Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 37 (4.79 seconds)Section 309 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 233 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 360 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Santa Singh vs State Of Punjab on 17 August, 1976
Non-compliance amounts to disobedience to an important express provision of the Code as to the mode of trial (Santa Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1976 SC 2386). Section 354 (3) of the Code marks a significant shift in the legislative policy underlying the Code of 1898 according to which both the alternative sentences were normal sentences. Now on the face of Section 354(3) the normal punishment for murder and six other capital offences under the Indian Penal Code is imprisonment for life or for a term of years and death penalty is an exception. Section 235(2) of the Code bifurcates the trial by providing for two hearings, one at the preconviction stage and the other at the present stage. Even though Section 235(2) does not contain specific provision as to evidence and provides only for hearing of the accused as to sentence, it is implicit that if a request is made in that behalf either by the prosecution or the accused or by both, the Judge should give the party or parties concerned an opportunity of producing evidence or material relating to the various factors bearing on the question of sentence. (AIR 1980 SC 898). That means that even though hearing the accused alone is provided under Section 235(2) in the matter of sentence, the prosecution is also entitled to be heard in the matter and in case of necessity both sides are entitled to let in evidence also though it cannot be a protracted affair. Even though the Judge has made up his mind to award life imprisonment alone in a murder case even before hearing either side on the question of sentence, both sides may desire to have their own say in the matter. The prosecution may desire to argue for capital sentence or place materials in support of it. The accused may desire to argue or place materials to persuade the court to make some observations or recommendations to the executive government. Anyhow 8.235(2) provides for hearing and Section 354(3) provides for stating reasons. These provisions will have to be complied with."
Allauddin Mian & Ors. Sharif Mian & Anr vs State Of Bihar on 13 April, 1989
Further it is to be noted that the principle laid down by a three Judge Bench in Allauddin Mian's case (supra) is applied in Surendra Pal Shivbalakpal's case (supra) by a two-Judge Bench after the decision of the Apex Court in Ram Deo Chauhan's case (supra).