Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.34 seconds)Sushil Murmu vs State Of Jharkhand on 12 December, 2003
46. Applying the principles and tests laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahendra Nath Das alias Gobinda Das v. State of Assam , Sushil Murmu v. State of Jharkhand , and even the facts and circumstances in the instant case are almost similar, hence the above case would clearly be a rare and rarest case necessitating death penalty. Over and above, the Accused is charged with murder in another case, the manner in which the Accused decapitated Dhondiram and also the she-goat without any provocation, the presence of the Accused in the Society would be a great menace.
Sri Mahendra Nath Das Sri Gobinda Das vs State Of Assam on 14 May, 1999
46. Applying the principles and tests laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahendra Nath Das alias Gobinda Das v. State of Assam , Sushil Murmu v. State of Jharkhand , and even the facts and circumstances in the instant case are almost similar, hence the above case would clearly be a rare and rarest case necessitating death penalty. Over and above, the Accused is charged with murder in another case, the manner in which the Accused decapitated Dhondiram and also the she-goat without any provocation, the presence of the Accused in the Society would be a great menace.
Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 342 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
State Of Karnataka vs Dastagirsab And Ors. on 10 March, 1981
In support of his arguments that the recovery of Koyta without blood stains will not support the prosecution case, the learned Counsel for the Accused has referred to and relied upon the judgment in the case of State of Karnataka v. Dastagirsab and Ors. 1981 CRI.L.J.1157.
Mohan Singh vs Prem Singh And Anr on 1 October, 2002
In support of his submissions, he referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohan Singh v. Prem Singh AIR 2002 SC 3582, wherein the Supreme Court has observed that the statement of the accused Under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is not a substantive piece of evidence; It can be used for appreciating evidence led by the prosecution to accept or reject it; It is however not a substitute for the evidence of the prosecution; If the exculpatory part of his statement is found to be false and the evidence led by the prosecution is reliable, the inculpatory part of his statement can be taken aid of to lend assurance to the evidence of the prosecution; If the prosecution evidence does not inspire confidence to sustain the conviction of the accused, the inclupatory part of his statement Under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. cannot be made the sole basis of the conviction.
Saibanna vs State Of Karnataka on 21 April, 2005
8. Mr. A.R. Patil, the learned APP thereafter referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Saibanna v. State of Karnataka , wherein also the Supreme Court has upheld the death sentence of the appellant, who, while committing the said murders, was on parole in the case of murder of his first wife and was already convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment in the said earlier case. Considering all the circumstances the Supreme Court has observed that the High Court was justified and right in coming to the conclusion that the appellant's case bristles with special circumstances requisite for imposition of the death penalty, and as such, the death penalty was upheld.