Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.21 seconds)Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 53A in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Md. Mannan @ Abdul Mannan vs State Of Bihar on 14 February, 2019
In Mohd. Mannan Vs. State of
Bihar, reported in (2011) 5 SCC 317, which related to rape and murder of a
child aged about eight years, again it was held to be falling within the rarest
of rare category, and death sentence was affirmed by the Supreme Court,
re-iterating the guidelines for imposing death sentence, as follows :-
Purushottam Dashrath Borate & Anr vs State Of Maharashtra on 8 May, 2015
27. Again in Purushottam Dashrath Borate Vs. State of
Maharashtra, reported in AIR 2015 SC 2170, the Supreme Court, in a case
related to gang rape and murder of a married woman, re-iterated the need of
imposing just punishment upon the accused, holding that the undue
sympathy shown to the accused shall do more harm. It was also held that the
age of the accused or his family background or lack of criminal antecedents,
cannot alone be considered as mitigating circumstances. The death sentence
was affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, upon the accused in spite of his
young age.
Vasant Sampat Dupare vs State Of Maharashtra on 28 October, 2014
28. Again, in Vasanta Sampat Dupare Vs. State of
Maharashtra, reported in (2015) 1 SCC 253, which related to rape and
murder of a child aged about four years, who, after the rape was committed
upon her, was crushed to death by stone, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
affirmed the death sentence, finding the case to be one under the category of
rarest of rare cases. In this case, the accused-appellant had also filed the
Review Petition in the Supreme Court, which was again dismissed by the
Judgment, reported in (2017) 6 SCC 631.
Tattu Lodhi @ Pancham Lodhi vs State Of M.P on 16 September, 2016
30. On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellants has
submitted that simply because the case relates to rape and murder of a child,
it does not come under the category of rarest of rare cases. Learned counsel
has placed reliance upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Sebastian
Vs. State of Kerela, reported in (2010) 1 SCC 58, Ram Deo Prasad Vs.
State of Bihar, reported in (2013) 7 SCC 725, Tattu Lodhi Vs. State of
M.P., reported in (2016) 9 SCC 675, and in all these cases, the child aged
between 2 to 7 years were murdered after committing rape upon them. The
Supreme Court, in the facts of these cases, held that they do not come within
the category of rarest of rare cases, and the death sentence awarded by the
Trial Court below, and confirmed by the High Court, were commuted to life
imprisonment.
Amit vs State Of U.P on 23 February, 2012
Similar view was taken by the Apex Court in Amit Vs. State of
U.P, reported in (2012) 4 SCC 107, which also related to rape and murder of
a three years old child.
Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik vs The State Of Mahrashtra on 29 February, 2012
34. Taking cues from the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik's case and Sachin Kumar Singhraha's
case (supra), we are of the view that the principles laid down therein, would
squarely cover the case of the appellant in the present case also. The
probability of reformation, rehabilitation and social re-integration of the
appellant into the society, of the present appellant, also cannot be ruled out,
in absence of any criminal antecedent of the accused, and also looking at his
young age.
Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq vs Registrar, Supreme Court Of India on 19 January, 2016
Thereafter, in a completely different
case, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Arif Vs.
Registrar, Supreme Court of India, reported in (2014) 9 SCC 737,
considered two basic issues in the cases where death sentence was
pronounced by the High Court: (1) whether the hearing of such cases should
be by a Bench of at least three if not five Judges of the Supreme Court and
(2) whether the hearing of review petitions in death sentence cases should
not be by circulation, but should only be in open Court. Though the Supreme
Court was not persuaded to accept the submission that the appeal should be
heard by five Judges of the Court, but it decided that in every appeal
pending in the Court in which the death sentence had been awarded by the
High Court, only a Bench of three Judges shall hear the appeal. As regards
the oral hearing of the review petitions in the open Court, it was held that a
limited oral hearing ought to be given, and it was held that this direction
would also apply where the review petition is already dismissed, but the
death sentence was not executed. This gave an opportunity of consideration
of the matter of the accused Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik again by the
Supreme Court. As regards the said accused, it was found by the Supreme
Court that the High Court as well as the Supreme Court had not taken into
consideration the probability of reformation, rehabilitation and social
integrity of the appellant into the society. The Court, however, found that the
appellant was accused in other three similar nature of cases. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the backdrop of these facts laid down the law as follows :-