Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.48 seconds)Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Om Prakash vs State Of Haryana on 22 February, 1999
25. We may point out that apart from what has been stated in Bachan
Singh’s case (supra) and Machhi Singh’s case (supra) this Court in various
cases like Om Prakash v. State of Haryana (1999) 3 SCC 19, State of U.P. v.
Sattan (2009) 4 SCC 736, Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of
Maharashtra (2009) 6 SCC 498, held that Court must state special reasons to
impose death penalty, hence, the RR Test.
State Of U.P vs Sattan @ Satyendra & Ors on 27 February, 2009
25. We may point out that apart from what has been stated in Bachan
Singh’s case (supra) and Machhi Singh’s case (supra) this Court in various
cases like Om Prakash v. State of Haryana (1999) 3 SCC 19, State of U.P. v.
Sattan (2009) 4 SCC 736, Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of
Maharashtra (2009) 6 SCC 498, held that Court must state special reasons to
impose death penalty, hence, the RR Test.
Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar vs State Of Maharashtra on 13 May, 2009
This was further expressed in Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan
Bariyar (supra). Many-a-times, while determining the sentence, the Courts
take it for granted, looking into the facts of a particular case, that the
accused would be a menace to the society and there is no possibility of
reformation and rehabilitation, while it is the duty of the Court to
ascertain those factors, and the State is obliged to furnish materials for
and against the possibility of reformation and rehabilitation of the
accused. Facts, which the Courts, deal with, in a given case, cannot be
the foundation for reaching such a conclusion, which, as already stated,
calls for additional materials. We, therefore, direct that the criminal
courts, while dealing with offences like Section 302 IPC, after conviction,
may, in appropriate cases, call for a report to determine, whether the
accused could be reformed or rehabilitated, which depends upon the facts
and circumstances of each case.
Bantu vs State Of U.P on 23 July, 2008
In Bantu (supra), this Court
placing reliance on the Judgment in Sevaka Perumal v. State of T.N. (1991)
3 SCC 471 observed as follows:
Shivaji @ Dadya Shankar Alhat vs State Of Maharashtra on 5 September, 2008
Shivaji v.
State of Maharashtra (2008) 15 SCC 269, was a case where a married person
having three children, known to the family of the deceased, ravished the
life of a girl aged 9 years and strangulated her to death, this Court
affirmed the death sentence awarded by the High Court.
Md.Mannan @ Abdul Mannan vs State Of Bihar on 20 April, 2011
Mohd. Mannan v.
State of Bihar (2011) 5 SCC 317, was a case where a minor girl aged 7 years
was kidnapped, raped and murdered by an accused aged between 42-43 years.
This Court held that he would be a menace to society and would continue to
be so and could not be reformed and hence confirmed the death sentence.
Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik vs The State Of Mahrashtra on 29 February, 2012
Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 4 SCC 37 was a
case where a 3 year old child was raped and murdered by an accused of 31
years old. This Court noticed the brutal manner in which the crime was
committed and the pain and agony undergone by the minor girl. This Court
confirmed the death sentence.