Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.22 seconds)Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 320 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Swamy Shraddananda@Murali Monahar ... vs State Of Karnataka on 22 July, 2008
In the case of Murali vs. State; (2021) 1 SCC 726 , Hon'ble the
Apex Court has held that the fact of amicable settlement/compromise
between the parties can be a relevant factor for the purpose of reduction in
quantum of sentence of convicts even in serious non-compoundable
offences.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Unnikrishnan @ Unnikuttan vs State Of Kerala on 2 December, 2016
11. On this point, the view of Hon'ble Apex Court in the
Unnikrishnan alias Unnikuttan versus State of Kerala reported in AIR 2017
Supreme Court 1745 is also worth referring in the context of this case as
under:-
Bharath Singh Raraput vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 August, 2021
In series of decisions i.e. Bharath Singh vs. State
of M.P. and Ors., 1990 (Supp) SCC 62, Ramlal vs.
State of J & K, (1999) 2 SCC 213, Puttaswamy vs. State
of Karnataka and Anr, (2009) 1 SCC 71 1, this Court
allowed the parties to compound the offence even
though the offence is a non-compoundable depending
on the facts and circumstances of each case. In some
cases this Court while imposing the fine amount
reduced the sentence to the period already undergone.