Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.33 seconds)
Mangal Singh & Ors. vs The State Of M.P. on 25 September, 2017 cites

Bachan Singh vs State Of Punjab on 9 May, 1980

36. As it is earlier stated that vide order dated 13.08.2009, this Court has given notices for enhancement of sentences to the appellants, now the point for consideration before us is whether the sentences awarded to appellants Mangal Singh, Panjan Singh and Rampal Singh under Section 302 IPC by the learned Sessions Judge deserve to be enhanced? As is it obvious from the evidence on record, the incident occurred on the spur of moments without pre-plan and pre-meditation when the complainant party was carrying their engine through the Mer of accused party. Moreover, 40 Cr.A. 960/2000 there is no evidence on record that there is a deep rooted enmity between the complainant party and the accused party. The appellants had filed this appeal in the year 2000, whereas this Court has given the notices of enhancement of sentences to them in the year 2009, i.e. after a lapse of near about of nine years. Thus, the efficacy of giving notices of enhancement of sentences has lost its significance with elapsed of nine long years. The Supreme Court has enumerated the aggravating and the mitigating circumstances in awarding a death sentence in the cases of Bachchan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684, Machhi Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 470 and more recently in the case of Mukesh and another Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and others, (2017) 6 SCC 1.
Supreme Court of India Cites 84 - Cited by 395 - Full Document

Mukesh & Anr vs State For Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 5 May, 2017

36. As it is earlier stated that vide order dated 13.08.2009, this Court has given notices for enhancement of sentences to the appellants, now the point for consideration before us is whether the sentences awarded to appellants Mangal Singh, Panjan Singh and Rampal Singh under Section 302 IPC by the learned Sessions Judge deserve to be enhanced? As is it obvious from the evidence on record, the incident occurred on the spur of moments without pre-plan and pre-meditation when the complainant party was carrying their engine through the Mer of accused party. Moreover, 40 Cr.A. 960/2000 there is no evidence on record that there is a deep rooted enmity between the complainant party and the accused party. The appellants had filed this appeal in the year 2000, whereas this Court has given the notices of enhancement of sentences to them in the year 2009, i.e. after a lapse of near about of nine years. Thus, the efficacy of giving notices of enhancement of sentences has lost its significance with elapsed of nine long years. The Supreme Court has enumerated the aggravating and the mitigating circumstances in awarding a death sentence in the cases of Bachchan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684, Machhi Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 470 and more recently in the case of Mukesh and another Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and others, (2017) 6 SCC 1.
Supreme Court of India Cites 282 - Cited by 419 - Full Document

Panchhi And Others, National ... vs State Of Up And Others on 19 August, 1998

The Supreme Court in the cases of Panchhi and others Vs. State of U.P., (1998) 7 SCC 177, Omprakash Vs. State of Haryana, (1999) 3 SCC 19 and Ram Pal Vs. State of U.P., (2003) 7 SCC 141 has held that the degree of brutality in committing a murder and the number of murders are also not the criteria for awarding a 41 Cr.A. 960/2000 death sentence. The law laid down in the aforesaid case-law, we are of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case for awarding death sentences to appellants Mangal Singh, Panjan Singh and Rampal Singh.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 242 - Full Document
1   2 Next