Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.22 seconds)Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
Bachan Singh vs State Of Punjab on 9 May, 1980
"The law enunciated by this Court in its recent judgments, as already noticed, adds and elaborates the principles that were stated in Bachan Singh [Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 580] and thereafter, in Machhi Singh [Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 470 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 681] . The aforesaid judgments, primarily dissect these principles into two different compartments one being the ''aggravating circumstances' while the other being the ''mitigating circumstances'. The court would consider the cumulative effect of both these aspects and normally, it may not be very appropriate for the court to decide the most significant aspect of sentencing policy with reference to one of the classes under any of the following heads while completely ignoring other classes under other heads. To balance the two is the primary duty of the court. It will be appropriate for the court to come to a final conclusion upon balancing the exercise that would help to administer the criminal justice system better and provide an effective and meaningful reasoning by the court as contemplated under Section 354(3) CrPC."
Machhi Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab on 20 July, 1983
"The law enunciated by this Court in its recent judgments, as already noticed, adds and elaborates the principles that were stated in Bachan Singh [Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 580] and thereafter, in Machhi Singh [Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 470 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 681] . The aforesaid judgments, primarily dissect these principles into two different compartments one being the ''aggravating circumstances' while the other being the ''mitigating circumstances'. The court would consider the cumulative effect of both these aspects and normally, it may not be very appropriate for the court to decide the most significant aspect of sentencing policy with reference to one of the classes under any of the following heads while completely ignoring other classes under other heads. To balance the two is the primary duty of the court. It will be appropriate for the court to come to a final conclusion upon balancing the exercise that would help to administer the criminal justice system better and provide an effective and meaningful reasoning by the court as contemplated under Section 354(3) CrPC."
Alister Anthony Pareira vs State Of Maharashtra on 12 January, 2012
In Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 2 SCC 648, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that ;
Section 10 in The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [Entire Act]
State Of M.P vs Surendra Singh on 13 November, 2014
20. Thus considering the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in above mention case and the fact and circumstances of the case, this fact is undisputed that the accused was arrested on 15.8.2014 and bail of the appellant was allowed on 11.11.2016. Thus, initially at the stage of investigation as well as trial, the appellant was remained in jail about 2 years, 2 months and 27 days. Again, the appellant was sent to jail on 8.1.2019 and he has got bail on 15.2.2019. Thus, again during trial the appellant was in jail for about 2 months 7 days. Due to absence of the accused before the trial court, the trial court issued the non bailable warrant against the appellant. In pursuance of the non bailable warrant, the appellant was again sent to jail on 23.10.2019 and the judgment was pronounced on 25.3.2021. Thus, the appellant is in jail since 23.10.2019 to till today, so now the appellant was in jail for 3 years and 3 months and 210 days. Thus, the total incarceration period of appellant is about 5 years and 8 months.
Ravji @ Ram Chandra vs State Of Rajasthan on 5 December, 1995
Similar view has also been expressed in Ravji v. State of Rajasthan, [1996] 2 SCC 175. It has been held in the said case that it is the nature and gravity of the crime but not the criminal, which are germane for consideration of appropriate punishment in a criminal trial. The Court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against the individual victim but also against the society to which the criminal and victim belong. The punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and brutality with which the crime has been perpetrated, the enormity of the crime warranting public abhorrence and it should "respond to the society's cry for justice against the criminal". If for extremely heinous crime of murder perpetrated in a very brutal manner without any provocation, most deterrent punishment is not given, the case of deterrent punishment will lose its relevance.