Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.91 seconds)Section 376 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 9 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Ravji @ Ram Chandra vs State Of Rajasthan on 5 December, 1995
22. Similar view has also been expressed in Ravji v. State of Rajasthan,
(1996 (2) SCC 175). It has been held in the said case that it is the nature and
gravity of the crime but not the criminal, which are germane for
consideration of appropriate punishment in a criminal trial. The Court will
18
be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime
which has been committed not only against the individual victim but also
against the society to which the criminal and victim belong. The
punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should
conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and brutality with which the
crime has been perpetrated, the enormity of the crime warranting public
abhorrence and it should "respond to the society's cry for justice against the
criminal". If for extremely heinous crime of murder perpetrated in a very
brutal manner without any provocation, most deterrent punishment is not
given, the case of deterrent punishment will lose its relevance.
State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Munna Choubey & Anr on 24 January, 2005
23. These aspects have been elaborated in State of M.P. v. Munna
Choubey [2005 (2) SCC 712].
Bachan Singh vs State Of Punjab on 9 May, 1980
From Bachan Singh's case (supra) and Machhi
Singh's case (supra) the principle culled out is that when
the collective conscience of the community is so
shocked, that it will expect the holders of the judicial
power centre to inflict death penalty irrespective of their
personal opinion as regards desirability or otherwise of
retaining death penalty, the same can be awarded. It was
observed:
Machhi Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab on 20 July, 1983
From Bachan Singh's case (supra) and Machhi
Singh's case (supra) the principle culled out is that when
the collective conscience of the community is so
shocked, that it will expect the holders of the judicial
power centre to inflict death penalty irrespective of their
personal opinion as regards desirability or otherwise of
retaining death penalty, the same can be awarded. It was
observed:
Devender Pal Singh vs State National Capital Territory Of ... on 22 March, 2002
26. The position was again reiterated in Devender Pal Singh v. State of
NCT of Delhi [2002 (5) SCC 234 ] : (SCC p. 271, para 58)
"58.
Bantu vs State Of U.P on 23 July, 2008
31. The above position was highlighted in Bantu v. The State of U.P.
[2008(10) SCALE 336]