Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 30 (2.00 seconds)Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Machhi Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab on 20 July, 1983
5. The High Court after setting out the principles laid down in the
celebrated Constitution Bench decisions of this Court in Bachan Singh Vs.
State of Punjab – (1980) 2 SCC 684 and the subsequent judgment in Machhi
Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab – (1983) 3 SCC 470 held that the
murder reference deserved to be accepted and the death sentence was,
therefore, confirmed. The Division Bench of the High Court took into
account the circumstances which are to be kept in mind for applying the
‘rarest of the rare case’ theory based on the above referred two decisions
and noted the same as under:
Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
State Of Maharashtra vs Goraksha Ambaji Adsul on 7 July, 2011
In this context we analyzed the various principles laid down in the
subsequent decisions reported in Swamy Shraddananda @ Murali Manohar Mishra
Vs. State of Karnataka - (2008) 13 SCC 767, Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan
Bariyar Vs. State of Maharashtra -(2009) 6 SCC 498, Mohd. Farooq Abdul
Gafur & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra -(2010) 14 SCC 641, Haresh Mohandas
Rajput Vs. State of Maharashtra -(2011) 12 SCC 56, State of Maharashtra Vs.
Goraksha Ambaji Adsul - AIR 2011 SC 2689 and the recent decision reported
in Mohammed Ajmal Mohammadamir Kasab @ Abu Mujahid Vs. State of Maharashtra
Md.Ajmal Md.Amir Kasab @Abu Majahid vs State Of Maharashtra on 29 August, 2012
10. Be that as it may when we come to the question of applying the
various principles culled out from the decisions right from the
Constitution Bench decision in Bachan Singh (supra) right up to the case
Mohammed Ajmal Mohammadamir Kasab (supra) as held by my learned brother
Justice P. Sathasivam for the various reasons referred to therein, we find
that the case still does not fall within the category of ‘rarest of rare
case’ though it calls for a stringent punishment.