Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 94 (3.36 seconds)
Documents citing Shatrughan Chauhan & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 21 January, 2014

Report No. 262 On "The Death Penalty"

7.1.11 In retaining and practicing the death penalty, India forms part of a small and ever dwindling group of nations. That 140 countries are now abolitionist in law or in practice, demonstrates that evolving standards of human dignity and decency do not support the death penalty. The international trend towards successful and sustained abolition also 774Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India, (2014) 3 SCC 1, at para 61.
Law Commission Report Cites 176 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mukesh Kumar vs Union Of India on 29 January, 2020

In this regard, the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs has filed an affidavit stating that all the relevant documents as laid down in Paras (23) and (24.2) of Shatrughan Chauhan case were placed before the President and after detailed examination, the President has rejected the mercy petition on 17.01.2020. To satisfy ourselves, we have perused two files containing the communications of the Ministry of Home Affairs, NCT of Delhi and the office of Lieutenant Governor and the file containing the note put up before the President of India. From the covering letter dated 15.01.2020 from NCT of Delhi addressed to Deputy Secretary (Judicial), Ministry of Home Affairs, it is seen that all the relevant documents viz., the 15 judgment of the trial court, High Court and the Supreme Court and legible and clean copy of records of the case and the details of the review/curative petitions filed by the petitioner and other co-accused along with the present status and other details of the petitioner like past criminal history, economic condition of the family of the petitioner and the recommendation of the Government of NCT of Delhi were all sent by the NCT of Delhi along with mercy petition to be placed before the President of India. By perusal of the note, we have seen that all the documents were taken into consideration and upon consideration of the relevant records and the facts and circumstances of the surrounding crime, the President has rejected the mercy petition. There is no merit in the contention that the relevant materials were kept out of the consideration of the President.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 21 - R Banumathi - Full Document

Amarjeet Singh Chawla And Anr vs Union Of India And Anr on 24 May, 2022

CHAUHAN AND ANR. VS. UNION OF 2322236 INDIA AND ANR. 01.11.2017 TO 31.10.2022 2150/2019 MEGHA CHOPRA VS. 123 MEGHA CHOPRA-2078421 UNION OF INDIA & ANR 01.11.2017 TO 31.10.2022 2202/2019 MR. HARPREET SINGH 124 VIRDI AND ANR. VS. UNION OF HARPREET SINGH-3054669 INDIA AND ANR. 01.11.2017 TO 31.10.2022 2202/2019 MR. HARPREET SINGH VIRDI AND ANR. VS. UNION OF BRIJESH BHADORIA INDIA AND ANR.
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 606 - Cited by 0 - Manmohan - Full Document

Saleem vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 19 June, 2020

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account the miserable condition prevailing due to Covid-19, the present petition is disposed of with the direction that the State Government shall provide legal aid to the petitioner as per mandate of the judgement passed by the Apex Court in Shatrughan Chauhan (supra) and also consider the additional material, in case the petitioner submits within two weeks from today along with the mercy petition, which is pending consideration before the State Government, may be decided in accordance with law.
Allahabad High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Union Of India vs Dharam Pal on 24 April, 2019

In our considered opinion, the High Court examined the inordinate delay in disposing the mercy petition in the right perspective to hold it illegal, and thereafter commuted the sentence to life imprisonment in light of the aforementioned principles of law laid down in Shatrughan Chauhan (supra). These aspects, coupled with the fact that the authorities did not place the records regarding the acquittal of the Respondent in the rape case before the President for consideration of the mercy petition has caused grave injustice and prejudice against the Respondent. On receipt of a mercy petition, the Department concerned has to call for all the records and materials connected with the conviction. When the matter is placed before the President, it is incumbent on the part of the concerned authority to place all the materials such as judgments of the courts, as well as any other relevant material connected with the conviction. In the present case, this Court while upholding the death sentence of the Respondent and commuting the sentence of his brother to life imprisonment had placed reliance on the fact that the Respondent was convicted in the rape case, and 16 the persons who he had killed were the family members of the prosecutrix of the rape case. The fact that he was subsequently acquitted for that case has great bearing on the quantum on sentence that ought to be awarded to the Respondent and the same should have been brought to the notice of the President while deciding his mercy petition. Failure to do so has caused irreparable prejudice against the Respondent.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 1 - N V Ramana - Full Document

In Reference (Suo Motu) vs Afjal Khan on 17 May, 2019

Further, the Supreme Court in Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India- (2014) 3 SCC1 -paras 55-56) has recorded various relevant considerations which are gone into by the Home Ministry while deciding mercy petitions. 7.1.8 The exercise of mercy powers under Article 72 and 161 have failed in acting as the final safeguard against miscarriage of justice in the imposition of the death sentence. The Supreme Court has repeatedly pointed out gaps and illegalities in how the executive confirms that retaining the death penalty is not a requirement for effectively responding to insurgency, terror or violent crime.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 9 - A Palo - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next