Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 218 (0.61 seconds)
Mukesh & Anr vs State For Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 5 May, 2017 cites

Ankush Maruti Shinde & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra on 30 April, 2009

State of W.B. (1994) 2 SCC 220, Laxman Naik v. State of Orissa (1994) 3 SCC 381, Kamta Tewari v. State of M.P. (1996) 6 SCC 250, Nirmal Singh v. State of Haryana (1999) 3 SCC 670, Jai Kumar v. State of M.P. (1999) 5 SCC 1, State of U.P. v. Satish (2005) 3 SCC 114, Bantu v. State of U.P. (2008) 11 SCC 113, Ankush Maruti Shinde v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 6 SCC 667, B.A. Umesh v. State of Karnataka (2011) 3 SCC 85, Mohd. Mannan v. State of Bihar (2011) 5 SCC 317 and Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 4 SCC 37);
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 45 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Machhi Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab on 20 July, 1983

137. Another significant development in the sentencing policy of India is the ‘victim-centric’ approach, clearly recognised in Machhi Singh (Supra) and re-emphasized in a plethora of cases. It has been consistently held that the courts have a duty towards society and that the punishment should be corresponding to the crime and should act as a soothing balm to the suffering of the victim and their family.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 785 - M P Thakkar - Full Document

State Of U.P vs Satish on 8 February, 2005

State of W.B. (1994) 2 SCC 220, Laxman Naik v. State of Orissa (1994) 3 SCC 381, Kamta Tewari v. State of M.P. (1996) 6 SCC 250, Nirmal Singh v. State of Haryana (1999) 3 SCC 670, Jai Kumar v. State of M.P. (1999) 5 SCC 1, State of U.P. v. Satish (2005) 3 SCC 114, Bantu v. State of U.P. (2008) 11 SCC 113, Ankush Maruti Shinde v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 6 SCC 667, B.A. Umesh v. State of Karnataka (2011) 3 SCC 85, Mohd. Mannan v. State of Bihar (2011) 5 SCC 317 and Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 4 SCC 37);
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 657 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik vs The State Of Mahrashtra on 29 February, 2012

State of W.B. (1994) 2 SCC 220, Laxman Naik v. State of Orissa (1994) 3 SCC 381, Kamta Tewari v. State of M.P. (1996) 6 SCC 250, Nirmal Singh v. State of Haryana (1999) 3 SCC 670, Jai Kumar v. State of M.P. (1999) 5 SCC 1, State of U.P. v. Satish (2005) 3 SCC 114, Bantu v. State of U.P. (2008) 11 SCC 113, Ankush Maruti Shinde v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 6 SCC 667, B.A. Umesh v. State of Karnataka (2011) 3 SCC 85, Mohd. Mannan v. State of Bihar (2011) 5 SCC 317 and Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 4 SCC 37);
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 188 - S Kumar - Full Document

Smt. Kamti Devi & Anr vs Poshi Ram Respondent on 11 May, 2001

71. We feel that the trial court was not justified in rejecting the DNA report, as nothing adverse could be pointed out against the two experts who had submitted it. We must, therefore, accept the DNA report as being scientifically accurate and an exact science as held by this Court in Kamti Devi v. Poshi Ram (2001) 5 SCC 311. In arriving at its conclusions the trial court was also influenced by the fact that the semen swabs and slides and the blood samples of the appellant had not been kept in proper custody and had been tampered with, as already indicated above. We are of the opinion that the trial court was in error on this score. We, accordingly, endorse the conclusions of the High Court on Circumstance 9.” [emphasis added].
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 138 - Full Document

Purushottam Dashrath Borate & Anr vs State Of Maharashtra on 8 May, 2015

In Purushottam Dashrath Borate and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra (2015) 6 SCC 652, this Court held that age of the accused or family background of the accused or lack of criminal antecedents cannot be said to be the mitigating circumstance. It cannot also be considered as mitigating circumstance, particularly taking into consideration, the nature of heinous offence and cold and calculated manner in which it was committed by the accused persons.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 31 - H L Dattu - Full Document

Kehar Singh & Ors vs State (Delhi Admn.) on 3 August, 1988

97. The principles relating to the offence of criminal conspiracy and the standard of proof for establishing offence of conspiracy and the joint liability of the conspirators have been elaborately laid down in Shivnarayan Laxminarayan Joshi and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra  (1980) 2 SCC 465; Mohammad Usman Mohammad Hussain Maniyar and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra (1981) 2 SCC 443; Kehar Singh and Ors. v. State (Delhi Administration) (1988) 3 SCC 609; State of Maharashtra and Ors. v. Som Nath Thapa and Ors. (1996) 4 SCC 659; State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru (2005) 11 SCC 600; State Through Superintendent of Police, CBI/SIT v. Nalini and Ors. (1999) 5 SCC 253 Yakub Abdul Razak Menon v. The State of Maharashtra, through CBI, Bombay (2013) 13 SCC 1.
Supreme Court of India Cites 104 - Cited by 684 - G L Oza - Full Document

Shankar Kisanrao Khade vs State Of Maharashtra on 25 April, 2013

In the same judgment in Shankar Kisanrao Khade v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 5 SCC 546, Justice Madan B. Lokur (concurring) while elaborately analysing the question of imposing death penalty in specific facts and circumstances of that particular case, concerning rape and murder of a minor, discussed the sentencing policy of India, with special reference to execution of the sentences imposed by the Judiciary. The Court noted the prima facie difference in the standard of yardsticks adopted by two organs of the government viz. Judiciary and the Executive in treating the life of convicts convicted of an offence punishable with death and recommended consideration of Law Commission of India over this issue. The relevant excerpt from the said judgment, highlighting the inconsistency in the approach of Judiciary and Executive in the matter of sentencing, is as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 99 - Cited by 161 - K Radhakrishnan - Full Document

State Of Rajasthan vs N. K. Accused on 30 March, 2000

As rightly held in State of Rajasthan v. N.K., The Accused (2000) 5 SCC 30, absence of injury on the person of the victim is not necessarily an evidence of falsity of the allegations of rape or evidence of consent on the part of the prosecutrix. In the present case, the extensive injuries found on the vagina/private parts of the body of the victim and injuries caused to the internal organs and all over the body, clearly show that the victim was ravished.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 246 - R C Lahoti - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next