Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.44 seconds)
State Of Gujarat vs Satish Himmatlal Rupareliya on 2 August, 2001 cites

Sheikh Abdul Hamid And Another vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 February, 1998

26.1 In this regard, decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sheikh Abdul Hamid v. State of M.P., AIR 1998 SC 948, may be profitably looked into. In that case, the husband murdered his wife and children and buried them in a room to which none else had an access. The Apex Court, considering the fact that there was no evidence to show as to how the incident occurred or to show that it was a cold blooded murder, deemed it not a fit case for death sentence.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 38 - V N Khare - Full Document

Mukund @ Kundu Mishra & Anr vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 May, 1997

26.2 Likewise, in Mukund alias Kundu Mishra & Another v. State of M.P., 1997 SCC (Cri) 799, wherein the accused persons committed ghastly murders of a house wife and her two children and, thereafter, looted them of their ornaments and other valuable articles as well as cash, Their Lordships observed that it would not be a rarest of rare case as exemplified in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab,(1980) 2 SCA 684 and Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 470. In that case, it was observed that, as there was absence of any eye-witness to prove the complicity of the appellants in commission of the offence alleged against them, the case of the prosecution rested only on circumstantial evidence and in those set of circumstances, while confirming the conviction, their Lordships held as above.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 59 - M K Mukherjee - Full Document

Bachan Singh Etc. Etc vs State Of Punjab Etc. Etc on 16 August, 1982

26.2 Likewise, in Mukund alias Kundu Mishra & Another v. State of M.P., 1997 SCC (Cri) 799, wherein the accused persons committed ghastly murders of a house wife and her two children and, thereafter, looted them of their ornaments and other valuable articles as well as cash, Their Lordships observed that it would not be a rarest of rare case as exemplified in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab,(1980) 2 SCA 684 and Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 470. In that case, it was observed that, as there was absence of any eye-witness to prove the complicity of the appellants in commission of the offence alleged against them, the case of the prosecution rested only on circumstantial evidence and in those set of circumstances, while confirming the conviction, their Lordships held as above.
Supreme Court of India Cites 112 - Cited by 863 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Ronny @ Ronald James Alwaris Etc vs State Of Maharashtra on 5 March, 1998

26.3 In Ronny v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1998 SC 1251, considering the fact that, in that case, which of the three accused played which part, it was held that it would not be possible to say that whose case would fall within the category of rarest of rare case and, therefore, to serve the ends of justice, Their Lordships commuted the capital punishment into life imprisonment.
Supreme Court of India Cites 44 - Cited by 173 - Full Document

Lt. Col., S.J. Chaudhary vs State (Delhi Administration) on 17 January, 1984

30. We may state that it is the duty of everyone concerned to see that the trial of a case proceeds smoothly and speedily. It is obligatory under the provisions of law to conduct the trial day-to-day. The said provsion has been given emphasis by a judicial pronouncement in the case of S.J. Choudhary v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1984 SC 618, wherein it has been observed thus:
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 186 - O C Reddy - Full Document

Gopal Vinayak Godse vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 12 January, 1961

LJ 4017, after referring to the decision of the case of Gopal Vinayak Godse v. State of Maharashtra, (1961) 3 SCR 440 : (AIR 1961 SC 600 : (1961) 1 Cri LJ 736), the Court reiterated that sentence for "imprisonment for life" ordinarily means imprisonment for the whole of the remaining period of the convicted person's natural life; that a convict undergoing such sentence may earn remissions of his part of sentence under the Prison Rules but such remissions in the absence of an order of an appropriate Government remitting the entire balance of his sentence under this section does not entitle the convict to be released automatically before the full life term is served. It was observed that though under the relevant Rules a sentence for imprisonment for life is equated with definite period of 20 years, there is no indefeasible right of such prisoner to be unconditionally released on the expiry of such particular term, including remissions and that is only for the purpose of working out the remissions that the said sentence is equated with definite period and not for any other purpose."
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 227 - Full Document
1   2 Next