Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (1.05 seconds)
Sangeet & Anr vs State Of Haryana on 20 November, 2012 cites

Bachan Singh vs State Of Punjab on 9 May, 1980

6. Thereafter, the Trial Judge heard the convicts under Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the question of sentence. In his brief statement, appellant Sandeep stated that he is married and has a five-year- old daughter and aged parents to look after. Appellant Narender also gave a brief a brief statement that he is not married and has aged parents to look after. The Trial Judge considered the judgments of this Court, inter alia, in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684 and Machhi Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 470. Thereafter, by his order dated 18th November, 2009 the Trial Judge handed down the sentences mentioned above.
Supreme Court of India Cites 84 - Cited by 395 - Full Document

Swamy Shraddananda@Murali Monahar ... vs State Of Karnataka on 22 July, 2008

30. The application of the sentencing policy through aggravating and mitigating circumstances came up for consideration in Swamy Shraddananda (2) v. State of Karnataka, (2008) 13 SCC 767. On a review, it was concluded in paragraph 48 of the Report that there is a lack of evenness in the sentencing process. The rarest of rare principle has not been followed uniformly or consistently.
Supreme Court of India Cites 52 - Cited by 270 - A Alam - Full Document

Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar vs State Of Maharashtra on 13 May, 2009

31. The critique in Swamy Shraddananda was mentioned (with approval) in Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 6 SCC 498 while sharing this Court’s “unease and sense of disquiet” in paragraphs 109, 129 and 130 of the Report. In fact, in paragraph 109 of the Report, it was observed that “… the balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances approach invoked on a case-by-case basis has not worked sufficiently well so as to remove the vice of arbitrariness from our capital sentencing system. It can be safely said that the Bachan Singh threshold of “the rarest of rare cases” has been most variedly and inconsistently applied by the various High Courts as also this Court.”
Supreme Court of India Cites 59 - Cited by 235 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Ravji @ Ram Chandra vs State Of Rajasthan on 5 December, 1995

34. Despite Bachan Singh, primacy still seems to be given to the nature of the crime. The circumstances of the criminal, referred to in Bachan Singh appear to have taken a bit of a back seat in the sentencing process. This was noticed in Bariyar with reference to Ravji v. State of Rajasthan, (1996) 2 SCC 175. It was observed that “curiously” only characteristics relating to the crime, to the exclusion of the criminal were found relevant to sentencing. It was noted that Ravji has been followed in several decisions of this Court where primacy has been given to the crime and circumstances concerning the criminal have not been considered. In paragraph 63 of the Report it is noted that Ravji was rendered per incuriam and then it was observed that:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 213 - G N Ray - Full Document

Md.Mannan @ Abdul Mannan vs State Of Bihar on 20 April, 2011

38. Mohd. Mannan v. State of Bihar, (2011) 5 SCC 317 was a case of a brutal rape and murder of a seven-year-old girl. While confirming the sentence of death, this Court referred to the nature of the crime and the extreme indignation of the community. On that basis, it leaned towards awarding the death sentence and observed in paragraph 24 of the Report as follows:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 66 - C K Prasad - Full Document

Sushil Murmu vs State Of Jharkhand on 12 December, 2003

43. Sushil Murmu v. State of Jharkhand, (2004) 2 SCC 338 was a case of child sacrifice. This Court confirmed the death sentence awarded to the criminal after considering the fact that he was being tried for a similar offence. Significantly, the convict was still an under-trial and had not been found guilty of that similar offence. Nevertheless, this was found relevant for upholding the death sentence awarded to him.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 58 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1   2 3 Next