Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.91 seconds)

Deo Narain Mandal vs State Of U.P on 25 August, 2004

In Deo Narain Mandal v. State State of UP (2004) 7 SCC 257, a three Judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined that awarding of sentence is not a mere formality in criminal cases. When a minimum and maximum term is prescribed by the statute with regard to the period of sentence, a discretionary element is vested in the Court. Background of each case, which includes factors like gravity of the offence, manner in which the offence is committed, age of the accused, should be considered while determining the quantum of sentence and this discretion is not to be used arbitrarily or whimsically. After assessing all relevant factors, proper sentence should be awarded bearing in mind the principle of proportionality to ensure the sentence is neither excessively harsh nor does it come across as lenient.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 173 - Full Document

Ravada Sasikala vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Anr on 27 February, 2017

Further, a two Judge Bench in Ravada Sasikala v. State of AP AIR 2017 SC 1166, has reiterated that the imposition of sentence also serves a social purpose as it acts as a deterrent by making the accused realise the damage caused not only to the victim but also to the society at large. The law in this regard is well settled that opportunities of reformation must be granted and such discretion is to be exercised by evaluating all attending circumstances of each case by noticing the 8 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 08-02-2024 20:44:44 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:018019 CRA-S No.394 of 2023 (O&M) -9- 2024:PHHC:018019 nature of the crime, the manner in which the crime was committed and the conduct of the accused to strike a balance between the efficacy of law and the chances of reformation of the accused.
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 170 - D Misra - Full Document
1   2 Next