her genitals. The nature and circumstances in which the offence has been committed would leave no manner of doubt that the appellant had taken advantage of the position of the PW2 who was blind since birth. He entered the house, familiar as he was with members of the family, in their absence and subjected PW2 to a sexual assault. PW2 belongs to a Scheduled Caste. The prosecution has not led evidence to prove that the offence, as we have noticed, was committed on the ground that she belongs to a Scheduled caste within the meaning of section 3(2)(v) of the SC and ST Act. This is a distinct issue. But the fact that PW2 belonged to a Scheduled Caste is not a factor which is extraneous to the sentencing process for an offence under Section 376. It is in that context, that we must read the observations of the Sessions Judge with a robust common sense perception of ground realities. The appellant was 27 years old, a mature individual who was working as a coolie together with the brothers of PW2 for a couple of years. The nature and gravity of the offence in the present case is serious in itself and it is compounded by the position of PW2 who was a visually disabled woman. A heinous offence has been committed on a woman belonging 48 PART D to Scheduled Caste. The imposition of a sentence of imprisonment for life cannot be faulted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 36 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document

State Of M.P. vs Kalyan Singh on 28 August, 2006

In the case of Santosh Kumar (supra), the age of the prosecutrix was under 12 years. The High Court reduced the sentence Indicating the reason that he was of the young age and the fact that he belongs to the Scheduled Tribes and the Supreme Court has held that the same can by no stretch of imagination be considered either adequate or special reason, Requirement of law is cumulative and set aside the judgment of the High Court and restored the order of the Trial Court.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - P K Jaiswal - Full Document

Khem Chand vs State Of Delhi on 5 July, 2008

x. The Supreme Court in a number of decisions Dinesh @ Buddha Crl.(A) No. 5 of 2000 & connected matters Page No.7 of 56 Vs State of Rajasthan (2006) 3 SCC 771, State of Karnataka Vs Krishnappa (2000) 4 SCC 75, Bantu @ Naresh Giri Vs State of M.P (2001) 9 SCC 615 and State of M.P Vs Santosh Kumar (2006) 6 SCC 1 where the victims were below the age of 12 years and rape had also been committed with some injuries, has chosen to uphold the award of minimum sentence.
Delhi High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 18 - M Sarin - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next