Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.67 seconds)Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Ramji Prasad vs Rattan Kumar Jaiswal And Anr. on 18 April, 2000
Mr.Gopal
Subramanyam, learned Addl. Solicitor General invited our attention
to Akhilesh Kumar Sinha, v. State of Bihar, (2000) 6 SCC 461; Vinay
Kumar v. Narendra & Ors. (2002) 9 SCC 363 : JT 2002 Supp (1)
SC 60; Ramji Prasad v. Rattan Kumar Jaiswal & Nr. (2002) 9 SCC
366 : JT 200 (7) SC 477; State of Haryana v. Hasmat, (2004) 6 SCC
175 : JT 2004 (6) SC 6; Kishori Lal v. Rupa & Ors. (2004) 7
SCC 638 : JT 2004 (8) SC 317 and State of Maharashtra v. Madhukar
Wamanrao Smarth, (2008) 4 Scale 414 : JT 2008(4) SC 461.
Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 19 April, 2010
(iii) In
the case of Siddhartha Vashisht v. State (NCT of Delhi),
AIR 2008 SC 2889, wherein the Apex Court in he context of bail
pending appeal against conviction observed as under:
Section 389 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Musakhan And Ors. vs State Of Maharashtra on 11 October, 1976
Counsel
also relied on a decision in the case of Musakhan v. State of
Maharashtra, AIR 1976 SC 2566 wherein in the context of shared
common object of the unlawful assembly, it was observed that it
must be proved in each case that the person concerned was not only
a member of the unlawful assembly at some stage, but at all the
crucial stages and shared the common object of the assembly at all
these stages.
Sajal Sureshkumar Jain vs State Of Gujarat on 16 February, 2005
(ii) In the
case of Sajal Sureshkumar Jain v. State of Gujarat, 2010 Cri.
L.J. 213 wherein a Division Bench of this Court, in the context of
suspending sentence pending appeal and releasing the convict on bail,
observed as under:
Ashish Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh 8 Wps/8633/2019 ... on 12 December, 2019
But it is well settled, as observed in Vijay Kumar v.
Narendra and Ramji Prasad v. Rattan Kumar, reported in (2002) 9 SCC,
364 that ... The Court should consider the relevant factors like
the nature of accusation made against the accused, the manner in
which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the
offence, and the desirability of releasing the accused on bail after
they have been convicted for committing the serious offence of
murder.... . (Emphasis supplied) It has also been observed in some
of the cases that in normal practice in such cases, not to suspend
sentence and it is only in exceptional cases benefits of suspension
can be granted.
State Of Punjab vs Deepak Mattu on 18 September, 2007
It
may also be recorded that the Apex Court, in the case of State of
Punjab v. Deepak Mattu, reported in (2007) 11 SCC, 319, has held
that a long time may be taken to decide the appeal or that there are
good points to argue would not be sufficient grounds to suspend the
sentence for exercise of the power by the High Court under Section
389 of Cr.P.C., more particularly when the offence is a serious
offence or the gravity of the offence is very high.
Akhilesh Kumar Sinha vs State Of Bihar on 13 April, 2000
Mr.Gopal
Subramanyam, learned Addl. Solicitor General invited our attention
to Akhilesh Kumar Sinha, v. State of Bihar, (2000) 6 SCC 461; Vinay
Kumar v. Narendra & Ors. (2002) 9 SCC 363 : JT 2002 Supp (1)
SC 60; Ramji Prasad v. Rattan Kumar Jaiswal & Nr. (2002) 9 SCC
366 : JT 200 (7) SC 477; State of Haryana v. Hasmat, (2004) 6 SCC
175 : JT 2004 (6) SC 6; Kishori Lal v. Rupa & Ors. (2004) 7
SCC 638 : JT 2004 (8) SC 317 and State of Maharashtra v. Madhukar
Wamanrao Smarth, (2008) 4 Scale 414 : JT 2008(4) SC 461.