Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.77 seconds)Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade & Anr vs State Of Maharashtra on 27 August, 1973
It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances
concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. There is not only a
grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and 'must be or
should be proved' as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v. State
of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793 : (AIR 1973 SC 2622) where the following
observations were made :
Gagan Kanojia & Anr vs State Of Punjab on 24 November, 2006
In the decision Gagan Kanojia & another vs. State of Punjab7, it is
held at para No.23 as under:
Willie (William) Slaney vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 October, 1955
From the above decision, it is clear that unless prejudice is shown to have
been caused to the accused, the non-framing of separate charge for each of the
offences cannot be fatal to the case of the prosecution.
Bachan Singh Etc. Etc vs State Of Punjab Etc. Etc on 16 August, 1982
34. Now coming to the sentence, the trial Court imposed death penalty. The
law, on this aspect, is very well settled. Unless a case falls under rarest of
the rare cases, the capital punishment cannot be imposed. On this aspect, it is
pertinent to refer to a decision of the Constitution Bench reported in Bachan
Singh vs State of Punjab9 wherein it is held at para Nos.204 and 207 as under:
Dharmendrasinh @ Mansing Ratansinh vs State Of Gujarat on 17 April, 2002
Now considering the facts of the present case in the background of our
observations made in the preceding paragraph, we take note of the fact that the
appellant had been labouring under the strain suspecting character of his wife.
This fact is mentioned by none else but by the complainant Ashaben herself in
her report. She also admitted in her statement in Court that quite often there
has been quarrel between the two on that count. Though denied, a suggestion has
been made to PW-3 Ashaben in her cross-examination that the appellant had been
telling her that their sons were not born of him. It is true that does not seem
to be any immediate cause before the commission of offence, yet the fact remains
that rightly or wrongly such a painful belief was being entertained by the
appellant since long which constantly engaged his mind as admittedly there had
been quarrels on that count between the two. Obviously he would have been
brooding under that idea, which perhaps he could not contain any more. It is
true that two innocent children lost their lives for no fault of theirs. We also
notice that Dharia is a weapon, which is ordinarily to be found in the house of
any farmer or agriculturist in that area as stated by PW-3. He seems to have
used the weapon as lying in the house. The offence was obviously not committed
for lust of power or otherwise or with a view to garb any property nor in
pursuance of any organized criminal or anti-social activity. Chances of
repetition of such criminal acts at his hands making the society further
vulnerable are also not apparent. He had no previous criminal record."