Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.41 seconds)Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Article 136 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 162 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Kailash Kaur vs State Of Punjab on 28 April, 1987
"Learned Addl. P.P. has contended that the facts and circumstances
definitely and clearly show that the three persons had been killed by
burning in a very cold blooded manner and the three members of a family
were killed only because they had instituted a case of dacoity against the
appellants in the preceding year. According to him, the sentence of death
awarded by the trial court in the facts and circumstances of the case is
proper and justified. He has cited two decisions of the Supreme Curt
reported in AIR (1983) SC 1368; Kailash Kumar v. State of Punjab and has
urged that even the Supreme Court has felt that in case of cruel method of
killing by burning with the help of kerosene oil or when several persons
were killed in pre-planned manner, death sentence should be awarded. No
argument was made by the learned counsel for the appellants with regard to
the sentence. I am inclined to agree with the contention of the learned
Addl, P.P. that only death sentence can meet the ends of justice in the
facts and circumstances of the case which discloses diabolical manner in
which the death had been caused to three persons in cold blood and the
motive behind killing being institution of case of decoity. It appears to
be a case of such extreme culpability and cruelty as only death sentence
can meet the ends of justice. I, accordingly, confirm the death sentence
passed against the four appellants, namely, Sheikh Ishaque, Sheikh Ilyas,
Sheikh Rustam and Sheikh Shamim (of Criminal Appeal No. 215 of 1992)."
Section 154 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Jashubha Bharatsingh Gohil vs State Of Gujarat on 13 April, 1994
In Jashubha Bkaratssinh Cohil v. State of
Gujarat, [1994] 4 SCC 353, this Court after taking note of the law laid
down in Buchan Singh v. State of Punjab, [1980] 2 SCC 684, and noticing the
change of the legislative intent observed:
Anshad vs State Of Karnataka on 22 April, 1994
"Section 354(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as amended, makes
it obligatory in cases of conviction for offences punishable with death or
with imprisonment for life to assign reasons in support of the sentence
awarded to the convict and further ordains that in case the Judge awards
death penalty, 'special reasons' for such sentence shall be stated in the
judgment. Thus, the Judge is under a legal obligation to explain his choice
of the sentence. The legislature in its supreme wisdom thought that in some
'rare cases' for 'special reasons' to be recorded it will be necessary to
impose the extreme penalty of death to deter others and to protect the
society and in a given case even the sovereignty and security of the State
or country. It, however, left the choice of sentence to the judiciary with
the rider that the court may impose the extreme punishment of death for
'special reasons'. The sentencing court has, therefore, to approach the
question seriously and make an endeavour to see that all the relevant facts
and circumstances bearing on the question of sentence are brought on
record. It is only after giving due weight to the mitigating as well as the
aggravating circumstances, that it must proceed to impose the appropriate
sentence." (Emphasis ours)
Again, in Anshad v. State of Karnataka, [1994] 4 SCC 381, it was observed :
1