State vs Shahabuddin And Ors on 24 October, 2019
4. Govindasami v. State of Tamil Nadu : AIR 1998 SC 2889
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.96 seconds)Documents citing
Govindasami vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 22 April, 1998
Shahabudeen And Ors vs State on 24 October, 2019
4. Govindasami v. State of Tamil Nadu : AIR 1998 SC 2889
Mofil Khan vs State Of Jharkhand on 9 October, 2014
In Govindasami v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1998) 4
SCC 531, the accused committed five murders for which he
was acquitted by the Trial Court but convicted and
sentenced to death by the High Court. This Court in
appeal confirmed the sentence and held, that, the brutal
manner of wiping out the entire family of his uncle
(except one son studying in Coimbatore escaping) by
appellant to grab his properties shocks judicial
conscience and no lesser sentence is appropriate.
State Of Gujarat vs Surendrapal Shivabalakpal on 19 November, 2003
In the case of Govindasami vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in AIR 1998 SC 2889, the accused was convicted for the offence under sec. 302 for grabbing properties. No mitigating circumstance was pointed out.
The State Of Maharashtra vs Prakash Dhawal Khairnar (Patil) & Anr. on 7 December, 2000
The decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Govindasami v. State of Tamil Nadu, also warrants that death sentence of appellant Prakash Patil should be confirmed.
Natarajan vs State on 27 September, 1999
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also relied on the reported decision in Govindasami v. State of Tamil Nadu . This case was from our High Court only, wherein initially all the accused stood acquitted by the Sessions Judge. However, the High Court allowed the Appeal against acquittal and convicted the accused and awarded death sentence to him. The Supreme Court has also upheld the said death sentence. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor very heavily relied upon this case to suggest in support of his contention for grant of death sentence on the accused. We are not in agreement. As a matter of fact, the facts in this case are quite different. In the first place, there were as many as five murders and the entire family was done to death. Again, the act in this case on the part of the accused was proved to be a premeditated and was not on account of the provocation in contradistinction from the present case. The reliance on this ruling is, therefore, uncalled for.
Mahindra Nath Das vs Union Of India & Ors on 1 May, 2013
In Govindaswami v. State
of T.N.(1998) 4 SCC 531, Mukherjee, J. speaking for the Court
observed, “If, in spite thereof, we commute the death sentence to life
imprisonment we will be yielding to spasmodic sentiment, unregulated
benevolence and misplaced sympathy.”
Officer vs Rajesh Alias Akashsingh Son Of on 28 October, 2010
L.J. 3697 (SC)],
[c] Om Prakash alias Raja Vs. State of
Uttaranchal [2003 Cri.L.J. 483 (SC)],
[d] Molai & another Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh [AIR 2000 SC 177],
[e] Jai Kumar Vs. State of M.P. [AIR 1999 SC
1860],
[f] Govindasami Vs. State of Tamil Nadu [AIR
1998 SC 2889],
[g] Laxman Naik Vs. State of Orissa [1995
Cri. L.J. 2692 (SC)],
[h] Sevaka Perumal etc. Vs. State of Tamil
Nadu [1991 Cri.
Sri Mahendra Nath Das Sri Gobinda Das vs State Of Assam on 14 May, 1999
In Govindasami vs. State of
Tamil Nadu (JT (1998) 3 260 ] Mukherjee,J. speaking for the
court observed, "If, inspite thereof, we commute the death
sentence to life imprisonment we will be yielding to
spasmodic sentiment, unregulated benevolence and misplaced
sympathy".
Mahendra Nath Das vs The Union Of India And Ors on 30 January, 2012
In
Govindasami vs. State of Tamil Nadu [(JT (1998) 3 260]
Mukherjee, J. speaking for the court observed, " if, inspite
thereof, we commute the death sentence to life imprisonment
4
we will be yielding to spasmodic sentiment, unregulated
benevolence and misplaced sympathy".