Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.34 seconds)
Sanjay Kumar vs State Of U.P. on 8 February, 2012 cites

Ramraj @ Nanhoo @ Bihnun vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 December, 2009

We, therefore, feel that a via-media ought to be adopted in the light of the judgment of this Court in Ramraj v. State of Chhattisgarh (2010) 1 SCC 573 : (AIR 2010 SC 420) and Mulla and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2010) 3 SCC 508 : (AIR 2010 SC 942). In these two cases, this Court has held that the term imprisonment for life which is found in Section 302 of the IPC, would mean imprisonment for the natural life of the convict subject to the powers of the President and the Governor under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution of India or of the State Government under Section 433-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In Mulla's case (supra), this Court has said :
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 44 - A Kabir - Full Document

Rameshbhai Chandubhai Rathod vs State Of Gujarat on 27 April, 2009

We are in agreement with the view taken by Justice Harjit Singh Bedi, speaking for the three Judge bench in Rameshbhai Chandubhai Rathod's case (supra). This is a case of circumstantial evidence. A submission has also been raised as to why the accused had not been apprehended at the spot if he had stayed back to conceal the corpse in the tin trunk, for which there was no need. Although for the reasons above stated we have rejected this contention as a ground for acquittal, but this circumstance together with the fact that there was no material or finding for showing that there was likelihood of the accused repeating this crime, which he may have committed on the spur of the moment on finding himself alone with the victim after he may have temporarily lost control over his passions, and there was no finding that the appellant could never have been reformed, as the rape and murder did not appear to be a cold-blooded premeditated crime.
Supreme Court of India Cites 66 - Cited by 133 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1