Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (1.22 seconds)
Shamshul Kanwar @ Shamshul Quamar vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 15 May, 2017 cites

Shamshul Kanwar vs State Of U.P on 4 May, 1995

14. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent has submitted that it is not disputed that petitioner had been convicted and sentenced with capital punishment for having committed the murder of 11 persons and the capital punishment awarded to him has been reduced to life imprisonment by the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 887 of 1994, titled as Shamshul Kunwar vs. State of U.P., and in pursuance of the punishment so awarded petitioner is confined in jail since 10.03.1989, and has thus served more than 27 years imprisonment without remission. But, this could not be ground for premature release of petitioner under section 432 (1) of the Cr.P.C. The learned AGA has further submitted that good conduct of petitioner during his detention in jail could also not be ground for his premature release. This could only be a ground of consideration but not the decisive factor for his premature release. He has submitted that it is evident from the facts of the case that 11 persons lost their life and many others were injured in the incident caused by the petitioner and his associate and for which the petitioner has been convicted with life imprisonment only and is confined in jail. Petitioner is the prime accused of the incident as the appeal filed by him in this Court against the order of capital punishment had not only been dismissed, but the capital sentence was also confirmed. Thus, learned AGA has submitted that looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case that 11 innocent persons lost their life in the incident which was caused by the petitioner and his associates and petitioner was the prime accused of the incident and this was an important aspect to be taken into consideration while dealing with the premature release of the petitioner, and this aspect could not be lost sight saying gravity of the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner could not be looked into while dealing with premature release under section 432 (1) Cr.P.C., the premature release of the petitioner has been rightly rejected. His submission is that this was one of the most important aspect which was taken into consideration and the premature release of the petitioner was rejected.
Supreme Court of India Cites 33 - Cited by 71 - M M Punchhi - Full Document
1   2 Next