Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.38 seconds)State Of Sikkim vs Suren Rai on 10 March, 2018
10. Mr. Karma Thinlay informs this Court that the victim
has his dependent parents as well as a minor daughter.
Under the Sikkim Compensation to Victims or His
Dependents Schemes, 2011 the Sikkim State Legal Services
Authority (SSLSA) is directed to pay compensation of ₹ 1.00
lakh to the minor daughter. Out of the said amount an
amount of ₹ 75000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand) shall
10
Crl. Appeal No. 17 of 2016
State of Sikkim vs. Suren Rai
be deposited in fixed deposit in the name of the minor
daughter payable to her on attaining majority. If the minor
does not have any bank account the SSLSA shall ensure
that the guardian of the minor shall open the said fixed
deposit in her name. The rest of the amount of ₹25,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) shall be deposited in the
account of the guardian of the minor which shall be used
by the guardian for the sole purpose of her education,
health and welfare. This amount shall be accountable to the
SSLSA which shall call for periodic reports of the
expenditure from the guardian till exhausted. A further
amount of ₹1.00 lakh shall be paid to the parents of the
victim.
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 357 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Mahesh S/O. Ram Narain Etc vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 March, 1987
In
Mahesh v. State of M.P. [(1987) 3 SCC 80 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 379 :
State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Ghanshyam Singh on 11 September, 2003
In re: Ghanshyam Singh (supra) the Supreme Court
would examine a sentence of about 2 years and fine of
₹15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) imposed in a case
where the accused was found guilty of offence punishable
under Section 304 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) imposed
by the High Court. The accused was found guilty of using a
gun on the victim firing two shots, one on his leg and the
other on the abdomen due to which the victim succumbed
to his injuries subsequently. The Supreme Court would
agree with the conclusion of the High Court about the
applicability of Section 304 Part I of the IPC. On the
question of proper sentence the Supreme Court would hold:
Gopal Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand on 8 February, 2013
In a
recent pronouncement of this Court in Gopal Singh v. State of
Uttarakhand [(2013) 7 SCC 545 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 608] it has
been held that the "principle of just punishment" is the bedrock
of sentencing in respect of a criminal offence. The wide discretion
that is vested in the courts in matters of sentencing must be
exercised on rational parameters in the light of the totality of the
facts of any given case. The doctrine of proportionality has to be
invoked in the context of the facts in which the crime had been
committed, the antecedents of the accused, the age of the
accused and such other relevant factors.