Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.67 seconds)
Gaya Prasad Pal @ Mukesh vs State on 9 December, 2016 cites

Ashok Kumar Alias Golu vs Union Of India And Ors on 10 July, 1991

84. Whilst it is true that the law gives the discretion to the criminal court to direct the sentences for different offences on which conviction has been recorded in the same trial against the same accused, to run concurrently or consecutively (Section 31 Cr. PC), it has to be borne in mind that "imprisonment for life", as is one of the sentence awarded here, has all along been understood to mean and construed as imprisonment for "the full and complete span of life". [Ashok Kumar @ Golu Vs. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 498].
Supreme Court of India Cites 38 - Cited by 262 - A M Ahmadi - Full Document

Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad vs State Of Maharashtra on 3 May, 2013

In the case reported as Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 6 SCC 770, the question of award of compensation to be paid by the convict (appellant) to the bereaved family of the victim of the offence under Section 304 (part II) IPC had arisen and the Supreme Court, after taking note of the jurisprudence that has evolved against the backdrop of the provision contained in Section 357 Cr. PC, concluded thus :
Supreme Court of India Cites 53 - Cited by 372 - T S Thakur - Full Document
1