Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.27 seconds)Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Swamy Shraddananda@Murali Monahar ... vs State Of Karnataka on 22 July, 2008
63. With that when we come to the second part of the first
question which pertains to the special category of sentence
to be considered in substitute of death penalty by imposing
a life sentence i.e. the entirety of the life or a term of
imprisonment which can be less than full life term but more
than 14 years and put that category beyond application of
CRL.A.576/2018 Page 28 of 30
remission which has been propounded in paras 91 and 92
of Swamy Shraddananda (2) alias Murali Manohar Mishra
v. State of Karnataka, (2008) 13 SCC 767and has come to
stay as on this date."
Gopal Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand on 8 February, 2013
46. Imposition of fixed term sentence has been justified by the
Supreme Court in the case of Vikas Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
reported as (2016) 9 SCC 541, where the following passage from Gopal
Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand reported as (2013) 7 SCC 545 was
quoted:-
Jitendra @ Kalla vs State Of Govt Of Nct Of Delhi on 25 October, 2018
In a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Jitendra @ Kalla vs.
State of Govt. of NCT of Delhi reported as AIR 2018 SC 5253, where it
was called upon to examine whether the appellant therein, who had been
sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life with a direction that he shall
not be considered for grant of remission till he undergoes the actual
CRL.A.576/2018 Page 27 of 30
sentence of 30 years plus fine of Rs.3 lacs and in default of fine, simple
imprisonment for a period of three years and in appeal, the High Court
had concluded that the punishments awarded to the appellant were
excessive in nature and had modified the same by removing the cap of 30
years and sentenced him to the period already undergone, i.e., 16 years
10 months, the Supreme Court has reiterated the decision of the
Constitution Bench in V. Sriharan alias Murugan (supra) on the aspect of
the types of remissions earned by a convict in the case of life
imprisonment and held thus:-