Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.47 seconds)
Documents citing Ravinder Singh vs State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr on 5 December, 2022

Rajesh vs State on 23 February, 2026

In the light of the dictum in Ravinder Singh v. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi, (2024) 2 SCC 323 the trial court could not have imposed a sentence of 15 years, though the High Court and the Apex Court are empowered to do so. Hence the sentence imposed by the trial court is modified thus: as the appellant/accused is the father of the PW1, the minimum sentence of 10 years would not suffice for the crime committed against his own young daughter. Hence the sentence is modified to a period of 14 years rigorous imprisonment.
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Navdeep @ Sonu vs State (Nct Of Delhi ) on 24 March, 2026

36. The trial court has imposed a sentence of rigorous CRL.A. 23/2025 and connected matter Page 38 of 40 Signature Not Verified Signed By:KOMAL DHAWAN Signing Date:24.03.2026 14:41:53 imprisonment of 15 years for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the PoCSO Act. This could not have been done in the light of the dictum in Ravinder Singh v. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi, (2024) 2 SCC 323. The maximum that could have been imposed by the trial court was imprisonment for life or for a term not exceeding 14 years. Furthermore, the appellants/ A1 and A2were only aged 19-20 years at the time of the incident. Hence in the said circumstances, I find that the substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years would serve the ends of justice.
Delhi High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rajender Sharma vs The State (Govt Of Nct) Delhi on 5 May, 2026

31. The incident took place on 13.01.2013. Section 6 of the PoCSO Act as it then stood reads: "whoever, commits aggravated penetrative sexual assault shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 10 years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine". Going by the dictum in Ravinder Singh v. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi, (2024) 2 SCC 323, the trial court could have imposed either the maximum sentence of life or if it was for a term, for a period not exceeding 14 years. Here, the trial court imposed a sentence of 20 years which apparently could not have been done. Therefore, taking into account the facts and circumstances of this case, I find that substantive sentence of 14 years would serve the ends of justice.
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Parveen Kumar vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 8 May, 2026

In the light of the dictum in Ravinder Singh v. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi, (2024) 2 SCC 323, the trial court could not have imposed a sentence of 15 years, though the High Court and the Apex Court are empowered to do so. Hence the sentence imposed by the trial court is modified thus: considering the nature and gravity of the offence and the facts of the present case, the minimum sentence of 10 years would not suffice. Accordingly, the sentence is modified to a period of 14 years' rigorous imprisonment.
Delhi High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Raj Kumar Rai @ Raju Kumar Ray vs State on 15 May, 2026

In the light of the dictum in Ravinder Singh v. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi, (2024) 2 SCC 323, the trial court could not have imposed a sentence of 20 years, though the High Court and the Apex Court are empowered to do so. The trial court could have imposed the CRL.A. 1201/2019 Page 7 of 9 Signature Not Verified Signed By:KOMAL DHAWAN Signing Date:16.05.2026 09:37:51 minimum sentence of 10 years or life imprisonment and if it was for a term, for a period not exceeding 14 years. In the case on hand, the trial court has imposed a sentence of imprisonment for twenty years, which it could not have done. Hence, the sentence imposed by the trial court needs to be modified.
Delhi High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1