Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.38 seconds)
Shaik Babu And 2 Others vs The State Of Telangana on 28 April, 2023 cites

Ediga Anamma vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 11 February, 1974

In the words of Justice Krishna Iyer in Ediga Anamma Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh1, the unmistakable shift in the legislative emphasis is that life imprisonment for murder is the rule and capital sentence is an exception to be resorted to, for the PNR, J & JS, J RT No.1/2020 & Crl.A.No.293/2020 5 reasons to be stated. It is obvious that the disturbed conscience of the state on the vexed question of legal threat to life by way of death sentence has sought to express itself legislatively, the stream of tendency being towards cautious, partial abolition and a retreat from total retention. It is interesting to note that the requirement for reasons to be stated for awarding any sentence for a term of years found legislative expression in Cr.P.C. for the first time in the year 1973. In the case of death sentence, there must be special reasons. That shows the paradigm shift to life imprisonment as the rule, and death, as the exception.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 161 - V R Iyer - Full Document

Bachan Singh Etc. Etc vs State Of Punjab Etc. Etc on 16 August, 1982

Furthermore, the subject murder was neither "murder by hired assassins for money or reward" nor would "arouse social wrath". It is neither "enormous in proportion" nor was "committed in betrayal of mother land". Similarly, the PNR, J & JS, J RT No.1/2020 & Crl.A.No.293/2020 99 magnitude of the crime is limited to an individual and does not involve the elimination of a family, or a large number of persons of a particular community or locality. Thus, the case does not fulfil the tests prescribed in Bachan Singh's case (11 supra) and Machhi Singh's case (12 supra). Therefore, the case does not fall within the extreme category of "rarest of the rare".
Supreme Court of India Cites 112 - Cited by 863 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Krishan Kumar Malik vs State Of Haryana on 4 July, 2011

60. Here, it is apt to state that recent advancement in modern biological research has regularized forensic science resulting in radical help in the administration of justice. DNA Technology, as a part of forensic science and scientific discipline, not only provides guidance to the investigation but also supplies the Court, accrued information about the tending features of the identification of criminals. After the amendment of Criminal Procedure Code, by the insertion of Section 53A by Act 25 of 2005, DNA profiling has now become a part of the statutory scheme. Section 53A relates to the examination of a person accused of rape by a medical practitioner. DNA profiling test is now specifically included by way of explanation to Section 53 of Cr.P.C. Thus, Section 53A included in the Code of Criminal Procedure by way of the Amendment Act of 23 AIR 2010 SC 1974 PNR, J & JS, J RT No.1/2020 & Crl.A.No.293/2020 71 2005, makes the DNA profiling of the accused and the victim permissible in cases of rape. The observation to this effect has been made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Krishan Kumar Malik Vs. State of Haryana25 in the following words.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 321 - D Verma - Full Document

Rajesh Kumar vs State Th:Govt Of Nct Of Delhi on 28 September, 2011

In Rajesh Kumar Vs. State33, the accused was convicted of assault and murder of two helpless children in the most gruesome manner. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that death sentence could not be inflicted, reiterating that life imprisonment was the rule and death sentence an exception, only to be imposed in the "rarest of rare cases" and for "special reasons" when there were no mitigating circumstances.
Supreme Court of India Cites 39 - Cited by 169 - Full Document

Nand Kishore vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 January, 2019

Moreover, in Nand Kishore Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh40 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that an accused can be sentenced to imprisonment with or without the benefit of remission. Therefore, while imposing a punishment, the Court has four different options with regard to the punishment to be inflicted upon an accused convicted under Section 302 IPC. The two new terms of punishment prescribed by the Hon'ble Apex Court balance the conflict between the rights of the accused and cry for justice by the society. Furthermore, these two newly created options equally balance the reformative theory of punishment on one side, and of the right of the society to be protected from a potential menace. Hence, while selecting the punishment, the other options available between life imprisonment and death sentence, should also be considered by the Court. Furthermore, it may be beneficial for the criminal justice system to select a via-media between life and death, to incarcerate the accused either for thirty years without parole, or for the rest of his life without remission. By 39 (2013) 2 SCC 713 40 (2019) 16 SCC 278 PNR, J & JS, J RT No.1/2020 & Crl.A.No.293/2020 102 selecting such a middle path, the criminal justice system acknowledges both the significance of a life and simultaneously protects the society from volatile and dangerous persons. Moreover, it gives a chance to the society and the State to try to reform an accused to the best of the ability of the society and the State. Neither the society, nor the State should readily admit that it has failed to reform a person. The endeavour of the society, and the State should be to recondition the psychology of an accused, and to make him a productive member of the society at large. Even while a prisoner is incarcerated, he can be reformed to the extent that he can be employed within the jail administration and can become a role model for the other under-trial convict prisoners. Further, the via-media also permits the Court to balance the twin aspects of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, viz., while it limits the personal liberty of the accused, it does not deprive the accused of his life. Therefore, such a term of punishment would, indeed, be in consonance with Article 21 of the Constitution of India - an Article which has been held to be the heart and soul of the Constitution of India.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 30 - R S Reddy - Full Document

The State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Mahipal on 13 February, 2018

In Mahipal's case (15 supra) relied by the learned Public Prosecutor, the appellant therein was sentenced to death by the trial Court for the offence under Section 302 of IPC for causing death of two minor children for ransom. However, the High Court PNR, J & JS, J RT No.1/2020 & Crl.A.No.293/2020 104 acquitted the appellant of all the charges levelled against the appellant. The Hon'ble Apex Court reversed the judgment of the High Court but however, modified the death sentence imposed by the trial Court to that of life imprisonment.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 3 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1